China Found In Massive Violation Of Montreal Protocol

A study in Nature shows a massive violation by China in the release of ozone-depleting gases like chlorofluorocarbons. China agreed to the Montreal Protocol to stop such CFC pollution. However it now appears that the Chinese regime is violating the Protocol. A concentration of increased CFC pollution was traced to the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei.

Scientists used high-frequency atmospheric observations from Gosan, South Korea, and Hateruma, Japan as well as global monitoring data and atmospheric chemical transport model simulations to isolate the source of a major spike in pollution. Those two provisions are responsible for at least 40 to 60 per cent of the global rise in CFC-11 emissions. We find no evidence for a significant increase in CFC-11 emissions from any other eastern Asian countries or other regions of the world where there are available data for the detection of regional emissions. The attribution of any remaining fraction of the global CFC-11 emission rise to other regions is limited by the sparsity of long-term measurements of sufficient frequency near potentially emissive regions. Several considerations suggest that the increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern mainland China is likely to be the result of new production and use, which is inconsistent with the Montreal Protocol agreement to phase out global chlorofluorocarbon production by 2010.

If China cannot comply with the Montreal Protocol to control these most dangerous pollutants (particularly with the availability of alternatives for industry) the nation undermines its already low credibility on environmental compliance.

63 thoughts on “China Found In Massive Violation Of Montreal Protocol”

  1. Nothing new t there. We commented on that over a year ago mentioning the goal of 500 coal burning electrical power producers on their grid and how people like Al Bore had sold their cigarette tobacco stocks and reinvested in bituminous coal AFTER shutting down the cleaner burning anthracite coal.

  2. Seriously? Professor Turley just found out that communists and China are lying, cheating, diametrically opposed, mortal enemies of America and the West? Has the good professor found out that the Israelites in Jericho killed every living thing so that they would not be attacked from the rear on their journey into Canaan, the “Promised Land.” The Israelites didn’t engage socially or economically with the people of Jericho, they killed them all, including animals, to avoid their ire in the future.

  3. the old joke goes well applied to the PRC:



  4. You’re kidding. China is polluting with illegal toxins?! My mouth is hanging open, I am so surprised.

    You mean that’s not actually harmless fog like the Chinese papers keep telling their people?

    Atmosphere and water are victims of the tragedy of the commons.

  5. My name is joe biden, and China is not a threat to the US, or the world. HAHA. Vote for me.

  6. As if Americans can pretend standing to criticize other nations on the environment since Trump took office.

    On a per capita basis we are responsible for twice the CO2 emission of China and our idiot president is dismantling the EPA and withdrew from the goal setting and purely voluntary Paris Accords as being unfair.

    1. Never mind the fact that the United States has the lowest carbon emissions of any industrialized country because of natural gas. Why let facts get in the way of your Trump bashing.

        1. Allan, Anon is nothing more than a paid propagandist likely for Media Matters.

          1. Bob, I don’t know if Anon is paid or not but he sure writes a lot of cr-p and incessantly lies. There is almost no useful discussion on this blog because the left has no defense and all they can do is lie. Most of them on this blog aren’t terribly bright to begin with.

      1. RSA, not only do we have par capita emissions that are twice those of China, but we have the largest per capita emissions of any industrial nations, save Australia and Canada, which are only slightly higher. It is also true the we have pulled out of the voluntary Paris Climate Accord because it was not fair, but Trump is trying to kneecap the EPA while placing industry lobbyists in charge of our parks, environmental, and energy agencies. I guess sometime facts are ‘bashing”, and quite frequently so with Trump.

            1. Of course the real comparison is the energy cost and pollution when producing a product. Two identical countries in size etc. except one produces 25% of the worlds products and the other produces 5%. The one producing more will have a larger “carbon footprint”

              Anon uses data without knowing what it means.

              1. There are several ways to compare emissions, and doing so helps us understand the problem and hopefully solutions. It does nothing by itself to either justify or mitigate a worldwide problem which may affect all humans and in ways not predictable.

                It is unrealistic to think developing countries will accept a lower living standard than the west as their contribution to mitigation. There will be give and take and, absent new technologies that bail us out, sacrifices by all, or war and disaster. Do we want to just leave this to our kids and grandkids?

                1. “There are several ways to compare emissions”

                  Right, the problem is you are ignorant as to what criteria need to be observed. You ALWAYS just look for something that errantly seem to back your ideas up but have nothing or little to do with the subject matter.

                  Virtually every posting of yours is a total waste.

        1. Anon, you can take your per ‘capita emissions that are twice those of China’ statement and pound sand with it. This country has done more to reduce emissions than any other country you can name here. If you try to blow smoke at this blog again, bring your facts. Otherwise, take your propaganda and Media Matters paycheck elsewhere. This blog has level headed thinkers subscribed to it.

          1. Bob, we have made progress, though much of it was the good luck of natural gas exploration with new technologies. We still emit at a much higher rate than China on a per capita basis and higher than other industrial nations other than Canada and Australia. Pat yourself on the back, but like Fatso losing 10 pounds, don’t get carried away and pretend the problem is solved.

    2. This is only true because China has an insane population density. By your logic, American families could start popping out something like a dozen kids, and this would make them more environmentally friendly, because their per-capita pollution levels would decrease.

      1. My name is joe biden, and China is not a threat to the US, or the world. HAHA. Vote for me.

      2. Humble, maybe, maybe not. It would depend on if they lived like contemporary Americans (probably) or like the Chinese (not likely). Given the effects of these emissions are not localized, our profligate use of energy and resultant emissions – as well as China’s – are of interest to all humans.

    3. During the past 20 years, the US has reduced carbon emissions by more than any other nation, cutting 4 metric tons per year or about 25%. In contrast, China’s carbon emissions have increased enough to more than offset the US reduction, rising over 5 metric tons or almost 300%, with no sign of slowing. Now we find that they have also been sending CFC-11, a 5,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon into the atmosphere as well, in contravention to existing international agreement. And somehow that’s Trump’s fault? Also the EPA’s staffing is virtually identical to the last year of the Obama administration and the Department’s budget has increased almost 10% (more than most other Federal agencies during the same time period). That only looks like “dismantling” to an alarmist with a political agenda.

      1. calypso – I have a close associate who is career EPA and she says her office – in a large west coast city – is worse than stagnant and completely demoralized as enforcement is way down and they work on rewriting policy to loosen standards and justify pollution. The EPA budget is largely static and Trump has tried to cut it by 30%. Before Trump, we were making progress on emissions, energy use and technology – which we are handing over to the Chinese – though some scientists judge it to be too slow.

        We have to acknowledge the reality of this problem, which is worldwide, and that includes the threat from the economically growing large population nations of China and India. Real as that is, the right likes to pretend we are no longer the problem when that is completely false. We can’t rest on our laurels, partly because we still add emissions out of proportion to our population and because the stored CO2 emissions from the past are even more disproportionally from the US. This not some abstraction, but a physical reality which we are very much responsible for. The answer is not guilt or forgetting the need to continue to pressure other countries – India and China especially – to adapt and stick to realistic but beneficial goals, but to continue, not abandon our efforts at home and working with other countries. Trump is a fool who denies reality and dropped a well earned tool for pressuring and working with other countries – the Paris Accord – because he’d rather troll Obama.

        1. Take note that Anon always has a wife, a friend or an expert working in government that can back him up. But we never see his wife or any of the friends showing their faces on the blog as true experts with names and positions. Maybe Bob Miller is correct and Anon is paid. I can’t think of any other reason we would hear such stupidity.

        2. Anon, you report on the lack of activity in the LA EPA office makes me very happy. For too long, the Obama admin. let the EPA run roughshod over the rights of law abiding citizens – Now it’s payback time. But don’t worry coal miners, after we destroy your jobs, we will retrain you. Yeah? To what? STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. No wonder SHE lost the election(s). You said “Before Trump, we were making progress on emissions, energy use and technology” – please provide facts to your claim quoted here.
          By exporting so much natural gas, the US is making so many improvements to the air quality, that you don’t even realize it
          AND what is it about that technology that you don’t talk about. Hmmm? Have you been busted with your confused propaganda?
          Please, take your propaganda somewhere else.

          1. Not LA Bob, but nice try.

            Your advocacy of coal and natural gas is duly noted. Our proven reserves are less than Russia’s and several other countries and will likely run out within the lives of some of our grand kids. It may not be great idea to hurry up and pump it to sell when prices are cheap.

    4. Prove it.
      The Paris Accord required the US to pay $3 Billion. To “pay” for the Paris Agreement, countries would contribute money to other countries to help them. Fool us once again!
      Paris agreement and resulting policies would have increased electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. The study also projected American families would see over $20,000 of lost income by year 2035.
      Your claim is just another statement of propaganda BS. You must be paid by Media Matters.

      1. I hate to tell you Bill, but we will pay now or later. We presently have no policy for advancing tech solutions to energy usage which does not involve fossils fuels and are abandoning that market to the Chinese. Keep in mind that LED bulbs cost about $20 each only a few years ago, until action by Congress created a need and therefore a market which warranted research and cheap manufacturing techniques. They’re almost as cheap as old incandescents now, last 20+ years, run on a small fraction of enrgy, and produce almost zero heat.

        1. “and produce almost zero heat.”

          Anon you are such an ignoramus. It is true that LED’s use less energy but the price would have come down just the same and we wouldn’t have had to impoverish poor people. As far as almost zero heat, if one examines an LED bulb one notes that there is a heat sink that distributes the heat away from the front of the bulb. Dummies that know very little can then erroneously say that LED’s produce “almost zero heat” when they produce significant heat.

          Stick to hitting nails with hammers.

        2. Your reply is nothing butt pure unadulterated BS propaganda. I have been to the place that has the oldest living trees on the Planet, and I can tell you that the planets climate has been in a state of change for more than 4,500 years. And holy cow, we’re still here. Praise the Lord!

          1. 4,500 years? That’s all?

            Florida has been under water several times in the last 100,000 years, but is that a reason to not try to keep it from happening again because of our behavior?

            1. Nature does its own thing. A lot of people living in Florida are living on land pumped or brought in. Guess what eventually happens to that land. It sinks and gets eroded. Take a look at what the world looked like over time. even before man existed. Change is inevitable, but some like to make up stories as to why the changes are occurring and others like to profit off those stories.

    5. A voluntary CO2 emissions-reduction Accord is an invitation to cheat for China.
      This President is the 1st US President who is standing up to Chinese deception and illegality. Let’s back him in this effort…it will succeed in a better outcome for CO2, CFCs, IP, currency manipulation, industrial espionage, illegal drug smuggling into the US via Mexico, counterfeit goods and drugs, and a whole host of other issues.

      1. Wrong. Those voluntary agreements were to make our European friends feel good about themselves while they didn’t meet their goals but caused industry to move from the cleaner west to China impoverishing lower class workers.

      2. Some change is inevitable, some is not, and in this case we are causing it by our collective behavior. The inevitable change does not somehow excuse ignoring that which we cause.

        1. “The inevitable change does not somehow excuse ignoring that which we cause.”

          We have caused a rise in the standard of living all over the world. We have caused the cessation of petty wars in various locations, we saved Europe from the Nazi’s, We’ve produced technology that has benefitted the entire world, Yes, the US has caused a lot of good that the left and Democrats wish to destroy because to them success where there is freedom is less desireable than pain and poverty that can be used to get elected.

    6. Anon, no, we are hypocritical because we ship most of our problems to China and then complain about the garbage and pollution. We used to ship our recyclables. It produces quite a bit of toxins to recycle plastic. We used to get the virtue while China got the pollution. A lot of trinkets are manufactured in China, again, sticking them with the environmental costs and us with the stuff. China, being a despotic country where citizens have few rights, was quite happy to take the money and poison their people.

      We don’t have much of a moral high ground to stand upon when our homes are filled with stuff made in China.

      Perhaps, instead of having more cheap plastic throwaway junk, we should have less quantity but high quality items made in America and other responsible locations. If we don’t take the trouble to check them, China will monopolize all steel manufacturing soon. God knows what contaminants it would have.

      It’s sad. China used to have a lovely reputation for fine things. Ruined by Leftism.

      As for CO2 emissions, I know where you got your statement, and it was the result of intellectual gymnastics that led naive people to believe that a country wreathed in perpetual smog, with people wearing gas masks and filters, that they somehow pollute less than the US.

      China produces more CO2 than the US and European Union combined.

      “China’s emissions passed those of the U.S. in 2005, and by 2012 had surpassed the combined contribution of both the U.S. and the EU. Should recent trends continue, China will be responsible for the most atmospheric carbon dioxide in less than 20 years.

      China has lots of regional company, t00. The Asia Pacific region is home to both China and India — the world’s two most populous countries and two of the largest carbon dioxide emitters. It is also home to other fast-growing and/or populous countries, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Japan. Over the past decade, this region’s carbon dioxide emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 3.1%, which was nearly triple the global average. As a result, Asia Pacific is now responsible for nearly 50% of global carbon dioxide emissions.”

      Your comment was based off of a flawed metric that looked only at fuel combustion, not total pollution, and then they looked at it per Capita. China actually produced far more CO2, even only looking at fuel combustion. China is a small country, and individual car ownership is less than in the US. Yet, they produced more CO2. However, since China is more population dense, when you divide their extreme emissions per a more dense per capita, you got a lower number. People ran with that, and actually gave a country which has been increasing emissions more credit than the US, which has decreased emissions.

      Such sleight of hand turned the results on their head.

      You should also be aware that China got a pass on emissions restrictions until years in the future. They will have to reduce emissions by a small percentage of their future emissions. It is in their best interests to jack up their emissions as much as possible so that they can then claim they will reduce by a few percentage points from that future, higher number, which will produce a net higher emissions than present day.

      1. Also, note that there was a scandal in which China was discovered to have underreported their Carbon emissions.

      2. Gee Karen you bring up a few good points, but then decry the progress China has made because they don’t make some dainty artful trinkets you remember. Karen, they were frigg’n starving to death! I wouldn’t credit “leftists” but your knee jerk efforts to blame everything on them somehow misses the mark here.

        My statement is factually correct – our per capita emissions rate is twice that of China’s and our total contribution going back to the Industrial Revolution is of course much worse. This isn’t a war where we’re good and they’re bad, or visa versa. They and India have a huge population – which they’ve taken extreme measures to try and reduce and their rate of growth is declining. India has no infrastructure. Do you think and they are not going to pursue a higher living standard for their people? WTF? Of course they are and we better hope that technology advances can help make that happen without being the undoing of the world’s climate. Our standing for pressuring them on this has been undercut by Trump’s abandonment of our efforts and the hard won international agreement on voluntary standards. That was not easy and while not the solution to the problem a beginning.

        1. “they were frigg’n starving to death!”

          The Chinese were starving to death but capitalism in the west provided jobs and capital something that would not have happened so quickly if the west looked out for its own poor. Now we contend with a nation that is building ships, planes, rockets, etc. that could threaten our nation. Then again you don’t care about the west or America. We have also aided their government to be able to become more totalitarian and in the process helped enslave the Chinese people.

    7. On the other hand the US has done more than almost all nations if not all nations to reduce its pollution. The EPA and other bureaucracies don’t necessarily protect us from pollution or environmental damage. Some people believe bigger bureaucracy means a better nation. That is foolish but that is what they believe.

      1. The US and Great Britain was also at the forefront of abolishing slavery, a practice that had gone on globally since before recorded time, and which still exists in Africa today. And yet, it is the US which is punished for its past of slavery.

        Fairness has never stopped the Left before, why start now?

        1. The US has also increased the standard of living to hundreds of millions if not billions of people. The left forgets about that. They forget how their hero’s Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions. Slavery in its broader sense (not as property) still exists in China, North Korea and Russia along with multiple nations in Asia and Africa. The English speaking people were the major force against slavery. We even have a political party in this country that supports sex trafficking, the Democrats, when they oppose appropriate changes in our immigration laws.

          The left is fascistic so one doesn’t expect fairness from them. They would keep an entire population in slavery just to maintain power.

          1. the whole PRC population is in slavery. that is, minus the members of the CPC who are the “made men” of the gang

            it’s an irony of course that yes Mao and the communists outlawed the older practices of chattel slavery– only to enslave the enitre population

            1. I don’t know if what you say is true. There is no question that China is a form of dictorship where the rights of the people are limited, but I don’t think that is the same as slavery even though we might refer to such people as being enslaved.

  7. How is this new? The Chinese are a Godless amoral people who will disregard whatever slows them in accomplishing their goals.

    1. They generally do believe in God even if they aren’t populating confessional churches, that is my sense of it. God in the sense of Tian, the heavens, or God in the sense of some beneficient ultimate transcendant reality

      the question of how to translate what we call God to their language is interesting. here is a little essay about it


      are they materialistic? yes i think that is fair and Confucianism was a worldly system not an after-wordly one. But Judaism was too, at least until the time of exposure to Zoroastrianism which seems to have evolved the sense of “Sheol” into “Gehenna”

      i would say they are also moral, but it is the kind of morality that depends more on actual people and relationships, than disembodied universal principles in the Kantian sense

      their commie government is AWFUL and immoral, that’s more to the point than what the people are in themselves

      Are Westerners godless? Ask yourself that question first. I recommend “Nietzsche’s Word” by Martin Heidegger as my favorite essay on that topic

    1. No, they already knew how to do that. Russia taught them to make them with no intention of following them. Pie crusts you know.

  8. “A study in Nature shows a massive violation by China in the release of ozone-depleting gases like chlorofluorocarbons.”
    If you’re shocked by any of this, please report to the shock therapy ward of your local mental hospital or criticize Trump for dumping the Paris Climate Change Accords. Either or both disclose your mental state.

      1. Paris Accord:
        1. China was permitted to increase emissions
        2. Exponentially costly, would destroy jobs and impoverish many Americans. High Cost.
        3. Low Benefit. If every country met its wildly hopeful goals, it would have virtually no effect on global carbon, partially due to China’s continued ramping up of their own emissions.
        4. America would pay the lion’s share, which would go to entities found guilty of corruption. The billions would go to corrupt governments not to the people themselves.
        5. We need sovereignty to spend our money were it is most useful. There is nothing stopping us from investing in R&D or taking other measures to reduce our own, or any other country’s pollution. The Paris Accord would have wasted billions of dollars, kept us on the hook through multiple presidencies, given that money to corrupt governments, not have protected or represented indigenous people, and it wouldn’t have changed the global carbon. It would have hurt Americans for no benefit.
        6. It cuts Congress out of spending decisions and legislating.

        1. Karen, the Paris Agreement and the UN program from which it sprang separated developing countries from developed in terms of goals. Do you have a better idea for an worldwide agreement which is both logical and might work?

          Funding for the Paris Agreement and the UN program from which it sprang are also voluntary and in 2016 we contributed about 15% of the total. Sweden provided the most on a per capita basis.

          Global warming will likely cost us much more than the necessary actions we need to take to mitigate it.

          Trump and the GOP are stopping us from investing in non-fossil fuel energy related R&D.

          Don’t make me laugh on cutting Congress out of decisions. You don;t care about that. In fact, as an international agreement not approved as a treaty by the Congress, they can at any time pass legislation upending it is they choose.

          1. “a better idea for an worldwide agreement”

            “a better idea for an worldwide agreement” is to let countries develop freely utilizing trade and other stimuli to clean up the environment. Forget about global warming. A clean environment treats a real problem and the phony one at the same time.

            Alternative energy is good, but to make a lot of alternative energy we use petroleum products to produce these “energy savers”. At end of life they create more garbage. During their lifetime they denude forests that provide O2 and get rid of CO2. They kill birds and destroy wildlife.

            Nuclear is a way to go and certainly the US has been very good at producing cleaner energy and developing technologies to reduce pollution. Democrats are against the things that work.

            Obama and the left forget the unintended consequences. Example: Cash for clunkers cost the poor money when the prices of resales rose. It created corruption and wasted money. It then created more “global warming” when new cars were made and more garbage when the clunkers were trashed.

            Anon is an idiot.

Comments are closed.