Page 6058 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have other sources of chlorine. Three hundred million tons of chlorine comes from evaporation of seawater which contains salt - sodium chloride. Large amounts of this chlorine reaches the stratosphere through the pumping actions of thunderstorms, hurricanes and sodium chlorine molecules. Between 11 million and 36 million tons of chlorine comes from the passive degassing of volcanoes. Certainly, Mount Erebus has been slowly bubbling away for about 100 years now, pushing out supposedly ozone depleting gases and creating a hole over Antarctica. Also, 4.2 million tons of chlorine gases is produced by biomass burning, mostly as a result of primitive slash and burn agriculture and so on.
So, what we have is a situation where we do not really know. This one, unlike the greenhouse situation, cannot be proved or disproved. You have projections; you have computer models; you have people making certain statements that have not been backed up by valid scientific research.
It is most important to know, when we are told that there is a decrease in the amount of ozone, that there are natural fluctuations. It depends on the time you take as your starting point. If we started earlier and finished at 1970, we could say, "There is too much of it around. What we all have to do is get out there every morning and spray for 10 minutes to try to handle this problem of too much ozone, because it is going to stop the ultraviolet radiation coming through and we will not get any of it".
So, rather than rush off into what Mr Jensen has described in terms of Australia having an important role in this, possibly leading the world and doing the job and showing other countries what can be done, I think we would be better advised to, first of all, make sure that it is a problem. Then, if it is a problem, we should find out exactly what is causing the problem. Then, if we know what is causing the problem, we should find out the best way to handle whatever the specific cause of the problem is.
With respect to the Bill in the ACT, one could ask: Why do we need a Bill in the ACT? Do we have any companies manufacturing the chemicals in the ACT? No, we do not. Are we likely to, with self-government? Absolutely not; it would be impossible. We are not using spray-cans any more, so that is not a problem. I grant you that, if you were concerned about the gases, people smashing fridges up is a problem. Mr Humphries was quite right. I think it was he that mentioned that if you did something to your fridge you would be committing an offence. Indeed, that is exactly what would happen, because, if you are going to have a concern, that would be the concern that we would have in Canberra - unless it was also air-conditioning from motor cars or perhaps some other areas.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .