You can use your understanding of the nature of science to evaluate ongoing environmental issues. For example, the Montreal Protocol’s phase-out of CFCs was made possible by the availability of working alternatives. But do these alternatives come with unacceptable trade-offs?
The hydrocholorfluorocharbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that have largely replaced CFCs for industrial purposes don’t damage stratospheric ozone, but it turns out they do have a negative impact on the environment. Should they now be phased out, too?
Search the library or Internet for information about the drawbacks of HCFCs and HFCs. (As a starting point, read the ScienceDaily article at www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120224110737.htm.)
Consult at least two other sources of information (three sources total) and write an essay that addresses these questions:
Are HCFCs and HFCs good alternatives to CFCs with regard to stratospheric ozone depletion?
What environmental problems are associated with the use of HCFCs and HFCs?
What groups are advocating the ban of HCFCs and HFCs?
What is the current status of HCFCs and HFCs regarding a ban according to the Montreal Protocol?
What replacements are on tap for HCFCs and HFCs if they are banned?
What is your position on a possible ban of both of these chemicals? Support your answer. Cite your sources of information and provide a bibliography for your essay.
Find an additional case study online at www.macmillanhighered.com/launchpad/saes2e