Interesting to read that there is little to no legal action that can be taken to halt operations at the plant, which means that unfortunately it may take a long time for this to be resolved.
I understand it’s “damaging”, but how stable is it? CO2 is bad because it doesn’t just go away. Methane, while being more “damaging”, eventually breaks down into CO2 and water.
> Over a 100-year period, SF6 is 23,500 times more effective at trapping infrared radiation than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). SF6 is also a very stable chemical, with an atmospheric lifetime of greater than 1,000 years.
https://www.epa.gov/eps-partnership/sulfur-hexafluoride-sf6-...
The "damage" part of damage already accounts for that.
Written by Hanno Böck. Our Hanno Böck? https://github.com/hannob Looks like so.
It does say the link is submitted by hannob...
Reads like parody - nothing can explain this other than corruption. Did regulators never once audit their emissions? A factory that produces that exact gas? A similar thing happened in the Netherlands with cocoa factories in Zaandam.