Chemical in flat-screen TVs is worsening climate change 15

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Max8806 Posted 10:34 am
   04 Jul 2008

   Just keeps getting worseAnd weren't the perfluorocarbons what we came up with to replace the HFC's and CFC's under the Montreal Protocol?  Man it seems like there's just no safe way to do whatever it is these things do.

   Permalink

2. 

   Craig Allen Posted 5:34 pm
   04 Jul 2008

   News on Australia's proposed emissions scheme(I'm posting here in the hope that the following will be elevated to news item status.)
   On Friday, 5th July Australia was presented with a draft report by Ross Garnaut on options for the implementation of an emissions trading scheme. The report is commissioned by the government prior to the last election. They seem to be holding firm on their promise to commence the scheme in 2010. The response in the media and by politicians has been remarkable for the fact that there is no hint of denial of the problems posed by climate change, of the fact that we have a tough task before us as a nation, or that we must none-the-less face up to and stoically accept the pain that lied ahead while doing all we can to reduce emissions
   The Australian newspaper
   
   
   We must act now on climate change: Professor Garnaut
   
   PDF of Professor Garnaut's draft report
   
   Video of Garnaut at the National Press Club
   
   A bitter political pill
   
   Cut taxes to soften climate pain
   
   We must act now on climate change
   
   No mercy for dirty power, says Garnaut's climate report
   
   Target for 2020 not the main aim
   
   
   The Age Newspaper
   
   
   No time to waste on tackling climate change
   
   Act now or face disaster, Garnaut report warns
   
   'One input' wields an unyielding message
   
   Building our own asteroid
   
   
   ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) News
   
   
   Garnaut urges emissions trading scheme 'without delay'
   
   Govt urged to act swiftly on Garnaut findings
   
   Garnaut report sparks call to arms for at-risk Barrier Reef
   
   Rudd pledges action on Murray's Lower Lakes
   
   
   The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper
   
   
   Australia's harsh reality: adapt or perish
   
   2100, a climatic odyssey
   
   Miners at the coalface of change
   
   Climate crisis 'diabolical'
   
   Garnault's speach at the National Press Club
   
   

   Permalink

3. 

   Alison Wiley Posted 1:56 am
   05 Jul 2008

   Don't buy or use flat-screen TV'sIn keeping with the first comment, maybe we need to be more willing to say 'no' to products and activities that destroy our atmosphere, and 'yes' to the many good alternatives. I have a related post at   http://www.diamondcutlife.org/celebrating-the-fourth-diam ...

   Permalink

4. 

   guade00 Posted 2:25 am
   05 Jul 2008

   FocusNF3 is also used as a replacement for sulfur hexafluordide, which is substantially worse in terms of GW potential. See Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing, IPCC, AR4, pg. 212.
   And HFCs were designed as a replacement for CFCs and HCFCs, which are regulated by the Montreal Protocol. HFCs are dangerous in terms of global warming, but not nearly so in terms of ozone depletion, or so I am told.
   It's hard to say that we shouldn't regulate all GHGs--maybe we should--but attacking commercial and individual dependence on fossil fuels and our sprawling residential development patterns is going to be the "make or break" difference.
   We can regulate NF3, HFC, CFC, SF5, etc., out of existence and still face a catastrophe without solving the carbon question.

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:47 am
   05 Jul 2008

   Orange oilCan't the right kind of organic, non-toxic solvent, with the right temperature and pressure of streaming water and air do the chip cleaning?  And even be recycled?  
   These solvents may not even be necessary.  Chemical industry lobbyists are most likely behind their even being allowed.
   Refrigerants can be found that aren't toxic to the climate, bet on it.  If university research focused on these alternatives.

   Permalink

6. 

   racc Posted 4:32 am
   05 Jul 2008

   Also Used in Solar Cell ProductionYikes. If this is true, then producing solar cells might not actually help reduce GHG emissions.
   http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/nitrogen-trif ...
   Talk about unintended consequences. Again, this shows that conservation is by far the best way of reducing GHG emissions. Technology does not seem to be doing very good so far.

   Permalink

7. 

   Cacaoatl Posted 7:28 am
   05 Jul 2008

   Here's An Idea...We could stop being so damned dependent on so much technology. Most of it is bad for the environment, a  lot of it is actually impeding our evolution as a species. Think about it for a moment: If we don't use a trait -- say our brains, natural selection will select against big brains. When's the last time you did a math problem without a calculator? Well maybe you should.

   Permalink

8. 

   Phil G Posted 3:54 am
   07 Jul 2008

   what about PCs?Does this also apply to flat-screen PC monitors?

   Permalink

9. 

   Boyscientist Posted 4:50 am
   07 Jul 2008

   67 Million tonsThe article states NF3 productions equal 67 million tons CO2 in global heating.  USA and China emit 6 BILLION so try to keep things in perspective.  A "back of the envelope calculation by "Lamont" over on climate progress indicate NF3 will account for 1% of the warming problem.
   Instead of not buying a flat screen TV, how about driving your car less?
   That CF3 is a previously unrecognized greenhouse gas is important news.

   Permalink

10. 

    Christy Posted 5:23 am
    07 Jul 2008

    CF3Yikes! and I just bought a flat screen plasma tv. Is that dangerous to the environment, too? Technological advances seem to all use and/or contain damaging chemicals and components. It's time for more education on the impact (and potential impact)we are having on our environment. Schools aren't taking advantage of the opportunity to really educate our children.

    Permalink

11. 

    2wheeler Posted 5:28 am
    07 Jul 2008

    what about energy savings during use"A CRT guzzles three times more energy than the same-size LCD".  [per a Discovery Channel online article on greener TVs]  In the case of my LCD TV (modest 26-inch size, a slight upgrade from the former 20-inch CRT TV) I estimate I still save 250 watts per hour of operation by upgrading to LCD.  The electric energy costs of producing the old, still-functional CRT TV that I recycled, were offset after operating the more efficient LCD TV for 120 hours.  
    The information provided above does not say how much NF3 may be utilized in making a single LCD screen but must be very little.  I'm guessing I'm still ahead with a lower carbon footprint for the new LCD TV, over its operating lifetime.
    The best option would be to improve the factory production process for LCDs, solar panels, etc. to minimize losses during use of NF3 and to reclaim and reuse it (it sounds like it's being used as a vapor degreasing solvent of some kind).  Perhaps it should be included in a future GHG protocol as a way to provide the proper price incentive to reduce the losses causing the GHG air pollution.
    I'm agreeing with quade00 above.  The entire GHG puzzle needs to be solved as a whole, and a lot of it has to do with our home vs. work location choices and daily transportation choices.
    In a global perspective, the C02 equivalent of NF3 is equivalent to less than 0.8 percent of the 8.4 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted last year from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and cement making.

    Permalink

12. 

    cally carswell Posted 5:46 am
    07 Jul 2008

    States should act earlyIn addition to NF3, there are a number of other unregulated greenhouse gases much more potent than carbon dioxide. These "superwarmers" include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, emitted by refrigeration, car air conditioning, and various other consumer and industrial activities (including silly string!). Few states require reporting on emissions of these potent greenhouse gases, so little is known about the effect they are actually having. We do know that their potential to rapidly accelerate climate change is huge. Alternatives should be studied and phased into production wherever possible.
    Minnesota recently became among the first states in the country to require reporting of "superwarmer" usage and emissions. The new law will require Minnesota's pollution control agency to use that information to suggest cost-effective ways to reduce these emissions. In addition, by January, all car manufacturers must report the leakage rate of their auto air-conditioners and the information will be posted on the Web sites of the state's Attorney General and pollution control agency. The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy spearheaded this legislation. You can read more about it here: http://www.mncenter.org/minnesota_center_for_envi/files/s ...
    California has also taken early action to combat the effects of these gases. Hopefully other states follow suit soon.
    For real policy lovers, the actual bill can be found here: https:/www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/laws?id=296&doctype=Chapter&year=2008&type=0
    
    

    Permalink

13. 

    Transistoreyes Posted 9:24 pm
    07 Jul 2008

    yes its the gases. Not the destruction of the OzonJust a friendly rant. Global warming is attributed to the failure of our ozone layer. And these gases are supposed tp be destroying it(I hope I got this right.
    
       Now the ozone layer is made up of a molecue called O3. 3 oxygen molecues together. in this state it is highly combustible when in large supply. (Old argument coming up) When we send rockets thru the ozone layer. It destroys alot more ozone than the gases could. When you see the rockets going up and the flames get brighter. The flames are bigger because they are causing spontaneous combution of the Ozone layer around them. Are we going to scrap the space program? Probably not. So we give them gases to blame for global warming. (Note this is from studying the makeup of the ozone layer in almost any encyclopedia. And my opinion of the truth as I see it.) Thanks for reading my rant.
    
      Thinking for oneselve is dangerous. Only believe what your told. lol

    Permalink

14. 

    redsafety Posted 12:01 am
    09 Jul 2008

    Bad Math, Non-ScienceTwo thousand times Zero is still Zero.  There is zero scientific evidence to support Global Warming.  Nothing we do to reduce this non-effect will change that.  The only evidence for Global Warming comes for corrupted data and comes from those who only get grants if they find a problem and is promoted by those who have a power agenda to destroy this and other industrial nations.
    I am all for protecting the environment, but this "threat" of global warming has no purpose but to destroy.

    Permalink

15. 

    Lela2100 Posted 9:25 am
    14 Jul 2008

    What about the Philips Eco TV?Does this have the nitrogen trifluoride in it as well that was rated a green gadget a few months back through Grist?

    Permalink