And 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.

Can'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.

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.

Does this also apply to flat-screen PC monitors?

The 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.

Yikes! 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.

"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.

Just 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

Two 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.

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