LCD Chemical 17,000 Times More Harmful Than CO2

Looks like LCD monitors might not be so green after all. Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was found in a recent study to have a global climate impact 17,000 times greater than that of CO2. NF3 is found in the LCD panels of cell phones, computer monitors and televisions as well as in semiconductors and synthetic diamonds. It’s being called the ‘missing greenhouse gas’ as it’s not currently being monitored by the Kyoto Protocol.

From the Environmental News Network:

What kind of impact is this suppose to have, you ask? The chemical is found to stay in the atmosphere for 550 years and there is no force of nature known to remove it. This year, nitrogen trifluoride emissions are expected to have an impact equal to Austria’s CO2 output. Production of the chemical may double in 2009. The study points to a number of NF3 manufacturing facilities opening up in the US, Korea, and China. The production increase is due in part to the switch to digital television which will lead to increased LCD consumption and the disposal of older sets, some of them early LCD models.

LCD monitors have long been presented as environmentally friendly, particularly next to lead-laden, energy inefficient CRT models. According to ENERGY STAR, they consume half to two-thirds the energy of CRTs. Heat output is also less, leading to lower air conditioning bills. Some companies have gone even further to lessen the environmental impacts of their LCD displays. Lenovo has nearly a dozen EPEAT gold certified displays to offer and Phillips made news with their Eco TV in April. Though the use of mercury and arsenic have been of concern to the environmental and human health, LED-backlit display technology has begun to address these issues.

It’s not known just yet how companies will respond to this. The cost of engineering their products to emit less NF3 would be expensive, and experts think that consumers might have a hard time swallowing a price increase. As the Environmental News Network points out, measuring the NF3 levels in the environment might be enough to spur an outcry.

Link [ENN]
Photo credit: Flickr user laffy4k

Seven Years and Tons of Lost Credibility Later: Bush Decides Greenhouses Gasses Need to Be Curbed, Color Us Unimpressed

Am I the only one who could give two shits about Bush’s new plan (just announced today) to curb Greenhouse Gases? That’ll be left to the next President, this guy is just riding out the clock after what will go down as the worst Presidency in history. George Bush is an asshole and we can’t wait for him to move back onto the Ranch and let Obama get to work fixing all his mistakes. Global Warming will be one of them, we don’t need that douche nozzle chiming in now on how important it is to go green. I’d rather hear what Paris Hilton has planned to fight rising CO2 emissions.

The AP has it:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Revising his stance on global warming, President Bush on Wednesday proposed a new target for stopping the growth of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

The president also called for putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants within 10 to 15 years.

“To reach our 2025 goal, we will need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so that they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter,” Bush said in excerpts of the speech released early by the White House.

“By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002. There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies.”

Bush was not to outline a specific proposal, but he’ll lay out a strategy for “realistic” emission reduction targets and “principles” he thinks Congress should follow in crafting global warming legislation.

Link [Breitbart]

Photo: Flickr user Tootsfontaine

Planktos, With Plans to Dump Iron in Oceans to Fight Global Warming, Shuts Down in Face of Funding Crunch

I am extremely skeptical of any plans to fight global warming using large scale environmental engineering. You’ve probably read about a few of the wackier ideas like the artificial trees that absorb CO2 (actually a very cool idea), the plan to release massive amounts of sulfur into the air to bounce the suns rays back into space, and constructing giant sun blockers in space to shade the planet.
The company Planktos wanted to dump tons of raw iron into the ocean to boost the growth of plankton which would in theory capture large amounts of CO2. They got as far as putting together a small test study but luckily have been forced to shut down due to their inability to raise more capital.

I thought this idea was a bad one ever since reading it somewhere on the blogosphere a few years ago. I checked out their booth at Chicago Greenfest and have had my fingers crossed that they would fail to launch.

The idea of dumping a ton of iron into the ocean is a terrifically bad one, potentially on rank with bringing rabbits and cane toads to Australia. I think we need to be wary of any large scale environmental engineering projects. Nature is too complex for us to get close to understanding the potential effects of trying to tinker with it on a grand scale. Yeah, we might think dumping iron into the ocean could boost plankton levels with no bad side effects, but what if we found it also boosted the growth of some choking sea weed or fish lice or a nasty bacterial bloom. Or what if it actually sped up the release of CO2 from the oceans?

Treehugger just posted something on the ties between an excess of phytoplankton and nutrients and the formation of oxygen deprived dead zones in the ocean. Here’s a snip:

A team of marine ecologists at Oregon State University has determined that the increased occurrence of dead zones may be directly tied to global warming. As Kenneth Weiss reports in the Los Angeles Times, the researchers believe that stronger winds, brought about by higher land heat, are prolonging the natural process of upwelling, which brings deep nutrient-rich waters to the surface.

Upwelling is a crucial process because it provides the raw nutrients for phytoplankton to grow, creating a rich source of food for filter feeders and small fish and, in turn, larger fish and other organisms higher up the food chain. Off the coast of Oregon, however, it becomes a case of too much of a good thing: Stronger and more persistent winds prolong the process, resulting in a surplus of nutrients and phytoplankton that isn’t consumed - as a result, this large amount of food eventually sinks to the seafloor and rots, leading to the formation of low-oxygen, or anoxic, regions.

If Planktos had been able to get their project going they very could have exacerbated an already growing problem of ocean dead zones.

Planktos blamed the big bad “anti-offset crusaders” for leading the opposition to their work and for killing the chances of finding funding. That’s crap, I’m about as pro-offset as you can get and have been gunning for them to be shut down since I first read about their plans. Certified, high quality carbon offsetting that have verified additionality and a quantifiable impact are an important tool in the fight to save the world. Shady, ill conceived offset schemes like Planktos are the enemy of the good offsets and just muddy the waters in an already confusing industry. Good Riddance.