Monday, July 7th 2008
Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2
A lot of us switched over to LCD displays over CRT for reasons such as reduced electricity bills, thereby reducing our carbon-footprint. It is true, LCD displays have done a great job reducing power consumptions and effectively reducing CO2, but to what extant is this 'carbon-footprint reduction' helping reduce green-house gases?
New studies find that a material used in the manufacture of LCD displays called Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is the 'missing gas' which adds up to the equation of exactly which substances contribute to global-warming. A study conducted by Michael Prather (read here) reveals that this gas has a stunning 17,000 times greater contribution to global-warming. This compound is still used in the manufacturing of LCD and synthetic diamonds. According to Prather, the compound was initially missed by the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty governing response to global warming, due to the fact that it was not widely used at the time and its nature wasn't established.
The Kyoto Protocol missed several such compounds because they felt they were used in very insignificant quantities, although at that time the harmful effects of NF3 might not have been established since Parther's letter is dated 26th June. The amount of nitrogen nitrofluoride emissions is expected to total this year to approximately the emissions of a smaller industrialized nation, such as Austria in CO2, the equivalent of about 67 million metric tons worth. The rise of digital and high-definition television resulting in increased production of LCD and related technologies in the consumer electronics industry, contributes to the rise of emission of this substance.
Environmentalists will have a tough time convincing governments to enforce regulations. The demand for LCD products is so huge, industrialists will find it too big an expense to halt production and make core redesigns to a 'hot'-selling technology.
Source:
DailyTech
New studies find that a material used in the manufacture of LCD displays called Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is the 'missing gas' which adds up to the equation of exactly which substances contribute to global-warming. A study conducted by Michael Prather (read here) reveals that this gas has a stunning 17,000 times greater contribution to global-warming. This compound is still used in the manufacturing of LCD and synthetic diamonds. According to Prather, the compound was initially missed by the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty governing response to global warming, due to the fact that it was not widely used at the time and its nature wasn't established.
The Kyoto Protocol missed several such compounds because they felt they were used in very insignificant quantities, although at that time the harmful effects of NF3 might not have been established since Parther's letter is dated 26th June. The amount of nitrogen nitrofluoride emissions is expected to total this year to approximately the emissions of a smaller industrialized nation, such as Austria in CO2, the equivalent of about 67 million metric tons worth. The rise of digital and high-definition television resulting in increased production of LCD and related technologies in the consumer electronics industry, contributes to the rise of emission of this substance.
Environmentalists will have a tough time convincing governments to enforce regulations. The demand for LCD products is so huge, industrialists will find it too big an expense to halt production and make core redesigns to a 'hot'-selling technology.
122 Comments on Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2
also global warming is a real thing. It's happening. I dont know if we're causing it though or if its something that's happening naturally. And hey, don't humans thrive in warmer environments? Maybe it won't be so bad...
I know that growing up in northern virginia, we would have snow every winter, and lots of it. Last winter, we had one snow fall, and it was half an inch. The winter before that was the same, but with a few more frosts, and the winter before THAT didnt have ANYTHING!
I won't say if I agree with this or not, I'm still reading into it. However there seems to be a lot of research into this. Please read the links in order as the second and third are from the first as clarifications/details.
strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5589
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
People don't understand that global warming (like global cooling) is just an average of the entire planet. You cannot extrapolate to say that global warming would cause a severe reduction in snow falls in a particular area of the US over a decade. You could argue such a theory if given 500 years of data or so. Temperatures fluctuate widely year by year and century by century. Global warming on a planetary scale would require hundreds of years of data to prove. At the moment, we only really have 60 years of data which is accurate enough to prove or disprove the global warming theory.
You can't ask me to stop driving, you can't ask me to stop using incandesent light bulbs, and you can't ask me to plants 50 trees, unless your paying for everything to change for your green standards.
Either way, theres tiny steps we can take, it doesn't need to be drastic. Baby steps are still steps in the right direction.
anyways, I can understand when it comes to spending money on stuff that aint broke, but there are other steps we could all take to consume less as a nation. One major free one - take everything out of your car you dont need! My friend meg drove around literally for 7 years with her trunk FILLED to the very top with JUNK. Finally we cleaned it out one day, and i mean she just had so much crap it was unbelievable. And we knew it was 7 years because there were assignments from highschool still in her trunk lol. She told me she definitely noticed a difference when breaking.
I personally drive a 5 speed focus, and I rarely speed. 55 gives you the max fuel economy your car can offer, so i try to stay around there. You might not like it, but this is where we are headed.
oh and one last thing i'd like to add - What's with the argument that organisms like us can't change the earth in such a way? I thought the only reason we have oxygen is because the very FIRST organisms made it that way? sure it was over the course of millions of years, but still, with the way we're pumpin it out what's to say we really can't make a profound impact?
Why do you think BIG government is the key? Have they ever done anything right? Yeah just what I want, monthly inspection stickers. Just another tax in the name of saving the planet. Baby steps too often get exploited and end up applying to things you would never think of.
Besides, you clearly don't fully understand how theories and science works. You cannot prove that something does not exist. It's scientifically impossible.
The climate changes we are experiencing are NATURAL, until the Global warming camp proves otherwise. That chart is useless as proof, as we weren't around to measure the temps. It is just an estimation, NOT FACTS. Pretty hard to prove a theory with an estimate, isn't it?
Samples collected from the antarctic deep in ice beds which collect air from hudreds of years ago as snow is compressed is incredibly accurate. Dont dismiss what you dont know. Precisely what a lot of people do with global warming. I live in the UK, with some of the best universities in the world. I challenge someone to find a single university in the UK which teaches a course which does not claim anthropogenic global warming to be true.
Also, you dont take a innocent till proven guilty approach with science. You take your best guess. You can never prove global warming or evolution for that matter, but you can be pretty damn sure.
If I told you that global warming was likely to be true to a degree of 99%, would you dismiss this since it isnt incontrovertible evidence?
Of course this whole story has been blown out of all proprtiona anyway since this is a minor problem if true. Who doesnt throw away LCD screens properly? And even if you dont, how many do to actually make this a serious problem on the scale of pollution via industrial processes and cars?
I do not believe that global warming is a man caused problem. I believe it is naturally occurring. But no matter what you say, I will never believe temperatures derived from ice samples. It is completely impossible to prove them true.
And I was under the ignorant impression that corn ethanol = better mileage. MY BAD! :D
Speaking of saving the planet, I was thinking of this thread on the way to work today and I happened to notice all the people around me with their windows up, and compressors drippin (a/c goin) and it was 70-73 degrees outside. I'd say one out of every 10 cars around me had their windows down.