Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Your Flat Screen Has (Greenhouse) Gas

By Emily Udell, In These Times. Posted August 15, 2008.


A chemical used in the manufacturing of flat-screen televisions could rival some of the world's most potent greenhouse gases.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Vegging out in front of your flat-panel TV may pose more danger than turning your brain to mush.

A chemical used in the manufacturing of flat-screen televisions could rival some of the world's most potent greenhouse gases in its harmful effects on the environment, according to a June study published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The production of nitrogen triflouride, or NF3 -- used to produce flat-panel display screens -- has increased over the past decade to meet the rising demand for consumer electronics like liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs. Global production of NF3 now outstrips the 2005 emissions of synthetically produced greenhouse gases, such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the report found.

"NF3 has a potential greenhouse impact larger than that of the industrialized nations' emissions of PFCs or SF6, or even that of the world's largest coal-fired power plants," write Michael Prather and Juno Hsu, the study's authors.

They call NF3 the "missing greenhouse gas" because it's not covered under the Kyoto Protocol -- the international agreement established to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted the treaty in 1997, NF3 was produced only in small quantities, primarily for rocket fuel and lasers.

The Kyoto Protocol -- which the United States has not ratified -- was based on data from 1995, and covers carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, the three major greenhouse gases attributed to human activities. But NF3's impact on global warming was not considered until the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the study says.

Prather and Hsu estimate that some 4,000 tons of NF3 will be produced this year and that the amount could double by 2010 if companies like DuPont and Mitsui Chemicals expand production.

In November, industrial chemical manufacturer Air Products, the largest NF3 producer, announced that it would ramp up its production in the United States and Asia.

Global shipments of LCD TVs are expected to nearly double, from about 100 million units in 2008 to almost 194 million units in 2012, according to market research firm iSuppli, which attributes that growth to falling prices and an increased demand for the high-definition display format.

Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace International, says he's concerned that the switch from analog to digital television next February will catalyze an uptick in electronic waste as people discard their old TVs and simultaneously create a purchasing bubble for flat-panel TVs.

"Now that we're aware of global warming, we should not do anything to exacerbate it," Davies says. "For any of these manufacturing processes, there is also a safer alternative and that includes climate safety."

At a recent G-8 summit in Japan, President Bush and other leaders pledged to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But many environmental advocates -- groups such as the National Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club -- say the pledge is vague and doesn't go far enough because no targets were set for the next decade. And a lot can happen in 10 years.

Despite the increased production of NF3 over the past decade, documentation of its abundance in the atmosphere does not exist. Prather and Hsu's study warns that recording the impact is essential and that the list of greenhouse gases covered by Kyoto must be expanded during the second commitment period for the agreement, which is slated to begin in 2012.

"NF3 triggers the radar that there may be other surprises coming in global warming," says Davies. "We must be vigilant about new industrial gases that contribute." Emily Udell is a reporter for the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky. She co-hosted and co-produced In These Times' radio show "Fire on the Prairie" from 2003 to 2006.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: environment, global warming, climate change, television, greenhouse gases, flat-screen tvs

Emily Udell is a reporter for the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky. She co-hosted and co-produced In These Times' radio show "Fire on the Prairie" from 2003 to 2006.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
wow
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Aug 15, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I need to stop feeding my flat screen beans... oh and turning it from the BBC to FoxNews would also help

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I heart you Libs Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» tear Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: tear Posted by: progressive-life
Here's an idea...
Posted by: Moira61 on Aug 15, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
get rid of your television. Life is so much better without one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here's an idea... Posted by: ellie
Flourescent Light Bulb Blues
Posted by: xvictor on Aug 15, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue with the flat panels is not unsimilar to the flourescent blight bulbs that are steadily cropping up all over. An issue with them is that the production process that creates these bulbs must take A LOT of energy to produce. There's all kinds of circuitry and stuff inside the bulb. Those alone take energy to produce. Not to mention the toxic gas sealed inside the bulb and the energy to produce that. And, furthermore, those items are not really recyclable. So, in the long run, and in the big picture, do these bulbs really save energy. It may save you a few bucks in your monthly utility bill domestically, but are there realized energy savings on a macro economic level, considering the energy intensive manufacturing process?

Contrast this with the ordinary incandescent light bulb: the parts to assemble the bulb are very few and with no electronic components. The bulb is virtually gasless. And the entire bulb is recyclable. A safe bulb in comparison.

Flat panel TVs, in comparison however, is a just the opposite. The old and new TV technology is vastly different. Flat-panels requires a lot less parts to assemble in contrast to a regular tube TV, and is energy efficient at the domestic and industrial level. Now if they can only replace those toxic gasses in the flat panels with something akin to what was done with aerosol cans.

Btw, I love my flat panel TV. And I love my flat panel monitor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Flourescent Light Bulb Blues Posted by: BigElectricCat
Is there sufficient bandwidth in the entire internet to
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Aug 15, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
list all those things which are "detrimental" to everything else?

The hysteria is almost complete when they start to scream that we are depleting the earth's supply of oxygen by simply breathing since we expel CO2.

I am not going to stop living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

greenhouse gasses from the GLobal Warming people
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 15, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that one of the major sources of greenhouse gasses is from these global warming bloviating Chicken-Littles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: You are an ignorant idiot Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: Tell it to the polar bears Posted by: UnEasyOne
Behind the times!
Posted by: LionHeart on Aug 15, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean everyone has a flat screen TV? Where's mine!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Me too! Posted by: zooeyhall
Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 15, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean really? Why am I not surprised? Is there ANYTHING that we use that isnt bad in some way for the environment?

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not come up with a better version or at least conserve?
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 15, 2008 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe the "liberal" blogosphere ought to advertise biodegradable versions if any. Or at least alert readers to scientists coming up with such inventions so we can help them out. And while at it, if we help those non-monied scientists, then we the people can help keep Corporate America and Big Government SHUT OUT so we the people can look forward to better stuff for a change.

And another thing, just turn off your TV when there's nothing to watch. Nothing gets emitted unless it's on. The less emission, the less the dangers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting!!!
Posted by: dismayed on Aug 15, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have not visited Alernet for awhile because of all the cookie cutter yammering liberal wienies are boring. Looks like they have been replaced by cookie cutter conservative yammering wienies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting!!!
Posted by: dismayed on Aug 15, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have not visited Alernet for awhile because all the cookie cutter yammering liberal wienies are boring. Looks like they have been replaced by equally boring cookie cutter conservative yammering wienies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the mouth of Greenpeace...
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 15, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every now and again somebody in that whacko group says something sane: "Now that we're aware of global warming, we should not do anything to exacerbate it," Davies says. "For any of these manufacturing processes, there is also a safer alternative and that includes climate safety."

It's have been even more swell of the author to detail or outline just exactly what those safer manufacturing and alternatives are.

Now THAT's an article worthy of Alternet, yeah? That'd be downright progressive. (While Conservoboobs talk about nothing as if it were something, Libruls always just talk about the surface as if it's the substance and get all the airplay they clamor about but progs get the shaft, always... I know, I know. it makes people's heads hurt when they have to think too much...) Oh well, I can dream...

Seems to me that if more people would go about their affairs and decision-making from an ecologics based POV rather than the capitalista economics-based POV we'd be making smarter decisions... but oh no, 'Merkaans are told by God or Jeezis of whomever the fuck is the happy-happy du jour that they have a devine right to not dirty their beautiful minds with things like "thought".... Those masses who insist on everyone living inside the box will be our downfall. Sometimes to solve a fly problem you gotta take out the trash. bwahahahaha

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LCDs only?
Posted by: leighsure on Aug 15, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article treats all "flat panel" TVs as if LCDs were the only way to produce a picture. Does plasma screen manufacturing generate this same greenhouse gas or not? It would be helpful to do more thorough research before posting this necessary information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It aint easy being Green
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 15, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Modern technology is a wonderful thing. Yet as the economy worsens I wonder who are they making all of those new flat panel t.v.'s for? And where is the line for the giveaways, cause I sure didn't get my flat panel?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Writers who claim that "everything" causes cancer
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 15, 2008 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or that "everything" causes global warming are real weenies. One more thing doesn't qualify as "everything".

Some of them are paid by their industries to lie and act like jerks, usually writing volumes, for no other reason than to discourage really honest people from being good citizens. It effectively drives honest people away from reading good messages, so the neocons do it.

Alternet should wake up to this corporatist ploy and start experimenting with ways to exclude the neospam.

Spam alert! Spam alert! Spam alert! Spam alert! Spam alert! Spam alert!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Goddamn.
Posted by: wheresarah on Aug 15, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's with all the trolls today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Goddamn. Posted by: Moira61
New measurement expressions?
Posted by: Daniel35 on Aug 15, 2008 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, shouldn't he be talking about CO2 equivalents? How potent as a GHG is NF3 compared to CO2? In fact where can one find the relative GHG impact of all known gases? I only know that only gases with three or more atoms per molecule (or atoms in the formula) can be GHGs.

Second, it's pretty hard to envision a ton of gas of any kind. How about instead talking directly about percent change in GHG effect of any new industry? What percent difference will 4000-8000 tons annually of NF3 make, compared to our annual CO2 output?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NF3 is heavier then air...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 15, 2008 8:45 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so how does a heavier then air substance get into the ozone to react with it and cause ozone depletion again?...

I'm not being facetious...
I genuinely want to know how this gas is ozone unfriendly?

I think the current crop of refrigerants is more dangerous then these fluorocarbons any day... and the scare mongering in the 90's was a tactic used to change to a more expensive product with more actual risks involved...

some clarity here please

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Methane. It takes another asshole to stink the earth to hell.
Posted by: common intelligence on Aug 15, 2008 11:02 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The law of thermo dynamics says simply, energy is neither created or destoyed, it mirely changes form.

And

You can't get "something" for nothing.

Or simply put, technological discovery and the application of it is fed by the vanity of the masses. The price for vanity is death.

So everyones desire (for what ever) is constantly creating an effect from the cause of it (desire).

All dissatifaction is caused by not realizing our true nature which is empty of inherent existance.

Realize this and all fear of the parols of green house gas will subside, because then you will stop watching HD Commercials as madated by law !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]