Monday, July 7th 2008

Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2

Jul 7th, 2008 16:02 Discuss (122 Comments)

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

Add your own comment

122 Comments on Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2

#26

pentastar111

Not sure of how this gas is used as I've never made an LCD monitor before:rolleyes:, but it sounds like it would be a containment issue..:slap:..figure out a way to contain and or reuse the gas during the manufacturing process and the problem could be solved without all of the drama..:toast:..As far as the warming goes...WE ARE WARMING THE PLANET!!!..:mad:.. Our orbit around the sun is entering the phase in which the orbit is egg shaped vs the totally round orbit we are leaving. We should be COOLING DOWN and we are not..:twitch:..This is, unfortunately do to US (people)and our infernal machines!.:shadedshu..Comforts of modern living come at a cost..:eek:..We will have to deal with it now, or deal with it later..either way it will not be avoidable..:wtf:

#27

spacejunky

OzzmanFloyd120Are you trying to say that I'm partially responsible for Black Hades' CRT eating up too much energy? (Joking)

Seriously though, I agree with you. Global warming isn't a new thing. I remember back in first grade learning about it, and that was 1991. Too many people are quick to jump on Al Gore for pushing it like it's a new idea or something. Personally I commend the man for trying to bring environmental awareness to the masses.

Al Gore is not trying to save the world, he is trying to sell books and movies. What was his electric bill last year for his carbon footprint? This is just his Nashville estate

#28

spacejunky

tkpenaltyFact: Global warming is real. I'm going to downright ignore your request since this thread is about global warming.

Sorry if I sound like al gore, but this is something that he DIDNT say:

I really feel sick when some people ignore global warming because they'll DIE BEFORE IT IMPACTS THEM. They do not care about the next generation of people in short. This is the majority of the ruling world; who will not be impacted by global warming. Only some people step out to prevent this who are ruling, but they are a minority.

However for people like me, and others its a totally different story.

you guys in the US are bloodly lucky that you aren't experiencing anything big in relations to global warming.

Australia is supposed to get drought cycles once every 25 years according to research. However that data is now irrelevant as recently its changed to droughts occuring every TWO years. Guess what it does? It drives prices of food up-as a result we are now paying much more for food.

Yes you accepted the existance of CFCs, however did you ever accept the existance of CO2?

Now to get things straight, the US government has probably tried to coerce you guys to NOT believe in it so that you would continue your economy-building practises; yes you guys are being used. As a result you dont believe in this.

In Australia, ALMOST EVERYONE knows of the existance, and believes in it. A majority of the population is affected by it, and you never get a politician denying its existance.

Scientific data; you cannot deny it. If your government is telling you that global warming isnt happening, even though data suggests it is well someone's dishonest!

Now back on track, this news is rather old. It has been stated that LCD monitors didnt exactly turn out to be as environmentally friendly as they were meant to be.

OLEDs ftw, much more vibrant image compared to LCD monitors.

I just saw what your politicians did about it...they decided to increase taxes! great! let's not solve the problem, if there is one, instead let's make money off it. Yeah your great country has the solution all right. How does a 20% hike in your food prices sound due to your taxes?

Droughts? In Dallas, TX we have had droughts every 2 years for the last 10!

They have you so scared over there that you will be happy to pay your inflated prices and not revolt over the tax increase to the producers that is being passed on to you the consumer.

How much CO2 is released when a volcano erupts? Speaking of volcanos...read about the ones under the Arctic Funny how the scientists are quick to dismiss it against global warming...why? can't make any money off a volcano.

We aren't as greedy and inconsiderate as you have been led to believe. We care about the enviro but most of us did not buy LCDs to better it. We bought them to save space. The assumptions the liberal media makes are funny. The assumptions you make are even funnier. I hope you do feel sick about the mess. Your government has taken advantage of you and you are proud about it. Why do they need to tax carbon output? Why not just tax the input? Why tax individuals and then give it back? Why not just tax the producers? Do you really think you will get your money back? HAHA good luck.

Here's a link for those that are interested in what is going on in Australia.

#29

NamesDontMatter

I just wanted to chime in on this. LCD's are great, take up less room, (look better in my opinion) and are just great. But it seems like the more technologically advanced we get, the more nasty chemicals we put out. Wasn't it intel that just said they are using half the periodic table in every chip now. Were using stuff much of which is in compounds unexposed to the surfance and we now manufacture it for a multitude of purposes. And this of course causes enviromental issues.

I believe global warming exists, but it has existed forever. In the world everything is cyclical, you live, you die. The seasons are cyclical, the orbit. Everything is, as are iceages, it will happen. Its just a matter of when. The last one was from a NEO hitting the earth, comet astroid w/e(most believe). The next could be caused by that again, or a super volcano etc etc. We don't know. But it would be quite sad if we do it to ourselves insted of actually having something catastrophic happen.

#30

zithe

It's hard to not be more warming effective than something that doesn't warm at all. Heat affects the amount of CO2 present. Why do you think there's hardly any CO2 at the polar ice caps and it gets slowly more condensed as you make your way to the equator?

NamesDontMatterI believe global warming exists, but it has existed forever. In the world everything is cyclical, you live, you die. The seasons are cyclical, the orbit. Everything is, as are iceages, it will happen. Its just a matter of when. The last one was from a NEO hitting the earth, comet astroid w/e(most believe). The next could be caused by that again, or a super volcano etc etc. We don't know. But it would be quite sad if we do it to ourselves insted of actually having something catastrophic happen.

So in other words, Global Warming exists, but what the media says is a bunch of crap? Can't agree more. It's surprising how many people refuse to even spend 5 minutes researching something so obviously wrong when they have the ease of the internet at their hands. They just go along with the paid scientists and media and assume "The rich guy said it. It has to be true. Made no sense but it's true!"

I saw a poster showing a polar bear on a broken peice of ice saying it was global warming's fault, and that it's causing the rapidly-growing polar bear species to be endangered. Well guess what? Polar bears swim, and since when is the polar bear going to be endangered when it lives on a continent that can't melt because it's high temperatures during its summer are in the negative 20s? (Fahrenheit) -20 + .5 does not equal 33...

#31

farlex85

To interject a few things, a few years ago, scientific analysis almost universally (peer-reviewed and such) showed global warming was happening as a direct result of man. However, recently there has been some analysis that man actually has very little contribution to global warming, or that it doesn't even exist (although the last one hasn't gained much support). I tend to think global warming should be thought of more as a symbol for how we MUST advance technologically and socially in a way that doesn't destroy the enviornment we live in, for ourselves if nothing else. Global warming in of itself is debatable, and really not as impactful to our current situation as many other problems, such as energy cryses, food shortages, trash, and stuff like that. For whatever reason, it has gained the most political backing and has thus become the issue of choice when concerning the enviornment. But what it represents as a vehicle for change and eco-friendly development is where the true importance lies.

#32

zithe

farlex85To interject a few things, a few years ago, scientific analysis almost universally (peer-reviewed and such) showed global warming was happening as a direct result of man. However, recently there has been some analysis that man actually has very little contribution to global warming, or that it doesn't even exist (although the last one hasn't gained much support). I tend to think global warming should be thought of more as a symbol for how we MUST advance technologically and socially in a way that doesn't destroy the enviornment we live in, for ourselves if nothing else. Global warming in of itself is debatable, and really not as impactful to our current situation as many other problems, such as energy cryses, food shortages, trash, and stuff like that. For whatever reason, it has gained the most political backing and has thus become the issue of choice when concerning the enviornment. But what it represents as a vehicle for change and eco-friendly development is where the true importance lies.

To the surprise of most people who hear this, less people believe in global warming than the amount that don't. There just happens to be a lot of people leftover to cash-in on. Even a lot of kids in schools don't believe it. I was sitting with a bunch of kids in science class and they were complaining about the global warming unit and asking "Why do we have to learn something that's been proven wrong?"

The only reason most people don't know this is because the people who don't believe in global warming aren't going to run around looking for people to tell "It doesn't exist" and make money off of it.

#33

farlex85

zitheTo the surprise of most people who hear this, less people believe in global warming than the amount that don't. There just happens to be a lot of people leftover to cash-in on. Even a lot of kids in schools don't believe it. I was sitting with a bunch of kids in science class and they were complaining about the global warming unit and asking "Why do we have to learn something that's been proven wrong?"

Something like that can't be said for sure. Polls and such are inaccurate, unless it was a question on the census I wouldn't trust it. It hasn't been proven wrong (or right), it's just had conflicting reports from people analysing the data differently. Like I said, even if the reports of man-made global warming are accurate, the problems that arise aren't as great as other enviornmental delima's, its just more of a "hot" topic (couldn't resist).

#34

zithe

farlex85Something like that can't be said for sure. Polls and such are inaccurate, unless it was a question on the census I wouldn't trust it. It hasn't been proven wrong (or right), it's just had conflicting reports from people analysing the data differently. Like I said, even if the reports of man-made global warming are accurate, the problems that arise aren't as great as other enviornmental delima's, its just more of a "hot" topic (couldn't resist).

It's hard to prove something wrong when every 'scientist' says something different about it. It's impossible to prove correct, though. CO2 does NOT affect temperature. Ask any person who has a chemistry major and is not being paid by the news people to say stuff.

Yes you accepted the existance of CFCs, however did you ever accept the existance of CO2?

I accepted the existance of both. I accepted that they don't affect temperature. I've also accepted that there is more plant life than mammals/fish/reptiles etc. Don't give me that deforestation crap here. Look from space, the Earth is still green, not brown/blond from the color of people's heads.

What I also find funny is how people say the O-Zone layer is deteriorating. All they do is measure the amount of UV radiation. They NEVER take into account solar storms or any increased discharges from the sun. They also never bothered to prove that it's the O-Zone that's actually blocking UV radiation. Global Warming is filled with too many holes to even be considered plausible. Theories are like statements. It's right if EVERYTHING in it is right. How much of the Global Warming theory is actually right? I can't find it myself.

What also sucks is that no matter how much we argue, no one will change their minds, no one will be persuaded, and this conversation would keep going on after even the media said "Global Warming doesn't exist" or something like that to attract attention.

farlex85Wikipedia, as far as I know, is not paid for by the mass media.

But anyone can edit it making it an unreliable source.

And here's one for you. Last year, the average global temperature DROPPED 1C. 1 year. According to this graph, how long would it take for a 1c average global temp change? 1.5 centuries.
Since you insist on wikipedia...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225111347AAayVQD

#35

farlex85

zitheIt's hard to prove something wrong when every 'scientist' says something different about it. It's impossible to prove correct, though. CO2 does NOT affect temperature. Ask any person who has a chemistry major and is not being paid by the news people to say stuff.

Wikipedia, as far as I know, is not paid for by the mass media.

#36

Triprift

Yeah we all no about that its been rammed down are throats by scientists and governments for ages. As far as im concerned its just a fancy way by theses ppl to try and control the population.

#37

mlupple

Think about it, if global warming is real, it'll swallow up southern california! I'm praying for the day!

#38

Wile E

Power User

I hardly think that an average increase of .5 degrees over the span of the last 100years or so qualifies as global warming. Global warming as the politicians would have you believe it, is a farce. .5 degrees falls within the standard margin of error in most tests.

As for the Ozone layer, don't you think firing rockets into space might have a little to do with that?

Now, does that mean we shouldn't be worried about the environment? No, of course it doesn't. We have to live here, so yeah, we should try to do our part to make it as pleasant as possible.

#39

farlex85

Wile EI hardly think that an average increase of .5 degrees over the span of the last 100years or so qualifies as global warming. Global warming as the politicians would have you believe it, is a farce. .5 degrees falls within the standard margin of error in most tests.

As for the Ozone layer, don't you think firing rockets into space might have a little to do with that?

Now, does that mean we shouldn't be worried about the environment? No, of course it doesn't. We have to live here, so yeah, we should try to do our part to make it as pleasant as possible.

Actually a .5 degree average increase is quite drastic. If the average global temperature were to rise or fall by a few degrees in that span of time, an ice age or complete climate change would be taking place.

#40

Wile E

Power User

farlex85Actually a .5 degree average increase is quite drastic. If the average global temperature were to rise or fall by a few degrees in that span of time, an ice age or complete climate change would be taking place.

Not the way I see it. Can you tell the difference between 20 and 20.5 degrees? Care to elaborate?

#41

farlex85

Wile ENot the way I see it. Can you tell the difference between 20 and 20.5 degrees? Care to elaborate?

What I mean is when taking the global average, a change like that is a big one. In just a specific region, like the city of New York, or your neighborhood, that is of course a very small change. However, when talking about the average temperature of the world, or as they calculate it the near surface air and oceans, a change such as this represents fairly substantial change, not neccessarily abnormal geologically and historically speaking, but substantial nonetheless.

#42

pentastar111

mluppleThink about it, if global warming is real, it'll swallow up southern california! I'm praying for the day!

LOL:laugh::toast:

#43

farlex85

zitheBut anyone can edit it making it an unreliable source.

And here's one for you. Last year, the average global temperature DROPPED 1C. 1 year. According to this graph, how long would it take for a 1c average global temp change? 1.5 centuries.
Since you insist on wikipedia...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225111347AAayVQD

Studies actually found wikipedia to in some cases be more accurate and reliable than encyclopedia britanica. Where is the graph that shows a 1C drop in world temp? Yahoo answers is not reliable and is more of a chat forum like this. I don't see how the wiki link backs up anything you were saying, it in fact, directly states several times that CO2 is in fact a green house gas and a possible culprit of warming the earth.

#44

flashstar

Al Gore himself stands to make a killing off of the "global warming problem".

newsbusters.org/node/11149

#45

farlex85

flashstarAl Gore himself stands to make a killing off of the "global warming problem".

newsbusters.org/node/11149

Eh who cares about Al Gore? People bring him into the debate as if he is responsible for starting it. Sure, perhaps he did make it more well-known and bring it to the forefront for some, but to me he and his motives are irrelevant to the issue. More important are the scientific papers that are written on this, and whether they are politically or economically driven rather than scientifically driven.

#46

Wile E

Power User

farlex85What I mean is when taking the global average, a change like that is a big one. In just a specific region, like the city of New York, or your neighborhood, that is of course a very small change. However, when talking about the average temperature of the world, or as they calculate it the near surface air and oceans, a change such as this represents fairly substantial change, not neccessarily abnormal geologically and historically speaking, but substantial nonetheless.

I still fail to see how .5 is substantial in any way, regardless of area. I don't know if I'm misinterpreting something, but that just seems minimal to me.

#47

flashstar

farlex85Eh who cares about Al Gore? People bring him into the debate as if he is responsible for starting it. Sure, perhaps he did make it more well-known and bring it to the forefront for some, but to me he and his motives are irrelevant to the issue. More important are the scientific papers that are written on this, and whether they are politically or economically driven rather than scientifically driven.

His motives are relevant. If Al Gore made an Inconvenient Truth only to make a boatload of cash without correct scientific data, then thousands of people have been deceived. The average Joe won't go out to independent scientific sources to verify Gore's claims. He will just assume that Al is correct. If anything, Al Gore has harmed our economy while making a ton of dough for himself. I'm not against making money by any means, but it is unacceptable if you are hurting your country in the process. Unfortunately, that seems to be a common theme among liberals.

#48

spacejunky

farlex85Studies actually found wikipedia to in some cases be more accurate and reliable than encyclopedia britanica. Where is the graph that shows a 1C drop in world temp? Yahoo answers is not reliable and is more of a chat forum like this. I don't see how the wiki link backs up anything you were saying, it in fact, directly states several times that CO2 is in fact a green house gas and a possible culprit of warming the earth.

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

#49

zithe

farlex85Studies actually found wikipedia to in some cases be more accurate and reliable than encyclopedia britanica. Where is the graph that shows a 1C drop in world temp? Yahoo answers is not reliable and is more of a chat forum like this. I don't see how the wiki link backs up anything you were saying, it in fact, directly states several times that CO2 is in fact a green house gas and a possible culprit of warming the earth.

The 1c drop was all over the news, surprisingly. The fact that last years global temperature average was 1c lower than the year before was what I was trying to point out. The graphs in wikipedia show it takes nearly 2 centuries to get that large of a temperature change,

Oh and epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=53DE09DC-802A-23AD-4EC4-C8ACCD44A47D
and then blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html
Can't forget this one epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5CEAEDB7-802A-23AD-4BFE-9E32747616F9
and last epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F

If those sources aren't reliable then I don't know what is.

#50

farlex85

Wile EI still fail to see how .5 is substantial in any way, regardless of area. I don't know if I'm misinterpreting something, but that just seems minimal to me.

I'm having trouble finding links to explain it thoroughly, basically, the worlds global mean temperature is thought to be fairly constant over a 100 year period. Geologically speaking, this is a very short amount of time. When applied to an overall average, if the temperature changes more rapidly, more drastic effects are seen. Think of anything where global averages can be compared to small groups. Off the top of my head, think test scores. If a particular class average were to drop by say 5 points overall, it's not very significant to humanity as a whole. If everyone in the world were to take that test and the global average dropped 5 points, that points to something drastic taking place, because averages tend to go to the middle. Perhaps that is a poor example, but averages statistically speaking tend to not vary much, especially when on a global scale. When talking about climate, a move of a few degrees in global average over a short period of time indicates drastic climate change. I wish I could explain it better, maybe I'll think of a better way if that still isn't making sense.

Add your own comment

Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2

122 Comments on Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts