This article, entitled, "Flat-Screen TV Gas 'a Climate Time Bomb'" attempts to paint a bad picture but lacks any scientific data. No surprise here.
A greenhouse gas called nitrogen trifluoride, used to make the TVs, is 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide, said Michael Prather, director of the environment institute at the University of California, Irvine.
Okay, sounds bad, right? But wait...
But no one yet knows how much of it is being released into the atmosphere by industry, a report in Britain's The Guardian said.
Ah, so there is no data to scientifically prove any kind of threat!
Prather's research shows production of the gas, which remains in the atmosphere for 550 years, is "exploding".
It is expected to double by next year, from the current 4,000 tons produced annually.
But unlike other key greenhouse gases — such as carbon dioxide, sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) — emissions of the gas are not restricted under the Kyoto protocol or similar agreements, The Guardian report said.
Prather and his colleague Juno Hsu — writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters — said this year's production of nitrogen trifluoride is equivalent to 67 million tons of carbon dioxide
Here's my take (not that anyone asked for it): Companies who make televisions attempt to do so for a profit. If they waste the materials used to make the televisions, then that cuts into their profits. Therefore it would be expected they would not waste nitrogen trifluoride. Can it escape into the atmosphere? Sure, but as the article states there is no data about this. Should toxic substances be controlled and kept out of the environment? Sure, but let us see some real, factual, scientific data about this substance before the enviro wackos push in to promote their socialist, anti-free market, anti-business alarmist agenda.
Carbon dioxide, which occurs naturally and is exhausted when we breathe, has been tagged as some global threat, but it remains to be scientifically proven if humans can really change the climate. Therefore comparing nitrogen trifluoride to carbon dioxide here is half-baked at best.
So again we have an article designed to mislead people and promote an agenda rather than provide useful information based on facts. Thanks MSM! I'm glad your numbers are down. That make's Rush Limbaugh's $400 million look even better.