Nitrogen
I wrote recently about some truly exciting developments in soil reclamation with enormous potential for agriculture. (See The Earth.) There is great news in much of this if we pay attention and give these low-tech, largely low-energy-intensive approaches the focus they deserve.
The (really) bad news is that although fertilizers have increased agricultural output over the years, they have also caused devastating environmental impacts. I have been remiss here in not addressing the harm that the increasingly pervasive use of fertilizers has had, not only on exacerbating global warming, but on creating “dead zones” in key marine areas.
Here is an important article today from the “NY Times” - Beyond Carbon: Scientists Worry About Nitrogen’s Effects. It points out that public perception of the climate change crisis is mainly focused on the impacts from carbon dioxide and not on other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, both listed under the Kyoto Protocol as regulated GHGs. I would guess that the general public’s lack of understanding of the impacts of these other GHGs is true. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and scientists and policy analysts all over the world, fully recognize the dangers. The IPCC notes “Agriculture accounted for an estimated emission of 5.1 to 6.1 Gt carbon dioxide-eq/yr in 2005 (10-12% of total global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases). Methane contributes 3.3 Gt carbon dioxide-eq/yr and nitrous oxide 2.8 Gt carbon dioxide-eq/yr. Of global anthropogenic emissions in 2005, agriculture accounts for about 60% of nitrous oxide and about 50% of methane.” (See the chapter on Agriculture from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III.)
Notice that the IPCC, as others do, uses the measure “carbon dioxide-equivalent.” The IPCC says carbon dioxide “… is the reference gas against which other greenhouse gases are measured…” So, in any event, methane and nitrous oxide are very much under scrutiny along with carbon dioxide, and three others, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, used in refrigeration and for other heavy industrial purposes. These last three are being phased out under Kyoto and the Montreal Protocol because they are potent ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs) as well.
The “NY Times” points out that there is another potent GHG, nitrogen trifluoride, which is not regulated. It has been used in relatively small quantities but its use is increasing significantly. For what purpose is it used primarily? For making LCD panels.
Let’s return to nitrogen fertilizers and nitrous oxide, with an output of nearly three billion tons a year of carbon dioxide equivalent. Greenpeace International had an excellent report out earlier this year - Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential. As they put it: “Nitrous oxide emissions are mainly associated with nitrogen fertilisers and manure applied to soils. Fertilisers are often applied in excess and not fully used by the crop plants, so that some of the surplus is lost as nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.” This is a good, comprehensive report with some lucid explanations and some worthwhile graphics. They also have a good bit to say here about mitigation options, as does the IPCC, of course, in the document cited above. See also the International Nitrogen Initiative which is “… dedicated to optimizing the use of nitrogen in food production, while minimizing the negative effects of nitrogen on human health and the environment as a result of food and energy production.”
The “NY Times” article is careful to note that there are other concerns in play aside from the radiative forcing from nitrous oxide, not to mention the carbon dioxide and methane from agriculture. One of the most dire of these are the ocean dead zones that result from the pooling of millions of tons of nitrogen fertilizer runoff. NASA explains it this way: “The apparent cause of the creeping dead zones is agriculture, specifically fertilizer. While fertilizer is necessary to foster bumper agricultural crops, it also runs off the fields into the streams and rivers of a watershed. When the fertilizer reaches the ocean, it just becomes more nutrients for the phytoplankton, so they do what they do best: they grow and multiply. Which leads to more organic matter reaching the bottom, more bacterial respiration, and more anoxic bottom water.” For some good graphic explanations of the phenomenon, try this from the Science Museum of Minnesota.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Re: NF3 (ntirogen triflouride)
We all love HDTV… We all love getting rid of those big bulky old fashioned TVs that take up so much room in the house…
Post February 2009 (when — hooray — we switch to HDTV), what does the expected growth curve look like for flat panel TVs, spending globally on electronics in the discretionary household budget, and NF3?
What are the lifecycle radiative forcing impacts of the production, use, and disposal of NF3?
Are the manufacturers and retailers associated with the production, use, and disposal of NF3 incorporating the radiative forcing (climate change) risks within their corporate risk management strategies and appropriately allocating risk management budgets to assist in mitigating and adapting to the associated risks?
Rather than a view from NY, see the below take on this from mid-America: the Courier-Journal in Louisville, KY.
Perhaps someone should be taking a look at the expected growth curve of NF3.
Food for thought…
Dee
Deanne R. Upson
CO2nscious Consulting
Features > August 11, 2008
Your Flat Screen Has (Greenhouse) Gas
By Emily Udell
This flat-screen TV offers a view of the wilderness that the production of a chemical in its screen helps destroy.
Share Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine
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.