New Greenhouse Gas Discovered: 7,100 Times Worse Than Carbon Dioxide

Chemists at the University of Toronto have discovered a new greenhouse gas which impacts climate change 7,100 times more than CO2. This new greenhouse gas  is called perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA), and has far more potential to effect the climate than any other substance found to date.

A greenhouse gas’ effect on the environment is rated in three ways: quantity, time, and power. Each greenhouse gas has a different effect on the climate based on how much is present (quantity), how long it stays in the environment (time), and how much heat it traps (power). For example, there is dramatically more carbon dioxide than methane on the planet, and although methane stays on the planet for less time, it traps 21 times more heat than CO2 over a 100 year period. Sounds like methane is a pretty serious greenhouse gas, but as far as contributing to climate change, nothing compares to PFTBA.

Related Article: 90 Companies Responsible for Climate Change

greenhouse gases

The government says so, it must be true!

According to an article published in the University of Toronto News,

PFTBA has been in use since the mid-20th century for various applications in electrical equipment and is used in thermally and chemically stable liquids marketed for use in electronic testing and as heat transfer agents. It does not occur naturally; that is, it is produced by humans.

You know what that means Tea Party fanatics? There is no way you can blame this new greenhouse gas on ‘natural causes’. According to Angela Hong, one of the University of Toronto chemists working on the study,

PFTBA is extremely long-lived in the atmosphere and it has a very high radiative efficiency; the result of this is a very high global warming potential. Calculated over a 100-year timeframe, a single molecule of PFTBA has the equivalent climate impact as 7,100 molecules of CO2.

There is no known way to destroy the greenhouse gas, PFTBA, in the lower atmosphere. It can only be destroyed in the upper atmosphere.  This means that the world is stuck with this incredibly damaging chemical lingering all around us for possibly 100’s of years.

Related Article: Germany Sets Example for Global Climate Battle

So many greenhouse gases, so many climate change deniers...

So many greenhouse gases, so many climate change deniers…

This news has been released and undoubtedly seen by the The House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Unfortunately 17 out of 22 members on the committee are vehement climate change deniers, so it is unlikely this news will incite any motivation for change. Follow that last link for a list of all the climate change deniers in the U.S. congress and how much money they’ve made from the fossil fuel industry. Sometimes denial makes you filthy rich.

Climate change deniers have given rise to very powerful special interest energy gangs, as well as creating what is aptly called ‘delusional America.’ It’s a big world out there fellow citizens, and a large number of countries are actually doing their best to run entirely on green energy.

Related Article: Delusional America and Special Interest Gangs

It’s 2013 and we only just discovered the presence of this new greenhouse gas. What else could be lingering all around us that we haven’t the slightest clue about?




A Cheaper Alternative To Pollution

The world is getting crowded, or so we think, and with it there is the looming threat of traffic, angry people, excessive food waste, and of course pollution.

Pollution is very unhealthy, unpleasant, and unprofitable. The pollution we are causing from our transportation and daily lifestyles is in essence costing us a pretty penny. In the midst of all the spending on pollution, we have critics that argue for a new, pollution-less world. But wouldn’t that just be a costly upgrade and exuberant amount of money spent on something that will likely cost exorbitant amounts to maintain? According to a new study, not really. In fact, the constant use of coal as a power source yields a great deal of carbon based pollution, which turns out to be costly in itself.

Related Article: The Ugly Face of Overpopulation

Many would argue that with the cheap labor costs and manufacturing costs that accompany it, there really isn’t a cheaper alternative to “coal power.” However, based on this study, coal power is in fact not only an outdated method, but it is at least more costly than onshore wind power and the use of new natural gases. Laurie Johnson, an avid advocate and proprietor of the study, gets to the nitty-gritty point:

The study results show that our electricity system, which generates fully 40 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide pollution, is costly. Transitioning to cleaner energy won’t just help protect us and our children and grandchildren from climate change, it’s also good economics

More importantly she discusses not only the cost of production, but also the cost of damage caused by the pollution. It is no secret that global warming is causing more severe storms and climate changes, and it is also no secret that we pay a pretty penny for the destruction of our tyrant mother nature.

Related ArticleCostly Climate Changes

The study estimates that by 2018, coal will be so costly that it will cost at least .5 cents per kWh more than renewable clean energy. Although that sounds like a very little number, take into consideration that the average American uses over 11,000 kWh per year. Now multiply that by the roughly 300 million Americans in the USA and again multiply it by the .5 cents that coal costs to operate/clean/maintain. That’s-a-big a-pizza pie! The study itself concludes that:

Our estimates have important policy implications. For new electricity generation, they justify a much stronger standard than proposed last year by the Environmental Protection Agency, which was based upon natural gas emission rates. For existing source standards, which the EPA is also required to issue, they justify replacing a significant portion of the current coal fleet with new cleaner generation.

Related Article: Germany Sets Example for Global Climate Battle

Maybe it is time to give up the farce of maintaining fossil power plants and time to step up into a world of clean and renewable sources of energy. We continually progress to higher gas mileages and less pollution based cars, so why not apply this idea of clean usable energy more as a solution to our constant need for energy?

Cheers to clean energy!




Social Cost of Carbon

Laurie Johnson

 EIA.Gov American Electricity

Wondergressive: The Ugly Face of Overpopulation

Wondergressive: Costly Climate Changes

Wondergressive: Germany Sets Example for Global Climate Battle

Ask an Astrobiologist: Global Warming, and What to Expect

NASA scientists have been answering astrobiology questions submitted by the general public through a new feature on their website called Ask an Astrobiologist. 

I would like to share a particular question and answer with you as I find it to be fair, and relatively pertinent.

The question submitted: 


I’ve noticed in many of the answers you state that the far more pressing threat to our planet is global warming. However, I’m wondering what specific threats humans will face if the carbon dioxide levels continue to increase, in the worst-case scenario. What can ordinary people be doing to address the problem of climate change?


David Morrison, Astrobiology Senior Scientist answered with this response on December 27, 2012: 


We are already seeing the impacts of global warming. The rapid shrinking of the arctic icecap has opened the northeast passage to shipping, and within a decade it will also open the northwest passage. The melting arctic ice and permafrost are exposing oil and mineral deposits for exploitation, but also endangering arctic wildlife. Most important, the melting of arctic snow and ice darkens the surface, leading to rapid warming during the summer and a shift in weather patterns over North America. Loss of ice from Greenland and Antarctica is also contributing to sea level rise, making destructive storms like Sandy much more likely. The recent severe droughts in the U.S., Russia, and Australia can also be traced to global warming. Within a few years, the accelerating loss of ice from the Himalayas will lead to the summer drying up of several great Asian rivers, which are the source of water for more than a billion people in China, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. By the middle of the century, the loss of water from the Colorado River basin and the aquifers in northern Arizona may make Phoenix and Las Vegas uninhabitable, while rising sea levels and stronger storms are likely to lead to the permanent evacuation of much of New Orleans, New York, Miami, Amsterdam, and Venice. By late in the century we can expect to lose Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, London, Rotterdam, Mumbai, Shanghai, Tokyo-Yokohama, Dhaka, and many other large cities, as well as several small island nations. We don’t know how fast the warming and sea level rise will take place, so I can’t predict the dates for these events, but the direction is inescapable unless we stop polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and methane. In the next century we might entirely lose the great icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica, which would make the situation much worse than I have described above.

Well then, so much for the future…

What are your thoughts on global warming and the future?

NASA Animated Temperature Data From Over 100 Years

NASA has created an animated video showing the changes in global temperatures from 1880 to 2011.  Whether you believe humans are responsible for global warming or not, it would certainly appear, according this data (and a seemingly endless string of other evidence) that the Earth is most definitely warming up.

If you’re concerned about the actual Earth, allow me to impart to you some Carlin-esque wisdom:

“The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… asshole.””