Global Links

MIT Researchers discover potent new Greenhouse Gas

Mar 12 2009
Submitted by Niles Barnes on March 12, 2009 - 2:35pm

Chances are, if you do not regularly spray fumigants to control insects in grain storage faculties or to kill mice and weevils in industrial agriculture settings, you've probably never heard of Methyl bromide or Sulfuryl fluoride. However, scientists at MIT are bringing new recognition to the chemicals now that research has demonstrated that sulfuryl fluride is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Step back over two decades ago: the depletion of the ozone layer wasTHE environmental issue of the 1980's. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was established and over the course of 22 years it has successfully lead to the phasing out of ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals. One of the chemicals targeted by the Protocol was methyl bromide. It was totally phased out in 2005 and replaced with sulfuryl fluride. The only problem? MIT Researchers have now discovered that sulfuryl fluride is actually an extremely potent greenhouse gas, 4,800 times stronger than carbon dioxide and lasts way longer in the atmosphere than was originally thought.

The good news, according to the researchers at MIT, is that in this particular case the chemical has been caught relatively early and it’s quantity in the atmosphere is still small.
What I found a bit disheartening about the discovery was the assertion by the chief scientist at MIT that fumigation is “ a big industry, and it's absolutely needed to preserve our buildings and food supply” . Maybe so, but I like to think that there are different models available to produce food that is nutritious, affordable, environmentally sustainable and free from injustices (and capable of feeding billions of people) that does not rely on harmful chemicals. Perhaps our definitions of "sustainable" will have to chance to makes this a reality.
 
More articles on this story are here and here.

 

Mar 12 2009

Clarification...

Submitted by Scott Howell on March 12, 2009 - 3:29pm.

The quote given in this story is incomplete - the complete quote reads as follows:

"NOAA researchers working with the Scripps team calculated that one kilogram of SO2F2 emitted into the atmosphere has a global warming potential approximately 4,800 times greater than one kilogram of carbon dioxide. However, amounts of sulfuryl fluoride released into the atmosphere (about 2,000 metric tons per year) are far lower than those of carbon dioxide (about 30 billion metric tons per year) and thus the absolute effect of present SO2F2 emissions on global warming is comparably small." That means Carbon Dioxide's "greenhouse impact" is 312 times that of Sulfuryl Fluoride.

My company stopped using Methyl Bromide in 1995, seven years before it was required and when it was not even economically feasible (MB is 10 times cheaper than SF). We will stop using SF when a viable, verifiable method to eliminate drywood termites from houses, school buildings and workplaces - but as of today, there is no alternative. Let's get to work on a replacement technology before we ban the only proven method that keeps our buildings from falling down. Take a look at what uncontrolled termite infestations have done to the infrastructure in Santiago, Chile.

Mar 13 2009

Re: Clarification

Submitted by Niles Barnes on March 13, 2009 - 11:10am.

Thanks for the comment Scott and for providing the full quote. You are certainly correct that the amount of sulfuryl fluoride released into the atmosphere is much smaller compared to annual emissions of CO2. However, that still doesn't deny the fact that it's GWP is very high. In addition, the MIT article did state that the amount of sulfuryl fluoride is increasing in the atmosphere at about 5% per year. That's not good news.

It is interesting that you mention that MB is 10 times cheaper than SF. According to the article I linked to earlier (and posted below) it suggests the opposite. Here's the quote - "And making the first switch from methly bromide to sulfuryl fluoride hasn’t exactly kneecaped the fumigation business—the new compound is cheaper and more effective than what it replaced, meaning the environmental imperative also carried business benefits." http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/11/new-gas-mit-researc...

I agree with you Scott that a replacement needs to be found and quickly. Perhaps other readers know of research into alternatives?

Mar 17 2009

Cost issue

Submitted by Scott Howell on March 17, 2009 - 12:48pm.

Well, I could provide invoices that show you how much cheaper MB was than SF. Typically we use $200-$500 worth of SF on a single family home. When we used to use MB, the cost was $50-$125.

When it was pointed out that MB was contributing to ozone depletion, I switched my company over long before it was required, even though it ran up my expenses and made me less competitive in the market. At that time, we did have an alternative - SF. Until I know of an alternative that will eliminate an the drywood termites from an entire structure, I will use SF. The only alternative at this point is to close my business - and I am not about to do that.