The Daily Score

I wonder if simply taxing the chemical would work. It strikes me that the cost of a canister of cleaner wouldn't have to increase by more than a couple of dollars to push manufacturers into using a different gas, but the coolant for a fridge must be a much smaller proportion of the ultimate cost, so if HFCs have to be used in fridges they still could be.

Gravity... sigh... I am a terrible person.

Matt, thanks for the tip about HFC-152a. Good to know. It seems like the existence of a far superior substitute product is reason alone to ban 134a. Still, even 10% is far too high.

Eldan, normally I'm a fan of using market-based mechanisms, such as taxes. But in this instance, the tax would have to be so astonishingly high that it would probably be tantamount to a ban. More to the point, I don't see a good reason not to flat-out ban 134a in compressed air dusters. It's not like these little canisters are a critical part of our economy or identity or something. I think in some cases it's appropriate for us, as a society, to say, "this is a stupid and harmful product that serves very little use: stop it."

Only if the ice is carried in organic hemp saddle bags.

Wow. Some pretty heavy stuff being discussed here! I've never even heard of "those compressed chemical canister thingies" (fortunately). But I have heard of other compressed (non-chemical) canister thingies, like dust-busters and vacuum cleaners ... Ah, suction!

As with most things, the most environmentally friendly approach is the one that does NOT involve getting out the wallet. Writing a law to ban every hair-brained product/chemical seems to make for a ridiculously complex legal system, and I'd rather try to dismantle the manufactured need first.

How? Asking ourselves "is there another way I can accomplish this without buying yet another thing?" The answer is almost always yes, and almost always easier on the earth and society. (It takes more time and effort, but you'd have less need to work, so you'd have the time and health... Or you could employ someone with a feather duster and boost the economy.)

[rhughes] Although that's how I try to live life, and it does feel like I'm helping, it usually does far too little. Take these air dusters as an example. Clearly even this nearly useless thing has a market. Could we create a campaign to raise awareness and try to get people not to buy the things? Sure. And it might help. But it probably won't help much, as most people just don't have the time or attention span to care about every little detail of their lives.

I'd argue that "writing a law to ban every hair-brained product/chemical" takes far less human effort than educating every person about every heir-brained product/chemical, then hoping all these people remember all of these details when they're at the store.

Side note: Eric's post has inspired me to post the following note on my office's can of air duster, and I suggest everyone reading this does the same:

Warning: This can of refrigerant has the same greenhouse impact as driving a Honda Civic from Seattle to New York, then back to Chicago. Please use a feather duster instead.

Back to the point of cleaning keyboards. Using the dishwasher is effective.

I recommend a back up plan though, the risk is losing keys or getting a piece of plastic too close to the heating element.

I'm one of the "be wary of regulation" types here, but I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be banned. With kids "dusting off" I don't see a march in the streets when this does finally get pulled.

I have no idea, Kevin. I actually (naively, I guess) thought the canisters contained compressed air or, at worst, CO-2. I'm doing an informal survey of office supply shops around Seattle and I'll report back my findings later. So far, I've found only 134a and 152 (both mentioned earlier in comments) but nothing with just CO-2. There are also, I should mention, lots and lots of safe and clean alternatives -- mini-vacuums, dusters, cleaning pads, etc. Or, as Arie points out, the trusty dishwasher. Good tip.

I'd be curious to know if Canadian retailers are selling different products. If you happen to pass by an office supply store, maybe you could take a look for me?

Wow, I have one of those little greenhouse bombs on my shelf. Even though I use it so infrequently that it's lasted 6 years so far, now I want to get rid of it. But I guess I gotta hang onto it until someone figures out how to neutralize HFC-134a (doesn't seem too likely, does it?).

I can't believe kids are huffing this stuff and dropping dead and it hasn't been banned yet. And according to Wikipedia, at high concentrations it causes testicular tumors.

Here's a recommendation from Cool Tools: Vacuum Micro Attachment Kit. Cheaper than a can and more effective.

There are lots of pro options too -- these for example.

Maybe one of the offset companies can create an offset for the use of this can?

Here is another case of an environmantal problem caused by a man-made chemical being used for an un-necessary product. The solution is up to us individually and collectively. We obviously don't need strong global-warming subtances to clean our keyboards.

A few more facts: HFC-134a (which is 1300 times as strong as CO2 for capturing heat in the atmosphere) was developed and marketed world-wide to replace the nasty, ozone-depleting CFC-12 used in auto air-conditioners. It's been put in those AC systems globally since the CFCs were banned in 1995.

The European Union is looking closely at a timeline to ban the HFC-134a in vehicles. It's been tough to find a suitable replacement. They are considering approving HFC-152a, even though that is also a global warming gas (only 140 times as strong as CO2).

The US EPA has approved HFC-152a as a substitute for the CFC-12, but I've not heard of any vehicles that are using it yet. The EPA also has approved CO2 for use in vehicle ACs. I've heard Toyota has built it into some vehicles on a trial basis. That would be a much more acceptable refrigerant, since the amount would be minscule compared to fossil fuel emmisions. ther could be other technical and sfaety problems.

See this EPA website for more info:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regulations.html

And go here to see how the HFCs contribute to global warming:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/gwps.html

So yes, use another method to clean your keyboard. And tell your U.S. Representatives and Senators that we should ban products that release global-warming gases, especially when there are simple, low-impact alternatives.

That's the same approach we've used to successfully stop releasing the ozone-depleting chemicals these HFCs have replaced.

But we've gone from the frying pan into the fire...

[Jan] Great solution! I found a similar solution - though it doesn't list a standard port:

link