<quote>
SF6 (or Sulfur Hexafluoride) had been the standard gas used inside high voltage electrical equipment as an insulating and arc-quenching medium. However, SF6 is also listed as an extremely potent greenhouse gas according to the Kyoto protocol, with 23,500 times the comparative Global Warming Potential of CO2 and a lifetime of 3,200 years in the atmosphere. With grid operators across the world becoming increasingly concerned about the environmental impact, GE offers a commercially available and viable alternative to SF6 to help utilities and industries reduce their environmental impact.
INTRODUCING G3 INSULATING AND SWITCHING GAS g³, (or G3-- pronounced "g" cubed) is GE's game-changing alternative to SF6 gas, developed for high voltage electrical transmission equipment. g³ (or G3) products feature the same ratings and same dimensional footprint as the state-of-the-art SF6 ones, with a drastically reduced environmental impact: more than 99% less gas global warming potential (GWP), comparatively. Also, g³ (aka G3) products operate with no restriction under the same temperature range as SF6 products (down to -30°C).
Like SF6, g³ is non-toxic and not flammable. It falls in the same safety class as SF6.
</quote>
The above is from an article published on the URL "GE Ideas Lab" i.e.
This is an example of what apocalyptic eco-radicals are missing and/or getting wrong-- It is a bit of engineering which incrementally improves our global warming footprint/potential without causing any decrement in electric service quality or quantity. The way we solve the global warning threat is better done by engineering better solutions, and not by telling the emerging economies of the world that they must "tighten their belts" and accept less electricity and wealth creation potential. I am not asserting that there are no trade-offs-- there are indeed hard choices that must be made. What I am saying however, is that "big picture problems" such as global warming are also subject to incremental progress, such as the example above, contributed by a giant, for-profit corporation (GE General Electric Corporation). AND I am also pointing out that some incentives might be altered by governments subsidizing the cost of g³ versus SF6, even though such subsidy would undoubtedly "line the pockets" of corporations who are villains in the eyes of most ecologists (and understandably so). It might also reduce a definite vector towards global warming, an aim we could all agree upon.