Thread started by User1 at 12.11.08 - 10:49 pm

There was more to the monumental changes of 2008 than meets the eye.

As the world debated a new U.S. president’s foreign-policy vision, a key component of his platform was already being implemented.

As the United States watched to see how an emerging China would react under the spotlight of the Olympic Games, a U.S. company was selling its authoritarian government the tools it would need to crush dissent.

And as “green� became the year’s biggest buzzword, scientists discovered that environmentalists’ favorite power source might be even more harmful than the fossil fuels it was designed to replace.

FP’s “The Top 10 Stories You Missed in 2008� features the page A14 stories that reveal as much about what happened in 2008 as those on A1. More importantly, they might be clues to what the leading headlines of 2009 will be.

Top 10 FP stories Missed in 2008

reply

Alan, that part about solar panels is VERY misleading and you know it. You think the manufacture of solar panels, which does use NF3 is even remotely close to the number of units manufactured with regards to Flatscreen TV's, and all the other types of microcircuit electronics out there?
Sure, it's not the best thing to be emitted out into the atmosphere, but then again most industrial chemicals aren't. The reprots are more likely warning against ignoring all other potential greenhouse gasses, rather than saying one shouldn't move to solar panels.
So solar isn't as clean to manufacture as wind generators (this isn't news, this has been known for years), however, it is one of the most efficient forms of alternative energy, and after their initial construction, photovoltaic generators pose little environmental risk. However, EVERYTHING humans do poses some form of environmental risk. Walking through the woods barefoot and naked you can still step on flora and slow it's spread, or you could swat a bug crawling on your skin that could possibly be very important had it lived. Wind, water and tidal generators take physical supplies to build, as does EVERY form of electrical generating technology. Every one of these resources has to come from somewhere, one could argue wind power isn't environmentally friendly because it can kill birds, or that it takes large amounts of metal and other materials to build them.
The issue here is not that it could potentially be harmful, it's the amount of impact. Even this poorly written blurb you linked to admits that the problem is VERY small, a "blip" next to the issues created by coal and oil.



FuzzBeast
12.12.08 - 12:59 am

reply

+1 fuzzbeast.
same thing why those hybrids

+1 to og poster.
interesting read and i'm thinking of subscribing

its like the economist :D



aksendz
12.12.08 - 1:26 am

reply

I was mostly confused at how the solar panel thing somehow got branded as a "foreign policy" story. There were plenty of underreported climate change and energy issues that were relevant to foreign policy this year, like the (probably doomed) EU proposals for tariffs on emissions-heavy imports or the coming battle for arctic oil reserves that are being opened up as the polar ice melts. Some editor clearly has an axe to grind and would prefer to spout contrarian talking points rather than address any of the real issues at stake.



nathansnider
12.12.08 - 1:40 am

reply

Worlds been going to Hell in a Handbasket, and we're the unfortunate, mini-sandwiches inside Lucifer's pic-nic basket!!!





bentstrider
12.12.08 - 5:25 am

reply

Fuzz,

How is it misleading? I don't see anything that leads me to believe it's misleading. Looks like some of the figures were from Wiki. It uses reports from researchers at the University of California and scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Are you guys saying they are misleading have an agenda?

I don't see where it said we shouldn't move to solar panels either. I do see where it said we should be thinking about some of the other GHG that are emitted but not addressed by the Kyoto Protocol, and that these gases have been under reported. If that means they have a hidden agenda, well then I stand corrected.

And to address a few other points. Just a person breathing out is causing pollution. The air expelled is carbon dioxide. The wind generators killing birds is mute point. The blades now turn at such a slow rate. You do still have birds running into blades and the mast, but what are you going to do? Finally I too thought it was rather interesting that solar panels would be a foreign policy issue, but most of the panels are made by Japan, China, and Germany. My bet in the not too distant future, China would be the lead manufacturer. And we all know their environmental record.



User1
12.12.08 - 11:27 am

reply