According to Foreign Policy magazine the world will remember 2005 for its natural disasters, the passing of a pope, and the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.
In terms of environmental issues that "fell through the cracks" the magazine focused on reduced greenhouse emission in the US and peak oil.
Reduced emissions in the US came in as no. 4 in terms of overall issues, it was reported as follows:
When it comes to emitting greenhouse gases, the United States is usually seen as the bad guy, content to belch out fumes at its pleasure. But reports released in late November show that U.S. emissions have fallen for the first time in more than a decade. Between 2000 and 2003, U.S. emissions fell by 0.8 percent. By contrast, global goody-two-shoes Canada saw a 24.2 percent increase in 2003 from its 1990 levels. Even the sanctimonious Europeans are set to miss their Kyoto targets by 6.4 percent. Uncle Sam's emissions dropped partly because U.S. firms introduced clean coal technologies and reduced their methane emissions. So, is the United States turning into the Green Giant? Hardly. The most important reason for its drop in emissions was the migration of heavy manufacturing to industrializing countries such as China, the world's second-biggest emitter.
At number nine was a peak oils story, reported as follows:
With oil prices soaring this year, the debate over the future of this precious commodity heated up. But lost in the mix was ExxonMobil's report The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View. The total oil output of non-OPEC producers, according to ExxonMobil's projection, will peak around 2010, after which OPEC will have to add more than 1 million barrels per day, every year, to keep up with world demand by 2030. "In 2003, Algeria produced 1.1 million barrels per day," wrote energy analyst Alfred J. Cavallo in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "A new Algeria would need to be brought on line in the Persian Gulf each and every year beyond 2010 just to keep up with the projected increase in demand." That's no easy prospect. To make matters worse, most OPEC countries, including vital "swing producer" Saudi Arabia, do not allow independent audits of their oil reserves, so we may have even less warning of any future shortfalls. Under OPEC's quota system, members have every incentive to inflate their reserve figures: The more they claim to have, the more they can sell. The price of a barrel of black gold just went up-again.
So few Australian environmental stories are properly reported in the mainstream media. But which is the really big one that "fell through the cracks"?
Getting back to the original question ... the political prostitution of Australia's environment must surely constitute its greatest drop through the crack!
I found a some links to the Whit Cliffs station
http://www.uow.edu.au/~schaefer/rosi/solar_station.html
"The system is quite reliable with problems occurring only a few times a year. Initially, problems occurred with the tracking software, but now the main problem is with mechanical breakdowns of the old tracking motors. During strong winds and at night, the dishes are ‘parked’ in a position which minimises damage."
This is how the White Cliff system works:
http://www.solarsystems.com.au/how_it_works.htm
Overseas there are many commercial plants
http://www.volker-quaschning.de/articles/fundamentals2/index_e.html
Ender - and speaking of solar in mainstream and some like it hot - would have thought White Cliffs in very hot outback NSW would have been the ultimate trial site for solar in harsh conditions and for whole communities - what do we know about its operation and reliability ? And are there any significant overseas like or better examples?
More on grumpy old men at Xmas.
I note that the blog's right wing extremers have decided that Wikipedia must be a leftie-greenie issue. It's inaccurate they scream. Don't know why - but is interesting to look at some facts
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.
But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
From my personal observation many articles seem to be very well written and copiously referenced to back up assertions. Of course nobody is compelling anyone to read it and much of the information doesn't exist elsewhere of is somewhat inaccessible. It's not the ultimate nor perfect but I suggest the world is a net better place for its existence. And it tries to be politically neutral.
I'm wondering why our right-wingers on the blog aren't up with the fear uncertainty and doubt campaign and taken a baseball bat to "open source computing" as well.
............
Phil Done sent this to me with a request I post it on Friday - it was being blocked when he tried to post. Sorry it has taken me so long - was lost amongst other emails. Jen.
rog - no not end of story just a badly designed system. In our last blackout the fossil fuel system failed to deliver because of pole top fires. Some people were out for weeks.
Exactly my point Ender, consumers just want to push a button like anyone else.
The solar system failed to deliver in the heat, dont want to know why just that it did, end of story