Slashdot Mirror
EU Sets Goal To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions 40% By 2030
An anonymous reader writes: The 28 nations in the European Union agreed Friday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% (going by 1990 levels) by the year 2030. The deal received widespread criticism; industry bosses said the 2030 targets were too extreme, while many environmental groups said the goals weren't ambitious enough. The deal requires each nation to achieve the goal independently — earlier targets could use international offsets to avoid or reduce action. EU officials hope the agreement will encourage the U.S. and China to take a more aggressive stance on fighting climate change.
Bennett Hasselton
The cruel way to cut emissions is to offer suicide booths to people. That way that person won't contribute anymore.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It's too extreme to be done and not ambitious enough to achieve the goals.
"EU officials hope the agreement will encourage the U.S. and China to take a more aggressive stance on fighting climate change."
The US?
Would that be the same United States that met the original Kyoto reduction targets without trying?
-Styopa
Maybe this is a cryptic way of telling the public that fossil-fuel production will decline 40% by 2030.
Really I had to use google to find out who you mean with benett. You should always add "frequent contributor" so that people know who is meant. Because then at least I know that he is a frequent contributor to slashdot, and contributes frequently.
Why not 257%?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
His name is Bennett Hasselton. His name is Bennett Hasselton.
WIth the way that European country economies are shrinking, we'll get to 40% carbon reduction with no trouble at all.
Should be easier now.
Recently Germany decided that their nuclear power plants weren't contaminating the environment enough so they decided to dump vastly more radioactive shit into the air around Europe.
This came with a bunch of CO2. When they actually decide that radioactive contamination is bad, they can simply shut down the coal plants and start using nuclear again.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And voluminously. He's a voluminous contributor. The voluminousocity coefficientness of his contributions is of an expontially enormous magnitude.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Your knee-jerk ignorance never fails to amaze and amuze me.
Totalitarian regimes like USA will never willingly agree to anything. China will not follow the suit either.
Heh. Here, let me just download an MSI installer whose instructions are all in Arabic. What's the worst that could happen?
You just went full retard. You never go full retard.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The so-called scientists
Please post a list of your published papers that relate to climatology.
We know what an Anonymous Coward is.
But what is frof.
What is Ureacrats.
Without energy, the economy falters.
Cutting greenhouse gasses by 40% will also cut jobs by 40%.
Why should it? It's my understanding that a lot of areas of industry are actually reducing their energy expenses. Is Germany a country economically reliant of aluminum smelters (where the electrochemistry can't be cheated)? (And even here, let's forget for a moment conveniently that Dutch smelters are getting into market competition problems because of cheap German electricity anyway...)
Ezekiel 23:20
All signs are that an increase in the price of polluting energy sources does not just boosts the development of alternatives but is especially making people and companies work more efficient.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Cutting greenhouse gasses by 40% will also cut jobs by 40%.
This is fallacious reasoning. You could replace some of the current energy production with human power: pushing a flywheel for room, board, and $1.50/hour. Unemployment would drop to nil! Of course productivity would reduce because overall energy production would be much less, but jobs are how the government measures economic success right now.
It's roman_mir. He always goes full retard.
They are having a giraffe - The Americans will just use it as another excuse why they don't need to cut theirs
Cutting emission by 40% doesn't solve a problem that is already past the point of no return.
I think vacations in Europe will be cheap a few years from now after their economies crash and the Dollar once again becomes worth more that the local currencies.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And at the same time they dislike "nucular" 'cos it is ..., well, "nucular".
I live in Northern Europe - for us this will mean insane regulations. Just insane.
The people who we call "redgreen" (communistic-environmentalist-extremists) are the second biggest problem to earth. The biggest is exponential population growth. Global warming is somewhere aroung fifth to tenth - at least for us here in the north.
Because there will be more than double that number of cars on the road by that time, and so it will still result in a net increase. It's better than no cuts at all, but IMO,. they should be focusing on reducing emissions by at least 10% every single year to really stay ahead of the rate at which more cars are being added to roads... by the same time, at that rate, emissions would have been cut by about 80% off of what they are today.
That would make a difference. Reducing by 40% over 16 years is just political posturing, not any serious attempt at wanting to make the future any better than the present.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
UE already emits per person half of what US or Russia emits.
Cutting it down by another 40% is suicidal for the EU economy but:
* Brits make money on emission trade
* French make money on nuclear plants
* Germans are eco-obsessed
* Dutch are living below risin sea level
* Chinese and Russian lobbists are all for the cuts in the EU
Nice try, but feeding people (or even draft animals) calories to perform manual labor produces more GHG than using more efficient methods like coal power plants. :)
Not that there's anything wrong with more GHG production, but broken window fallacy and all that as well...
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
How far do we have to get into the 21st century before you people stop putting "the year" in front of a year? What else could "by 2030" be referring to? It was arguably ok to write that in the first couple of years of the century, when people were still not used to years starting with "20", rather than "19", but it's not ok any more - it's redundant, clunky, and stupid.
Germany, Ireland, and the Czech Republic have entered into a mult-lateral agreement to fight the Leprechaun scourge and reduce the number of children replaced by fairy changelings by 2025.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
We broke th efuckin planet! We broke teh fuckin planet! :: Runs around flapping my arms like a faggot ::
Save us, Algore! Save us!
The good news is the European nations just signed an economic suicide pact.
The bad news is there's no way they'll actually keep to it.
The so-called scientists
Please post a list of your published papers that relate to climatology.
The "scientists" pushing climate change hysteria don't act like scientists, whatever their supposed authority on the matter. True science is completely transparent. True scientists welcome skeptics and directly address criticisms of their theories. The Michael Manns and Jim Hansens, etc. are neither transparent with regard to their work nor do they welcome skeptics and their critiques. Instead, the climate crisis ringleaders declare the science to be settled and smear and denounce their critics rather than directly responding to their concerns.
Here is environmentalist George Monboit embracing the deployment of nuclear power: http://www.monbiot.com/2013/12...
Here is climate scientist James Hanson calling for the development and deployment of nuclear energy: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....
Haselton. He is also a frequent contributor.
For one the "Keeling Curve" and the equipment he sold to NOAA: Highly flawed and worthless.
Kyoto Protocol: just a door stop in Al Gore's office in San Jose, and has nothing to do with CFCs and the Antarctic Ozone hole.
Global Mean Sea Level Rise: not so rising lately and locally very variable to boot.
Land-surface Temperatures: well now, they were rising much faster than the global average but have recently started a decline, Uh Oh!
Ha ha fuckers!
Not that there's anything wrong with more GHG production!? Erm except for the whole climate change thing, sure!
to destroy industry and trade. That's all it does.
For the US and China to actually do anything, the Pain of not doing anything (severe weather, increased food prices due to lost crops, extreme fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, smog, premature deaths, rising sea levels and the extremes needed to prevent very expensive waterfront property from being washed away, seawalls needed, floodways, emergency services and greatly increased insurance rates), must meet or exceed the cost of doing something. There are oil lobbies keeping 'green tech' off the table, and keeping 'tasty oil' on the table, there are utilities that are making it more expensive or prohibitively expensive for people in the south to buy and use solar panels, and profiteers are buying land 2 meters higher on the oceans, ready to sell to the next highest bidder. That's what will change their minds. China will put up with crazy amounts of smog and significantly reduced life expectancies and still won't kick the coal habit.
Of course artificially inflating the costs of energy makes companies and employees more efficient. That is because they have to compete with outside sources who are not burdened with the artificial costs or risk going under.
If everyone in the word was subject to the exact same costs increases, it would only become inflation and the world would move on just the same. Instead when only part of the world has to deal with increased costs, they have options to consider, either becoming more efficient, paying less for labor, materials, or whatever else is a cost, or escaping the costs increases altogether by moving to an area without the increased costs (offshoring). Presumably, the last option is a last resort because leadership of these companies will not want to move.
Is it any wonder that EU countries have more than tripled their imports from China within the last 10 years? In the last 20 years, trade with China and the EU countries went from almost nothing to over 428 billion a year in 2013. Of that 428 billion, only 148 billion is exported from EU countries while 279 billion was imported into them.
But keep on increasing costs, China and India and all the other countries like the concept.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/docl...
Sure some Chinese imports are cheaper due to their lacking environmental concerns but the vast majority had to do with people there working for peanuts, a situation that's rapidly changing.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Usually when one side says something is too aggressive, and the other side says it's not aggressive enough, it's probably right where it needs to be.
when do you stop writing the decade down? I started by writing '4 this year, next year '5.
Carbon footprint = oxymoron
Global warming = piece or crap
CO2 - is good for your plants
Go read official intergovernmental commission report on this crap - there is no observation of any change in weather patterns that could indicate change in climate
I do have my Univercity degree in meteorology.
No kids, go to your other tv inspired memes, like pals and gringos
Do they count hydro power as renewable? In the USA some states do and some do not. I think it is. If they do count it then count on the Balkans with their massive untapped and undeveloped hydro to get the lions share of development.
When did the name change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Seriously. I guess the name changed when it became apparent that the so called "pause" was really a peak. Kind of a scummy scam name change because the climate is always changing from ice age to inter glacial and we are overdue for out next bout in the freezer.
So hey lets blame "climate change" on CO2 because nobody would ever take us seriously if we started blaming "global cooling" on CO2 after decades of telling everyone that it caused the late 20th century warming. Nice and ambiguous, underhanded, low life type manoeuvre and typical of the political non-scientific basis for advancing their political agenda.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Read it and weep all you warmistas! You've been had, played like a fiddle and about to be discarded and all your hard sincere work thrown aside by the scum who conned you. Why do you continue to support this totally failed idea that CO2 controls the climate? You've been had. Get over it, get mad and get even with those who took you in.
Bony prince chuck and his noble steed should stay in Transylvania and quit burning jet fuel. Sell the castles and other real estate and repay the USA for lend lease in WWII. They'd be eating kraft and sausage if not for USA. And for the rest of the countries....time to pony up the cash. You've had 50+ years of peace and prosperity on our dime. Pay up!!
"Global warming" = the warming of the globe
"Climate change" = the changes to the climate the warming causes
The pause doesn't exist, either. You stating that it does (and expecting to be taken seriously) shows you are woefully ignorant of the science, and desperate to not learn. Did you know you can ignore all the models and anthropogenic warming is still very much evident?
You're the one who's been had. You are arguing against trying to protect the world that you are leaving to future generations, and paying more for in the process.
When will you get over it, get mad, and get even with those who took you in? Oh, you won't, as you're too lazy to even bother to learn. What a surprise.
They changed the name from "Global warming" to "Climate change" for PR reasons, the underlying principles are still the same.
Global warming means the average temperature of the globe raises by a small amount. And people would assume that the only thing that would change is that temperatures will raise by a few degrees. Except that it may not match local observations (hey, this winter is colder than the previous one) and even if it was, it would be mostly viewed as something desirable (who likes freezing cold winters ?).
In reality, global warming would result in more extreme weather, sea level rise, a redistribution of local cold and hot areas rather than a steady raise in temperatures everywhere. Hence "climate change".