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.

Comments

Theory vs reality?

[argStyopa]

"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?

Re:Theory vs reality?

[Applehu Akbar]

Yes, and it's also the same Germany whose own Greens are causing it to increase its emissions of greenhouse gas:
  http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/...
(In German, but the bar chart lists both CO2 and other greenhouse gases)

Re:Theory vs reality?

[inhuman_4]

Not the people, but business.

Doing things the green way is usually more expensive. Most companies would be happy to dump toxic shit in to rivers, and pollute the air if governments would let them. So if Europe says you have to do X to keep the environment clean, and X costs Y, some companies will pay Y amount and others will move so that they don't have to do X.

Nike could pay people a decent wage in the US to make their shoes. But sweat shops in the developing world are much cheaper. This is the same issue, but with the environment instead of wages.

Re:Theory vs reality?

[haruchai]

Europe's population has grown since 1990 but not as much.
No, it's not a given that emissions would have increased because there was little effort made to rein them in. The advanced Western nations enjoy a similar standard of living as North America but use far less energy to do so. And all those countries are democracies.

You may have missed the memo but China ate your lunch money anyway, to the tune of a couple TRILLION, mostly because you were sold on the idea of cheap shit and outsourced manufacturing - and US emissions increased, even per capita.
If it wasn't the for overall efficiency and large population of California & New York holding down the per-capita numbers, America would the worst of the Western nations for CO2 emissions by any measure.

And stop bitching about China & India having no restrictions - they were using only a fraction of the energy and resources despite their huge populations.
But if America had the balls to dive wholeheartedly into finding solutions, then they could sell them to the developing nations.

Re:Theory vs reality?

[Nemyst]

America's response to that is: can I make money off it next quarter? No? Not interested.

not a problem

[supernova87a]

WIth the way that European country economies are shrinking, we'll get to 40% carbon reduction with no trouble at all.

Re:not a problem

[Teun]

Strange statement, if it were true then how come countries like Denmark and Germany that spend a lot of money and resources on renewable energy are doing better than many other EU countries?

PS, they don't shrink.

Should be easier now.

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:...and everybody gets to be right

[ganjadude]

while many environmental groups said the goals weren't ambitious enough.

They could say they want to cut the number 100% by 2030, and there would be people out there saying its not fast enough. It seems for some reason everytime something like this comes up, the only people you hear are those who say we shouldnt do anything, and those who say we are already doomed and should live in mud huts. Why cant we come up with a rational response? something where we use what we have now, and work towards a better tomorrow together?

instead of saying "global warming is a hoax!" why not say "well, its always better to have a clean environment, so lets work towards the goals"

and instead of saying "we need to stop using oil now! we need to stop using X Y Z NOW!!!" , how about we say "well, i know we cant stop society by eliminating everything that is "bad for the environment" so lets work at it one step at a time"

in the end, we go broke, shady business people get rich, and nothing changes. its disgusting

Re:Cruel way

[haruchai]

There's no need to wait for the perfect solution and there are plenty of avenues to follow and that are being followed.
2030 is 15 years away and there are other very significants sources of CO2 apart from energy use. Given how long the warnings about global warming have been around, this should have been a problem that's nearly solved, not in desperate need of a magic solution within a decade.

Re:more

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

It's roman_mir. He always goes full retard.

Re:Cruel way

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a conspiracy of dunces & a pack of lies, why does Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon believe that the world is warming due to fossil fuel use?

Well-connected corporations frequently espouse whatever the political class wants them to say. That keeps government regulators from targeting them and makes it more likely that the corporation will be the recipient of special favors from the government. Example from outside the world of climate change: The Dallas Cowboys signed Michael Sam to their practice squad because American politicians are pushing the gay agenda and want to help gay activists queerify professional sports. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones "took one for the team" so-to-speak so that the NFL could keep all its tax perks. After the requisite waiting period and after mumbling in an irritated way about all the attention being given by the media to a player who was only on the practice squad, Jones got rid of Sam. Corporations and their executives read the political fashions and try them on on occasion, but that doesn't mean they sincerely believe whatever nonsense is being peddled. Another example if you need one: Health insurance companies backed Obamacare even though Obamacare is designed to destroy the private health insurance industry. A third example: Healthy U.S. Banks accepted TARF bailout funds even though they didn't want to because the Obama Administration threatened to eff them up if they didn't.