G7 Vows To Phase Out Fossil Fuels By 2100

Taco Cowboy writes: The G7 group of countries has issued a pledge that they will phase out fossil fuels by the end of this century. The announcement was warmly welcomed by environmental groups. "Angela Merkel took the G7 by the scruff of the neck," said Ruth Davis a political advisor to Greenpeace and a senior associate at E3G. "Politically, the most important shift is that chancellor Merkel is back on climate change. This was not an easy negotiation. She did not have to put climate change on the agenda here. But she did," Davis said. The G7 plege includes a goal proposed by the EU to cut emissions 60% on 2010 levels by 2050, with full decarbonisation by 2100.

Comments

It will be too late. It probably already is

[TobiX]

If wee keep burning shit at the current rate for another 10 or 20 years, we are game, say the most recent researches.

But hey, none of those politicians will be in office by then, not even halfway or a quarter of the way by then, so who cares!

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[TheRaven64]

Keep burning them at current rates, and by 2100 we'll have run out. The headline really should have been 'Politicians promise their countries will do something that they'd have to do anyway, long after they'll have retired'

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Geoffrey.landis]

carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants.

And water is the most important liquid on the planet, without it there would be no plants or animals. But that doesn't mean too much won't drown you.

Quoting Paracelsus, "dosis facit venenum" ("The dose makes the poison.")

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[JackieBrown]

Yeah - We can't even get them to follow through on two year plans. The idea of following through on an 80+ year plan is laughable.

Almost as laughable as those applauding this as real change.

Right

[fustakrakich]

Let's see if anyone remembers what the G7 was by then.

Noocular

[Noughmad]

Does this mean Germany will start building nukes instead of coal plants again?

Re:Noocular

[monkeyxpress]

No, they will just get France to build them instead.

While I'm sure France has a very competent nuclear industry, you would have thought that if you were concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors, throwing the problem over the fence and having the neighbour run them is not the most logical solution.

By then...

[toonces33]

There won't be much left to burn anyways..

Not that ambitious

[Roodvlees]

When it's so far in the future.

The announcement was "warmly" welcomed

[Spy Handler]

I see what you did there, Taco.

Anyways I seriously doubt we'll be burning fossil fuels as our primary energy source in 2100. This is probably like politicians in 1880 signing a pledge to limit horse emissions before our cities drown in horse poop (a real concern at the time). Nice gesture but rendered moot by later technological advances.

A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[SlovakWakko]

A bunch of politicians who won't be around in 10 years agree to do something in 85 years? Wow, that's a real commitment to our future :) Especially since there won't be anything left to burn by then, and nobody to burn it (unless the cockroaches get on top of things really fast)...

Completely irrelevant

[thisisauniqueid]

First law of politics: any resolution adopted by a political figure that requires action beyond the end of the next election cycle can be safely ignored, and will soon be completely forgotten.

Second law of politics: most resolutions that claim future action within the current election cycle can also be safely ignored.

Feel good "commit nothing"

[aepervius]

Pretty much any commitment for 2030-2100 is so far in the future that it is utterly worthless. In a decades from now political party will have changed, government will have changed, and commitment can be reneged. By 2100 in all practically all politician of today will be long dead. They can commit whatever they want, they will not have to carry any consequence. A small commitment for 2020 or 2025 is much MUCH better than a big commitment for the far flung future. Why ? Because you can step by step reach the target and you can harmonize those little steps by lowering disrupting economy for all. By committing a far future date you have only enforcement legally once 2100 is reached, and you make sure it is a race to the bottom : the one committing more will make its economy far worst comparing to those who commit less, and thus those who do nothing will be better off.

Re:Feel good "commit nothing"

[monkeyxpress]

Absolutely agree. When I started my career in engineer I quickly discovered the folly of the manager who keeps shooting for the stars. Basically everyone who knows that the target is completely unrealistic just gives up and starts planning for how to deal with the failure rather than move the project forward. The key is to have bite sized goals that people can achieve if pushed, then leaning on them to get there.

If climate prediction are right, then we are pretty screwed anyway. I think it is time we just figured out some goals that could actually be met (such as nations agreeing to bring as much renewables online as the existing grids can manage) and chug away at those. If we start meeting a few of them, we might actually be able to get a bit of enthusiasm about doing some bigger stuff.

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

$0.3625/ KWH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Sounds like a god damn brilliant plan to me. Triple the cost of electricity and then no one will want to buy an Electric Vehicle or use it for anything else.

Re:Here's what Germany should really do

[mujadaddy]

start paying for your oil in Euro

Speaking of things that won't be around in 2100...

Re:Replace with what?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I don't usually reply to ACs but this level of stupid needs a rap on the knuckles. You do realise that covering a single digit portion of the uninhabited sections of the Sahara desert with inefficient old PV cells could supply enough power to satisfy the needs of the European Union right? We haven't even BEGUN to tap into the potential of renewables.

And before you start paddling your keyboard about how the sun goes down at night, rap yourself on the knuckles and think.

Re: No, not really

[Crashmarik]

Jesus Christ man why do you tolerate it ?

You have a labor force participation rate in the 50% range (guessing you are English). You are being robbed left and right by people that tell you they know what's good for you, why aren't you doing something about it instead of wishing bad fortune on others ?

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

You know what the greatest collective good I know is ?

It's having an economy with enough demand for labor that people can get jobs and earn their own way without relying on forced charity from their neighbors.