Slashdot Mirror


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.

14 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. Right by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. Noocular by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  3. Not that ambitious by Roodvlees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When it's so far in the future.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  4. The announcement was "warmly" welcomed by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. I fully support this by little1973 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I swear that, by 2100, I will not use any fossil fuels.

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
  6. A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by SlovakWakko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)...

  7. Completely irrelevant by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Feel good "commit nothing" by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Feel good "commit nothing" by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  9. No, not really by Kartu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nuclear power in Germany
    In 2001 a law was passed requiring the closing of all nuclear power plants within a period of 32 years. The shutdown time was extended to 2040 by a new government in 2010. After the Fukushima incident, the law was abrogated and the end of nuclear energy was set to 2022

    Renewable energy in Germany
    Net-generation from renewable energy sources in the German electricity sector has increased from 6.3% in 2000 to about 30% in 2014

    Renewable sources:
    40% - wind
    30% - biomass
    16% - solar
    14% - hydropower

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

    There are countries which are way ahead of Germany in this regard, for instance, Sweden.

    1. Re: No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ?

    2. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  10. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. partially Incorrect by aepervius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Renewable production reached 30% roughly, but 1) that is gross production not usage AFAIK, and 2) this is only electricity production. Does not count heating (40% energy usage). It is inreality more like11% , a feat, but shows that fully removing CO2 geenrating method a far flung goal:

     

    As of the end of 2014, renewable energy sources, such as biomass, biogas, biofuels, hydro, wind and solar, accounted for11.1% of the country's primary energy consumption, a more than doubling compared to 2004, when renewables only contributed 4.5%. Renewable contribute most to the electricity sector with 27.8% (gross-generation), followed by the heat and transportation sector with 9.9% and 5.4%, respectively.

     
    You should not use energy==electricity as it is misleading. Always precise what you are speaking of. In the case of the 27% it is gross electricity generation.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org