Slashdot Mirror
Scottish Government Targets 66% Emissions Cut By 2032 (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BBC: The Scottish government has outlined a new target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 66% by 2032. Climate Change Secretary Roseanna Cunningham set out the government's draft climate change plan for the next 15 years at Holyrood. She also targeted a fully-decarbonized electricity sector and 80% of domestic heat coming from low-carbon sources. Ministers committed last year to cut harmful CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, with a new interim target of 50% by 2020. The previous interim target of 42% was met in 2014 -- six years early. However, the independent Committee on Climate Change said the decrease was largely down to a warmer than average winter reducing the demand for heating. Ms Cunningham said the new targets demonstrated "a new level of ambition" to build a low-carbon economy and a healthier Scotland. Goals to be achieved by 2032 include: Cutting greenhouse emissions by 66%; A fully-decarbonized electricity sector; 80% of domestic heat to come from low-carbon heat technologies; Proportion of ultra-low emission new cars and vans registered in Scotland annually to hit 40%; 250,000 hectares of degraded peatlands restored; Annual woodland creation target increased to at least 15,000 hectares per year. The 172-page document sets a road map for decarbonizing Scotland. The aim -- although not new -- is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds by 2032. Among the policies are making half of Scotland's buses low-carbon, full-decarbonizing the electricity sector and making 80% of homes heated by low-carbon technologies.
I am afraid you are more then a little wrong. For example, in British Columbia around half the lodgepole pine have been consumed by beetles. Why? Because it has not gone below 40 degC in the interior for the decade or two. Takes going below 40 degC for a week to kill the buggers. This has decimated the forest industry and put many people out of work. And this is just one example - wait until the glaciers are gone and Calgary is out of water.
Climate change actually hits northern countries the hardest. While the US might experience an average increase of 1 degC, Canada will experience an average increase of 3. And while an increase in temperature can be pleasant, if the local infrastructure and environment were not designed (or evolved) to handle it then it brings disaster. Some reservoirs go dry while other areas flood. And half the problems will be such that we can not predict them coming - like the pine beetle example.
The existence of technology requires science, unless you're talking about the simple tool use we share with other animals, and - brace yourself for this - climate change is and area of science, it really is. Climate scientists, unlike climate change deniers - follow the facts, even when they don't please them by confirming their hopes. Climate change deniers, on the other hand, reject all data that they don't like, no matter how strong, while accepting even the most tenuous hint that offers them comfort. Who is most likely to get to the truth?