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.
That show is awesome and this post reminded me of that show in a tangential way.
Thanks for our daily dose of global warming propaganda! I thought this site was about technology..
Pay for it? - It's saving them money.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Liberals are known for making long pointless talks about global warming and produce a huge amount of C02 in the process. A quick back of the napkin calculation shows that by removing the liberals and liberal politicians from Scotland and transplanting them to Mexico we could eliminate 55% of Scotlands current carbon emissions. The remaining 11% could easily be combated through more efficient transportation and energy production that will naturally flourish when the bottum feeders are no longer clogging up the Scottish Economy.
As an additional benefit the deportees will be forced to become productive members of the global economy and get real jobs. The new transplants will find that they have to stop worrying about ( gender inequality | global warming | European Privilege, etc ) and get a real job like plumbing or masonry.
Of coarse you will have a hard time getting Mexico to accept these people because they have tough immigration policies and do not like to support useless bottom feeders
Scotland's emissions dropped a massive amount a few decades ago back when Thatcher used the one-off North Sea oil windfall to finance a transition from a UK wide manufacturing economy to a Southern England financial services economy.
Scotland and the UK in general had not recovered yet.
So there are not a lot of emissions to cut which doesn't make it a very difficult job.
Meanwhile the Govt is in serious debt, the Education system is failing, North Sea Oil is on it's arse and the First Minister is blindly hanging to the concept of Independence #2 [whilst being tied to the EU] despite the EU saying "Non", the UK Government telling them there is snowball-in-hells chance of a 2nd Referendum and Brexit hammering in the final nails.
Never mind all that - Climate Change Virtue signalling is what we need ! Is BeauHD a shrill for the SNP ?
How is the 80% of domestic heat from "low carbon heat technologies ?" Most people I know have Gas Central heating not electric. If it's not that is fuel oil. Since when was North Sea Gas low carbon? Or are the Government going to pay to rip out all the Gas Boilers ? [British Gas might have an issue with that].
As for a "healthier Scotland" - Add a tax of 1000% to Buckfast, Greggs Pie's, Chicken Nuggets and Lamber and Butler fags and you might have a fighting chance at it.
That's a false dychotomy... to fix [something I don't want fixed] we would have to [do something ridiculous exteme]. Why? why not make small corrections for long term benefits?
I don't see why being carbon neutral means we have to re-introduce the black plague. Let alone whip ourselves on the back!
I do see that you're simply equating progress with oil consumption.
Emission cuts are the XXIst century equivalent of self-flagellation in the Middle-Ages to cure the Black Plague. Pointless.
Cheaper, cleaner, renewable energy that we can get locally is self-flagellation? Please, do go on. Explain that to me.
I hope they are from Russia. I heard they are the best.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
A good start to reducing gas emissions by 66% would be for the SNP to stop talking.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
The obvious solution would be to build a dyke across the Pentland Firth coupled with a bit more pumped storage for which there is ample resources for and Scotland could easily get 100% of it's electricity from renewable's. There is more tidal options in the Solway Firth but that would need to be shared with England I guess.
Full electrification of the railways in Scotland would help too; at least it's an easy win.
Scotland has for decades got well over 20% of it's electricity from renewables. There is a potential to take that well over 100% and sell it south of the border. In fact the UK as a whole has tremendous potential for tidal, with the Severn, Mersey and Conway offering really significant generation opportunities, it would be piss easy to push the UK as a whole well over 50% from tidal alone.
Renewable energy isn't cheaper (all the countries which use it have the highest priced energy in the world and prices rose substantially after the buildup), sometimes isn't cleaner either (e.g. biomass burning is considered as a renewable energy source and consists of burning forest residues).
near the Arctic Circle can significantly reduce its Carbon output then there is no reason why the rest of us can't.