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.
Don't worry. When everyone except the richest elite who are jet setting, telling you that you're ignorant and need to do what they tell you and you're fundamentally broke paying for carbon taxes. It'll all work out right? Just like it is in Canada. The entire mood around "carbon taxes" is getting interesting here and I wouldn't be surprised to see mass protests in the near future. We've already hit the "people making choices between heating their homes when it's -40C, or keeping a roof over their head." And said taxes in many places have only been in place for a couple of years.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
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.
I'm non-plussed to learn that clean energy technology is somehow not technology.
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 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.
Mashiki, when you hear claims like these being made, you really need to stop and ask yourself it it's another Pizzagate. You fell for that one and many other bits of fake news hook, line and sinker, and I'm afraid it's happened again.
Scotland is blessed with some of the best renewable energy sources in the world. For them, exploiting those is much, much cheaper than other forms of energy. Coal is competitive on cost, but obviously since they have social healthcare it quickly loses on externalized costs.
Their plan isn't even particularly radical. They were always aiming for 200% renewable electricity capacity by 2020, but that turned out to be too easy so they set some stretch goals.
Scotland's oil resources are running out, so they need to find a replacement for that source of income. Their wind resources are exceptional and they can supply huge quantities of clean, renewable energy to the rest of the UK and Europe.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Um...the Scottish government has no debt, it wasn't allowed to get any until the last Scotland bill (even then it is very constrained), the only debt it ,arguably, has is the PFI crap that the labour signed up to. The EU has not said no to an independent Scotland joining (even spain has not said that). What happened to the price of oil (now climbing again) can hardly be blamed on the SNP.
Oh as for the healthier scotland crap...why are the unionist parties and friends doing all they can to block minimum pricing of booze?
But facts never get in the way of a good yoon rant.
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?
Just like those same areas were under 2km of ice 7k years ago. The reality is in Alberta, most of their water isn't from glaciers, it's from the winter snow pack, and lakes built from said spring melts. The real problem with the forests in Western Canada(especially BC), isn't the cold. It's that large sections that have been cut are suffering from "yearly monoculture" planting. Which leads to less resistance to the damned bugs in the first place. Round that out with decades of thinking that no-burn policies aren't any good? Well we've got a hell of a problem now don't we. And when the thing goes up, not only does it have decades of crap on the forest floor. It's got trees that will go up like hay.
Om, nomnomnom...