Slashdot Mirror


Sweden Pledges To Cut All Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2045 (independent.co.uk)

Sweden has announced ambitious plans to completely phase out greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. The nation also reaffirmed the urgency of tackling climate change and called for all countries to "step up and fulfill the Paris Agreement." The Independent reports: "Our target is to be an entirely fossil-fuel-free welfare state," said Climate Minister Isabella Lovin. "We see that the advantages of a climate-smart society are so huge, both when it comes to health, job creation and also security. Being dependent on fossil fuels and gas from Russia is not what we need now,â she added. All parties but the far-right Sweden Democrats party agreed to pass the law in the coming month, which will oblige the government to set tougher goals to cut fossil fuel emissions every four years until the 2045 cut-off date. Plans also include a 70 per cent cut to emissions in the domestic transport sector by 2030. The Government said the target would require domestic emissions to be cut by at least 85 per cent and the remaining emissions would be offset by planting trees or by sustainable investments abroad. The law is expected to enter into force as early as 2018.

10 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We've gone past a point of no return. On top of that, an almost 30 year plan? When governments make 5-year plans they generally fall apart...

    1. Re:Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? by Wycliffe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are no "additional costs of dealing with climate change" over and above any costs you incur dealing with a climate that varies naturally. That is to say, if you're going to build on the coast you build sea defences (because sea level rise has been constant for hundreds of years and storms occur, naturally) and if you're going to build near or on river flood plains you build flood defences because floods occur, naturally. This is just common sense. Their frequency isn't increasing in any case but how often they happen doesn't make any difference to whether you should defend against them.

      Severity definitely adds to the cost. If you design a levy for 12 foot of water and there is 24 foot of water then your levy can't contain it. Even frequency can add to the cost. If your basement floods once every 10 years then you can replace the carpet and move on. If your basement floods every week then this no longer is an option. So yes there are incremental costs to dealing with more severe weather events. Yes, you could build a house that is practically invincible to all known weather events that can ever possibly happen in the next 1000 years but the cost would be astronomical so instead we build houses for expected severity of weather events and also optimize for comfort and cost knowing that if there is an unusually bad weather event then we might occasionally take a little damage. If that unusually bad weather becomes a yearly occurrence though then we have to spend extra money to protect against it.

    2. Re:Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because sea level rise has been constant for hundreds of years and storms occur, naturally

      Sea level rise has sharply accelerated in past 100 years compared to the centuries before that. This means that sea defences have be build higher on an accelerated pace too. And even if the height of your defences keeps up with the rising waters, the cost of an occasional breach will rise quicker. http://www.realclimate.org/ima...

  2. Re:They want to be a welfare state? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good. Why do we need to compete against each other when we have the technology to almost live in a utopia? Are you a misanthrope?

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  3. Re:They want to be a welfare state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welfare has a very different meaning outside the US. It does not bear a negative connotation unlike there.

  4. Re:They want to be a welfare state? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, if they try to eliminate all fossil fuels and remain competitive with the rest of the developed world at the same time,

    They aren't. They're going to remain cooperative with the rest of the developed world. You know, exactly unlike England and the USA. Brexit and Trump, two big fat signs saying "we're dumbshits".

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Re:They want to be a welfare state? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The evidence is only able to suggest that a simple majority of us are dumb-shits.

    Some people are dumbshits because they voted for these things, and the rest of us are dumbshits because we couldn't figure out a way to stop them even though we outnumber them.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Re:They want to be a welfare state? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welfare has a very different meaning outside the US. It does not bear a negative connotation unlike there.

    The system does not, the recipients are a very mixed bag. On the one hand, most of us are proud that we have a system that will take care of everyone from cradle to grave with many forms of social security and benefits of various kinds. I don't want to see people living in tent camps or people who can't get treatment because they lack health insurance and that we take care of people that are injured, sick and infirm, mentally challenged and so on. That we have a work life that has regulated vacations, sick days, maternity leave, paternity leave, overtime to allow employees to combine work and family life and to prevent employees from being abused. Long resignation periods, unemployment benefits and re-education programs to allow people caught by shifting needs to find new work without drastic and abrupt changes.

    All of that said, it's a constant balance between the worthy recipients and people who just want to be welfare queens, that don't want to work but play the system to get every benefit they can have and commit fraud to get benefits they don't. And it's tough, because every so often there's people in the media who'd genuinely would like to work and pay taxes and contribute to society but who also genuinely can't who feel they're under constant suspicion and looked down on by other people as lazy bums who simply won't work. And I don't have any good solution for that because we need those control systems, we can't base ourselves on trust alone. There are people who claim unemployment benefits and work off the record. There are people who claim to be a single mum and get extra support while actually living as a couple. There are people who've tricked the doctor to get disability benefit who seem very healthy the rest of the time.

    But that we want the system, no doubt. Even though there's always disagreements about particular forms and implementations of benefits programs, overall we want them.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  7. Re: They want to be a welfare state? by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are already a welfare state where all people have healthcare, good schools (by US standards) for all, kindergarten and of course support for poor people. Do not try to look down at them. It won't work. They are actually more humane than you.

  8. Re: They want to be a welfare state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It amazes me how much hand wringing is done over potential abuse of socialized basic needs, while billions are poured into crony pork barrels without batting an eyelash.