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.
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...
I live near the border. I'll got over there in 2045 and fart.
Our target is to be an entirely fossil-fuel-free welfare state
Well, if they try to eliminate all fossil fuels and remain competitive with the rest of the developed world at the same time, a welfare state is exactly what they will become.
So is there a plan, a roadmap, or is this just a pledge? My own country has similar (but way less ambitious) targets, but very little in the way of actual plans or even policies to make it happen. "Over the next x years we will invest €y in green tech" means bugger all, but if you instead state "We will build an offshore wind farm producing x MW to offset the coal fired plants we're shutting down", then at least there's a concrete and measurable result. And the first steps are the easiest; you'll need a good plan to get that last 20% of emissions. As you go along it'll get more expensive and harder, some stuff (like airplanes) doesn't have many green alternatives, and at some point you'll find that it's hard to get reliable baseload power from renewables if you don't have access to geo or hydro options. All that doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but it takes more than targets and money.
On a side note: that's one angry looking lady...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
And then there's us with our orange shithead at the helm ramping back up on burning coal and oil, for no other reason except greed.
What are they going to do about imports from industries that still produce CO2 ?
If we could just build a huge wall around Europe up into space and avoid having all the US, Chinese, Russian coal and and such emissions out of our nice clean air.
Sigh.
That's cool and all, but they are *not* pledging to end all greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas, and if they have a plan to make everyone in the country stop farting, I'd love to hear it (also, on a more realistic note, livestock too) Same goes for CO2, unless they're pledging to hold their breath until the planet cools down. What they're actually pledging to to stop using fossil fuels for energy, which will necessarily lead to a decrease in net CO2 emissions, but is distinctly separate from ending all greenhouse gas emissions.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
The US will never be a leader in what to do with Climate Change the country keeps changing it's mind every 4 to 8 years. Other Countries need to get together and lead, ignoring the US. Even China and India are getting concerned from what I heard. So Sweden is doing the correct thing.
People in the US have a addiction to large gas guzzling Auto worse that the most hard core heron addict. The newest two excuses I hear is 1) They are higher and I can see better. 2) they are larger thus safer. Ignoring the fact with almost everyone is driving the same type auto those two excuses are irrelevant. Nevermind the strangle hold of the established Corporations.
Pres, Carter brought up Climate Change up as a big issue the late 70's and stated if work not started now. it be more difficult going forward. He even installed Solar Panels on the White House. When Regan came in the first thin he did was rip them down and said Carter was nuts. Since then the US have been going around in circles.
I guess I'm going to have to deal with regular Swedish babes, till the new carbon emission-free model comes out. Life sure is harsh in *this* simulation.
Please report to the local health center Monday.
We will be distributing anal plugs with catalytic converters to eliminate CO2 and CH4 emissions.
Consumption of beans and other legumes is now prohibited.
I was a heron addict once, but I turned my life around when I managed to switch to pelicans.
When Regan came in the first thin he did was rip them down and said Carter was nuts
The panels had to come down for roof renovation, but they didn't go back up because carter peanuts reagan big oil etc.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I was a heron addict once, but I turned my life around when I managed to switch to pelicans.
yes, misspelled heroin, but I cannot mod you up, whoever you are, you had me laughing for a while :)
If you have to import your coal and oil it only makes sense to go to completely fossil free solutions.
The only thing these measures do is create a two-tiered system where the nomenklatura still drive and fly as they please while imposing everything on regular people.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Strange. "I will lead Sweden in terraforming the Earth to make Sweden a slightly more temperate land" doesn't have much purchase there, I guess.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Cars may be all electric by that time, but it's a long way until aircraft don't emit CO2. Is this the end of Volvo and Saab?
Swedes don't like all that warm weather, neither Canadians, nor Russians. ;-)
Why on earth would we WANT America to "lead"? So their horrid patent system could hog all the technologies? So their corporations can make tons of money while the world chokes on pollution? So their bigoted, racist people could shout about how great they are? I think not.
Americans are the least educated and knowledgeable of foreign affairs, languages, and disparate cultures, societies, and social norms amongst all Westernized countries and the least exposed universally. The United States is a violent white supremacist settler empire whose only fate is annihilation.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Swedish politics is all about Russia. I guess it's to cover their own asses from their own treason and the monster we all call the EU.
There's only one reason a nation like Saudi-Arabia is viewed as acceptable and is respected and that's because they sell oil. If it wasn't for that they would be called what they are.
Well, if they try to eliminate all fossil fuels and remain competitive with the rest of the developed world at the same time, a welfare state is exactly what they will become.
Swedish electricity has already been made of close to 100% hydro-power and nuclear power. We've got fewer nuclear plants running now and less need for it, Norway is way ahead of us when it comes to electric cars and there's much pointing into that direction. We could just had replaced a few nuclear reactors with modern technology but I guess wind and solar may be more likely.
Isabella Lövin is (foreign?) aid minister in the government and a minister of the environmentalists pro-mass-invasion welfare lunatics party so her view doesn't necessarily represent all of Sweden but our weak government is an alliance of Social-democrats, no-border-environmentalist-ideologists and with the support and demands from the communists so no emissions, everyone welcome, welfare for everyone is right up their ally. They also claim they are the first feminist government in the world but twice as many women was the victim of sexual abuse last year over the year before and in Sweden you can get away with that by for instance claiming you were asleep when it happened (I don't know how that one work if you do it out in public but maybe it work then too, it's Sweden after-all) or you can just lie about your age or something such (the rapists in Sweden are imported with poor data about whom they actually are so it works fine in most cases, our highest court has decided it's a breach of integrity to force someone to have their biological age checked by medical tests if they don't want to so ..)
Why they does not even look around before proposing such progressive nonsense? Perhaps, because conforming to the image of a progressive eco-hipster is the main agenda of those "lawmakers"? Swedish economy is almost entirely rely on diesel engine trucks and buses. Thousands of small towns and villages are receiving its supplies by trucks. Almost every family own at least one non-electric car. There is no way to survive in Swedish rural areas without a car. There is simple not enough public transportation. So, what does they propose? To force all the people to buy electric cars? Without appropriate infrastructure? To build that infrastructure across whole country first? To force transport companies to switch to non-existent electric trucks and buses? To switch to over-hyped solar in a country which enjoys weeks of cloudy weather in a row and the sun barely seen on the horizon in winter month, with a third of territory in polar region? Dear over-progressive leftist environmentalists - wouldn't it be better to do some reality checks? BTW, who will pay for all required infrastructure?
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.
How about Saab Aircraft?
So, one breath, one seedling?
They're going to prevent water evaporating and animals exhaling?
Why would they do something like that? Both of the things you mention have been going on for billions of years without causing problems. It's sad that we have so many people who are so scientifically illiterate they don't understand why.
It is so obvious that the US is superior in all ways that to keep killing ourselves with pollution and global warming is part and parcel of American genius. It is not remotely possible that any other nation can do anything better than we do. Get a clue folks. We have squirrels in the White House and a super corrupt right wing that is brought and paid for by coal and oil industries. So just give them that idiotic grin when they declare "Well, I'm not a climate scientist.".
There is no substitute on the horizon for kerosene belching jets. Even ferries are currently mostly diesel. So perhaps swedes will use their renewable chargedteslas togoto aver pavilions of the illusion of places beyond their orders,or wait, electric trains long way round to other carbon spewing countries?
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
It should be noted that the USN built a couple of nuclear powered cruisers back in the day. What we call a destroyer today is as big as a cruiser was when those nuke cruisers were afloat.
It should also be noted that the anti-nuke hysteria in the USA and much of the rest of the world has a lot to do with us not building more nuclear powered ships, static nuclear power plants, etc.
It should also be noted that I generally agree that if AGW were a serious problem, part of addressing it quickly would be to standardize a nuclear power plant design, and replace every base-load plant in North America (and, eventually, the world) with a nuke plant. Then solar/wind/tide could handle peak, and we'd be golden within 20 years....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
They also equate fossil fuels with emmisions, conveniently ignoring the massive contribution of animal agriculture. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas.
People who say we'd better stop breathing because of the CO2 we exhale are just demonstrating what dumb shits they are.
Fortunately saloomy didn't say that and was merely highlighting the stupidity of claiming they were going to cut all emissions, and by definition that includes CO2 emitted by breathing.
Maybe by your definition but that's taking it to a silly extreme. What they're talking about is emissions of carbon that have long been sequestered from the short term carbon cycle. If you want to be a lawyer and take it to that extreme that's your prerogative but that's obviously not what they meant.
no long term net effect on the level of CO2
If all humans started wearing masks that captured all the CO2 they breath out then yes, there would be a net effect on the level of CO2.
You don't appear to understand that net CO2 emissions include all sources of CO2, including people breathing.
The plants don't follow people around going, "here, let me have that CO2 you're breathing out", they just draw from whatever is in the atmosphere. If that came from a coal power station the plants don't go, "Sorry, wrong C02"
Sounds like you don't understand the concept of "net" very well. In order to human and other animals to exhale CO2 plants have to extract that CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place. The net effect is zero. Once it's in the atmosphere it doesn't matter where the CO2 came from. It's in the atmosphere. Breathing doesn't change the level in the atmosphere because the CO2 was already in the atmosphere a short time before. Burning fossil fuels takes carbon that has been out of circulation for hundreds of millions of years and puts it back in circulation increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So if people started capturing the CO2 they exhale how much difference would that make? I did a little research and found that a person exhales about 2.3 pounds or 1.04 kilograms of CO2 per day. Multiplying that by 365.25 gives about 380 kilograms per year. Multiplying that by 7 billion people gives about 2.67 gigatonnes of CO2 per year exhaled by humans. Sounds like a lot but total human emissions from fossil fuel burning and other industrial processes were 35.9 gigatonnes in 2014. So capturing human human exhales would make a slight difference but it wouldn't stop the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, just slow it down a bit. It would be much easier just to cut back on fossil fuel combustion emissions by that much.
just demonstrating what dumb shits they are
Irony.
Irony^2
In order to human and other animals to exhale CO2 plants have to extract that CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place.
The biggest fucking irony is that I've been modded down as flamebait and you're getting away with making such fucking ludicrous statements as this.
There are no plants on the moon. Did Buzz Aldrin just stop fucking breathing while he was there?
Oh look, with one simple statement I've demonstrated how utterly full of shit you are and what a waste of my own CO2 emissions it is arguing with you.
Yes, this post can be modded flamebait because I just fucking roasted you. Now fuck off and get an education because right now you and your moderator chums are clearly just full of shit.
Put simply. The environment sustains humans. Green house gas changes the environment. Don't mess with the environment, it keeps us alive. Stop messing with the environment and stop pumping out greenhouse gas because its stupid. Worst case scenario, when the volcanos go off, and they do that, if there is too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere we turn the planet into Venus (the hottest planet in the solar system). There is no one that can say when the volcanos are going to go off, it could be tomorrow. There is no one who can tell you how much greenhouse gas is safe for when the volcanos go off. And if that wasn't enough, how about we just leave it better than we found it because we want a better world for our kids. Don't leave them a bigger problem than we already have. Give up this greedy insane delaying tactic and do the right thing for our children and stop now not in years to come which will leave a terrible problem for our children and could end up making everything on the planet extinct you idiots. Don't gamble with the lives of every living thing for a couple of extra dollars.
Well, I got modded as flamebait too.
But your argument about Buzz Aldrin is silly. They carried along food that had been produced on Earth. That's where the CO2 they exhaled came from. In fact human rated spacecraft have to have special equipment to extract the CO2 they exhale from the atmosphere in the spacecraft to keep it down to a reasonable level. Read the story about Apollo 13 to see how they had to jury rig a system to extract CO2 just to make it back to Earth.