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...
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...
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.
Welfare has a very different meaning outside the US. It does not bear a negative connotation unlike there.
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.'"
Except that actually observed birth rates in developed nations do not support this
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
What are they going to do about imports from industries that still produce CO2 ?
Wild guesses may come true or not. I talked about actually observed data
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Totally false. Only a small fraction of the population is wealthy on this planet, the rest is struggling everyday to eat, get some clothes and sleep under a roof. Once this will be done for everyone, you will have a lot of people struggling to get something else and improve their own conditions. That's why we are competing. Another side effect of removing competition by making everyone wealthy is you will then need to control tightly the population to not exhaust resources. At this point, you will be the exact opposite of an utopian State. Competition is what introduce a balance. Right, I agree it is not fair for everyone, but there isn't any fair for everyone solution anyway.
Achille Talon
Hop!
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.
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.'"
Were they crawling under barbed wire to escape from a welfare state or a totalitarian police state?
Idiot
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
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.
I was a heron addict once, but I turned my life around when I managed to switch to pelicans.
Nope they were a socialist state and a dictatorship. West Germany and Sweden ate welfare states. For example, they both provide healthcare for everyone and money for unemployed people or the poor in general.
If you have to import your coal and oil it only makes sense to go to completely fossil free solutions.
You are so out of touch with reality. Europe's massive deforestation and desertification over the last few centuries means that it is strongly dependent on the Americas for carbon capture. And European air quality sucks https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea... As you can see from that map, that pollution is home-made; it doesn't come from the US, China, or Russia.
So, go ahead and build that wall, then suffocate in your own pollution and filth.
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.
All this just indicates that nomenclatures don't necessarily travel very well.
Especially if you get them wrong. The Germans never called themselves FROG. They called themselves BRD (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). It was the english that called them FRG (not FROG) and colloquially they were called West Germany to prevent just the confusion that you just artificially created.
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.
A lot of time, money, and effort is spent to that end, so it's not all that surprising. Propaganda works, especially on people who haven't had any training in recognizing it. I had a teacher in Jr. High who taught us about the primary techniques of propaganda and while I forget the names of most of them today :) they're usually pretty easy to spot if you are looking for them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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 Swedish think about that differently and it is very ignorant of you. Just because in your opinion anarchy is preferable and the state is not the facility to support the people by the people, you should not dismiss their choice.
I tried, believe me. I knew it was a futile endeavor because of the state I live in. I had never voted before, but recognized this as being not the usual election. I offered people rides to get to their polling stations. I talked to people about the deception going on. The conclusion I got at the end of this was utter despair. People are stupid. Our news comes from Facebook, our diplomacy is conducted in
Though some of the challenges in our era are unique, I see a lot of parallels between what's going on today and the unrest in the 60s. The forces at work are the same. A lot of the particular issues that have arisen are very similar. In the years following the 60s, we elected Reagan and Nixon, corporate greed continued to run unchecked, incomes fell, etc. But a lot of the bottom-up changes from that era - the idea the racism is bad, marijuana isn't so bad - did take hold. It's taken half a century and counting for marijuana reform to come to fruition. Our current political events notwithstanding, I'd argue that racism is generally viewed as a bad thing. So I don't see that the counterculture of the 60s totally failed. The stuff that comes from the ground up - from common sense, once people have been made aware of the issues - succeeded eventually. The top-down reforms failed.
The battle against Trumpism (for lack of a better word... I mean, I have paragraphs of better words, but this one is so concise...) is something that can be won, then. But this is a long-term game. The goal, after all, is the advancement of the human species and human society. That happens on the scale of generations, not election cycles. It's a sad fact that most people are inflexible, sheltered, narrow-minded, ignorant. The only way to fight these evils is by giving the next generation a better option. The best way to fight bad ideas is with good ideas. Eventually, good ideas will succeed - or we will meet a doom of our own making.
What heights can our species achieve? There is great potential there, but I don't think it can be realized without our collective efforts focused toward it. That means not just educating people on what's going on, but getting them to take action. We, at least for now, have a system where action is as easy as taking a couple hours every couple years to go vote. They probably spend at least that much time keeping up with the Kardashians already, so I think it's doable. Effective change can still be accomplished without taking up arms. Not that it will be easy - it will be a grueling, ground-up process that takes decades. The alternative is giving up, which scares me a lot more.
Are they? I was under the impression that China has recently (within the past year) denied permits for new coal plants and was getting on track otherwise to reduce coal-related pollution. Obviously it takes longer than that to ensure they are serious about it, but I don't see why they wouldn't be. Look at the pictures from Beijing - even the dumbest Chinese citizen can look out his window and tell it's gotten out of control. Additionally, the Paris agreement is starting to come into force just now. I say give China and others at least another 5 - 10 years to reduce emissions. By that time you will have a better idea of how serious they are about it. Not that the UK reducing emissions would "do zero" - it would actually do exactly what they need and can do - but I won't get into that now.
They do!
Have seen who works is healthcare these days? Ever been to an old people's home?
Immigrants do the jobs we don't want to. They pay more tax they take from society.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s...
We need them. Like it or not!