Slashdot Mirror
UK Steps Towards Zero-Carbon Economy (bbc.com)
The UK is taking a tentative step towards a radical "green" future with zero emissions of greenhouse gases. From a report: The government is formally seeking Climate Change Committee (CCC) guidance about how and when to make this leap. If it happens it would mark an extraordinary transformation of an economy built on burning fossil fuels. The decision was prompted by last week's UN report warning that CO2 emissions must be stopped completely to avoid dangerous climate disruption.
Climate minister Claire Perry told BBC News: "The report was a really stark and sober piece of work -- a good piece of work. "Now we know what the goal is and we know what some of the levers are. But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that, both in the UK and in the global economy. The question is: what does government need to do, where can the private sector come in, and what technologies will come through?"
Ms Perry has declared this week to be Green GB Week, which aims to raise debate in society about how to tackle climate change while also growing the economy. The UK's current target is a reduction of 80% of emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels. But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced.
Climate minister Claire Perry told BBC News: "The report was a really stark and sober piece of work -- a good piece of work. "Now we know what the goal is and we know what some of the levers are. But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that, both in the UK and in the global economy. The question is: what does government need to do, where can the private sector come in, and what technologies will come through?"
Ms Perry has declared this week to be Green GB Week, which aims to raise debate in society about how to tackle climate change while also growing the economy. The UK's current target is a reduction of 80% of emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels. But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced.
It's not a step anyway, this is what the UK does went they don't want to do anything, they deflect criticism and say we're studying it, we're commissioning a report, which is nice for their think-tank friends who they pay millions for some report to get mostly written by some intern, whilst their school friend chum pockets some nice wedge, nudge nudge wink wink.
"But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced." AKA they're not actually doing anything meaningful.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
At least the UK is studying it, not claiming that global warming is a Chinese conspiracy.
But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that
Wrong question. The correct question is how much will it cost if you don't do anything. These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
No sig today...
Both.
That's a non-answer as it tells me nothing on how to act. If this means we can't have nuclear power then you are by default kicking the problem down the path hoping for a solution to present itself before the problems of global warming are upon us. We can continue down this path, keep looking for a non-nuclear solution, but that is waiting for a ship that may never come to port.
But nuclear power is still plenty dangerous. The first problem is that it can provide the material to make nuclear weapons. Won't do us much good to avert Global Warming if some rogue nation starts World War III with nukes.
The material to make nuclear weapons is in the dirt and dissolved in seawater. Where do you think that the U-235 for the first nuclear weapons came from? They didn't need a reactor to make it, they just "distilled" it from the dirt. This was done with 1940s technology, repeating this with modern materials and equipment is becoming nearly trivial any more. The limitation is primarily the energy needed to enrich the U-235.
The second, more insidious problem is that human corruption and incompetence is scarily likely to lead to another major accident such as Fukushima.
This again? All a bunch of bullshit based on 50 year old nuclear technology. Nobody builds reactors like those any more.
We know how to operate nuclear power with reasonable safety, but can we do so, for all nuclear power plants, for decades?
Yes, we do in fact know how to operate nuclear power plants safely for decades. There are over 400 operating commercial nuclear power reactors on this planet. There's at least 100 military nuclear power plants in ships at sea as well. We know how to make this work. Bringing this up as scaremongering for not implementing what is demonstrably the safest energy source we have today is unbelievable.
You want me to fear nuclear power more than global warming? Really? Then tell me that global warming isn't the threat it's been made out to be, because I'm really thinking that we are running out of options right now and nuclear power it looking really nice by comparison.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Banqiao Dam death toll: 230,000 estimated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties
Fukushima Daiichi death toll: 50 estimated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties
Clearly we can never build another hydroelectric dam with deaths per accident like this.
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
They have pretty scenery. And a neat government insurance plan that means the taxpayers buy the people brand new houses every time theirs is wrecked.
Take away that insurance and they'll soon move out.
No sig today...
Chernobyl killing a million people is a totally unsupported claim. No one anywhere claims that. The WHO estimates a total of 4000 extra cancers using a method that provably over estimates the impact.
Also I'm not an american, and germany has the grand total of 6 coal mines. A quick search also turned up 57 miners dying in a german coal mine in '88. So it depends how old you are....
Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions. It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC