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...
The Tories reversed the law on new homes needing to be zero carbon three years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
The means to get to a zero carbon economy exists today, nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I keep hearing about how if we don't reduce our CO2 immediately then we will create runaway global warming. We have a technology that can provide energy that is zero carbon (or rather closer to zero than wind and solar), plentiful, inexpensive (again compared to wind and solar), reliable, domestically sourced (no matter how you define "domestic"), and exists today.
Why don't we have more nuclear power? Because some nuclear waste is "scary"? You want me to believe that some nuclear waste is a greater threat to humanity than global warming? I'm not convinced. You want me to believe that "any day now" wind and solar will displace coal, oil, and natural gas? Well, we've been trying to do that for decades now and it's not happening very quickly. For an island nation like the UK the ability to meet their energy needs from wind and solar is likely impossible. Maybe they have enough friendly neighbors across the channel to get more wind and sun. What of Japan? They don't have any friendly neighbors, what should they do?
Again, which am I to fear more, nuclear power or global warming? Pick one, because we are running out of time for wind and sun to save us.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The US Navy figured this out. All we have to do is scale it up and deploy it widely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Problem solved!
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Even if you don't believe in climate change wouldn't it be nice to enjoy cleaner air and purer water? It sure would make those hunting and fishing trips much more enjoyable now wouldn't it? No matter which side of the great "climate debate" you fall on, it makes no sense to be against improving the environment we all have to live in.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
at least not in the United States. Here we're afraid of private businesses operating unsafe reactors to save a buck. Worst case with a natural gas plant is a big explosion. With a nuke plant you're talking decades of contamination.
What you need to do to get folks like me to buy into nuclear is convince me it's cheaper to run a safe plant than an unsafe one. And not just because "We'll be sued". Fukushima has more or less proved that there's no real consequences for the folks in charge. They'll be dead before the wheels of justice turn if they ever do. No, we need plants who's day to day operations are cheaper to run safe. Safety is always an option when you need to save money now.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
To be for CO2 control while wanting economic growth is simply not possible.
Don't worry, we have Brexit, so the latter won't be a problem.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes.
Wrong. The limit was chosen based on modelling climate change and estimating its effects with different amounts of warming. We know for a fact thanks to climate related sciences that 1,5 degrees of warming is better for us and the planetary ecosystem as whole than say 2 or more degrees, and we also know that if rapid action is taken, the 1,5 degrees is still attainable.
That's why it was chosen. It represents the best-case scenario with the data we currently have. It's still not great, but it's the least bad alternative going forwards, and that's an estimate based entirely on science(s) and what we know 2+ degrees will do to the planet/us.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Nice idea but let's look at the reality of commercial SMRs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Lots of paper designs ranging from concept to detailed plans, that for some reason were all abandoned. A couple of Russian ones actually entered service, but proved to be extremely expensive.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Does the trillions spent by the USA on "defense" prevent trillions in damage? No, but they still do it.
How about for just one year they use the money to install renewable energy instead? See what happens.
No sig today...
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...
The problem is, the UK (at the moment at least) doesn't seem to want either of those models either. Norway has adopted about 75 % of EU regulations as part of its trade agreements with the EU, maintains an open border and pays about 2/3rds of what the UK does no to the Union.
In essence, Norway (and Switzlerland) are basically pretty much quasi-members of the EU: the pay slightly less than they would were they full members but that comes at the cost of them not having any say in EU policies.
The UK is trying to have their cake and eat it too, by maintaining access to the single market without having to follow any of the rules or paying anything for that benefit. It makes zero sense for the Union to give any kind of special treatment to the UK, because that'd be unfair to both Norway and Switzerland (and others), but the UK still does not seem to get this.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
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
The same reasoning could be used to never get insurance.
The same reasoning could be used to never get vaccinated.
The same reasoning could be used to never wear a condom.
The list goes on...
#DeleteFacebook
The US spends about $700 billion a year on defense. Clearly not all of that is spent on oil and the Middle East, but let's say it is. The EU gets about 20% of its petroleum from the Middle East, and the US gets about 16% from the Middle East. Assuming that oil runs about 30% of the economy of a region (transport, pharma, power, manufacturing, plastics, etc) that means about $7 trillion in annual economic activity is dependent upon the US military in the Middle East. And assuming that all US military spending is in the Middle East, that would be about a 10X return.
Now, we could always slash all our involvement in the Middle East, and turn off the spigots. The US currently has a net import of oil around 30% of its consumption (we do produce a massive amount domestically), and most of our imports are from Canada and Mexico. The EU has a net import of oil around 85% of its consumption - meaning it would have essentially no way of replacing oil (at least for now). So, ultimately, we're spending those hundreds of billions of dollars to protect and ensure the delivery of power predominantly for our allies in the EU. And that's generating around 10-15X returns in terms of economic activity. Is that worth the cost?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions.
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions? If the former - then go ahead, beat up the US. If it is the latter (and you know it is), then China is the biggest offender by far - but somehow they are given a pass on all things CO2-related...
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.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive, and with increasing CO2 emissions for Germany (as opposed to falling CO2 for the US), it's not doing much to lower their impact.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If electric cars are not cost-competitive without large subsidies, then wouldn't it be prudent to not subsidize them and spend the money on better things, such as more nuclear? Why should we subsidize uncompetitive vehicles for the rich?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
ICE cars are not cost-competitive either without large subsidies in form of ignored negative externalities.
Ezekiel 23:20
The subsidies are to help the bottom end of the market. Someone buying a £80k Tesla won't care, but someone buying a £20k Zoe will.
When you look at how much it adds to finance deals on sub £35k cars like the recently released Kona it's quite a significant hit for people.
And the reason to subsidise them is that it's worked to drive the cost down quickly and get demand up, which increases the roll out of infrastructure etc. We need to get rid of most of the fossil vehicles as soon as possible, because they pollute and damage people's health.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Oh, so it's not CO2 per country, nor CO2 per capita, it's now CO2 per unit GDP? Is the actual goal to always find a way to paint the US as "bad"?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because the climate cares not one whit about how much each person emits - it cares about the TOTAL emissions.
If you want to solve CO2 emissions, you have to start with the biggest out there - China.
Oh, if *that* is how you reason, then the solution is simple - split China into smaller countries and the problem is solved!
Ezekiel 23:20