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.
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...
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.
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
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...