Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Aims To Be 'Climate Neutral' By 2050 (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the greater-good dept.

AmiMoJo writes: The European Union says it is aiming to become the first major economy to go 'climate neutral' by 2050. Under the plan, emissions of greenhouse gases after that date would have to be offset by planting trees or by burying them underground. Scientists say that net-zero emissions by 2050 are needed to have a fighting chance of keeping global temperatures under 1.5C this century. The EU says the move will also cut premature air pollution deaths by 40%. The EU says that this can be done with existing technologies such as solar and wind energy which would have to be ramped up to provide 80% of electricity. Energy efficiency measures such as home insulation would also need to be boosted to reduce energy consumption by half by the middle of the century.

122 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting approach by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Funny

    have to be offset by planting trees or by burying them underground.

    How does burying trees underground help reduce emissions?

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re: Interesting approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bury the carbon. Burning trees and wood (forest fires, house fires, etc) just releases the carbon back into the atmosphere.

    2. Re:Interesting approach by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Funny

      have to be offset by planting trees or by burying them underground.

      How does burying trees underground help reduce emissions?

      If they bury the trees, they can't be cut down to be burned, duh!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:Interesting approach by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      By burying them underground, the climate conscious trees can more easily start a grass roots movement to affect real change. Just look at how well it worked for Bernie Sanders!

    4. Re:Interesting approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They also can't be decomposed by fungi and bacteria and thereby release the carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere, which would happen if the trees were left to rot in the forest.

    5. Re:Interesting approach by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      It doesn't directly, but it sequesters carbon, because there's an assumption that you plant a new tree to replace the one that was buried.

      Even then I'm not sure about that idea. I can't imagine that it's very cost effective to do, and forestry and excavating a burial cavern are going to rely on the kinds of heavy machinery that will still probably run on fossil fuels.

      If you're going to go that route, it seems far less expensive to grow a bunch of biomass and make a slurry that could be pumped underground into various caverns. It would be especially funny if we pumped it all back into the same places where we previously extracted oil.

    6. Re:Interesting approach by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I think the moderation system is broken. I was being sarcastic--going for funny. The summary's grammar is vague, but if you read between the lines "burying them underground" refers to the greenhouse gasses.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    7. Re:Interesting approach by ajcross4321 · · Score: 1

      How am I supposed to be convinced that this is not a sales pitch? Who has a vested interest?

      It was a big show of very well paid fund managers, executives and politicos jet setting around the world to swanky parties to proclaim this for us plebians.

      Carbon Capture Technologies is a new avenue for sinking Venture Capital. I don't know how we got from burying trees when this is a burning fuel issue. This points out that Universities have tenured professors and graduate students that work to come up with new problems. You need a whole cadre of scientists working on new solutions. Then there are all the product managers, development teams, designers, marketers, etc from that chain of getting the product into minds so that consumers buy.

      Ramping up Electricity production is amusing in that we use increasing amounts of it. Computers and all of our computer goodies that die in two years use more. Bit-coin mining rigs used 2x 1000w power supplies to run eight Nvidia GTX 1080 ti cards. Next - Cars. Same size cars have amazing amounts of devices that those get >less< miles per gallon than 10 years ago. My 2009 Odyssey minivan gets better MPG than my 2018 Camry.

      Increasing Home Insulation is another industry getting the boost. Besides the obvious labor cost there are the green alternatives that are more costly to produce and less efficient. I should ask will we landfill the old materials that are not recyclable? It may also become a tax on the poor if we fine old cheaper-rent structures because of sub-par insulation. Another fun fact is that 2nd generation enviro-friendly refrigerant in US is less efficient but more explosive. I love Fourth of July.

      The argument of Poland and Germany asks are products green from material harvest, manufacture, distribution, use and ultimately to recycle disposal. Will manufacture of dirty products simply shift to poor countries? Does anyone remember China's measures to get rid of Beijing smog before their Olympics?

      In US, it is big money selling Ethanol 15%. Ethanol is another renewable energy that burns dirtier, burns hotter, ruins engines and gives 33% less energy. Land for ethanol is about 90% the size of land for food crops. Of course farmers are using straight diesel to farm this.

      It still feels more like "Let's make a ton of money." compared to "We are making life better."

    8. Re:Interesting approach by LuniticusTheSane · · Score: 1

      And why would we want global temperature to remain under 1.5C? That sounds way too cold.

    9. Re:Interesting approach by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      By burying them underground, the climate conscious trees can more easily start a grass roots movement to affect real change. Just look at how well it worked for Bernie Sanders!

      Brings new meaning to "feel the Bern" doesn't it?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    10. Re:Interesting approach by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      I think the moderation system is broken. I was being sarcastic--going for funny. The summary's grammar is vague, but if you read between the lines "burying them underground" refers to the greenhouse gasses.

      That's how I read your comment, but maybe others' sense of sarcasm is off.

    11. Re:Interesting approach by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Trees are made of carbon sucked out of the atmosphere. Burying trees is an effective carbon sequestration strategy, if you bury them deep enough.

    12. Re:Interesting approach by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's even funnier that the summary's grammatical error accidentally describes reality.

      Meta-irony, if you will.

    13. Re:Interesting approach by Agripa · · Score: 1

      have to be offset by planting trees or by burying them underground.

      How does burying trees underground help reduce emissions?

      Because then you have to wait 350 million years before you can harvest the coal.

  2. Assuming.... by Zorro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There will even be an EU in 2050.

    1. Re:Assuming.... by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well seeing how much of a pain Brexit is, with UK having been only mostly in the EU (kept its own currency) I expect most other nations after seeing the trouble it is, probably will not want to bother to leave the EU.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Assuming.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Brexit has pretty much killed off the other "leave" movements in the EU. Everyone has seen that the milk and honey fantasy was impossible. They know their politicians won't do any better, and see how the EU has presented a united, strong front the whole way through.

      There will be some economic harm, but in some ways Brexit has actually been a benefit to the EU. As well as discouraging anyone else thinking of leaving, it's created an opportunity to reform and move ahead without Britain holding it back.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Assuming.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      If there's no EU by 2050, there likely won't be a NATO by 2050, and we'll also likely either have Soviet Union 2.0, or be on the bloody brink of it by then -- assuming Putin has his way. Or, maybe, we'll get lucky, and the rest of Russia will have had enough of Putin and his bullshit by then (seeing some early signs of that, maybe) and he'll 'become suddenly gravely ill and mysteriously die', in which case his plans of the re-conquest of Europe will become irrelevant, or at least get put on hold for another few decades. The EU may be a hot mess but at least there's some half-assed consensus going on there. Also keep in mind that Brexit was just as likely engineered by Russian influence as not, the UK being a charter member of the EU, and also a charter member of NATO; stirring up the UK like that is a major piece of the puzzle, if your goal is to remove the barriers that prevent you from re-establishing your empire, just like creating chaos and internal division within the U.S. is another major piece of that puzzle.

    4. Re:Assuming.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      Some countries, especially ones for whom EU rules and laws have never set well with them, might look upon the UK leaving as a signal that it's time to bail out themselves. Consider that the solidarity that the EU represents is almost as important to Europe as NATO when it comes to the outside forces that would threaten EU countries (namely Russia).

    5. Re: Assuming.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Two-dimensional thinking much, AC? Or are you a Russian operative? No matter..
      There's plenty of data showing there was Russian influence helping fuel the Brexit vote. No one said there wasn't anti-EU sentiment extant, but outside influence inflamed and amplified it into the Brexit vote. Even many who voted for an exit from the EU are starting to wonder if they've been hoodwinked.

    6. Re:Re:Assuming.... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I am not following you. Brexit was democratically voted in, and also the EU accepted that democratic election result.
      Democracy doesn't always get the best idea, but just generally influences the people will.

      At some age, a teen is allowed to legally leave their parent/guardians home. Most of the time when they do it at the age limit, it is really a bad idea, and the child will often suffer as they face the realities of the real world. Other people who know him, and realize that he isn't spending all night partying, because he needs to make enough money to keep fed, and shelter (even with social services there are a lot of responsibilities required).

      Now just because it was a bad idea, this law shouldn't necessarily be changed. Because they are circumstances (such as the child living with an abusive family) where the harsh realities of living on your own is less then living with the family.

      Other countries may not want to deal with leaving the EU once they realize how much the UK has lost vs how little it had gained.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Assuming.... by dargaud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. The brits have always wanted the butter with the butter's money. They kept asking for 'exception' on all the disadvantages while keeping all the advantages of EU. They should have been kicked out of EU long ago. Well, it's done now, I wish them well, but I'm not holding my breath for them.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re:Assuming.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Sure. Someone I used to know once said "If you're pissing off the competition you know you're doing something right". He's not wrong. That's why trolls do troll things, as you imply. How dare I speak the truth! xD

    9. Re: Assuming.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Consider this: some of those 'third world countries' might be let in for strategic purposes more than anything else.

    10. Re:Re:Assuming.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There might have been a democratic element in the formation of the EU, but there is nothing democratic about the way it is run.

      The power holders in Brussels are not elected nor accountable to anyone but themselves.

      This is the Unholy Roman Empire.

    11. Re:Assuming.... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Everyone should have known that the fantasy wasn't going to happen. A bit like America i think in that a lot of the voters were deliberately ignorant and easily swayed by simplistic platitudes. Interesting also that the most brexit votes came from England and most remain votes from Scotland and Wales.

    12. Re:Assuming.... by swell · · Score: 1

      "killed off the other "leave" movements" ?

      Italy is cheering the Brexit move. Southern Italy in particular is suffering from economic demands from the EU. Greece has its own problems with the EU. Within each EU state there are entities that do not benefit from the Union. Keeping Europe together is a delicate balancing act.

      One factor that may tend to keep them together is increasing Russian aggression.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    13. Re: Assuming.... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Here you go.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    14. Re:Assuming.... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt Brexit has hurt the Leave movement as much as the stabilization of Greece, Italy, and Spain's economies has. If those three EU countries were still racking up debt (pillaging the Euro), Germany would be the first EU country out the door.

      That's a problem the EU still has. They have a shared currency, but not a shared monetary policy. Any member country who racks up debt in Euros (something which back when they had their own currency would've caused their currency to devalue) essentially steals money from other countries on the Euro who are not amassing as much debt. Germany has been bearing the brunt of that theft.

    15. Re:Assuming.... by Zumbs · · Score: 2

      If Greece, Italy, and Spain still had their own currencies, these would have been falling in value compared to the currency of Germany. This would make their goods more competitive, and would quite likely have reduced the impact of the crisis in 2008 on those three countries and made it easier for them to get over the crisis. The Euro bars them from reducing the value of their currency, which has made German industry a lot of money as it is highly competitive.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    16. Re:Assuming.... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In 2050 Putin will be 98 years old, so I'm not so sure how mysterious it would be if he died before then.

    17. Re:Assuming.... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Europe in total war with whom? Internally? No. The animosity between modern European nations is like the animosity between cities with American football teams; it doesn't lead to war. War with Russia or any of a number of mid-East countries is a possibility, but that's a defensive situation, not a result of the removal of a worthless imposed supra-national bureaucracy.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    18. Re:Assuming.... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Europe in total war with whom? Internally? No. The animosity between modern European nations is like the animosity between cities with American football teams;

      Yes, internally. Europe wars with itself. Pick up a history book.
      Funny that you use an analogy of football teams. Europeans literally riot and sack cities based in soccer matches.

    19. Re: Assuming.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Go play with your apps.

    20. Re:Assuming.... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'd have to do some serious studying of the overall situation to have anything really intelligent to say about it. But at least on the surface it does seem like there'd be EU member countries that would fall on either side of that line; some would love the benefits and not be bothered so much by the restrictions, and vice-versa.

    21. Re:Re:Assuming.... by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      I am not following you. Brexit was democratically voted in, and also the EU accepted that democratic election result.

      It depends on your definition of democracy. The UK is a representative democracy. Our representatives consistently did not do Brexit because only a minority of their electorate actually wanted it.

      The Brexit legislation was, apparently, deliberately badly written. so that an undemocratic % of the electorate could (and did) get their way. Only 3/5 of the electorate actually voted for this. That is less than the 50% plus 1 that would have made this a democratic decision.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  3. Too bad by Nekrozys · · Score: 1

    Too late :/

  4. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Score: +5, Sarcasm.

    See: SUVs, fossil-fuel based power plants such as coal, anti-science President and wasteful American way of life.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  5. You never know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think you underestimate the growing nationalist fascist sentiment in Europe right now due to the large flood of refuges and EU enforced multiculturalism. It has gotten so bad that Hilary Clinton even wrote to the EU asking them to reconsider the refuge situation for the time being because it is producing a large amount of opposition.

    1. Re:You never know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Genocide is the word for deliberate destruction of cultures. Obama's genocide against Appalachian cultures...

      I'll just stop you there. No, Obama did not participate in genocide in Appalachia, because genocide is the word for murdering people for their ethnicity.

    2. Re:You never know.. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Lets change the ethnicities, lets say you are an ethnic Tibetan marrying a Han in Tibet. Clearly collaboration with genocide. That doesn't mean you shouldn't allow it, but you would undeniably be helping along the process China initiated to destroy your culture and ethnicity.

      The processes initiated in Europe post-WW2 to pacify the European nations are not much different. They are softer, more sophisticated processes ... after two world wars there might even be some justification in pushing them, but it's just plain genocidal. Also extremely dangerous, because if they don't succeed there is a large risk they get reversed instead, with a scary amount of bloodshed. Much like getting Han influence out of Tibet at this point, there is no pretty way to do it.

    3. Re:You never know.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'm from Appalachia, and last time I talked with anyone back there--last night, now that I think of it--they told me everything was fine. No mention of death squads or re-education camps or anything like that.

      I know you're just making shit up (and not being terribly good at stealth re-definition of a term that's quite well-defined already, thanks very much), but I'll ask you for a citation in any case, just to see what you might come up with.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:You never know.. by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      She seems to have the idea that the best way to keen the extreme right happy is to do what they want.

      Having aspirations towards being a decent human being, I say that the alt-right, extreme conservatives and the wannabe fascists can stick their notions where the sun doesn't shine!

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    5. Re:You never know.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      *crickets*

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  6. talk is cheap by e432776 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My observation is that governments around the world, at all levels, are great at making pronouncements, less great at accomplishing the stated goals. Recent example, note EU not on track: According to the UN, most major polluters are not on track to meet their Paris goals.

    In addition to the EU, Rwanda also launched a climate change mitigation plan today Rwanda launches national plan for Paris Agreement on climate change

    Another day, another set of cheap pronouncements.

    1. Re:talk is cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The EU is already doing a lot to reduce its emissions. The much hyped increase in the last year is just a correction after the economic downturn of 2008, but the trend is still firmly downwards and it's undeniable that a lot of money and regulation is going in to addressing the issue.

      Also note that the targets are set by each country, so if the EU really wanted to meet them it could just set easy ones. Most EU countries were ambitious and set their goals low enough to be a challenge, to create the impetus to act.

      Having said that it's true that certain countries could do a lot more. The UK recently cut the incentives for EVs, for example. I expect post-Brexit many other schemes will go out the window too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:talk is cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well the US has a few differences. The main one being that it's starting from a much worse position in terms of per-capita emissions, and a lot of the big and relatively easy wins like improving buildings or installing basic energy saving tech was done in Europe long ago. Even now the average European has a much more efficient house/workplace and vehicle.

      The US also had more coal mining operations that closed recently, helping it go downwards. It also pumped a lot of money into the economy to get out of the 2008 crash faster than Europe did, so the bounce back came much sooner.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Announcements are made while nuclear power replaced by .. coal and Russian gas? Maybe the people formulating these goals believe firmly on the success of the Saharan solar project. Meanwhile they better take into consideration the increasing mold damages to health and property as they create new building codes and legislation for those more insulated, zero energy houses.

    4. Re:talk is cheap by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      They are doing a lot to reduce emissions, but they went up in 2017, and are going up again in 2018. Christ, you need to work for Trump.

    5. Re:talk is cheap by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the difference is that EU emissions is going UP. The US is the #2 manufacturing country in the world. It has nothing to do with efficiency.

    6. Re:talk is cheap by fatwilbur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is one area I always gave Trump credit for - calling out the Paris agreement as silly and not achievable. Whatever his motivation, he was the only person being realistic about it, because he was the only "non politician" of the group, who typically are more interested in making grand pronouncements.

      I read that the EU is close to reporting that my country, Canada, is nowhere close to meeting it's Paris commitments. So basically, our real world performance has been no different from the US, but Trudeau talks a great hot-air game and so gets all the credit vs. criticism for Trump.

  7. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Better in what? Education? Quality of life? Access to affordable healthcare? Crime? Environment?

    Do tell.

  8. Hügelkultur by Phytophthora · · Score: 1

    Hügelkultur on a continental scale....

  9. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    To use the word 'wasteful' with regard to the 'American' way of life is not totally accurate; I'd use the term 'conspicuous consumption' instead.
    All I have to do is drive around the city where I live and look at the billboards, and the people (especially women) walking down the street, to see how high our standard of living is in comparison to so many other parts of the world, and it's not hard at all to understand why so many other countries hate the U.S. as much as they do. We flaunt our prosperity here in the U.S., and some days it makes me feel dirty because I know damned well it's all built on the backs of 3rd-world countries paying their workers a pittance, in order to provide the U.S. with high-quality goods at a cheap price.

  10. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by SirSlud · · Score: 1

    Better at saying stuff, sure.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  11. Cat by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    The European Union says it is aiming to become the first major economy to go 'climate neutral'

    You mean first major country. The EU is a federal government with member states, and by 2050 will have grown enough in power will be similar to the Unites States government, with member countries little more than anachronistic states like New Jersey and Idaho.

    It took 150 years for this in the US, and that's with a constitution in theory granting the government limited powers and no others. 30 more years for the EU is very doable.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Cat by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      The EU is *not* a state, not legally nor actually.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:Cat by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The EU is nothing like the Federal US government. It's closest US based relative would be the articles of confederatation the US tried before abandoning it as ineffective.

    3. Re:Cat by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      LOL the EU is breaking apart at the seams. They're about to lose their most militarily powerful member. They'll be lucky to still be around in another 10 years, much less 20. The EU doesn't serve the needs of its people. The EU only serves the interests of the EU.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  12. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    It's called American Capitalism and what makes us better then anyone else in the world.

    When?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by fred6666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The U.S. has already reduced carbon faster than the EU.

    Wake me up when the U.S. has reduced carbon enough to get per capita emissions lower than the EU.

  14. Not going to happen without Nuclear by sinij · · Score: 2

    This is not going to happen if they keep shutting down nuclear power plants.

    1. Re:Not going to happen without Nuclear by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      It all depends on what they replace them with. They could shut down old designs from the '70s and replace them with new more modern designs. Not that I believe this is where they will go but it could happen.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Not going to happen without Nuclear by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is simply too expensive to build modern reactors. It costs almost $20 billion to build a modern reactor.

    3. Re:Not going to happen without Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is simply too expensive to build modern reactors. It costs almost $20 billion to build a modern reactor.

      Compared to what? Solar power isn't exactly cheap either. Spending money on batteries doesn't make more energy, it only shifts the energy we produce in time. Building more wires for a "smart grid" only shifts the energy produced in space. You can shift solar power in space and time with expensive batteries and wires but that doesn't make more energy. Nuclear power produces energy, and it might cost a lot of money but we get reliable energy that doesn't require batteries and wires to make it work. Nuclear power is like a coal plant without the CO2, a big fat power source that hums along producing electricity day and night.

      Don't tell me nuclear power is too expensive unless you have a better idea. There simply is no better idea, not at any price.

    4. Re:Not going to happen without Nuclear by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I would be interested in where you got this number from. I hope you are taking into account we are talking about Europe and not the US. The laws would be different there so the regulations that stifle the building of modern reactors in the US wouldn't be the same.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    5. Re:Not going to happen without Nuclear by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      My $20 Billion number comes from the recently canceled Georgia reactor, the last still under construction in the US. Similar prices were developed at the other US sites before they were canceled as well, IIRC the TVA reactor canceled when the project price reached $18 billion at 30% complete.

      There are only two reactors under construction in what I would consider Europe (there are several more under construction in former soviet states). The one under construction in Finland is a prime example of the problem, quote wiki:

      Areva is building a third reactor at the Olkiluoto site for a fixed price of €3 billion ($4.1 billion). It will be the first European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), and will have a power output of 1,600 MWe. The reactor was originally scheduled to start production in 2009, then was scheduled to do so no earlier than 2015, and is currently planned for 2018, nine years behind schedule.[3][7] Total costs now exceed 8.5 billion euro and plans for a possible fourth plant has been discarded.[8]

      The US reactors under construction in the 00's went the same direction. They started around $4 billion on fixed price contracts and were canceled after the Westinghouse bankruptcy showed the real prices were actually closer to $20 billion.

      FWIW there is very little difference between US nuclear regulatory policy and EU polices. Modern reactors are just that expensive to build. Sure you could shave 50% of the price by getting rid of the containment vessel that protects the reactor against meltdown and terrorist attacks. But you wont' find many places in the democratic countries that would be willing to see that happen.

      Reactors cost a LOT of money to build, that's just a fact. They need millions of yards of concrete and millions of feet of pipe to move water and steam about. They have thousands of bits of complex machinery and electronics that cost a fortune and you need 3 pieces of everything to have backup systems. On top of that anything in contact with the reactor heating system has to be built of extremely expensive metals and alloys to survive 70 years at that radioactivity. I've seen prices of half a billion alone for the pressure vessel due to the alloy mix and special fabrication requirements. Unfortunately that's just the reality of nuclear power, it's far more expensive than alternatives, particularly solar and wind even with power storage that given them nearly the same effective rates and nuclear.

      The solar + storage price comes from a competitive public auction earlier in the summer for power in Colorado to be delivered in 2020. The per kwh price for nuclear is the estimated price for power off the Georgia reactor before the Public utilities commission decided to deny the request for higher power rates and the power company canceled the project as a result.

      Don't believe me? Look at the prices for the reactors under construction. The real prices, not the fake ones they presented at the beginning.

    6. Re:Not going to happen without Nuclear by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Don't believe me? Look at the prices for the reactors under construction. The real prices, not the fake ones they presented at the beginning.

      No, I'm going to take you at your word. I see no reason to fact check you because I know that you are correct. New reactors cost an ass load to build and most of that cost is before the first brick is laid. You have to fight your way through mountains of red tape, and legal challenges by the anti nuke kooks. Then there is the cost of the pepper spray that you will need to clear the hippies off the land.

      But my point is the actual cost of the structure and shit probably wouldn't be that much if it wasn't for so much regulations. If the hippies hadn't shutdown research in the '60 and '70 things would be better.

      Oh well, despite all the anti nuke kooks research continues, abet at a slower pace. New designs will be coming out of the east where they don't have such issues. The real question we should be asking will these new Chinese reactors be safer than what we have now?

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  15. RFTA - "burying the gases underground" by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Ambiguous summary.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  16. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by skullandbones99 · · Score: 1

    We also have a faster uptake cycle of new technology, and aren't as reliant on diesel as Europe is.

    Hmm, that is misleading as diesel has a higher energy density than petrol (gasoline) and diesel generates less CO2 per unit of energy than petrol (gasoline). Unfortunately, diesel generates more air pollution than petrol (gasoline). Therefore, both diesel and petrol (gasoline) are bad for the environment.

    My expectation is that electric cars will be dominate before 2030 because people will demand non-polluting vehicles. Already markets are waiting for Tesla cars to become available displacing sales of new fossil cars. People are waiting 2 or 3 years for an electric car to become available.

    GM and Ford are abandoning the manufacture of sedan cars. Why is that ? Demand has fallen partly in response to Tesla taking over that market. GM and Ford then cause more air pollution by building SUVs and trucks that have lower fuel efficiency rules than sedans. I don't think that is "a faster uptake cycle of new technology". It is the last death throes of GM and Ford.

  17. Re:What a total crock of BS this climate change by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Please seek professional help.

  18. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    LOL, you sound like an out-of-control rich capitalist -- or one of their operatives; astroturf much?

  19. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by jwhyche · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems to be working well for you. I tell you what, since you think that it is such a bad thing why do you move someplace like Iran or Venezuela and lets see how you do there?

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Re:Isn't this counter to what we heard earlier? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    You aren't mistaken. The EU is increasing their emissions. More stupidity from the EU leadership.

  22. To aim you need to lift a finger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "EU Aims To Be 'Climate Neutral' By 2050". I am tired of ever more ambitious goals in order to detract from the reality of constantly increasing emissions. If they don't actually do anything to actually effect their "aims", nothing will happen. This has become as disconnected with reality as Trump is, just that everybody feels oh so much more conscientious about it.

    Personally, I'd start reducing carbon emissions by strangling people in their illuminated Xmas decorations. Stops both a waste of electricity and a waste of oxygen.

  23. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by DamonHD · · Score: 1

    Poor trolling.

    I've lived in some of the allegedly no-go areas in the UK, no problem at all. Had most of the phone lines in one street as I ran an early (dial-up) ISP for example...

    I've not enjoyed some parts of big US cities nor (say) the look of the shanties in South Africa.

    The standard of living here in London is as good as NYC or Tokyo or anywhere else I've spent significant time.

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  24. Re:What a total crock of BS this climate change by DamonHD · · Score: 1

    Surely that's paid trolling (or a blind-drunk post, or a prank) since it is difficult to believe anyone that manages to breathe can actually believe that level of stupid.

    Rgds

    Damon

    PS. I guess we should be grateful that /. does not allow penis-pic attachments to posts...

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  25. Re:Really? Then why... by DamonHD · · Score: 1

    Poor trolling. Perfect monotonic graphs would be lovely but this is the real world. Take a look at some of the individual member states' progress for example.

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  26. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    to see how high our standard of living is

    The standard of living in the USA is not appreciably higher than most EU nations, and actually significantly lower than many. Yet you still manage to outdo them in all forms of energy consumption measurements per capita, per household, per km driven, per kWh produced, etc.

    No one hates the USA for your standard of living. That's one of the reasons migrants want to go there. You're hated for many other reasons and one of them is a superior attitude that ignores many of the realities of your life, a prime example being that standard of living some how explains your wasteful energy consumption.

  27. The atmosphere doesn't care about per-capita by alispguru · · Score: 1

    It cares about emissions, full stop.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    1. Re:The atmosphere doesn't care about per-capita by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      I agree. Easiest/best way to cut emissions is to cut USA emissions.

  28. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems to be working well for you. I tell you what, since you think that it is such a bad thing why do you move someplace like Iran or Venezuela and lets see how you do there?

    There are other ways to run things other than the US way or the Iran/Venezuala ways. You know, perhaps like France, Germany, the Nordic countries, Australia, Canada, Japan.

    Try sorting by Aggregate Score:

    * https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-country-scores

    You may have to change it from "Show 50" to "Show 100" to see the US. See also:

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

  29. 120 pct Renewable Portfolio Standard by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Look, it's all well and good to say in 12 years you'll start to have an 80 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), but what the EU needs is a 2020 120 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard.

    What is the difference?

    Four things:

    1. Eliminate all tax deductions, tax exemptions, tax incentives, and tax subsidies for all fossil fuel energy. Period. Including depreciation.

    2. Require 120 percent of all net new energy use be renewables. That means for every KWHr you add, you have to remove 20 percent of fossil fuel power plants. With zero exceptions. And 100 percent of all the new energy must be the far cheaper wind and solar energy infrastructure, instead of the more expensive coal and natural gas and oil usage today.

    3. Remove all street parking for diesel vehicles. All of it. In every municipality of more than 1000 people. This includes garages and malls.

    4. Ban all exports of fossil fuel infrastructure worldwide. No exceptions.

    Do that and you'll only have massive heat waves and flooding that kill thousands of people, instead of millions of people.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  30. EU is kidding itself by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Right now, the nations that are doing the best WRT cutting back on CO2, are those that :
    1) are closing down coal if they have any,
    2) have replaced these or added CLEAN energy.
    3) the best are those with Hydro, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear. Oddly, Solar and somewhat wind, have not really helped local economies to cut back their emissions. Germany and Portugal have moved to around 40-50% of their electricity from solar and have spent enormous sums of money. problem is, that the more they move towards these, the more they have to import.
    4) Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Northern Europe depend on Hydro, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear and have some of the cleanest and cheapest electricity costs. Wind can be cheap, but its intermittent nature destroys it for anything except lowering some costs.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:EU is kidding itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone mod this up. There will be no significant reductions in CO2 emissions with wind and solar alone, we know this because it's been tried. To reduce CO2 requires investment in hydro, nuclear and, perhaps paradoxically, natural gas. The USA has seen significant reductions in CO2 emissions by replacing coal with natural gas, another CO2 producing fuel, but this works in reducing CO2 because it produces twice the energy with the same CO2 put in the air. Natural gas might not be an ideal solution but it's perhaps the best we have today until people get it in their thick skulls that nuclear power is safe, cheap, low CO2, and very plentiful.

      I keep hearing on how we must give up some luxuries in order to reduce our impact on the environment. That we should not drive such large vehicles, take so many flights, and so on. Well, not building new nuclear power is also a luxury. We can no longer afford the luxury of avoiding the use of nuclear power. What ever problems you have with nuclear power may in fact be valid, but that does not change that it's a luxury on having your preferred choice on where to get your electricity. You may not like the idea of burning natural gas to lower CO2 but that's another luxury that you might not be able to afford.

      I'll take global warming as a serious threat when the powers that be understand we have to give up such luxuries of expensive wind and solar power. Carbon taxes aren't a solution here either, we just saw riots in France over their fuel taxes. Those taxes are a luxury as well. You can try to impose such taxes but you do so at the risk of a revolt from the peasants, perhaps a violent revolt in the streets or a nonviolent one at the ballot box.

      "Your Highness! The peasants are revolting!"
      "You got that right, they stink on ice."

    2. Re:EU is kidding itself by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Solar and wind "alone" has not really been tried.

      They could probably suffice, if expanded, and accompanied by smart grid, HVDC continental-scale power transmission, and significant amounts of energy storage including things like compressed air, centralized large-scale hydrogen facilities, lithium batteries distributed through the grid and at endpoints, etc.

      But may as well add in deep Geothermal, and nuclear fusion when it breaks through.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    3. Re:EU is kidding itself by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No. Giving up Wind and Solar power is a HORRIBLE mistake. It is just as foolish as going to 100% on it. We need to put a LIMIT on how much of any one energy type we will use. In particular, I would not allow wind/solar to go above 1/3 total.
      Then for the other 2/3, we need CLEAN base-load power. Nukes, Hydro, and geo-thermal are the ideal sources. And once nuclear power has 4th gen or even fusion, then we should shutdown the older 2nd/3rd gen nuke reactors. Obviously, Hydro is only available in certain locations. And geo-thermal, even more limited (though America should be plugging this all over the western 1/2 of the nation; we are the largest nation that is ideal for it). Europe,China, India, Canada, Australia, etc. We all need to follow similar models of not being too dependent on one form of energy. China is right now, 80% into Coal. That is hard to walk away from. Australia has the same problem. They need to walk away from coal.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:EU is kidding itself by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, solar/wind even with storage will NEVER be enough. The reason is that the storage would have to be of enormous size. Batteries are great for grid stabilization and small back-up, but they can not provide days/weeks/months worth of energy.

      Geo-thermal, hydro/hydro storage, and 3.5/4th gen fission nukes, esp SMRs that can burn up the nuke waste, are all possible TODAY. The fission nukes can, and should be replacing coal plants.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  31. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    But he is not in any of these countries. He is in the US and complaining about the system he takes advantage of.

    But you are correct. I'll amend my OP, and he can move to France, Germany, or any of the countries you mentioned.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  32. Re:What a total crock of BS this climate change by DamonHD · · Score: 1

    Even more stupid trolling! All the way down!

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  33. Re:Isn't this counter to what we heard earlier? by DamonHD · · Score: 1

    Doesn't matter how many times you try to stir the sh*t, the EU is doing pretty well on carbon emissions by and large, as are many of the individual member states.

    Short-term blips and diversions are not at all the same as wilfully ignoring fact and endangering the entire human race for some short term political and monetary gain...

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  34. So, all Europeans stop exhaling? by kencurry · · Score: 1

    Can't wait for that.

    Will also mean that they will have to put down all their critters.

    --
    sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  35. Sounds very cold by LordONE · · Score: 1

    Scientists say that net-zero emissions by 2050 are needed to have a fighting chance of keeping global temperatures under 1.5C this century.

    So there should not be a spot on the globe with a temperature above 1.5C? Why would anyone want that?

    If you want to talk about a metric, how about naming it correctly first?

  36. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I just went to the bathroom. Does that count?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  37. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    A prime example being that standard of living somehow explains your wasteful energy consumption.

    That's why I mentioned SUVs as an example. That's a wasteful method of transportation for the city yet a lot of people drive those for no reason other than "it's more secure than small cars". By that logic everyone in the USA should be driving armoured fighting vehicles. Another example is living in a McMansion, watching Netflix on a 100" TV using an Xbox One instead of living in a normal-sized home and watching Netflix on a 30" TV using an Apple TV/Roku/etc. Some of the living choices in the USA are just wasteful. I'm happy that the tiny house mouvement started in the USA though, it shows a lot of people are finally realizing that sometimes it's just too much.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  38. But then Al Gore and some american kid by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    invented a piece of software called the mosaic browser whose purpose was to allow the embedding of banner ads in information pages. ;-)
    That's when the interweb REALLY took off.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  39. Semantic pedantry by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    The EU is the federal level of a federated, hierarchical governance structure.
    In that aspect it is analogous to the Union of United States of America.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Semantic pedantry by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      But (and this is important when applying for some funding, that's how I know) it is *not* a state in its own right, whether or not it walks and quacks a bit like that duck...

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
  40. A carbon fee and dividend is a smart approach by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Give the carbon "tax" proceeds back to all citizens, so it is revenue neutral. Those who think this is impossible need to be introduced to something called "math".

    Those who still call that an additional tax are just gas-guzzler-owning, lying a-holes.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  41. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Why not come over here and see for yourself? Afraid to discover that you've been parroting complete horseshit?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  42. Well instead of reading brexit playbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Try actually making a case. Because there's plenty democratic about the EU and the way it is run. It's almost identical to the USA's system in the 1800s. The only unelected part doesn't get to make rules, only suggestions. And if that pisses you off, then you should want to leave the UK too, since the HoL is far less democratic and has much more power.

  43. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    I know AC don't get mod points but those of us with accounts too. I actually get lots of mod points. When I do get them I do read at below +2, like I should. I've had something like 45 mod points in the last few days. I will reset to my normal +2 reading level when I'm sure I will not be getting any more for awhile.

    So you shouldn't be to concerned about my credibility, sir sock.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  44. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Tiny houses suck. One of the greatest pleasures in life is having a nice place to live, and tiny houses don't qualify.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  45. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Middle class or below living in any dense city is markedly inferior to suburban or rural living. Concrete and crowding do not make a pleasant life. America's suburbs - big houses and comfortable cars - are where the bulk of the American populace lives the good life.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  46. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by sexconker · · Score: 1

    I see you also haven't traveled anywhere outside of the US.

    I have. Try again with your weak attempt at trolling.

  47. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Japanese and Korean manufacturers have taken over the sedan class by making superior products at lower prices. The claim of "Tesla taking over that market" by selling 100,000 cars (2017) is an unfunny joke. That's only 2 or 3 times the sales of Corvettes, a quite limited market.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  48. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1
    Translation of your comment-to-my-comment:

    Trollololololol

    You've been spotted.

  49. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't mind, too bad I can't afford it because it's so fscking expensive to live here. Getting away from Orange Julius Caesar wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

  50. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Great. Tell me which countries that all applies to, and which ones have freedom of speech so I don't get sent to prison for daring to speak my mind.

  51. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    Rick, I think you have finally lost your mind. Looks like you are coming more unhinged every day. Some of that stuff you wrote in your journal is pretty disturbing. I'm going to wander off now. I would suggest professional help.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  52. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by DamonHD · · Score: 1

    So, I disagree about dense urban living being bad, though I'm not in the very centre where I am. It is great being able to quickly walk to most places I want to get to (no finding a place to park, and being able to have a drink, for example), including huge well-maintained (royal!) parks, with excellent public transport beyond that.

    I also find cars an uncomfortable nuisance. Though I can drive, and have driven quite a lot outside the UK too (including the US), I am very glad that I've never had to buy, insure, or maintain one, nor pay for the real-estate to park one on.

    I do enjoy living in the country too, but suburbs and exurbs (and I've tried the Pekin, IL version), no thanks.

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  53. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by skullandbones99 · · Score: 1

    Hmm, steam power was a British invention. James Watt was a steam power pioneer around 1776 and the SI metric unit of power is named after him eg. the Watt = 1 Joule per second which is a unit of power.

  54. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by skullandbones99 · · Score: 1

    See https://cleantechnica.com/2018... which shows the Tesla Model 3 is the 5th top car selling car by units sold but is top car by revenue. You are correct that Japanese and Korean manufacturers lead by number of units sold. You need to look at Tesla's 2018 car sold numbers and not 2017 due to the fast ramp up of the Tesla Model 3 this year. It is no joke for GM and Ford.

  55. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by strikethree · · Score: 1

    Wake me up when the U.S. has reduced carbon enough to get per capita emissions lower than the EU.

    Wake me up when the individual gets as much money for the manufacturing/production that creates pollution as the entity that creates the pollution. Until then, take your per-capita measurements and shove them up your ass. Have a nice day. :)

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  56. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    why would an individual or an entity get money for creating pollution?

  57. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    No matter the excuses, it makes the USA a part of the CO2 problem, not the solution. The USA is not in a position to criticize anybody (except maybe some heavy polluting persian gulf states), but especially not the EU.

  58. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by strikethree · · Score: 1

    why would an individual or an entity get money for creating pollution?

    To be strictly accurate, nobody makes pollution for money.

    A more accurate way to read what I said is this:

    Entities (companies, governments, anything but individuals) make products such as cars or generate electricity or whatever. These entities then sell these things, but the problem is, that in order to make those things, pollution is created.

    Very few (1% I believe is the current accepted number?) people profit from these activities. Since I am not sharing in the profits, why am I being included the calculations for pollution? If I am to be included, then I will just down every manufacturing plant since I am being held responsible and yet not receiving any of the benefits. Furthermore, I have zero control over how manufacturers deal with the pollution of making their products. I have zero ability to monitor that any agreements they may have made concerning pollution are actually being used.

    TL;DR, A peasant farmer in China does not cause any pollution nor receive any of the benefits of the manufacturing/energy entities that do cause pollution... so why is the peasant farmers existence any part of the equation. Measuring pollution per-capita is only useful if you remove all pollution from the equation that had nothing to do with any single individual.

    Power generation and manufacturing are the largest causes of pollution. The profits from those endeavours go to very few people. Those profits should be allocated towards cleaning up the pollution, not my cash. It is rather neat how per-capita measurements make individuals responsible for cleaning up what industry has caused.

    China has 900+ million people who essentially cause zero pollution by themselves. They don't have cars and have little need for electricity. Why should the stuff manufactured in China get a free pass for pollution because of that?

    Or, look at it from the other direction. America has extremely efficient manufacturing and manufactures a LOT of stuff for the rest of the world. You could take dozens of countries and add their productivity output together to measure against Americas productivity output and still fall short. And yet, there are only 360 million people in America. So by default, America looks like an old 1880s factory spewing fumes because if you divide all of the pollution generated from all of that manufacturing and then divide it across a much smaller population, yeah, per-capita emissions are going to be absolutely astronomical... even though America has some of the cleanest manufacturing facilities in the world.

    No. Per-capita measurements of emissions is evil, wrong, and forces the burden of dealing with the pollution from the entities who created and profited from the generation of pollution onto the general population at large. If you have 900 million other people to lay that on, it makes you look good. If you do not have an extra 900 million people, it makes you look like Love Canal is still a thing in America. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Pollution should be measured by the entities creating it. The resources to fix it should come from the profits that caused it.

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  59. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    Very few (1% I believe is the current accepted number?) people profit from these activities. Since I am not sharing in the profits, why am I being included the calculations for pollution?

    I stopped reading right there. The answer to your question is obvious. Since you purchase/use the products of these "evil" corporations, maybe even you work for them, you are part of the pollution problem. No corporation pollutes for the sake of it. They pollute to create good/services for the consumers, which in the end are individuals one way or another.

    It doesn't matter if you tax the corporation or the individual for the pollution. The result is the same. The polluting economic activity will reduce and less polluting activities will grow instead.

  60. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by strikethree · · Score: 1

    Yes, I specifically left the consumers out of the equation so we could keep this discussion within a few paragraphs instead of entire novels. But, alas, no. I will still try to make this as short as possible.

    It doesn't matter if you tax the corporation or the individual for the pollution. The result is the same.

    The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if the result you are looking for is the same. I care about fairness.

    The answer to your question is obvious. Since you purchase/use the products of these "evil" corporations, maybe even you work for them, you are part of the pollution problem.

    Sure. But one of the parties in this equation is profiting off of the situation whereas I am not. Furthermore, per-capita is per country but products are being shipped all over the world. So explain to me how the responsibility of the pollution of all the farmers in California feeding all of those Chinese people falls on my shoulders when counting how much pollution a country makes?

    I stopped reading right there.

    Fine. If you will be intellectually lazy, then it is ok for me too. I will not listen to any further arguments from you why per-capita is a good metric. Have a nice day. :)

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  61. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    Sure. But one of the parties in this equation is profiting off of the situation whereas I am not.

    ou fail so badly at understanding economic concepts that it's not even funny.

    If you purchase and use a car, it's because you have a benefit from it. Call it a "profit" or not, it doesn't matter. You use your car to go to work, to visit friends, it doesn't matter. You take a benefit from the car which pollutes. The corporation wouldn't have build it if there were no buyers. Therefore you are 100% responsible for the pollution associated to the construction and operation of the car, like it or not.

    So explain to me how the responsibility of the pollution of all the farmers in California feeding all of those Chinese people falls on my shoulders when counting how much pollution a country makes?

    It works both ways. China produce a lot of stuff which go to US buyers. Taking all that into account, the average US person emits a lot more greenhouse gases than the average Chinese. Like it or not.

  62. Re:U.S. is way ahead of them. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I just love how all the assholes who think they're part of the Rich 1%, and who happen to have mod points, have leveraged that to try to destroy me. Fucking cunts.