Slashdot Mirror
The UK's CO2 Emissions Have Fallen 38% Since 1990, Faster Than Any Other Major Developed Country (carbonbrief.org)
The UK's CO2 emissions peaked in the year 1973 and have declined by around 38% since 1990, faster than any other major developed country. From a report: The most significant factors include a cleaner electricity mix based on gas and renewables instead of coal, as well as falling demand for energy across homes, businesses and industry. Declines in the UK's CO2 have persisted despite an economic recovery from the financial crisis a decade ago. Where earlier reductions were largely negated by rising imports, the past decade has seen genuine cuts in the amount of CO2 for which the UK is responsible. The factors driving emission reductions will likely continue into the future as the UK's remaining coal use is phased out by 2025.
Exactly. Local pollution is a much more immediate threat. But you can't sell carbon tax credits on local pollution so it isn't really a problem. Unless you can make money off of the solution there won't be one.
CO2 has dropped; great. How have levels on industry and manufacturing changed? Are they at the same levels? Increased/decreased? What about CO2 production in ratio with GDP? CO2 is important, but if there is no commerce, no economy, how do the people otherwise fare?
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Locl pollution has to be solved locally. CO2 is a global, long-term problem.
In the EU the limits on local pollution are so low, it is completely harmless to healthy adults. The limits are set with elderly people, infants and asthmatics in mind. There is just some fight in Germany about that, because cars are banned from driving in some cities because of these limits.
You can (and should) tax local pollution as well. Why should it be free to pollute?
Mid 90s cars (assuming you're in the US and own a non-diesel car) already had catalytic converters and electronic engine management. Their emissions aren't really much worse than 2019 cars, assuming they're kept in good shape. The real fall in smog-forming emissions came between the early 70s and late 80s, where all US cars gradually ended up with EFI, O2 sensors, and cats.
Expect them to fall much further under brexit.
Amazingly no. Local pollution needs standards to enforce laws and investments. And no, the EU has terrible pollution problems. You don't know what you are talking about.
India and Chinese increases dwarf those reductions....
Congratulations.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
I don't know. Why? Ever heard it discussed anywhere? But you hear "climate change" being talked about everywhere. I wonder why.
The issue is, local pollution is more manageable, then global climate change, where the CO2 is a global problem. What makes it more insidious, is that CO2 isn't pollution that you can see or smell, also itself doesn't have that much of a negative effect on your health.
The solution to smog pollution is dilution. So they just move these polluting sources to someone else back yard, we call it offering new jobs, in poor areas. So the rich get all the value without the negative effect.
I think UK is a good model in showing that moving to cleaner energy sources doesn't need to wreck havoc to the economy like it is often argued.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
good thing india china russia and brazil just dump metric tons of crap into the air to make up for all that
doesn't matter how clean you are if your neighbors have roaches
Vehicle emissions are tested against the specification of the vehicle from the time of manufacture such as the EURO 6 standard. Dieselgate started with the EURO 5 standard. Therefore, older vehicles are tested against the older specifications because older vehicles will most likely fail the newest standards.
For example, if a car was not manufactured with seat belts such as an old Jaguar of the 1960s then that vehicle will not fail the current seat belt test because the car is exempt from that test. Same applies for emissions such as not having a catalytic converter at the time of manufacture, such a vehicle would be exempt from the relevant emissions test.
In other words, some tests are not applied retrospectively. This is why some governments have scrappage schemes to get rid of vehicles of earlier specifications.
You can see a trend in cities such as London mandating EURO 6 to enter the city without paying an emissions charge. My 2009 Diesel Golf would have to pay this daily emissions charge plus the standard congestion charge. One way to avoid both charges is to use a battery EV.
If local pollution is more manageable, why is it so terrible? Why aren't there U.N. conferences on why the air quality in some cities in Europe is so poor? The reason the UK reduced Co2 is just because they offshored their manufacturing and industry.
There is just some fight in Germany about that, because cars are banned from driving in some cities because of these limits.
The problem in Germany is that diesels had an emissions level that was considered safe. But then they decided that the safe emissions level wasn't safe.
So if you bought a "clean" diesel, it suddenly wasn't "clean" any more, and could be banned from driving in certain cities.
Of course, the German auto manufacturers say that is not their problem, the government does not want to help out. So the consumers get left holding the bill. They'll need to pay for an upgrade, which means juicy profits for the auto manufacturers . . . or buy a new gasoline car . . . even more profits for the auto manufacturers.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If you were a cynic, couldn't you argue that raising emissions of chemicals that are more harmful to humans (vs CO2) would actually reduce global warming? Lower population = lower CO2 emissions.
That's probably because we can't afford to burn stuff anymore.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
US per-capita emissions are approximately flat since 1970 despite more efficient technology and increased natural gas usage. We need to be doing more -- replacing fossil power with nuclear, shortening commute distances via urban planning, prioritizing electric cars and electric-powered public transit, to name a few things.
You can (and should) tax local pollution as well. Why should it be free to pollute?
1. Because one of the few true things for democracy to decide is how much pollution of common areas is acceptable as a tradeoff vs. progress.
2. Government, and the politicians riding to power handing things out, are voracious for more money. This additional tax won't reduce deficit spending one iota as said politiicans will treat it as more it can spend, and keep borrowing the same amount.
Aside from that, though...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...and buy electricity from France.
The way I remember it it was exactly the other way round, back when it was diesel vs hybrid here on Slashdot.
I - an Euro cyclist - wrote that diesels were never clean and that they still stink, obviously from my personal experience standing behind diesel cars at a red light, but the American slashdotters insisted that the modern German diesel exhaust is cleaner than the intake air.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Ever heard it discussed anywhere?
Yes. Read the Los Angeles Times. There are articles about local pollution all the time. If you don't live in LA, then it is unlikely you will see these articles or hear anyone discussing them.
Local pollution is a LOCAL problem (duh), so it doesn't make the national news. Most people in developed countries are not much affected by it. LA is affected because everybody drives, and the city is surrounded by mountains that trap the dirty air.
I live in the SF Bay area, and local pollution is not an issue here, because we get regular breezes that carry it away, and nearly all the cars are Priuses, Teslas, or newish gas cars with the latest emissions controls. If you can't afford a new car, you can't afford to live here.
But you hear "climate change" being talked about everywhere. I wonder why.
Climate change is a global problem, so news about it gets widely reported.
World emissions would still increase in a year and a half due to China.
Doubtful they were Americans. I remember all the Eurosnobs talking about the VW "clean diesels" and made fun of all the silly Americans with their backward petrol vehicles. Turns out they both suck.
There is just some fight in Germany about that, because cars are banned from driving in some cities because of these limits.
Which is also a great way to encourage public transportation use.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Absolutely. It was a huge topic in the recent state elections in Germany because several cities have imposed a ban on diesel cars on certain roads and the federal government is not at all happy about it.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
What a PITA that would be, I'm guessing that takes a lot of the fun out of after market exhaust systems.
On the other hand: What a PITA the consequences of not having emissions checks are!
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Mid 90s cars (assuming you're in the US and own a non-diesel car) already had catalytic converters and electronic engine management. Their emissions aren't really much worse than 2019 cars, assuming they're kept in good shape. The real fall in smog-forming emissions came between the early 70s and late 80s, where all US cars gradually ended up with EFI, O2 sensors, and cats.
Fuel efficiency was much worse though. Not many cars in the 70's or 80's could do 40mpg.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
TSIA
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...
US was world's largest reduction since 2005. UK was 2nd.
See how easy that is?
Of course, a goodly chunk of BOTH countries' reduction is the exporting of major manufacturing elsewhere. Effectively, much of the pollution being generated by the largest-effluvium countries is by proxy for the developed world. By this same sort of balkanized point-scoring methodology (likewise the constantly-trotted-out 'per capita CO2 emissions'), if EVERY country just put all their manufacturing in a single shitty country, then they'd ALL be "winners" and only one country the "loser"...would the world *really* be better off?
Setting aside entirely the question of how wise it is in the long run ANYWAY to trade all your domestic manufacturing and industry for service sector jobs and financial rent-farming by shutting $ from one account to another.
-Styopa
I don't doubt some of them were American. Many people on Slashdot are not too bright, but they believe in marketing and shiny things.
So the problem is not new standards, it's cheating on the old standards. Thank the industry trying to game the system!
it started with neoliberal policies with thatcher at the begining of the 80s
Of the many things you can blame Thatcher for, being liberal, is not one of them.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Then the biggest focus should be on what we can do to cut China's emissions - which are the greatest in the world, and growing rapidly.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Which is not an option for deliveries
Just because something is easier to manage, It doesn't mean there is leadership able to manage it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In this case it means being economically liberal, as in low regulation, which she definitely was. In fact that legacy of low regulation, high risk/reward financial services was the origin of the 2008 financial crash.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Turn over your keyboard. Notice where it says "Made in China". Are you willing to not have a keyboard?
Industry pundits know that diesel cars are going to be killed off by EVs. The automakers know, too, though they are being less open about it. Diesel trucks will continue to be a thing for some time, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Which is not an option for deliveries
Frequently, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and service vehicles are all allowed in certain parts of cities that ban private cars.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Well, despite housing stock being overall a bit shit, standards of new builds (tiny shoeboxes) are generally quite efficient. Manufacturing is outsourced to other countries and pollution is further reduced. On top of that, despite the temperature hovering near freezing, many are wearing their entire wardrobes rather than turn on their expensive electric. A recent Facebook argument with hundreds of comments argued about the practicalities of heating a flat with some tea-lights and flower pots! In short, making people poorer is a great way to tackle emissions :(
No that IS the choice. If you want massively available, cheap goods you are going to have more pollution. The real solution to reducing pollution is to use less, but that ain't gonna happen, because everyone wants stuff and people like to make money selling stuff.
Well London has a congestion charge to drive in the centre, and it's ever increasing. There are also low emission zones which are turning to ultra low soon (which means anything but a hybrid or an electric vehicle is excluded basically)
In the long term yes, but people who rent apartments have difficulties recharging.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
It's confirmation bias. The population was 'TDI car owners' (truck owners couldn't care about clean), 90% VW or rebadged in America. Once they spent their money, the TDIs were clean, they HAD to be. There were more TDI owners in Europe, but they were in many populations.
I got it from the other side. IMHO VW 'diesels' aren't the problem, it's all water cooled VWs that suck!
First step in the brake master cylinder replacement procedure for a new 'bug'...Remove front bumper...Run away! Gas engines don't 'fix' VW. VW just sucks big old donkey balls.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Clearing the private cars, might make deliveries easier.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That is a real problem, but it's becoming less of one as recharge times continue to fall. Most apartment-dwellers at least have an off-street parking space where a charger could physically be fitted. Now it's just a problem of paying for it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Every two years, I spend a weekend installing CARB parts, another removing them.
I limit my post CARB tuning to one vehicle. No point for the city car or the 4x4. Neither needs more than two or three hundred ponies. The classic is smog exempt, but unmolested anyhow. The 1970 Fiat 850 sport, rat powered 4x4 is going to be a trailer queen, should also be smog exempt. The state ref is never going to see it...nothing good could come of that.
CA has a new loud exhaust law, doesn't change the standard, just the fine. Just keep your foot out of it when passing cops. Still lots of fun to be had.
I as recall, potholes took a lot of fun out of driving, back on the flyover tundra. My brother has to remind me that _everybody_ drives slow, 'cause they're scared of cops.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Same here. As a cyclist, I could tell whether a Diesel or Gasoline car just passed just by breathing (I'm a bit sensitive, close to asthma). That was when car manufacturers constantly played the same chime all over again : "OK, we admit the previous generation actually wasn't clean. But the new one is, so please buy new cars !". Obviously, to boost the economy both German and French government relayed that heavily and even gave tax breaks for those "clean" cars, since both German and French car manufacturers were investing tons of R&D into diesel engines. Those tax breaks were obviously just a disguised subsidy to the local economy, against Japanese and American cars.
Eventually the truth emerged and they're taking a whole new direction, trying to increase diesel prices. And who pays the bill ? Those who bought diesel cars and now have the choice between expensive gas or buying a new car (which they won't be able to afford anyway).
Now who's to blame ? Car manufacturers/lobbyists ? Sure. Governments for lying or believing lobbyists ? Sure as well. Consumers for buying into it ? Certainly a bit too.
Yes, because all of the fossil fuel-intensive manufacturing (and more) was shipped to China and other countries. This is a virtual drop due to capital transfers. Solves nothing.
We're still not back to lean burn efficiency of the very late 80s. IIRC NOx killed it. There were a lot of tiny cars then, I miss the original CRX. Sure deathtraps, so?
Basically no cars of the 10s do a throttle stomp right. Computer is 'helping' you keep up the MPG...You don't really want that power, right now. I rented a Nissan (pronounced 'Renault', spit) that didn't apply power until the steering was straight.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There will always be too much pollution for what is acceptable if it is free to pollute.
The other option (if you don't want to tax) is to enforce bans and pollution standards. But these often end up being a lot more bureaucratic and expensive to maintain for something which is measurable (or easy to approximate by a calculation) such as CO2.
Also, a pollution tax doesn't increase total taxation since you can put a pollution tax instead of another tax (say income tax or sale tax).
It is very stupid to tax income to 30-50% when you could be taxing pollution instead.
'Liberal' generally keeps its original definition in Europe.
Americans have redefined it. Think Libertarian. Liberal = in favor of liberty, more or less, the opposite of American 'liberal'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It would be more efficient to increase gas tax instead and kill these regulations, tolls, and even EV subsidies.
they still emit more CO2 per capita than France, Spain, Italy or Denmark (at least with the 2014 numbers I got).
The rate of reduction doesn't mean much if the country was emitting a lot in 1990.
The UK (and Europe in general) is doing much better than USA/Canada/Australia.
Plenty could, because they didn't have as much pigfat. Ever driven an 80s or 90s Corolla or Civic?
Plenty could, because they didn't have as much pigfat. Ever driven an 80s or 90s Corolla or Civic?
I owned an 89 Corolla, my first car in fact. It had pretty decent efficiency for it's time. I averaged about 30mpg, which is about 10mpg less than I average in my little Honda Fit today and slightly less than my wife's SUV today.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Most CO2 is not produced by humans per se, but by industrial processes. ... the trains, the industry, the bureaus, the farming even, would still produce the same.
It does not matter if Germany e.g. loses half of its population over night.
Only the houses with one inhabitant that suddenly is gone produce nothing
Sure, you could argue you *need* less concrete ... but concrete business is producing concrete and selling it, it simply sells elsewhere.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Clearing the private cars, might make deliveries easier.
Because in Europe deliveries are made by rickshaw?
it started with neoliberal policies with thatcher at the begining of the 80s
Before Thatcher, industrialization didn’t matter because British workers were pretty much permanently on strike.
Actually what we should be doing is considering which people emit the most, compare the average American to the average Chinese. Or perhaps you're right and we should go by country with no thought to size or population and we should all emit the same as the Vatican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
it is completely harmless to healthy adults
It is completely harmless *in the short term*. In the long term the local limits on pollution still very much have an impact on health of the population.
If you need a bigger penis why not just put a speaker in your trunk to make the useless broom broom noise?
Also, a pollution tax doesn't increase total taxation since you can put a pollution tax instead of another tax (say income tax or sale tax).
It is very stupid to tax income to 30-50% when you could be taxing pollution instead.
It's how it was done here in BC. When the carbon tax was introduced, income tax was cut to make the carbon tax revenue neutral.
Problems at first is that it hits the poor more (there are rebates to help) as the rich can easier cut back on their carbon emissions, buying a Telsa or such, better afford latest things like Fridges and heating systems and other ways to cut back on CO2 emissions whereas poor are more likely to own old cars, fridges etc and can't afford to update insulation etc.
Government went more right and started excepting various industries. Government got replaced by left+green and decided to use the money from the carbon tax for things like transit rather then being revenue neutral. Also kept the exceptions due to jobs (Greens mad about that but stick to supporting Socialists as the lesser evil)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Simple solution. Parking bays reserved for electric vehicles with charging points for on street charging. The electricity providers or networks will pay for the charging points. As more cars become electric, more reserved spots can be created for electric vehicles.
Mine says made in Greenock and is over 30 years old. Don't make them like that in China.
A Nissan Sentra was not going to spin its tires going around a left turn.
Its not safety, it's MPG. I don't need an 'idiot in the middle' telling me I don't need the pitiful amount of power that POS makes. Someone has no doubt already been t boned because of that safety feature. Won't be me.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Libertarians are the natural antagonist to the right AND the 'liberal', who hate freedom.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No single allegedly Euronorm 4 compliant Diesel comes close to the emission limits set by the standard during normal operation,
I've heard this sort of comment a zillion times but never with any actual numbers to give it context. Do you know what the Euronorm 4 levels are, what levels of emissions some of the German Diesels had, and how that compares to typical city air or some other relevant standard?
I see two general cases. One, the standard was impossibly high and well past the level of diminishing health returns. The other is the standard was quite reasonable and the diesels really did emit enough pollution to cause health affects. Neither case justifies lying about it, mind you, I just want to know what the actual expected health effects were. I'm frustrated no one seems to put the actual emissions into context with something real (as opposed to a legal standard, which may or may not mean anything).
Full disclosure: I owned a VW Diesel Passat and turned it in as part of the Dieselgate scandal. It's too bad, I really liked driving it. I personally never noticed any emissions but I never sniffed the tailpipe while cruising (at 50 MPG) on the freeway.
Most of which comes from nuclear power stations...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Locl pollution has to be solved locally. CO2 is a global, long-term problem.
That's what the GP said. Apparently you disagree. Which of you is wrong? Is the CO2 from China less harmful than the CO2 from the US or Germany? If you want to address a global problem, doesn't it make sense to start with the person contributing most to the supposed problem? Or do we use it to brow-beat those who are dropping their emissions and emit less than half the amount?
Your attitude is why so many see "climate change" action about CO2 as mere politics. You really don't believe it's an issue, since you do not want to address the heart of your issue - CO2 emissions. Rather, it's a political stick you can try to use to beat another person. It makes ZERO SENSE to ignore the number one source of your problem - China, with it's CO2 emissions - and go after someone else.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
you go after everyone especially those that can do something about it by changing their ways i.e. the western world with highest per capita usage. Not to change your ways when you can is irresponsible and stupid. China (and India) is like a large tanker that will take a long time to turn to get rid of coal and replace with cleaner options, it can't happen overnight. They are the fastest growing economy with regard to renewables so they are on their way whilst some Western countries are doing their best to drag their heels
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I disagree with that. Petrol tax will hit the poor more, whereas the Congestion Charge hits wealthier people more -- poorer people tend to use public transport already.
The German automobile club ADAC has a list of real world tests in their database Eco-Test, albeit all the descriptions are in German.
Who shut down our coal industry and got rid of a good part of our industries?
Look out USA! You have her successor now. You may think he is pro coal and dirty industry. He is pro money. When that notes that profits are best served by closing mines and steel works, your CO2 will drop as well!
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
So better to attack a distance #2 or #3, rather than the dominant #1. Got it. Their economy is still growing, why not encourage/support it to develop with low CO2 output, rather than what they're currently doing?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
so the poor are less affected by the gas tax if they take the public transport.
What a PITA that would be, I'm guessing that takes a lot of the fun out of after market exhaust systems.
On the other hand: What a PITA the consequences of not having emissions checks are!
Aftermarket exhaust systems are fine as long as you leave the catalytic converter in (or replace it with a new one). You've just got to put our approximately the same emissions as the OEM system. Yearly checks (called M.O.T's for the Americans playing along at home) aren't arduous if you've got a semi-maintained vehicle and really keep the unroadworthy cars off the road, the ones with broken control arms, rusted bodies and chassis, Bare brake pads, twisted rotors and faulty electrics.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
doesn't it make sense to start with the person contributing most to the supposed problem?
Yes person, why are you fixated on group? The average Chinese person emits 7.54 MT of CO2 (as of 2014) vs the average American's 16.49 per year.
Numbers from https://data.worldbank.org/ind... and seem to be in agreement with other sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Hi petrol prices will push public transport prices up, and will impact them when they go on trips that require a car.
Also, nobody needs a car in Central London. If they think they do, then they should pay for the privilege. Same with Paris, and I imagine it's the same in NY.
Hi petrol prices will push public transport prices up,
Much less than the cost of driving a car, especially a big one.