Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
EU Earth

EU Aims To Be 'Climate Neutral' By 2050 (bbc.com) 205

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Aims To Be 'Climate Neutral' By 2050

Comments Filter:
  • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @11:07AM (#57714892) Journal

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

    How does burying trees underground help reduce emissions?

    • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @11:15AM (#57714932) Journal

      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!

      • 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.
        • 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.

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

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

          Meta-irony, if you will.

    • 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 undergro
    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

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

  • Assuming.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zorro ( 15797 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @11:11AM (#57714912)

    There will even be an EU in 2050.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 )

      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.

      • Re:Assuming.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @11:30AM (#57715046) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • Re:Assuming.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dargaud ( 518470 ) <slashdot2@gd a r gaud.net> on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @12:48PM (#57715566) Homepage
          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.
        • 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.

        • by swell ( 195815 )

          "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.

        • 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
          • by Zumbs ( 1241138 )
            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.
      • 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).
    • 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
      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

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

  • talk is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by e432776 ( 4495975 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @11:30AM (#57715036)
    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 [theatlantic.com].

    In addition to the EU, Rwanda also launched a climate change mitigation plan today Rwanda launches national plan for Paris Agreement on climate change [newtimes.co.rw]

    Another day, another set of cheap pronouncements.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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 t

      • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fatwilbur ( 1098563 )
      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 Trud
  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @11:56AM (#57715220) Journal

    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.

    • by DamonHD ( 794830 )

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

      Rgds

      Damon

      • 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.
        • by DamonHD ( 794830 )

          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

    • 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.

    • 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.
  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @12:25PM (#57715408)
    This is not going to happen if they keep shutting down nuclear power plants.
    • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @01:31PM (#57715828) Homepage

      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.

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

        • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          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.

          • 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

            • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

              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

  • 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 fu

  • 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, th
  • Can't wait for that.

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

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.

Working...