Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Earth

The UK's CO2 Emissions Have Fallen 38% Since 1990, Faster Than Any Other Major Developed Country (carbonbrief.org) 153

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The UK's CO2 Emissions Have Fallen 38% Since 1990, Faster Than Any Other Major Developed Country More

The UK's CO2 Emissions Have Fallen 38% Since 1990, Faster Than Any Other Major Developed Country

Comments Filter:
  • I got dragged downtown for Jury duty this last month and the air downtown was horrible. I'm not out in the country or anything but even I could tell you don't want to be breathing that crap. Meanwhile I drive an old car (mid 90s, 2008 market crash was not kind to me) and it keeps passing emissions. The only saving grace is I don't drive much.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by 110010001000 ( 697113 )
      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.

      • Re:Forget global warming (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Zorpheus ( 857617 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @12:23PM (#58068134)
        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.
        • 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.

        • 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

          • Diesels were never clean. Anyone who actually stood next to a diesel powered vehicle with half a brain could tell that. Of course it didn't stop the superior Euros from scoffing at the silly Americans and their gasoline powered vehicles.

            • 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.

              • 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.

                • Hate to rain on your parade, but that were Americans for certain. They have told me something along the lines of "you are probably thinking of the old imported Mercedes diesels".
                  There have been a lot of American fanboys of German diesel cars about five years ago.

                  • 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.

                    • 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 'f

              • 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 manufacturer

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Sique ( 173459 )
            Actually, all German made diesels tested for Euronorm 4 proved to have faked their emission during tests, e.g. switched to a "low emission" mode specially crafted to the test cycle (but with lower power output and lower torque). No single allegedly Euronorm 4 compliant Diesel comes close to the emission limits set by the standard during normal operation, thus Euronorm 4 was shelved, and the certifications are basically worthless.

            So the problem is not new standards, it's cheating on the old standards. Than

            • 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 affec

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Sique ( 173459 )
                The German automobile club ADAC has a list of real world tests in their database Eco-Test [www.adac.de], albeit all the descriptions are in German.

        • 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.

        • 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.
          • Turn over your keyboard. Notice where it says "Made in China". Are you willing to not have a keyboard?

            • Mine says made in Greenock and is over 30 years old. Don't make them like that in China.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            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.

            • 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, s

              • 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 t
                • 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?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dryeo ( 100693 )

                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... [worldbank.org] and seem to be in agreement with other sites.

        • 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.

      • You can (and should) tax local pollution as well. Why should it be free to pollute?

        • I don't know. Why? Ever heard it discussed anywhere? But you hear "climate change" being talked about everywhere. I wonder why.

          • 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 her

            • Um, most people in developed countries are not much affected by local pollution? The Bay Area is probably the most polluted area in the entire nation. Christ, you can't possibly believe that. One thing I noticed about California technocrats: they are disconnected from reality.

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • In the long term yes, but people who rent apartments have difficulties recharging.

                • 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.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by vakuona ( 788200 )

                    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.

        • 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...

          • 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 inco

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              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

        • 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)

          • It would be more efficient to increase gas tax instead and kill these regulations, tolls, and even EV subsidies.

            • 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.

              • so the poor are less affected by the gas tax if they take the public transport.

                • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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 mod

      • 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.

    • Re:Forget global warming (Score:4, Informative)

      by skullandbones99 ( 3478115 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @12:35PM (#58068228)

      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.

  • 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?

    • Re:What else has happened? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @12:19PM (#58068108) Homepage Journal
      Basically the energy usage has dropped for both manufacturing and commercial use and they switched to natural gas and added some wind power. Amazingly if you use less energy that emits CO2 you produce less CO2. Getting rid of your manufacturing and sending it overseas helps a lot. Essentially everyone needs to learn to code.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The UK destroyed much of its industry and manufacturing in the 1980s, for political reasons. Coal was smashed, everything else run down. The early 90s were a series of recessions.

      The economy switched over to providing services, which produce a lot less CO2.

      The other issue is that the reduction has been very uneven. Pollution levels in some cities regularly exceed legal limits, while other areas are now recovered after industry left.

      Of course reduction is good, but it wasn't really the primary goal of most o

    • I just read a paragraph by Hans Rosling where he quotes an Indian UN representative as essentially pounding the table saying you can't talk about CO2 emissions, you have to talk about it per-capita. The absolute numbers can be quite misleading.

      The context was a climate discussion talking about reducing carbon dioxide emissions per country and India, with a rapidly growing population and growing economy would up looking quite bad in historical comparisons but great on current numbers. Can't say he's wrong al

  • Recession will do that ... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Expect them to fall much further under brexit.

  • Great... Meanwhile (Score:3)

    by Tulsa_Time ( 2430696 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @12:32PM (#58068200)

    India and Chinese increases dwarf those reductions....

    Congratulations.

     

    • India and Chinese increases dwarf those reductions....

      Congratulations.

      Yes but they make much of the stuff the west shed making for itself, so we feel better even though they pollute more making the stuff, for us, we used to make for ourselves.

    • Emerging economies will have their emissions raise as they increase their standard of living.
      Meanwhile, industrialized rich countries should reduce their emissions. At some point, the per capita emissions of the two groups will meet somewhere in the middle, and from there, every country should reduce emissions even more.

      But as long as we (the rich countries) emit 4-10x more per capita than China and India, we can't blame them for emitting too much. Some countries are especially to blame: USA, Canada, UAE, Q

  • 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

  • That's probably because we can't afford to burn stuff anymore.

  • World emissions would still increase in a year and a half due to China.

  • TSIA

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
    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 manufa

    • The main point is that Europeans can feel good about themselves and point fingers at China and those "dirty countries". That is really all that matters in life.

  • Falling standards of living! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TJHook3r ( 4699685 ) on Monday February 04, 2019 @01:39PM (#58068702)
    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 :(

  • 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.

  • 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!

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close