UK Sets New Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2050 Target (aljazeera.com) 115
The United Kingdom will cut net greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to zero by the middle of this century, Prime Minister Theresa May has announced, marking it out as the first G7 nation to set such a goal. From a report: The UK's pre-existing target, set more than a decade ago, was to slash net GHGs by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. However, campaigners have cautioned this target would not go far enough to meet pledges made under the 2015 Paris climate agreement to try to limit a rise in global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, widely considered to be the threshold for dangerous climate change. "Now is the time to go further and faster to safeguard the environment for our children," May said in a statement on Wednesday. "Reaching net zero by 2050 is an ambitious target, but it is crucial that we achieve it to ensure we protect our planet for future generations," she added. "Standing by is not an option."
Biomass? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to worry about Brexit. It'll never happen.
Re: Biomass? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about using something incredibly fast growing like bamboo instead of actual trees.
Either is a dumb way to generate electricity. Per pound spent, there are other ways to reduce CO2 that are ten times more effective than subsidizing wood pellets. It is even dumber than America's corn subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Such as using heat pumps instead of resistive heating? (But burning wood pellets also is not resistive heating.)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as using heat pumps instead of resistive heating?
That is one good example. Geothermal heat pumps work pretty well in the UK.
Spending more on attic insulation is another very effective, but non-sexy, solution.
(But burning wood pellets also is not resistive heating.)
Burning wood pellets for heat makes some sense. Burning wood pellets to generate electricity, with about 30% efficiency, much less so. In neither case does it make sense to grown them on a different continent and spend taxpayer pounds to subsidize the cost of shipping them across an ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Biomass is a net zero production for new sources of biomass. Anyone cutting down existing trees or forests for this need to have their testicals irradiated so they are removed from the gene pool.
But if you plant a tree, then cut it down and burn it, you're at net zero for carbon.
Mind you this policy is just stupid. Right now the UK can't organise a pissup in a brewery. It was a policy feelgood decision thrown over the fence but a prime minister who doesn't give a shit, approved by a parliament who are so di
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like the wonderful 'pzev' medallion on Subaru cars. I couldn't figure it out until I was at the Subaru dealer and looked at the sales brochures. "Partial zero emissions vehicle". I have no idea how an ICE-power car can be "partial zero emissions", unless you're counting the time that the car is parked with the engine off. 'Partial zero' is like 'partly pregnant', and 'net zero'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually definition for pzev [wikipedia.org].
It is, however, a confusing term. In this context, emissions aren't about CO2. Instead, they are talking about hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and particulate matter.
Re: (Score:3)
'Partial zero' is like 'partly pregnant', and 'net zero'.
That would only apply if they put the PZEV badge on zero emissions vehicles, which they don't. The history of the term comes from California demanding that a certain percentage of automakers' sales in the state be zero emissions vehicles. This was in the 90s, when a practical electrical vehicle was a decade or more off. Automakers negotiated a compromise, in which a certain percentage of cars sold would meet the following criteria:
* They do not lea
Re: (Score:2)
That would only apply if they put the PZEV badge on zero emissions vehicles,
They put that badge on vehicles which are not zero emissions at all. You can't be "partial zero". You are either zero or you aren't. One is not "partial zero" just because it's smaller than 2. Being pregnant with one child is not "partial pregnant" because it isn't twins.
This is an eminently sensible compromise.
Now you are arguing like you think I said that the goal behind whatever they're doing isn't reasonable. I didn't say that.
Here's what I said: the term "partial zero" is meaningless. It's double-plus-good new-speak like we learned to love
Re: (Score:2)
Well, an identifiable subset of the vehicle's emissions has been reduced to zero. IT's not "part of zero" it's part of something that is zero.
Re: (Score:2)
If they gave them heated catalysts they could call them ZHE, for zero hydrocarbon emissions. That would be a lot catchier than PZEV, and less ridiculous. When do you think those will become popular?
Re: (Score:1)
To elaborate even further, this is "new net zero" as it says in the title of this topic. So it's a spiffy new version with special details.
I thought Net Zero was the name of some snack or soda beverage. With zero calories or carbs or somesuch.
Oh, I remember. Net Zero was at one point an ISP that was cost free. I think you had to access it with a client with compulsory advertising. Long ago I remember that. Now we just have compulsory advertising everywhere we go online.
Re: (Score:2)
Net zero carbon means things like synthesized hydrocarbons.
Vehicles that burn synthetic hydrocarbons still produce CO2 but that carbon in the fuel came from CO2 pulled from the air. The US Navy has been working on this process for a very long time now. They want to produce aviation fuel on nuclear aircraft carriers. If they get this process refined to a point it can be commercialized then it can be a game changer.
With synthetic hydrocarbons every plane, train, and automobile becomes "net zero" carbon emi
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. That stupid partial zero emissions is saying that sometimes it produces no emissions (also don't know how this applies to cars). Net zero means you're not putting out any more than you're taking in.
The idea of biomass is truly net zero, but only if you use *planted* trees and don't cut down forests to achieve your goal.
Re: (Score:2)
"net zero" doesn't mean "zero", it means zero after you subtract the predicted savings in emissions.
No, it means the sum of all emissions and capture is zero.
So if you emit 1Kg of CO2, you need to do something that captures 1Kg of CO2, like planting trees. In practice you may well opt to pay someone else to do the capture.
Not only does that make the net emissions zero, it also boosts the market for carbon capture and helps develop new capture systems.
Lame Duck? (Score:2)
Why is she still flapping her yap about policy
Shes gone fairly soon here.
So, she probably shouldn't be making these sorts of pronouncements.
Re: (Score:2)
You are so triggered. I love seeing you lose your shit.
As do I. I'm sure Trump loves it too. He's living rent free in the minds of these triggered fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Show us on the dolly where the bad, bad president touched you.
We need you to since you're obviously all pussy...
Re: (Score:3)
Theresa May: "Anything you can do, I can do better..." *dances off the stage*
Re: (Score:2)
This is her desperate attempt to create a new legacy, now that brexit is fucked. She will go down in history as one of the worst Primer Ministers we ever had, not to mention her time as Home Secretary, and this could be the one good thing that comes from her legacy.
Re: (Score:2)
This is her desperate attempt to create a new legacy, now that brexit is fucked.
Brexit was always fucked, and anything could happen by 2050. Theresa May (may) well be dead by then. She just wants to be able to go out to dinner without having people throw milkshakes at her. This isn't about a legacy, this is cosmetic.
Re: (Score:2)
She's desperately trying to establish a legacy other than 'the one that fucked up brexit'.
Obviously she'll fail.
This is 30 years too slow (Score:3)
Scotland will achieve net zero by 2020.
The rest of the UK could phase out all coal by 2020, and remove all fossil fuel subsidies, exemptions, exclusions, and depreciation starting in 2020, and achieve 120 percent renewable energy by 2025.
But that would take guts.
It would also save them trillions of dollars.
Re: This is 30 years too slow (Score:5, Insightful)
Scotland has a very small economy, and almost no manufacturing.
It also has a population about the same size as that of most large European or American cities, and much smaller than even mid-sized third world cities.
Of course it should be easier for Scotland to control its CO2 emissions. It's a trivial case.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it should be easier for Scotland to control its CO2 emissions. It's a trivial case.
So it's easier to control CO2 emissions if you don't generate income due to lack of GDP, and have less people paying tax to go into your initiatives?
If you're going to talk about scale, remember to also include the resources available in your scale calculations.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand it's extremely cold and damp, lots of small, distributed villages and towns, and difficult terrain.
Fortunately it has a massive amount of wind power.
In fact the UK as a whole does. Conservative estimates put the amount of offshore wind at 5x what the UK needs total for energy (including transport), more realistic ones closer to 20x. That's just offshore, in the UK's exclusive economic area.
The UK should do what Norway did and set up a sovereign wealth fund. Instead of oil use wind. All the
Re: (Score:2)
How in just one year do you eliminate all coal, oil and gas powered machines?
Nobody will drive a car, mow a lawn, distill whiskey? Does Scotland have enough nuclear power to sustain such increase on electricity?
Net zero means nothing if you're just buying worthless pieces of paper from places like India because they haven't fully developed yet and their per capita carbon emissions are low while they are the biggest polluters in the world.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know. We just did it here in a state larger than Wales. Coal went bye bye.
Time is up. Change is Now.
Hint: renewable energy from mixed sources requires usually less than 0.1 percent other sources (which battery can fill in for, or flywheels) for shaping, and it's way cheaper than fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. We just did it here in a state larger than Wales. Coal went bye bye.
Nice, now do cars.
Oh wait.
So you didn't "do it" at all, not what the original poster was talking about.
Have you blocked anyone from burning a fire? No? Are you connected to power grids outside your country?
As I said, you are not even close to "doing it".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, converting to renewables faster will literally save trillions over a thirty year period.
Are you sure you took accounting, math, or programming?
As I said, get rid of all the things that prop up the failing fossil fuel economy and make them pay the true cost of it, and the market will fix it fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Your tether to reality has snapped, and your lighter-than-air mind is floating free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I should point out I referred to total costs. Insurance, farming erosion, crop failures, infrastructure loss from weather, etc are all part of the GDP. Transportation alone is a big chunk. London literally makes it's money from insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would also save them trillions of dollars.
No. It would save future generations trillions of dollars. Who cares about them? (Well, I do, but I am not a psycho politician. These people are not only dumb and amoral, they are dangerously dumb and amoral. Basically they are an existential threat.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the damage to crops, transport, infrastructure, buildings alone will cost far more.
Stop whining, start doing. Slackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun Fact: the UK government has known how much damage (in the tens of trillions) it would cost if they didn't go to renewables since around 2002, I got a lot of my figures for UK costs for inaction from one of their lead banking firms in a print copy of a book from 2004, and it's not buried at the back of a filing cabinet in a disused lavatory downstairs of your local planning commission, it's been the subject of multiple inter-governmental meeting for a couple of decades now.
So put your back into it. We to
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that this is a goal that is about 30 years too late. If the goalpost is set beyond their term in office then it's not a meaningful goal. That's telling the next person in office what they have to do to meet your goal.
Don't tell me you will get to zero in 30 years. Tell me how you plan to get to 70% of current output in 10 years. Or, how you will get to 85% or 90% in 5 years. I'd be happy if you said you'd get to 97% of current output next year.
Getting to zero net carbon output by 2050 is certai
Re: (Score:1)
Scotland will achieve net zero by 2020.
Scotland is not going to go net zero next year. It might do for electricity generation thanks to offshore wind- although that will be a push - but it cannot do for transport, heating etc, sectors which are are bigger carbon producers. Think about it for a second - that would require the removal of all gas heating and petrol cars.
In fact, the Scottish Government's targets, in the The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is to achieve a 42% reduction in carbon from 1990 levels by 2020 - and only an 80
Any fool can set goals (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can already see the level of mental retardation those politicians have by their setting a temperature limit for planet Earth. Yeah, that's how you solve global warming, post the temperature limit on a sign. Just like putting a picture of a gun with a red circle and slash on a building prevents shootings.
Re: (Score:2)
I deal in fact, not agenda driven alarmist hysteria, nor the agenda of many liberals to use carbon pollution hysteria to lower the standard of living, cap and trade to line certain groups pockets, and make other money/power grabs.
You haven't been paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
I deal in fact, not agenda driven alarmist hysteria, nor the agenda of many liberals to use carbon pollution hysteria to lower the standard of living
We've been telling you that you can still have your standard of living if only we start spending our money in the right places — building out sustainable and efficient systems for the future instead of just throwing the money down assorted deep dark holes which lead to people as staggeringly stupid as the DeVoses owning twenty yachts.
cap and trade to line certain groups pockets,
Well, I'm with you there. Cap and trade is a boondoggle. It should be cap and tax. The caps should be generous, but the taxes effective, and the caps should be tightened
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And when, in 2050, the whole unfixable mess will become obvious, these people will be long gone.
Re: (Score:2)
What ambition can you talk about if the entire "plan" consists of nothing but a date?
Theresa May does have a plan . . . she's already packing her bags in Number 10 Downing Street right now. She'll leave this policy statement as a big turd on the living room carpet, and let Boris Johnson clean it up.
Her legacy as Prime Minister will be that she failed to deliver on Brexit, and led the UK into divisive political chaos. With this unrealistic 2050 proposal, she is trying to at least something positive behind.
But if the folks in the UK cannot even envision yet how post-Brexit UK will functio
O RLY? Like the goal of Brexit in March 219? (Score:1)
"We won't do anything _right now_, but I'm sure we'll get there in 30 years' time, when I'm six feet under and cannot be asked to comment about it."
Re: (Score:2)
You think the US is immune to climate change? All available data suggests it will be hit pretty hard and it will be one of the nations least prepared for it, due to its general superiority complex coupled with worse-than-average stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehe, the ambiguities of the English language....
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating. You probably also believe the earth is flat and that vaccines do not work.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not afflicted with religion. But unlike you nil-whit, I am a scientist.
I mean, seriously, you cannot even post with a pseudonym, you have to go AC. How utterly pathetic is that?
Re: (Score:2)
You think the US is immune to climate change? All available data suggests it will be hit pretty hard and it will be one of the nations least prepared for it, due to its general superiority complex coupled with worse-than-average stupidity.
I actually do believe that the USA is largely immune to climate change. The predictions for sea level rise is something like one foot per century. We have enough industrial capacity to move people out of the way, build dams and dikes so they can stay where they are, or whatever seems to work best for people. The shifts in climate effects on crops will be equally slow. Farmers already routinely rotate crops, shift which crops they grow, change out equipment as they wear out, etc. to where the shift in cr
Re: (Score:2)
Um, guy, that describes approximately 25 percent of the "land mass" of the Deep South. Storm surges make every foot in elevation more of a problem, on landfall, and since the intensity (or power) of the storms is multiplied from prior record levels, it reaches even further inland.
So, to you it's a foot increase. But that means half your state loses it's crops.
Happened to my mom's place in South Carolina. She thought, oh I'm 10 miles inland, but it went a very long way inland, even surging along the riverb
Re: (Score:2)
A one foot rise in sea level means 25% of the "Deep South" is under water? Could you define that a bit better? I found a web page produced by the NOAA that shows how much land would be under water based on sea level rise and one foot doesn't look all that bad. A ten foot rise doesn't look all that bad either, considering how long people would have to prepare for it.
Here's that sea level rise map -> https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/ [noaa.gov]
Storm surges do suck, I'm not doubting that. Considering how well people in
Don't hold your breath... (Score:2)
Unless you live in the UK, then you better hold your breath or this won't ever happen..
Re: (Score:2)
Finally a use for all those nukes.
Sure, gamma emissions will be off the scale, but our carbon emissions will be sorted.
2050 Target (Score:2)
So...in 30 years from now when all the current politicians who made this promise have retired.
Jackpot (Score:2)
Not a flying chance... (Score:2)
There's no chance in hell they'll make any meaningful impact without nuclear energy in the mix. It'll be another shell game just like Germany.
Even if the UK was ZERO carbon, they'd be dwarfed by Asia by such an incredible degree as to be completely meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
Why won't Slashdot simply ban all ACs from posting?
Alternatively, why not adopt my suggested improvement: a prominent link at the head of each article that, when clicked, takes you to the start of the actual discussion - past all the rancid ugly ignorant insults.
Re: (Score:2)
What, climate change? Do you also believe the earth is flat and that vaccination does not work?