EU Member States Agree 55% Cut in Carbon Emissions by 2030 (theguardian.com) 65
EU member states have agreed to strengthen their target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade, in line with their long-term goal of net zero carbon by 2050. From a report: The EU made a commitment on Friday to cut carbon by 55% in the EU by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, after member states wrangled into the early morning as Poland held out for concessions. "Today's agreement puts us on a clear path to climate neutrality in 2050," said Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European commission. While member states rejected the stiffer carbon cuts of 60% that the EU parliament had called for, the plan puts the EU ahead of most of the world's major economies on tackling the climate crisis. Campaigners said the EU could have gone further. Sebastian Mang, Greenpeace's EU policy adviser, said: "Governments will no doubt call it historic, but the evidence shows this deal is only a small improvement on the emissions cuts the EU is already expected to achieve. It shows that political convenience takes precedence over climate science, and that most politicians are still afraid to take on big polluters."
Always fucking Poland (Score:1, Troll)
The EU's biggest problem was that they never added the provision to boot out a toxic member of the union.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's why you don't forget Poland.
Re: (Score:2)
But only after almost half a century so we have to wait for another three decades for Poland to GTFO. I'll probably won't be around to see that happening,
Re:Always fucking Poland (Score:5, Informative)
The EU's biggest problem was that they never added the provision to boot out a toxic member of the union.
A member state rights can be suspended with Article 7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and sanctions can be imposed.
Re:Always fucking Poland (Score:5, Informative)
Poland gets 3/4 of its electricity from coal; almost a third is generated by lignite, or "brown coal" -- the crappiest grade of coal there is. Since coal is the worst kind of fuel from a CO2 standpoint, any commitment to near term carbon emission reduction is going to fall especially hard on the Polish economy.
Compare this to France, which gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear, and only about 7% from fossil fuels. Germany has already been working on retiring its coal plants and can probably go a long way towards the goal by replacing them with more efficient natural gas. As vehicles increasingly run on electricity, impressive percent reductions in carbon emissions are going to be relatively easy for these countries.
The anti-democracy stance of the ruling party in Poland is troubling, but it is reasonable for Poland to be concerned about the distribution of effort needed to meet this goal.
Re: (Score:1)
I want to save the earth, but you cannot stop current society on a dime and do a 180.
I don't want to lower my lifestyle level...I'm not on this earth that long and I intend to enjoy my stay here to the fullest.
I'll be happy to help as long as it doesn't hurt me or my country.
And after we get past the pandemic, well....we need to get the economy and people working again and throw
Re:Always fucking Poland (Score:5, Insightful)
Really it boils down to how much you discount the future. What is the net present value of the future costs of adapting to climate change?
This calculation is different for different people. As a sixty year old, I weigh consequences 40 years in the future different than a twenty year-old would. But then I also weigh consequences that far out differently as a consequence of having children. Then there's the revenue side of things -- that varies wildly. If you have a million dollars in fossil fuel company stock, the bird currently in your hand is a lot bigger than the bird in the average person's hand. This makes it easier for you to evade the future consequences of climate change than it is for, say, a Bangladeshi subsistence farmer whose wealth (such as it is) is tied up in soon to be non-existent land.
So a twenty year-old Bengladeshi farmer quite reasonably has a different perspective on climate change than Charles Koch does.
As for lifestyle, I don't think most middle class people have to accept lower standards of living to change the future pace of climate change. However there's the prospect of change per se; most people don't like that. But then most people underestimate their ability to adapt to change, to make it a new normal.
Re: (Score:1)
So a twenty year-old Bengladeshi farmer quite reasonably has a different perspective on climate change than Charles Koch does.
You'd think so wouldn't you? But Bangladesh is building new coal plants that will spew billions of tons of carbon for the next sixty years.
Bangladesh boosting coal reliance [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's the long term/short term thing again. The Bengladeshi government is attempting a decade-long and probably doomed crash program to transform the country into a middle-income country.
It's similar to what China is doing in Tibet -- displacing poor farmers and forcing them to become low-skilled factory labor. On paper this is an anti-poverty program, and on paper it works. Poverty is measured by income, of which subsistence farmers have none.
Re: (Score:1)
The climate in 40 years won't mean shit if the path to get there destroys the ability of a nation to feed and clothe it's citizens in a decade.
People can and do adjust to a great many changes in their lives when they see a need. Take the response to COVID-19 as an example. People adjusted to less travel, more masks, home schooling, tele-commuting, and so on. People adjusted to hardships like the Great Depression, and the two wars that bookended it.
I'll believe that global warming requires an adjustment i
Re:Always fucking Poland (Score:4, Insightful)
And you are the reason we're all going to hell as a species, only content with making a difference if it doesn't affect you personally.
I want to save the climate but I don't want to sacrifice any of my money, someone else should pay for it.
Let's apply that elsewhere:
I want to reduce the road death toll but I don't want the speed limit on my road lowered because I would take 5min longer to get to work.
I want to reduce poverty but I don't want to put in social systems to support those in need because it would cost me money.
I want to reduce homophobia, but Jesus and stuff.
What else do you want to do without lifting a finger?
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, you are arguing with a habitual and proud drunk driver. Do you really think he gives a shit about other people?
N-word energy (Re:Always fucking Poland) (Score:2)
Why should I sacrifice my standard of living to fight global warming when I don't have to? We know how to fight global warming and continue to keep energy costs low, keep the electrical grid reliable, and in fact lower the number of deaths from energy production. It's from the "N-word" that politicians are afraid to utter because it gets blue haired, gender non-binary, university "educated" idiots all upset.
I'm seeing the EU abandon the "N-word" which only results in higher energy costs, increased CO2 emi
Re: (Score:3)
If this were just an isolated case then I'd be with you. But IT'S ALWAYS Poland. Honestly I don't know why they are even in the EU. Oh that's right they thought joining would just see all the wealth flow to the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Poland joined the NATO, and EU yielded to american pressure to let them in.
Luckily the whistle blowers published that and we are not doing the same mistake with Turkey.
Re: (Score:2)
is generated by lignite, or "brown coal" -- the crappiest grade of coal there is
That is wrong since the late 1970s, as then everyone installed scrubbers.
For Poland that might have been true since late 1990s.
Compare this to France, which gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear,
That is wrong since several years a about 1/3rd of France's nuclear plant are shut down for over haul and safte problems.
Re: (Score:1)
France gets nearly 80% of it's electricity from nuclear power as of 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
France has been running their nuclear power plants in a load following fashion which lowers the capacity factor of their plants from a global standard of over 90% to more like 60%. They can grow their nuclear power output by running them like other nations do and use batteries, pumped hydro, or demand management to increase their nuclear power output even if they close a dozen nuclear reactors. The
Re: (Score:2)
France gets nearly 80% of it's electricity from nuclear power as of 2013.
That was 2013
is producing over 70% of it's electricity from nuclear as of 2017.
That was 2017.
ATM it is not even 50% as most of the reactors are shut down: google is your friend.
Any imports and exports come out to be a smaller contributor than solar.
France is a net exporter, but its imports, especially from Germany, are high.
As far as my counting goes, we are end of 2020
Perhaps having a sense of time helps.
Re: (Score:1)
Citations please. Google is not my friend at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Then use a different search engine, there are plenty.
Re: (Score:1)
Still not seeing anything to support your claim. Makes me think you lie.
Re: (Score:2)
And you not googeling makes me think you are: stupid :P
The "N-word" (Re:Always fucking Poland) (Score:1)
Natural gas is better than coal. That is unless you are replacing domestic coal with Russian natural gas.
Russia is a regional thug and a global headache. Don't let them get leverage over anyone. I'm hearing that there's pressure from the USA to stop the construction of the pipeline that would bring Russian natural gas to Germany and other EU nations. There's a lot to be said on if the USA should be involved in this but it is undeniable that Russia will someday use this pipeline to coerce EU nations to d
Re: (Score:1)
I think that the difference between Poland and other states is that Polish politicians don't understand that they can sign any sort of non-binding declarations as a sign of good will, and then keep doing what they are doing. This is pretty much what the Netherlands or Denmark do. Denmark is also famous for its footnote policy - basically signing an agreement and the saying that the agreement will be fulfilled only if a long set of conditions happen.
Re: Always fucking Poland (Score:2)
Well, you fuckers broke the Warsaw pact (which would give Russia legal rights to declare war), by gobbling up more and more eastern bloc states, starting with Poland, like you're rhe new Soviet Union. So what do you want?
Paper is Patient (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dutch government seems pretty beholden to court though ... gotta get used to cycling to work I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, why wouldn't you be cycling to work if you live in the Netherlands? Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to Dutch traffic.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the alternative to Dutch traffic is being exposed to Dutch winters.
Re: (Score:2)
Dutch winters.
The oxymoron of the year. Dutch winters are insanely mild. Hell, average highs and average lows don't even drop below freezing. Sure it's no Southern Spain, but fearing Dutch winters kinda just makes you ... soft ;-)
Re:Paper is Patient (Score:4, Informative)
https://ieefa.org/renewables-s... [ieefa.org]
Change is happening.
Not so "green" energy (Re:Paper is Patient) (Score:1)
Germany also has some of the highest electricity rates in the world, so not exactly a "win" here. Energy poverty is becoming a problem in the First World. Spiking energy costs is making it difficult for the working poor to save up money for an education, home improvements, or even just buying food and medicine.
I've seen quite the failure from some people talking about energy in Australia. Electrical utility rates are getting so high that people are finding it cheaper to run diesel generators for electric
Re: (Score:2)
The reason nobody wants nuclear anymore is because the nuclear industry failed to build plants on time and without cost overruns. It is not clear how it would affect electricity prices if we would go all nuclear. Experience from recent nuclear projects indicates that it would not even possible to scale up in time and not without substantial subsidies. Historically, a lot of the cost of nuclear was hidden in general taxes. In Germany, it was an intentional decision to put the full renewable surcharge on the
Re: (Score:1)
It's not about "want", it's about "need". Europe needs nuclear fission power or the lights will go out. I believe the leadership in the UK figured this out. It's disappointing that the rest of Europe hasn't figured this out yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe certainly does not need fission power or the lights go out. Germany increased renewables to 50% electricity production and the lights did not go out. Years ago I had the same discussion on slashdot and people told me that this would not be possible. They had exactly the same argument as you are presenting now: None.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's see where Germany gets it's energy and where it is used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It looks like Germany is much like the USA in that, roughly, 1/3rd of the energy goes to transportation, 1/3rd to heating, 1/3rd to electricity. Unlike the USA I see that Germany imports more than half of it's energy. If domestic renewable energy meets half of the nation's electrical needs, and electricity is about 1/3rd their total energy consumption, then only 1/6th of the total energy consumed in Germany come
Not enough. Too little, too late. (Score:4, Interesting)
When it comes to correcting humanities eco-balance we're at least 4 decades too late. It's 20 past 12 already. We need to become eco-positive and greenhouse negative within the decade. All of us. On top of that we'll have to counteract the avalanche of ecological tilt that has caught on and is just starting to rev up as we speak. One the ice is gone and the methane gun fires the fecal matter will hit the rotary air impeller, epic style. We need to prepare for that and hit the brakes and go full reverse, basically all at the same time. Now.
Times up. Look alive.
My 2 eurocents.
Re: Not enough. Too little, too late. (Score:2)
The solution is trivial. (Score:3)
Start pricing in the eco-balance into all goods and services, in 5 steps of 20% each of the total eco cost, starting now and stepping up every 12 of 18 months.
Have a team of experts determine the eco-cost of every good and product and review that every 5 to 10 years.
Meat, Fossil Fuel, throw - away plastic and a few other things will go up to eventually 400%+, or economy, lifestyle and technology will adjust and that problem will be solved. The tricky part will be reversing the damage already done. If we ne
Re: (Score:1)
Fossil water exhaustion. Peak everything with no recycling technology to reclaim virgin materials from complex waste streams. Demographic collapse among the cultures and ethnicities sustaining industrial civilization. Increasingly trivial access to long range weaponry and biological weapon technology.
Climate change ain't going to be what kills industrial civilization, and it won't kill humanity. Northern Canada and Russian Tundra will have a nice climate for the remaining humans ... it's just progress which
Re: (Score:1)
Right, let's do everything to stop global warming. Just not... the "N-word".
Yep. Shit's going to get real. And it's going to happen soon. But not bad enough to resort to... the "N-word" for energy.
When EU politicians start saying... the "N-word", and not be afraid of the insults from androgynous blue-haired hippies with piercings all over their faces then I will believe they are taking global warming seriously. If all it takes to get them to abandon the "N-word" is an anorexic truant teenager that hold
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear has been discussed to death. The idea that this is a taboo is ridiculous. If you want to know why nobody invests in nuclear, just look how some of the recent projects went.
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear has been discussed to death.
Really? What gives you that idea?
The idea that this is a taboo is ridiculous.
I'm seeing it mentioned plenty on tech oriented sites like this one but not so much when politicians make energy policy statements, or when CEOs talk about making pledges for their companies to lower CO2 emissions.
If you want to know why nobody invests in nuclear, just look how some of the recent projects went.
Early solar and wind projects didn't go so well either. There's been only a handful of new nuclear power plants built in the world for the last 40 years. The people experienced in their construction are retired, senile, or dead. The people building them now hav
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear has been discussed to death.
Really? What gives you that idea?
I am following energy politics for quite a while. Just a few years ago there was talk about a nuclear renaissance with a lot of political support.
The idea that this is a taboo is ridiculous.
I'm seeing it mentioned plenty on tech oriented sites like this one but not so much when politicians make energy policy statements, or when CEOs talk about making pledges for their companies to lower CO2 emissions.
Because most people realized by now that nuclear is not a cost-effective option. Many big player such as Siemens exited the market or filed for bankruptcy or came very close.
If you want to know why nobody invests in nuclear, just look how some of the recent projects went.
Early solar and wind projects didn't go so well either.
Early nuclear was in the 60s. Nuclear should be - by now - a mature technology. In contrast initial investment in solar and wind were very costly (and this is what Germans still pay for) but t
Re: (Score:1)
Civilian nuclear fission power is a mature technology. What is lacking is experienced people to put that technology to use. It's like people looking at the rocket designs from the 1960s today. There's a lot of good technology there, a mature technology. The problem is that the designs don't tell the whole story. People don't learn to ride a bike or fly an airplane by reading an instruction manual. It only comes with practice. We have cheap wind and solar power because people got a lot of practice. W
Nuclear Fission isn't cost effective. (Score:2)
Nuclear Fission isn't cost effective. It's a 60ies pipedream cross funded by huge amounts of taxpayers money, with a massive long-term waste problem attached. It might be feasible if electricity goes up 400% in price (which it needs to) but even then the only potentially feasible nuclear solution we know and have at hand involves spending 80% of its energy to heat the environment. By and large not the brightest of ideas given the situation.
Fusion may be a thing, but we need solutions now, not in 50 years. S
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear Fission isn't cost effective.
Neither was solar power not so long ago. Piles of money "wasted" on projects going over budget and beyond schedule taught people how to get on budget and under schedule. Nuclear will always be "too expensive" if nobody takes the time to develop an industry. Kind of like how we would not have a solar power industry today if we simply gave up on solar power when we saw 1960s era solar PV cells.
spending 80% of its energy to heat the environment. By and large not the brightest of ideas given the situation.
You mean like how solar PV wastes 80% of it's energy to heating the environment? You aren't even trying to make a
Not Good Enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Weve got 7 yrs to get to zero carbon.
Anything less and were in mitigation scenario only.
Ill remind you also that since declaring a Climate Emergency over
a year ago our greenhouse gase emissions have actually still continued to rise.
This is simply not good enough. Our leaders are not taking this issue seriously
and do not have any kind of plan to tackle this , nor do they have a plan to respond
to the effects of inaction. We are talking global breadbasket failures in the next few years,
and the escalating incidents with no preparations for tackling basics like food shortages
which will lead to social collapse.
https://climateclock.world/mob... [climateclock.world]
Doomsday Clock? (Re:Not Good Enough) (Score:1)
Another one? Isn't the one from the "atomic scientists" enough? If these people are in fact "atomic scientists" then they are not very good ones. They equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons, which makes about as much sense as equating nuclear medicine with nuclear weapons. Or international airlines with bombers in an air force. Or chlorinated water with chlorine gas bombs. Or nutritional supplement tablets with heavy metal poisoning. I could go on.
How about instead of clocks and FUD we get people
Re: (Score:2)
Giving a specific number of years until "mitigation scenario only" is not helpful.
No two groups of people will ever agree on such timelines. Nor should they. You could come up with criteria for drawing that line at any point in time after the 1970s (or earlier?).
It's, perhaps, better to focus on the fact that we're already in a dire situation and delaying for any longer will only make matters worse.
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I see a lot of hot air in the forecast. Not so much in any real solutions.
Re: (Score:1)
And they are still among the dirtiest anyway...
Climate neutrality ... 1990 levels ... (Score:2)
They know 1990 was everything but climate-neutral, right?
And CO2 is just one of the many ways in which we carelessly act in a way that cannot be sustained for an indefinite time, but more like a very few generations.
Also, in that light, 55% sounds utterly pathetic.
How about -200% by 2022, until the damage is undone, or you'll be convicted for mass-genocide? Because if thee actually was some higher power (like an alien species with a massive death ray), that would be their demands, and you know it.
Or am I mi
Politicians/MBAs/Lawyers are ALWAYS the issue. (Score:2)
" It shows that political convenience takes precedence over climate science, and that most politicians are still afraid to take on big polluters."
Yup. The ONLY way for this to work is for nations to create a slowly increasing tax on consumed goods/services, based on where the WORST sub-part/service comes from.
The trick is to measure the same, as opposed to the current approach of most western nations actually measuring, while others, in particular, China, is ONLY what Chinese government declares. This is why we need more GHG measuring sats up in the sky.
In addition, normalization should be sane. EMissions / $ GDP (real, not PPP), would actually w
Re: (Score:1)
If the goal is to maximize economic output with CO2 emissions then my guess is natural gas will win on that. Is that what you want?
I'd be pleased if the EU replaces coal with natural gas but not at the cost of handing over their economy to Russia. Russian natural gas or domestic coal is a false dichotomy. There's also other options than wind and solar. There is not enough wind and solar in the EU to maintain their economy. Offshore wind is just awfully expensive, and importing solar power from North Af
Re: (Score:2)
Now, as to HOW a nation decides to lower their emissions, is up to them. Ideally, they will have a mix of energy. And with few exceptions, I suspect that nukes are going to play a par
Re: (Score:1)
It's a noble goal to get everyone to lower their CO2 emissions but think of all the nations that don't have the luxury of wind and solar power.
I can recall an interview with a surgeon at a remote hospital somewhere in Africa. The surgeon said they had solar panels but they are expensive and not reliable. There are times they have to choose between keeping the refrigerators running for the medicine or keeping the lights on in the surgical theater. If someone comes along with a diesel generator or a propan
Re: (Score:1)
Always with the completely unfeasible ideas WindBourne.
Re: (Score:1)
The rich countries get to emit more because? What exactly?
Fuck you're stupid.