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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Earth

EU Will Do 'as Much as Possible' To Drive Out Fossil Fuels, Climate Chief Says (reuters.com) 34

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The European Union will do all it can to halt fossil fuel use as part of its "ambitious" position at the upcoming COP28 climate summit despite some differences among EU countries, the bloc's new climate chief Wopke Hoekstra said on Monday. From a report: "Our ambition is indeed to do as much as possible, also in terms of driving out fossil fuels," Hoekstra told journalists after a meeting with Spain's acting Energy Minister Teresa Ribera. The European Union's own green agenda is facing growing political resistance from governments and lawmakers concerned about the cost of the proposals for voters. European Parliament elections will be held next year as citizens throughout the bloc are facing cost of living pressures. "Our goal will be one of ambition for the COP, from every single aspect: mitigation, adaptation, renewables," Hoekstra said, even though "if you zoom out and look at the 27 member states, you might see differences." Hoekstra declined to give details on the EU negotiating mandate for the COP28. "In our view there is no alternative to driving out fossil fuel asap," he said. "The saying is that it takes two to tango. In this case, it takes almost 200."

EU Will Do 'as Much as Possible' To Drive Out Fossil Fuels, Climate Chief Says More | Reply

EU Will Do 'as Much as Possible' To Drive Out Fossil Fuels, Climate Chief Says

Comments Filter:

  • A blast from the past! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Welcome to Europe's preindustrial past but with a postindustrial population. Everyone start learning how to be a subsistence farmer.

  • EU tarriffs. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If they are going to do "as much as possible", they shouldn't be trying to put tariffs on Chinese EVs and green tech like solar panels and windmills.

    • good point, AC. not modding up an AC, but I agree.

    • And make a Nuremberg trial for Merkel's and Scholz' governments. Electricity from coals kills a Hitler's worth of people every 3 years worldwide with short-term airborne pollution alone, never mind that tiny detail of released carbon -- thus the decision to replace a zero-emission source of energy with the worst kind of coal is nothing less than an omnicide (a genocide kills based on ethnic/etc basis, this is an omnicide because it kills without respect even to species).

    • Or, stop buying from China altogether since they and India are responsible for most of the emissions and don't care about reducing them. Think about how many industries moved to China because there were no expensive environmental regulations to deal with. Extreme tariffs could force those industries back, resulting in lower emissions overall, instead of killing ourselves trying to reduce emissions which China immediately offsets.

      There is absolutely no point in the West going any further to reduce emiss

  • Basically force the imeddiate scrapping of all petrol cars, with limited non fuctional museum donation for classic cars. And order the immediate shut down of petrol car factories, not 2035, now. It will be expensive and willl cripple our economy temporarily but if we print billions to bail out cryptobros we can do this too.
    • That sounds like more "irreparably" than "temporarily". The vast majority of people will not be able to buy a new electric car, nor would they be viable replacements for everyone. You'd essentially roll society back to where it was in the early 20th century, when most people couldn't afford a car, so most people's ability to travel was limited to where they could get on foot or horseback. Sure, that was all well and good back then, but our economy is very different now. I would not be able to go get gro

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        You'd essentially roll society back to where it was in the early 20th century, when most people couldn't afford a car, so most people's ability to travel was limited to where they could get on foot or horseback.

        Or electric bicycle.

        I would not be able to go get groceries or go to work.

        Yes, we've built our cities where you're basically under house arrest [medium.com] if you can't drive, so we will have to retrofit [amazon.com] our cities to make them walkable again like they were before WWII. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 )

      How do you purpose to execute this grand plan of yours in liberal democracies where you'll be voted out of office the moment you suggest it?

      Does democracy have to go to stop climate change? Can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, eh?

  • tax carbon emmissions (Score:3)

    by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @11:39AM (#63915357)
    And let the free market figure out what the best way to reduce carbon emissions is. But they can't do that because it would mean making real changes. Cattle farming would have to be phased out. Many businesses that have high emissions and low profits would go out of business while companies that add a lot of value for each ton of emissions wouldn't change and f profits and efficiency have become a bad thing for many on the left and even more on the populist right. Taxation would mean entrepreneurs who guess what the best way to reduce green house gas emissions would become rich instead of existing industries that have sub optimal solutions. It means we couldn't subsidize wind farms and solar. They have solar in Germany which produces exactly zero percent of the German peak demand which happens at 6pm in the winter. So past stupidity like that would become obvious. You also couldn't do meaningless virtue signaling measures like banning plastic forks and straws.

    Historically almost every successful environmental initiative has come from the free market side of the right. Why? Because the rich are more adaptive. They can change jobs, methods of production or even move. The poor are more sticky. The EU is attempting environmental change in a way that minimizes disruption, pushes the cost on everyone (although in the long run it will be the poor who pay), won't allow flexibility or innovation and will ultimately fail.

    There are many ways we can reduce emissions today that will save us money but they save the wrong people money so we won't do them:
    Give rich households the ability to pay the spot market price for electricity and they will change their habits to consume electricity when it is cheap. (you can't do this for the poor because if they choose to use electricity at peak prices the left won't allow them to be billed - we saw this in Texas)
    Require high albedo roofing materials to be available - they last longer, reduce heat island effects and save on both heating and cooling costs. Currently I can't install them because they don't match my neighbourhood.
    Get rid of almost all zoning regulations. I know they are a good idea in general but in most of the western world they have become NIMBY tools to the point of no regulation being better than what we have.
    Outlaw rent controls - Rent control pretty much killed all new building of purpose built rental apartments in Canada. Rental apartments are important since they allow people to live in a much less carbon intensive lifestyle. They also give people geographic mobility and the chance to move to places with better paying jobs. (OK, this last one helps the poor but they won't support it)

  • Who is the "our"? (Score:3)

    by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @11:45AM (#63915379)
    Is he trying to present his view as the unanimous position of the EU member states or their citizens? If so, then since he also says that it is not a unanimous position, it would seem that a mistake is being made. Things won't go well if the position of the negotiator does not reflect the position of those upon whose behalf they are supposedly negotiating.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mpol ( 719243 )

      All Wopke Hoekstra is doing is talking his way into the chair of Climate Chief, saying all the things the EU members want to hear.

      In the Netherlands, he is not seen as reliable. There was this issue after the last elections, where the big parties claim to start a new style of government (without all the lies). Hoekstra was leader of the CDA, and sometime during the negotiations to form a government, there turned up a note saying "Omtzigt; position elsewhere". Omtzigt was a CDA politician as well, but a crit

  • They will do anything, but they won't do that!

    • Given that Hoekstra comes from the oil industry, I am afraid it is all words and no deeds. Whether you want solar, wind, hydro or nuclear.

  • EU = European Utopians.

  • Expect to see a lot of propaganda & FUD indirectly from the usual lobby, PR, & marketing groups to thoroughly spread misinformation & stoke conflict & division over the coming months & years, as they always have done. The fossil fuels industry will keep up all tied up in "culture war" knots while they carry on as usual.

    Social democracy has utterly failed, as predicted. Democracies are too vulnerable to capitalists & they eventually weedle their way in & f**k everything up unt
  • That would be funny if not that sad : this guy worked for Shell and McKinsey [wikipedia.org]. No need to say more ?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative." -- Peter da Silva

Close