The EU Proposes Slashing Pollution 90 Percent by 2040 (theverge.com) 95
The European Commission today recommended reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels by 90 percent by 2040 compared to 1990 levels. From a report: At face value, it's an ambitious target for transforming the European Union's energy system. As always, though, the devil is in the details. And the proposed plan is already garnering a range of strong reactions. A formal proposal still needs to be issued, but it has already faced pushback on how much of those pollution cuts should come from risky tactics aimed at capturing rather than preventing pollution. Some environmental groups are also criticizing a glaring omission in the draft: while it mentions phasing out coal, there's no strategy to phase out oil and gas.
"You can set targets to cut greenhouse gases as high as you like, but without a clear plan to phase-out the fossil fuels that are producing them they simply aren't credible. It's like building a bike without pedals, how are you going to power it?" Dominic Eagleton, senior fossil fuels campaigner at the nonprofit Global Witness, said in a statement today. The world actually came tantalizingly close to a deal to phase out fossil fuels during a United Nations climate conference in Dubai last December. Despite dozens of countries pushing for that kind of commitment, the agreement ultimately calls for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner." It also carves out room for controversial technologies for capturing carbon dioxide pollution.
"You can set targets to cut greenhouse gases as high as you like, but without a clear plan to phase-out the fossil fuels that are producing them they simply aren't credible. It's like building a bike without pedals, how are you going to power it?" Dominic Eagleton, senior fossil fuels campaigner at the nonprofit Global Witness, said in a statement today. The world actually came tantalizingly close to a deal to phase out fossil fuels during a United Nations climate conference in Dubai last December. Despite dozens of countries pushing for that kind of commitment, the agreement ultimately calls for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner." It also carves out room for controversial technologies for capturing carbon dioxide pollution.
Basically German model (Score:1, Troll)
Reduce emissions on paper (because you're not counting emissions from spun up reserve to keep grid from collapsing when it's not windy nor sunny). Increase in reality because Russians are sanctioned and gas from everywhere is ridiculously expensive, so it's coal if you're lucky for spinning reserve, lignite if you're not. And as price of electricity becomes exceedingly spiky, deindustrialize and plunge your poor into situation where their children have to study in candlelight. Because they can't afford elec
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The unpopularity of government is a pretty widespread issue in the West. For a long time, it looked like they'd cracked the code on governance, but eventually bills come due, and this one is racking up late charges and interest.
Re: (Score:2)
I see that said a lot. It seems a very common opinion online.
Thing is, when you get out on the streets and actually measure, you get a different result https://www.pewresearch.org/sh... [pewresearch.org]
So it makes me think who is putting in the effort to spread that point of view online and why?
Re: (Score:3)
This is an issue of intentional propagandistic disconnect. Ask the same person what they think about specific EU policy that impacts them, and they'll be pretty damn pissed. For example current farmer protests because of EU trying to open internal market to cheap imports. Or the recent record electricity price spikes in Nordics because of how pricing mechanism was implemented on EU level combined with hilarious "energy policy". There are countless other examples, from "wait, it's the EU that mandates throwi
Re: (Score:3)
The unpopularity of government is a pretty widespread issue in the West. For a long time, it looked like they'd cracked the code on governance, but eventually bills come due, and this one is racking up late charges and interest.
Here is a conversation I once witnessed between two archaeologists on the pros and cons of life in pre- versus post Roman Britain:
Enghishman: This must have been paradise, no more government poking its nose into your business, no more rules, no more taxes.
German colleague: That's such a farmer's point of view.
Enghishman: Why would you say that?
German Colleague: Well, perhaps that was unfair to farmers, but it is a very conservative point of view.
Enghishman: So you wouldn't like to live in a society w
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't making a better or worse judgement except inasmuch as it looked for a time that they'd gotten past the discontent issue that plagues governments.
I think people generally want what they don't have because of the obvious negatives of what they DO have. I mean hell, I was just listening to some commentary on Plato and Aristotle complaining about contemporary issues in their polis and more generally in Greece. They were advocating for what they didn't have...an oligarchy essentially.
Or just build out more wind and solar (Score:4, Interesting)
2010 called, they want their arguments in favor of doing nothing back.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, at least he is not an anonymous bot or spinless troll who has nothing but personal attacks in their repertoire. Unlike certain other posters here.
Re: Or just build out more wind and solar (Score:2)
They have to turn them off because they are generating energy at the wrong time. Germanyâ(TM)s emissions have spiked since the Energiewende started and still hasnâ(TM)t made an appreciable difference in energy consumption from so-called green sources despite the declaration of wood chips from Scandinavian forests and peat as a green/zero emission fuel source.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You don't understand what "base load" means.
If the source of your base load provides near zero power at night or when the wind isn't blowing, it is not a base load power source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok ok ok fine yes god damn it. If he's a good boy all damned year he can have his base load. Happy?
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, he does. Base-load is all things you keep running unless you have a good reason to turn it off. Base-load does not mean "reliable", "consistent" or "always delivers the same". Otherwise nuclear would not even be base-load, because it can scram at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Yes, exactly. Something wind and solar can't support.
Nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, yes.
Things that are unavailable 12 hours a day or literally come n go with the wind, no. Can not support base load.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Baseload is the minimum demand in the daily curve. Nuclear generation is not a load.
Re: (Score:2)
Found the language Nazi. Well done exposing yourself as an idiot. Obviously I am talking about satisfying base load. If you did not get that, then you have some mental defect. If you got it, then you are an ass. Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for providing an excellent example of an aristocrat that is utterly disconnected from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
And stop pretending that animal agriculture is either normal or necessary.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If you ever wanted to see what happens when aristocracy is utterly disconnected from reality of the plebs
Yes. You cut the regents' heads off, leave the crowns to the gutter, and later welcome a despot as dictator / emperor because the revolutionaries who took over were inept, greedy and every inch as bad as the monarchs they deposed.
In the US, you get the 1980 general election.
Re: (Score:2)
Ronald Reagan was a dictator?
Love him or hate him, that's fine but you're reading from some mighty odd history books if that's what you meant.
Re: (Score:2)
Ronald Reagan was a dictator?
Love him or hate him, that's fine but you're reading from some mighty odd history books if that's what you meant.
Reagan was no dictator. But what he was was the start of the decline of western ideals of democracy into what is now an outright oligarchy. Hand money to the rich and it will "trickle down." That trickle has been so fine since then as to become non-existent. It doesn't work. Handing money to the hoarders at the top keeps that money out of general circulation. Handing a bit here or there to the bottom infuses the economy bottom to top. But, we still are living under the auspices of voodoo economics, where ha
Re: (Score:2)
As much as people like to glorify French revolution, that's as infamous as it is because it was in fact a massive exception to the rules. And even for that exception, most of the aristocracy fled successfully. It's mainly those that missed the winds of change and got stuck in Paris that got beheaded en masse.
In most cases, aristocracy just adapts to maintain status. Even in case of much better example of Stalin's purges, a lot of aristocracy found it's way into Communist party circles after the winds of cha
Re: Basically German model (Score:2, Insightful)
And on a global scale it will matter relatively little compared to the enormous effort and hysteria. As long as nobody gets China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan under control, the EU under German Green party hysteria should not bully everyone else like that.
They are already burning more coal than ever before and Merkel blindly filled the Russia war coffer to the very brim, all because nuclear energy is an insanely, blindly emotional topic for Germans.
We have to start somewhere, I hear you say? That time is lo
Petro-fueled FUD (Score:2)
All those countries are well under their Paris Accord caps. It's the West who are failing to meet their targets.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be because Paris accord "caps" don't start for the biggest CO2 emitter until 2030, and they actively motivate said biggest emitter (as well as most if not all upcoming competitors for follow up places) to increase their CO2 emissions as much as they possibly can.
Reasoning being that Paris accord says that you need to reduce emissions as a percentage of certain cutoff. For PRC, cutoff from which to reduce is 2030. So if they can maximize emissions by 2030, they'll have a very high ceiling to reduc
Re: (Score:3)
Your crap information is just that: Crap. Or maybe you are just directly lying. You know while these additional coal plants were kept available? It was to keep the fucking _french_ grid from collapsing because of their failed nuclear strategy. Also, there is no "deindustrialization" going on in Germany at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank for you providing an excellent example of said aristocrat and his mindset.
Re: (Score:2)
The kind of "no deindustralisation at all" where there's been a massive decline in industrial output from Germany's energy-intensive industries [twitter.com] over the past couple of years? (From what I've seen, a lot of it seems to be moving to the USA which is more or less self sufficient in fossil fuels unlike Europe, though some German companies also seem to be interested in setting up production in China as well.)
I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess you can propose anything, doing it is another matter.
Re:I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
We live in a finite world and we're hell-bent on converting as much matter as possible into humans. If we don't get our per capita pollution rates lower things will not only get worse, but the rate at which they are getting worse will increase.
Or we could aim for a reduced population so the planet can support our desired individual standard of living.
Regardless, I'm confident reality will eventually sort it out no matter what we choose to do. I'm betting we continue to foul our own nest and consume resources at unsustainable rates until we collectively choke to death or starve.
Re:I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember telling my dad my concern about government deficits when I was a teenager, believing that governments financed themselves like deposit checking accounts and overdrawing was bad. His reply was "It's not going to be an issue during my lifetime or most likely yours, so who cares". Later on I learned about how government finance actually works, and the lack of linkage between tax receipts and spending. He was right, but not for the reason he suggested.
I also later learned that we only control ourselves. We have no real power to control others. Sure, we can manipulate people, but it goes awry almost immediately. You can sell someone something they don't want, or get them to take individual actions in real time, but actual change requires a person to decide on their own hook to change. Your goal in manipulating people will be perverted shortly thereafter. All the political tempests in teapots are also irrelevant for another reason; no people are going to take actions that are not in their economic self-interest, at least not when they find out that a particular policy harms them.
Imbibing this reality would stop all the noise pretty quickly. But all the broken people who think they can force stuff down others' throats would have to get a measure of self-awareness, which is a nonstarter. Recovery for most is a distant goal, if it happens at all.
Anywho, you can take comfort in the fact that yes, we know that burning fossil fuels is bad and not sustainable. I'm also pretty confident replacement energy sources will become available as the century moves on, regardless of all the hysterics now. I'm also pretty positive that CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels will continue to rise for another century before they start tapering off.
We're just individuals in control only of ourselves. Be a decent person and don't worry about the big stuff, it's a good way to get killed anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Enough with the climate denial ...
Svante Arrhenius thought that more CO2 in the atmosphere will make the climate better. But
Re: I guess (Score:2)
Almost all recent measurements, including the XKCD comic have a problem, precision. We donâ(TM)t know what CO2 spiked at 1000 years ago, at best we can measure an average over decades or centuries. We also donâ(TM)t have weather measurement worth a thing until 1950. Again, measuring peaks vs averages. Hence why almost all of these graphs are on skewed logarithmic scales, with 0-100 years ago detailed and then 100-1000 with a few in-between estimates, then 1000-10000 etc, because that is the extent
Re: I guess (Score:5, Informative)
The evidence is overwhelming.
The causes are now well known.
The effects are are what the scientists have predicted.
NASA has a simple site explaining this:
Evidence. [nasa.gov] Brief descriptions of some of the key scientific observations that our planet is undergoing abrupt climate change.
Causes. [nasa.gov] A concise discussion of the primary climate change causes on our planet.
Effects. [nasa.gov] A look at some of the likely future effects of climate change, including U.S. regional effects.
Vital Signs. [nasa.gov] Graphs and animated time series showing real-time climate change data, including atmospheric carbon dioxide, global temperature, sea ice extent, and ice sheet volume.
Re: (Score:2)
"The science is settled" is not an argument.
We've known forever that plants grow better - faster, with more and better fruits - when they have more CO2. We are currently very close to the CO2 levels at which plants simply... die. This is why greenhouses use CO2 generators extensively.
We don't need to "let things balance out" or any such nonsense. What we're seeing from this in recent years is a greening of deserts: the plants absorb more CO2 and convert it to more oxygen. (Humans, by the way, also do much b
Re: (Score:2)
If we are very close to the CO2 levels where plants die how did they survive when CO2 levels were 280 instead of the 500 they are now?
Re: (Score:3)
In the end, emission is just an inefficiency
Not unless there is a carbon tax of sufficient amount -- otherwise the cost of the emission is payed by someone else and the emitter has no incentive to spend money reducing it. Look up the history of rivers catching fire if you doubt that.
Re: (Score:2)
in the 70s it was global cooling,
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
It was a niche thing, temporarily bigged up by the popular press for clout and never accepted by the scientific community.
You've been here trolling about climate science for ages, so you know this. That makes it not ignorance, but malice.
Re: (Score:2)
Global cooling was not a niche thing in the 1970s. It was on the cover of TIME magazine repeatedly and well positioned in the era's zeitgeist. You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to google this and figure out that there were many, many movies about an impending ice age due to human-induced climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
What dates are we talking about it being on the cover of TIME?
https://time.com/vault/year/19... [time.com]
And I am sure you are not talking about the fabricated one with a pengine that was actually this TIME cover
https://content.time.com/time/... [time.com]
Re: (Score:1)
In their June 24, 1974, issue, Time presented an article titled "Another Ice Age?" that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades"
The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period.
In 1991, a prediction by Carl Sagan and other scientists who had worked on the famous TTAPS study on
Re: (Score:2)
Right o
Which part of niche science biggedv up by the popular press food you not understand?
It was never mainstream science. Ever ever ever ever. If your busy citation for that was "time magazine" then just do us all a favour and piss off, eh?
Re: I guess (Score:2)
Re: I guess (Score:2)
. you haven't heard of the Paris Accord
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the chemistry of the oceans will irrevocably kill almost all multi-cellular life. Not just humans. We owe our lives to cyanobacteria and yet we will happily alter their environment without care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The EU has a history of delivering on these things. Look at RoHS and the many other environmental standards it has proposed.
This is the problem with all modern politics. (Score:3, Insightful)
We've fully disconnected from reality. It used to be politicians would fudge numbers a bit here or there, but mostly say some vague shadow of the truth. Now? We've had so many years of outright lies and bullshit, that some bumbling brigade of babbling buttholes can "propose" any old thing as if it were feasible, because why not? Opinions and fantasy matter more than facts and evidence. Who cares if we couldn't cut pollution by 90% in three centuries without cutting population? Say it anyway. It'll be nice boilerplate for whatever the next campaign is. Even if it's absolutely impossible to achieve, somebody, somewhere, will applaud it and act like the searing hot wind spewing out of the politicos mouths isn't adding to the greenhouse effect, rather than slowing it down.
Fucking hell. This one legit pisses me off. Complete disconnect from reality used to be a fun passtime. Fantasy is fun. It should be an escape within fiction. It should not be used as a weapon to slow down actual, feasible progress on real issues. And this is DEFINITELY trailing reality deeply into fantasy fetishization. It's absolutely unachievable, and positively STUPID to state as a proposal. Even if it's a "preliminary proposal" that they expect will get push-back. Well, fuckin' DUH it's gonna get pushback. When you start with "free unicorns and fairies for every child," there's bound to be someone standing up and asking, "Can we really promise things that don't exist?"
Fully aware of political reality (Score:2)
We've fully disconnected from reality.
No, governments are very aware of reality, political reality. The political reality is that by 2040 none of the people currently in charge will still be in charge so by the time it's clear that the cost of doing this will collapse the economy and we have to renege on those promises they will be long gone and someone else will be left carrying the can.
So they can make bold, aggressive promises like this and bask in the glory of their new environmental saviourhood fully aware that the reality is that it w
Re: (Score:2)
We've fully disconnected from reality.
No, governments are very aware of reality, political reality. The political reality is that by 2040 none of the people currently in charge will still be in charge so by the time it's clear that the cost of doing this will collapse the economy and we have to renege on those promises they will be long gone and someone else will be left carrying the can. So they can make bold, aggressive promises like this and bask in the glory of their new environmental saviourhood fully aware that the reality is that it will not be up to them to deliver on those promises. For today's feckless politicians, it's an irresistible combination.
And they waist time doing this type of shit instead of trying to improve lives/infrastructure/laws or in any other way, shape, or form, perform the job they were hired to do. What kills me is how many people lap that garbage up. Why don't we call them out for this shit in a way they can't deny? Every interview for anybody involved should be a hotseat until the moment they admit they're full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we call them out for this shit in a way they can't deny?
Well technically doing that in an effective way is the media's job but when was the last time that you heard a really effective, insightful media interview that made a politician sweat by asking the tough questions? Today's media are no longer motivated by getting at the truth but instead are motivated by getting the most readers and that means clickbait not insight.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we call them out for this shit in a way they can't deny?
Well technically doing that in an effective way is the media's job but when was the last time that you heard a really effective, insightful media interview that made a politician sweat by asking the tough questions? Today's media are no longer motivated by getting at the truth but instead are motivated by getting the most readers and that means clickbait not insight.
There were a few over the last decade, but for the most part if the questions get hard, politicos just leave the interview. So, for the most part, our media trained themselves to hold back from the hard questions. Not to say their approach is correct, but it's sort of a see-saw of stupidity between the media and the political sphere. And like you say, most "news," if it can still be called that, is all about getting ads and clicks. It has as little to do with the truth as a Disney sponsored summer blockbust
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing else comes close to meeting power demands.
Posting that anonymously was wise, you'll get moderated down and lose karma otherwise. Not because it's wrong, but because it's not popular. We'll get there though eventually. The question is if this will be before or after there's rolling blackouts.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the fusion power time-scale fits. Both it and zero-emissions will be ready in about twenty years time..... It's just which twenty years we have to argue over :-)
Don't Stop There! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't stop at 90%! Might as well just make it 100% or even 125% while they're writing wish lists.
--
My 'Collaboration Wish List' is a mile long. - Jordan Fisher
Re: (Score:2)
Technically they can go carbon negative. They won't, but it's physically possible.
Re: (Score:2)
While EU slashes 90%, India increases 1000%. The only job of politicians is to shift responsibility.
The world actually came tantalizingly close? (Score:3)
I love that phrasing: "The world actually came tantalizingly close to a deal to phase out fossil fuels during a United Nations climate conference in Dubai last December"
More accurate phrasing: No agreement was reached at the most recent get together for drinks and hookers in Dubai
Why else would they hold it in Dubai anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
I love that phrasing: "The world actually came tantalizingly close to a deal to phase out fossil fuels during a United Nations climate conference in Dubai last December"
And even if they had it would have been exactly as likely to happen as this proposal, which is to say not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird how all these conferences are held in party towns.
I want to see one in Iowa or something (no offense intended to anyone from Iowa but this crowd won't party there).
Re: (Score:2)
Why else would they hold it in Dubai anyway?
Maybe to show off their new nuclear power plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why else would they hold it in Dubai anyway?
Maybe to show off their new nuclear power plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If they went there it's because the drinks and hookers were there too
Re: (Score:3)
Okay it's 2024 the term 'hooker' is REALLY offensive.
today they like to be called "influencers" or "models".
be better, chud.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay it's 2024 the term 'hooker' is REALLY offensive.
today they like to be called "influencers" or "models".
be better, chud.
My bad. I guess I'm old school. LOL
Re: (Score:2)
More interesting was that the summary seemed upset that they decided to proceed "in a just, orderly and equitable manner".
A few protests and it is gone too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better put on my glasses (Score:2)
I read this as "The EU Proposes Slashing Population 90 Percent by 2024."
Just thought I'd share that horror with everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
That would reduce co2 production. Reading too many WEF documents?
Re: (Score:2)
I have trifocals and when are using wrong lens such mistakes are common.
They wouldn't need to reduce the population by 90% anyway. Engage Dalek mode and exterminate the WEF, the Davos set, and the Eurozone bureaucracy and they would be most of the way there.
Convert the mansions to apartments and there would be an improvement in the housing situation too. The super yachts could be permanently moored and turned into housing too.
Nuclear fission? (Score:1, Troll)
If the EU isn't demanding that more nuclear fission power plants be built to lower pollution while keeping the lights on then I'm not taking this proposal seriously, because in that case clearly the EU isn't taking it seriously.
Onshore wind, hydro, and geothermal are excellent also, better than nuclear fission if there's the climate and geography for it. If they are going to put up more offshore windmills, or any kind of solar PV, then they are using energy that is more expensive and less reliable than nuc
Complaining (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, listening to some /.-ers here complaining about gubbermint is like listening to teenagers complaining about their parents.
Yes, if your government treats you like children that is the correct response. I've already had a mom and a big brother, don't need another. Granted I have not had a nanny personally, but don't do me any favors. TIA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Q: What do you call Karens in Yurp?
A: Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*America in quotes because I mean citizens of the USA... Actually, those mostly white, overly entitled citizens of the USA who have made the USA famous for childish temper tantrums in public. They're not the master race & we don't all kowtow to them.
The catch? Eat zi bug or starve. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)