Promising To Slash Carbon Emissions, Is It Realistic?

[dave50]

As long as it doesn't increase cost of living by increasing taxes and car ownership and flights don't become the preserve of the rich then I don't mind. I'm not prepared to reduce my standard of living for a pipe dream.

[douglas9401]

Nope.

[davebro]

I'm going into business scrapping gas boilers!

[New Judge]

Better to go into business buying them up and selling them when they are no longer available, dave.

[sevenOP]

The arithmetic is simple enough: Fossil fuels – coal, gas and oil – make up 84.5 percent of our energy consumption. Hydroelectricity accounts for 7 percent; nuclear 4.5 percent. Wind and solar – the supposed salvation of human civilisation – provide 3 percent; with other renewables adding one percent. Ignoring what is causing, or even if, climate change is happening, environmental damage could possibly end us long before this total fantasy of carbon zero carbon emission is ever reached.
These Non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) like wind turbines and solar panels are a palliative as the truth which is, yes indeed your consumption will have to be drastically modified which of course means your current standard of living will markedly fall, which of course no-one who knows or is in a position of power would EVER dare admit.

[fender62]

nothing about world over population and that fact we all consume
more people more consuming, oil and gas will run out anyway
then all the oil producing countries are going to have to find an alternative product to sell the world, sand anyone..

[Untitled]

I think it is necessary... greenhouse gases are quite obviously contributing to an unsustainable warming of the planet which is presently causing huge devastation and if ignored will make large parts of the planet uninhabitable...

I don't particularly "want" some of the sacrifices needed for this but they are vital and we probably need to get used to the idea. Humanity cannot go on as it is... it simply can't. If it does then the consequences don't bear thinking about...

[Untitled]

Over population is an issue... but richer/developing societies make a much much much bigger contribution to the problem than poorer ones do. Plus many of those countries have aging populations that are reaching the evening of their days...

[Untitled]

"The problem" being emissions... a high population is only really a problem if it is a population with an ecologically damaging way of life. That applies far more to developed or developing countries than poor ones.

[fender62]

Untitled, yea but without the developed countries, undeveloped countries would starve to death and war amongst eachother.
and besides many are making there way to the west, where they are not wanted, the world needs a moratorium on birth control, watching the covid headlines about india and covid, thye do not have enough
medical for there population, what is 1 doctor for x thousands of people, as a nation its not sustainable or fair, with a lower population you can have the infrastructure to cope, schools health
food production etc etc.

[Untitled]

The people who live in places that will become uninhabitable if the planet gets too warm will need to go somewhere fender... if you don’t want them here then the best thing would be to reduce greenhouse gases... and some countries produce a hell of a lot more than others.

[fender62]

Untitled, we don't have to let the world and his wife in, it's not britain
thats the big polluter, in fact id say were small fry, india china usa
you want to aim your opinion at.

[Untitled]

I do aim my opinion at them... they are the principal emitters.

We can't very well expect China to deal with their 24% if we can't be bothered to do our 1% though...

[youngmafbog]

Not realistic at all.

I agree with moving away from oil, if only to put the Arabs back in their tents, but it has to have a realistic plan. Boris has lost the plot on this clearly driven by his little head and Princess Nut Nut.

[New Judge]

//We can't very well expect China to deal with their 24% if we can't be bothered to do our 1% though...//

Why not? If a country is responsible for 1% of the problem, halving that country's contribution will scarcely scratch the surface. Whereas if the country responsible for 24% of the problem does likewise....

[dannyk13]

I agree with NJ.

[Untitled]

Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is an excellent way to improve our air quality, which benefits everyone... and the world economy of the future will simply need to be greener in order to avoid catastrophe - it will end up more reliant on sustsinable energy one way or another, so it is in our interests to make the transition early - we're well equipped to do that with our strong sci/engineering sector...

On the world stage we would have a bit more authority to expect the big emitters to do something if we had done it ourselves. If we don't we'll just look like hypocrites...

[dave50]

I'm still waiting for the eco nut jobs to demonstrate outside the Chinese embassy over their lack of enthusiasm for cutting their emissions. Or is it only white capitalist countries that are the villains, which I strongly suspect is the case and is the real motivation behind the extreme eco warrior organisations, ie the destruction of capitalism.

[New Judge]

The Chinese authorities have stated that they should be allowed to "catch up" with their development before being forced to cut emissions. Since half of all the coal mined in the world is burnt in China (and it seems will either continue at that level or increase) I don't see why people in the UK should be subject to trashing their homes (and their bank balances) to install expensive and inefficient heating systems.

It's easy for a government to set targets. It's a little more difficult to produce viable plans to ensure they are met.

[sevenOP]

New Judge: "The Chinese authorities have stated that they should be allowed to "catch up" with their development before being forced to cut emissions."

I hope the Chinese authorities do not intend to "catch up" to the estimated current 15 tons per person emitted by Americans, which is double the Chinese per person emitted.

[Untitled]

China sends mixed messages because there is an internal power struggle over energy... while opening coal stations on the one hand they are also boosting solar power enormously - they are the largest manufacturer of solar panels in the world. It's in the interests of humanity to try and nudge them further in that direction...

A number of very brave climate protestors have been arrested in China dave. There have also been school strikes there as there were in the west. So the "eco warriors" are attempting to do something there... and taking on a nasty regime to do so.