10 ms·

Britain adopts 2050 net zero emissions target

35 points by saravana85 7y ago

astonex 7y ago
2050 is too late. Make it 2025 at the most otherwise no one in power now will have to deal with it, and it's right now that we need to start making big changes.
- RawChicken 7y ago
  But then they would have to deal with it.
reizorc 7y ago
Too little, too late.
hannob 7y ago
The problem with such long-term plans is of course that none of the politicians who decided this today will be around in 2050. The most relevant question is: What are they going to do in the next 1-2 years to make the first steps? That's far more relevant than any long-term goal.
- toyg 7y ago
  Few of these politicians will be around next year, even. The PM has resigned already, and chances are that the next PM will end up triggering new elections before the end of the year. The new General Election will likely see a massive shakeup due to the fallout from Brexit. This commitment is not worth the paper it's printed on, sadly.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  2050 is not long term. To reach that goal in time lot of things have to be planned and started right now.
  - alecmg 7y ago
    Things have been planned. Coal has almost run out, gas is running out (probably calculation showed it will end by 2050). So why not set a target that no fossil fuel will be burnt (and forget to mention there will be none left to burn)
  - freehunter 7y ago
    It's long term when it comes to the service life of a politician. How many currently-serving politicians will still be around in 30 years to take the blame if we miss the targets?
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      That's irrelevant and comparing apples and oranges. 30 years is not a long time for such a comprehensive change and it is sensible and needed to have plans and objectives over such timescale. I don't understand the point of trying to create an argument on this. It's quite obvious that this comes along with actions over 1, 2 years and beyond from now. And we see that happening every day. If people think that the goal is achievable within 5 years they do not live in the real world.
      - freehunter 7y ago
        And no one is disagreeing with that. There needs to be intermediary steps between now and 2050. That was the entire question, "what are they doing in the next 1-2 years". Just saying "we'll do it within 30 years" is easy, saying "and here's our year-by-year plan" is a lot harder. If there's not a year-by-year plan, when 30 years is up there's no one left to take the blame if we fail.
      - maccard 7y ago
        Why isn't it a long time? 30 years ago the internet didnt exist, we've gone from making 100 million tonnes of plastic to 400 million tonnes (and 30 years before that, we were making almost 0 plastic). The entire US highway system took 60 years. We've made it to Mars in less than 10 years. After WWII, vast amounts of Western Europe were rebuilt in a decade. The entirety of the UKs coal mining industry was decimated in 5 years. 30 years is an absolute eternity.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Theresa has nothing to do having got the boot, so it's her attempt at swan song. The chances of a Johnson government caring about anything other than Brexit are none at all. So real steps will have to wait for the general election... Tories are currently looking at quadrupling the tax on storage batteries, having just about destroyed home solar.
  - toyg 7y ago
    > it's her attempt at swan song. Climate change is to UK PMs what Israel/Palestine is to US Presidents: everyone has a wonderful and magical plan to solve it, touted at election time, which will be completely ignored for their entire time in charge, until it pops out again as their "attempted legacy" once they become lame-ducks with no weight whatsoever.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Sounds about right, especially the magical! Except Gordon's fuel escalator, which was progressing nicely until it started working. Once there were truck drivers organising go-slows and demos at refineries they ran away from it. Fuel was down around 90p a litre back then IIRC. It did seem to be making the roads a bit quieter...
- nicoburns 7y ago
  The more pressing problem is that 2050 is probably too late.
- rjsw 7y ago
  There was an announcement yesterday about a commercial carbon capture scheme [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/uks-biggest-carbon-capture-project-is-step-change-on-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/uks-bigg...
als0 7y ago
Doesn't feel ambitious enough, but here's hoping that other countries promptly follow suit.
sambe 7y ago
I don't know what is going on in the UK: * On the one hand, supposedly one of the best users of clean energy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649). Side question: where does it all come from? The UK doesn't have a lot of sunshine, nor do I see a lot of wind farms compared to other EU countries. Maybe north and around the coast? Wind seems likely given all the news about record wind output when speeds pick up. Wikipedia's number for zero-carbon production seem quite different than BBC's though. * Government makes a vague declaration for the distant future, but Chancellor says we can't afford to do it. * UK criticized for coal subsidies and lack of transparency (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-subsidises-coal-sector-with-356-million-a-year/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-s...)
- s0l1dsnak3123 7y ago
  Most of the UK's renewable energy comes from Scottish wind and tidal farms. Almost all energy-based corruption (I count giving public money in any form to the coal industry as corruption at this point, given all we know) comes from the UK Government. The Scottish Government is no angel either though: they refuse to outright-ban fracking (there's an indefinite moratorium on fracking in Scotland though, which is better than nothing) and they are not serious about keeping north sea oil in the ground.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Coal has declined markedly, in good part thanks to the EU (2020/2025?) target to cease coal burning. Drax is now mostly biomass not coal. Biomass that's mostly imported US pellets from mature woodland, so far from as green as it's painted. Still counted in the renewables total though. Drax remains the UK's largest single emitter. Something like 20% of UK energy is now wind, mainly offshore. There's about 20GW capacity, with 5GW more planned or being built. Many of those are Danish owned or E.On. This is happening despite the government not because of. They've effectively made onshore wind impossible now, hence all the offshore. Solar is about 5% of the total. Nuclear about 20%. We already had a 2008 Act committing to 80% reduction by 2050, all Theresa has done is add the rest.
2T1Qka0rEiPr 7y ago
An interesting little "gotcha" to this (unless I'm mistaken, please correct if so) is that imported energy is not taken into account. The UK recently ran 2 weeks "without using coal" [1], but this completely ignored any imported energy which did [2]. So, this is great - provided we don't simply pass the buck (like by sending all of our plastics to Asia). Edit: Provide citations [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259 [2] https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-mb1079/ https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-mb10... (11.8% imported)
- mattlondon 7y ago
  A lot of the imported energy in the UK is from France, which is something like 75% zero-carbon nuclear generation http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/where-do-british-imports-come-from/ http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/where-do-british-imports-come-from...
- ptah 7y ago
  citation needed
  - OJFord 7y ago
    Maybe you're right, but your comment is less helpful or interesting to other readers than GP's however few citations it has. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ptah 7y ago
      ok, should i say something like: i would like to see evidence of this outrageous statement?
      - Veen 7y ago
Bantros 7y ago
Absolutely no need for this
- throwaway-hn123 7y ago
  Go fuck yourself.
ptah 7y ago
interestingly ecotricity (green) is cheaper than EDF(nuclear) for my home. https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-electricity https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-elec...
HaukeHi 7y ago
Brits' environmental footprints are less than 3% of the global total—and declining. Three percent is the upper bound of how much the UK can reduce emissions itself. Reducing 90% of UK emissions by 2050 will cost roughly $5 trillion. But this barely makes a dent in the current global emissions trajectory. Because of diminishing returns, it is very hard to imagine reducing UK emissions to zero. This would mean replacing every last lightbulb with LEDs powered by zero carbon energy and having everyone fly in electric planes. It is much easier to conceive of an UK scientists or engineers improving technology, say, carbon capture technology so that the diffuse benefits reduce global emissions by >3%.
- Khanhanhan 7y ago
  I don't know where you got the 3% from but isn't UK population just 0.8% of the global total and therefore, per capita, it should be reduced significantly? Since global warming is global, perhaps it would make sense to invest those trillions offshore in the countries where the impact per dollar would be higher.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I think they are assuming air travel will be offset in some way, nobody is expecting to fly across the Atlantic in an electric plane.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Every nation needs to hit net zero. No ifs. No exceptions. The UK Chancellor's knee-jerk estimate is a quarter of yours. Even that was quickly called ridiculously high by the chair of government's own committee on climate that spent a couple of years drafting the plan. It's going to be far easier to persuade reluctant nations, perhaps via sanctions, once much of the world is progressing or already there. Hoping for a magical future technological deus ex machina is as convincing as it normally is in novels. CCS has yet to be shown to have any viability at scale, yet may very well be needed as well to achieve net negative. Fortunately the sensible plan put forward last month is far more than LED light bulbs, which are mostly LED already.

35 points by saravana85 7y ago

2050 is too late. Make it 2025 at the most otherwise no one in power now will have to deal with it, and it's right now that we need to start making big changes.

RawChicken 7y ago
But then they would have to deal with it.

reizorc 7y ago

Too little, too late.

hannob 7y ago

The problem with such long-term plans is of course that none of the politicians who decided this today will be around in 2050. The most relevant question is: What are they going to do in the next 1-2 years to make the first steps? That's far more relevant than any long-term goal.

toyg 7y ago
Few of these politicians will be around next year, even. The PM has resigned already, and chances are that the next PM will end up triggering new elections before the end of the year. The new General Election will likely see a massive shakeup due to the fallout from Brexit. This commitment is not worth the paper it's printed on, sadly.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
2050 is not long term. To reach that goal in time lot of things have to be planned and started right now.
- alecmg 7y ago
  Things have been planned. Coal has almost run out, gas is running out (probably calculation showed it will end by 2050). So why not set a target that no fossil fuel will be burnt (and forget to mention there will be none left to burn)
- freehunter 7y ago
  It's long term when it comes to the service life of a politician. How many currently-serving politicians will still be around in 30 years to take the blame if we miss the targets?
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    That's irrelevant and comparing apples and oranges. 30 years is not a long time for such a comprehensive change and it is sensible and needed to have plans and objectives over such timescale. I don't understand the point of trying to create an argument on this. It's quite obvious that this comes along with actions over 1, 2 years and beyond from now. And we see that happening every day. If people think that the goal is achievable within 5 years they do not live in the real world.
    - freehunter 7y ago
      And no one is disagreeing with that. There needs to be intermediary steps between now and 2050. That was the entire question, "what are they doing in the next 1-2 years". Just saying "we'll do it within 30 years" is easy, saying "and here's our year-by-year plan" is a lot harder. If there's not a year-by-year plan, when 30 years is up there's no one left to take the blame if we fail.
    - maccard 7y ago
      Why isn't it a long time? 30 years ago the internet didnt exist, we've gone from making 100 million tonnes of plastic to 400 million tonnes (and 30 years before that, we were making almost 0 plastic). The entire US highway system took 60 years. We've made it to Mars in less than 10 years. After WWII, vast amounts of Western Europe were rebuilt in a decade. The entirety of the UKs coal mining industry was decimated in 5 years. 30 years is an absolute eternity.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Theresa has nothing to do having got the boot, so it's her attempt at swan song. The chances of a Johnson government caring about anything other than Brexit are none at all. So real steps will have to wait for the general election... Tories are currently looking at quadrupling the tax on storage batteries, having just about destroyed home solar.
- toyg 7y ago
  > it's her attempt at swan song. Climate change is to UK PMs what Israel/Palestine is to US Presidents: everyone has a wonderful and magical plan to solve it, touted at election time, which will be completely ignored for their entire time in charge, until it pops out again as their "attempted legacy" once they become lame-ducks with no weight whatsoever.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Sounds about right, especially the magical! Except Gordon's fuel escalator, which was progressing nicely until it started working. Once there were truck drivers organising go-slows and demos at refineries they ran away from it. Fuel was down around 90p a litre back then IIRC. It did seem to be making the roads a bit quieter...
nicoburns 7y ago
The more pressing problem is that 2050 is probably too late.
rjsw 7y ago
There was an announcement yesterday about a commercial carbon capture scheme [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/uks-biggest-carbon-capture-project-is-step-change-on-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/uks-bigg...

als0 7y ago

Doesn't feel ambitious enough, but here's hoping that other countries promptly follow suit.

sambe 7y ago

I don't know what is going on in the UK: * On the one hand, supposedly one of the best users of clean energy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649). Side question: where does it all come from? The UK doesn't have a lot of sunshine, nor do I see a lot of wind farms compared to other EU countries. Maybe north and around the coast? Wind seems likely given all the news about record wind output when speeds pick up. Wikipedia's number for zero-carbon production seem quite different than BBC's though. * Government makes a vague declaration for the distant future, but Chancellor says we can't afford to do it. * UK criticized for coal subsidies and lack of transparency (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-subsidises-coal-sector-with-356-million-a-year/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-s...)

s0l1dsnak3123 7y ago
Most of the UK's renewable energy comes from Scottish wind and tidal farms. Almost all energy-based corruption (I count giving public money in any form to the coal industry as corruption at this point, given all we know) comes from the UK Government. The Scottish Government is no angel either though: they refuse to outright-ban fracking (there's an indefinite moratorium on fracking in Scotland though, which is better than nothing) and they are not serious about keeping north sea oil in the ground.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Coal has declined markedly, in good part thanks to the EU (2020/2025?) target to cease coal burning. Drax is now mostly biomass not coal. Biomass that's mostly imported US pellets from mature woodland, so far from as green as it's painted. Still counted in the renewables total though. Drax remains the UK's largest single emitter. Something like 20% of UK energy is now wind, mainly offshore. There's about 20GW capacity, with 5GW more planned or being built. Many of those are Danish owned or E.On. This is happening despite the government not because of. They've effectively made onshore wind impossible now, hence all the offshore. Solar is about 5% of the total. Nuclear about 20%. We already had a 2008 Act committing to 80% reduction by 2050, all Theresa has done is add the rest.

2T1Qka0rEiPr 7y ago

An interesting little "gotcha" to this (unless I'm mistaken, please correct if so) is that imported energy is not taken into account. The UK recently ran 2 weeks "without using coal" [1], but this completely ignored any imported energy which did [2]. So, this is great - provided we don't simply pass the buck (like by sending all of our plastics to Asia). Edit: Provide citations [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259 [2] https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-mb1079/ https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-mb10... (11.8% imported)

mattlondon 7y ago
A lot of the imported energy in the UK is from France, which is something like 75% zero-carbon nuclear generation http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/where-do-british-imports-come-from/ http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/where-do-british-imports-come-from...
ptah 7y ago
citation needed
- OJFord 7y ago
  Maybe you're right, but your comment is less helpful or interesting to other readers than GP's however few citations it has. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ptah 7y ago
    ok, should i say something like: i would like to see evidence of this outrageous statement?
    - Veen 7y ago

Bantros 7y ago

Absolutely no need for this

throwaway-hn123 7y ago
Go fuck yourself.

ptah 7y ago

interestingly ecotricity (green) is cheaper than EDF(nuclear) for my home. https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-electricity https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-elec...

HaukeHi 7y ago

Brits' environmental footprints are less than 3% of the global total—and declining. Three percent is the upper bound of how much the UK can reduce emissions itself. Reducing 90% of UK emissions by 2050 will cost roughly $5 trillion. But this barely makes a dent in the current global emissions trajectory. Because of diminishing returns, it is very hard to imagine reducing UK emissions to zero. This would mean replacing every last lightbulb with LEDs powered by zero carbon energy and having everyone fly in electric planes. It is much easier to conceive of an UK scientists or engineers improving technology, say, carbon capture technology so that the diffuse benefits reduce global emissions by >3%.

Khanhanhan 7y ago
I don't know where you got the 3% from but isn't UK population just 0.8% of the global total and therefore, per capita, it should be reduced significantly? Since global warming is global, perhaps it would make sense to invest those trillions offshore in the countries where the impact per dollar would be higher.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I think they are assuming air travel will be offset in some way, nobody is expecting to fly across the Atlantic in an electric plane.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Every nation needs to hit net zero. No ifs. No exceptions. The UK Chancellor's knee-jerk estimate is a quarter of yours. Even that was quickly called ridiculously high by the chair of government's own committee on climate that spent a couple of years drafting the plan. It's going to be far easier to persuade reluctant nations, perhaps via sanctions, once much of the world is progressing or already there. Hoping for a magical future technological deus ex machina is as convincing as it normally is in novels. CCS has yet to be shown to have any viability at scale, yet may very well be needed as well to achieve net negative. Fortunately the sensible plan put forward last month is far more than LED light bulbs, which are mostly LED already.