3 ms·

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 its

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.

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.