19 ms·
EU leaders agree to cut emissions by at least 55% by end of decade
- wazoox 6y agoAs the saying goes : "Promises only bind those who believe in them."
- iso1631 6y agoUnless the emissions from imports are counted, this is meaningless. If you produce an dohicky in the EU and it casues 1000 tons of emissions, and by doing things like greening your grid, moving transport to electric, etc, you drop that to 450 tons, that's great. If you produce an dohicky in the EU and it casues 1000 tons of emissions, and you instead stop producing it, but instead import it from China, where it was produced with 1500 tons of emissions and used another 500 tons to transport it, that's terrible.
- safog 6y agoI think China themselves have targets to cut emissions and transition to clean energy [1]. They've been leading the charge on all clean energy tech so far. It looked like some of the dirtier industries are being moved on from China to SE Asia (Vietnam etc.) but there's a general push across the world to transition to clean energy. I'm pretty confident we'll get out of the doom and gloom existential threat to humanity scenarios, but still think large portions of the world's populations will be impacted by climate change. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/27/china-carbon-pledge-put-energy-system-reverse-wind-solar#:~:text=China's%20President%20Xi%20Jinping%20stunned,to%20virtually%20zero%20by%202060 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/27/china-ca....
- allendoerfer 6y ago> They've been leading the charge on all clean energy tech so far. No, they did not. Germany did and China profitted.
- M2Ys4U 6y agoChina has brought more renewable power online than almost everyone else combined. (although they have also brought online a shittonne of coal power, too)
- allendoerfer 6y agoGermany was a first mover in solar as well as in wind energy. It does not make sense to compare the installed capacity of China to Germany. It is 17 times bigger than Germany. China was the second mover profitting from proven technology and prices that were lowered for all players by subsidising not German companies, but the installation of solar power (no matter where it was from).
- rebuilder 6y agoRe: doom and gloom, I'm less worried about the immediate effects of climate change than I am about the knock-on effects. By which I mean wide scale war. For example, large areas in India (and other hot, humid places) may see lethal wet bulb temperatures during heatwaves within a few decades. I'm not looking forward to seeing how things play out when nuclear powers like India and Pakistan have to deal with hundreds of millions of their citizens needing to relocate.
- safog 6y agoI'm pretty worried about this as well - esp. about heatwaves, but I don't think that would result in nuclear war in our lifetimes. Unless China messes around with rivers that originate in Tibet that is. Possibly my biggest worry is water - providing water for 1bn+ people (and agriculture, and industries) is going to get harder and harder. I'm a techno optimist, so I'm hoping some variant of desalination tech will pull through if things get really bad. The other big worry as you say is the heat waves. If we do get emissions under control, I think we'll also end up doing some form of carbon scrubbing and don't just sit around in a 2C warmer world. None of our current climate engineering approaches are enough to arrest global warming by themselves but I'm hoping we can eventually control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
- melling 6y agoYes, China makes the steel, etc. They use a lot of coal for all their energy needs. I remember this 13 year old story about dismantling a German steel mill and sending it to China. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/world/asia/21transfer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/world/asia/21transfer.htm...
- jiehong 6y agoThat's exactly why every country should do it.
- young_unixer 6y agoGood lucking getting China to agree.
- jedimastert 6y agoIt'd have to be economic, like a tariff proportional to the amount of emissions created by producing each good
- bognition 6y agoOne way or another we’re going to have to spend a lot of money to reverse the impact of climate change. Politicians don’t seem to have the stomach for a carbon tax and it’s increasingly looking like we’ll just get tariffs. So instead of explicitly working in the cost of carbon and decreasing spending we’re going to raise prices on everything which will likely have the same impact.
- root_axis 6y agoWhat's your point? China isn't cooperative, so no point in trying to reduce emissions?
- agent008t 6y agoIf the outcome is 'the West' handicapping its economies while China continues its growth and expansion, then will you not end up with a situation decades down the road where we all live in a China-dominant world?
- root_axis 6y agoReducing emissions does not equate to handicapping the economy.
- kieranmaine 6y agoThis is being looked at. See: - https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12228-EU-Green-Deal-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism- https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa... - https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-carbon-border-tax-proposal-still-has-many-grey-areas/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-carbon-bord...
- candu 6y agoThanks for posting authoritative sources! IMHO it's unfortunate when the kneejerk reaction to "governments / leaders do thing X" is "but did they think about obvious edge case Y!?" Yes, they thought about obvious edge case Y; they employ / engage with loads of policy and domain experts for whom thinking about obvious edge case Y is table stakes, especially if Y is something one can think up off the cuff in a comment on HN. Perhaps not all of that thinking makes its way into final policies, whether for practical or political reasons. Perhaps much of that thinking - especially where nuance, expertise, or uncertainty are concerned - gets dropped from layperson reporting on the policy. Almost always, you can find publicly-available documents, transcripts, etc. that exhaustively list these details - all the arguments, all the community consultations, all the policy whitepapers. These all exist, and unlike in modern academic publishing, you can almost always find and read them for free! That said, I do agree that we as a society need to put much more effort into accurate communication around expert fields. Specialization, and the resulting glut of information written for and consumed by specialized audiences, is one of many forces that make it harder to build a shared, agreed-upon sense of reality. What might it look like to solve this problem in the 21st century?
- yostrovs 6y agoPerhaps your optimism about the diligence of politicians should meet the reality of history. Unintended consequences and people skirting the law are endemic to lawmaking.
- ploika 6y agoThat's not very a sophisticated take to be honest, especially when we're talking about a part of the world that gave us the word "realpolitik". Politicians disappoint and unscrupulous people exploit. Absolutely everyone already knows that. It doesn't mean that nothing ever improves.
- maccard 6y agoIt's easy to come onto HN and dismiss something like this. If the EU agreed to count emissions from China there would be something else to complain about. This is a huge move, and by itself it's not enough, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing. It's also likely that an agreement like this is a required precondition of enforcing this with trading partners. The actual implementation of this will likely be a little from column A and a little from column B, and will likely have a positive impact on the current situation.
- dudul 6y agoIs it really a "huge move" though? I feel like we've seen something like that once or twice a year for the past decade at least.
- oseityphelysiol 6y agoI supposed what's different from previous announcements is now that we're to see somewhat more tangible deadlines, not "30 years in the future" which will likely never happen. It would be nice to plan for an even shorter amount of time, 5 years for instance, so that people announcing these goals are actually accountable if they're not reached, but it's a nice start.
- toyg 6y agoGlobal polices take time to bubble up. Say you get a local authority to agree to something (news), then multiple ones (news), then the entire state (news), then multiple states (news), then a continent-sized entity (news), then multiple continent-sized entities (news), then all entities (news). That's a lot of announcements for what could be, in practice, a single policy. When the problems are as many and as interlocked as this particular one is (involving emissions, energy sources, level-playing market issues, etc), you will have a multitude of agrements and initiatives, which will feel "multiplied" through news channels.
- pydry 6y agoAdded to which, China can be dealt with via restructuring a trade agreement provided there is the political will. Which it looks like there is. The fact that this plugs one hole in the sinking ship and not two is hardly evidence that it's crap.
- znpy 6y agoA more likely output would be chinese factories blatantly lying and certifying that such dohicky was produced using 450 tons of emissions and transport only uses like 350 tons of emissions. And you wouldn't have any way of verifying whether it's true and demonstrating it's false.
- arez 6y agoclassic HN comment, nothing is worth anything if not done 100% luckily it's not like that in the real world. Agreements like this are tiny footsteps in the right direction, people are being aware, acknowledging the problem, setting directions, goals, timelines etc. this all helps to reach the goal
- Benmcdonald__ 6y agoChina has a modern infrastructure with electric transportation and investing in green energy. Their emissions per capital are low The real problem is the US. High per capital emissions and weak commitments to reduce emissions
- posix_me_less 6y agoBoth are big polluters, both are real problems.
- 1234fdsazxcv 6y agoEmissions per capita are low because a lot of the population lives in poverty outside the city or in the city on the margins. It is not an eco-utopia.
- dane-pgp 6y agoThe US is free to plunge millions of its own citizens into poverty to take advantage of this "loophole" if it wishes.
- Benmcdonald__ 6y agoEven the rich lifestyles are greener than in America Manufacturing is dirty but then the whole world consumes these goods so that's not only a China problem
- iso1631 6y ago> Their emissions per capital are low Well I do see far more electric vehicles in Beijing and in Washington DC if that's what you mean
- latortuga 6y agoThere are plenty of non-"just import it from China" emissions that will be targeted by this. Think personal and public transportation, heating and cooling, and more. You can't exactly outsource heating your bedroom to China.
- calkuta 6y agoIn addition to this very obvious "out", there is also the fact that politicians today are unlikely to bear responsibility for outcomes that occur 10 or more years into the future. Promises to do things in the future seem to be a mainstay of international climate discussions, from Kyoto to Paris and onward.
- acdha 6y agoThis comment inadvertently highlights the importance of educating people about where they use fossil fuels. Manufacturing is a small part of the picture and there is a ton of inherently local usage: heating, transportation, and food are significant and easily changed by removing government subsidies for wasteful industries. A lot of personal decisions like eating less (or sustainably grown) meat, driving less, or using less HVAC are sensitive to government incentives. Here are two calculators for you to learn more about the topic: https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/ https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon... https://www.nytimes.com/ask/answers/lower-personal-carbon-footprint https://www.nytimes.com/ask/answers/lower-personal-carbon-fo...
- rebuilder 6y agoThe leadership of the EU states know this well. They also know that industry in the EU is a hugely important employer and a major shift to importing more goods would be very destabilizing. So what does it tell you that they choose to move ahead with this policy, even though it means potentially weakening their economies relative to the competition? To me, it says they finally see that the consequences of not acting to mitigate climate change are unacceptable, and that there's no solution without risk left.
- taneq 6y agoDon't let best be the enemy of good.
- hannob 6y agoThe EU is working on adressing this on some level, they want to introduce something they call a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Details are complex and will matter in how effective this is and there's also a lot of resistance, so this is not decided yet. But it sounds like this is probably gonna happen.
- dane-pgp 6y ago> Unless the emissions from imports are counted, this is meaningless. To give some perspective, in the case of the UK (which until this year had been an EU member): "directly-produced carbon emissions peaked in 1972, total carbon emissions created by the UK economy peaked thirty-five years later in 2007" So yes, "imported" carbon emissions can make a big difference, but even if you take them into account, the trend for total emissions has been downward for over a decade. https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/10/21/imported-emissions-mean-uks-carbon-footprint-peaked-later-than-believed/ https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/10/21/imported-emissions...
- rdsubhas 6y agoThe fact that they'll be willing to lose local manufacturing, production, jobs and the linked market and economy – doesn't sound entirely meaningless. Constructive criticism is good, but really, "meaningless"? Comments like these make me worried about general built-up pessimism and negativity of the human race. We're not happy when anything happens, but then we're also surprised when nothing happens. Statistics may be there, but they're just getting discussed and counter-argued infinitely until nothing happens.
- agd 6y agoAs comparison, the UK target is a cut of 68% by 2030.
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoIt's difficult to compare, the UK had a lot of dirty coal power stations in 1990 whereas France was mostly nuclear. We had some low hanging fruit to pick and started doing so for cost reasons more than anything else.
- agd 6y agoTrue, but Germany has a lot of coal.
- lucioperca 6y agoGermany is really a shame, they build a lot of coal plants because of the phase out of nuclear. Mean while a lot of NIMBY laws and protest is stopping onshore wind.
- bildung 6y agoThat is technically true but misleading because a) all of those plants were planned before the nuclear exit and b) they all close in 2038. Still a shame, though.
- greatpatton 6y agook fine but in 2020 63% of Germany electricity production is carbon neutral (renewable + nuclear), and this is increasing every year. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...
- lucioperca 6y agoBut there will be no nuclear after 2022 which will hinder the progress, meanwhile this; https://www.powermag.com/germany-brings-last-new-coal-plant-online/ https://www.powermag.com/germany-brings-last-new-coal-plant-...
- jiehong 6y ago> compared to 1990s emissions. That's a sequel to Europe's 20-20-20, which effectively achieved the 20%+ reduction [1], so that's ~30% more in a decade, which is bold. [1]: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/30/report-eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-down-24-since-1/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/30/report-eu-g...
- credit_guy 6y agoBold indeed. So, the initial plan was to reduce emissions by 20% between 1990 and 2020 (3 decades) and by a further 25% in the next decade (to achieve a total decrease of 40%). We exceeded this target; the reduction was 24% in 3 decades. And now the reduction target for the next decade was increased to 41% ( the math is (1-0.24)*(1-0.41) = 1-0.55). In other words, in a single decade a more ambitious reduction target that the initial target for 4 decades. And starting from a much lower base (i.e. all the low hanging fruits were picked already). This is indeed bold. Is it impossible? I hope not. But I'd like to see the feasibility study to see what the concrete steps are to achieve this target.
- perfunctory 6y ago> all the low hanging fruits were picked already Is the "low hanging fruits" really the right way to reason about this? I think the "economies of scale" is a better framework.
- tinus_hn 6y agoIs there a way to bet money on them wriggling out of it when the time comes for hard decisions as opposed to posturing and finger pointing?
- cagenut 6y agoThe best bet you can make if you're confident nothing will get done is to not have any children.
- sveme 6y agoLook at the ambitious CO2 emission targets (and associated fines) for EU carmakers, no one's wriggling out of that.
- lixtra 6y agoThey moved their production out of EU into China, US or even Turkey. Of course they won’t come back. Congrats.
- iso1631 6y agoBecause they can sell from Turkey and China into the EU and not worry about carbon emissions. If those emissions were accounted for, then it would be more efficient to manufacture closer to the customer, and we'd all benefit.
- phtrivier 6y agoI don't know about the restriction on emissions during car productions, but I think the OC was refering to carbon emissions limits on the cars sold in the EU. Basically, (again, as I understand it) there is limit on average emission / distance run by your fleet ; so you can still some SUVs if you sell enough hybrids and EV. It seems to be having an effect, at least as measure by the advertisements. 2020 seems to be, as predicted, the year when carmarkers in France realized they had to push their salespeople to actually sell those Zoe-s, otherwise they would get fined. Maybe the "powerless UE" is having some power here - though we'll have to look at the actual sales number at the end of the year. (And they'll probably come crying that the year was very bad because COVID. And fire more people to go build all the SUVs in Turkey. I don't know.)
- orangepanda 6y agoBit of a nitpick but is end of the decade in 2029 or 2030?
- iso1631 6y agoWhen did the sixties end?
- toper-centage 6y agoDepends on the country. In some places it ended way into the 80s.
- MichaelApproved 6y agoI was curious why you were asking so I thought I’d quickly find an answer with a definitive source but this ended up being much more controversial than I thought. The popular answer seems to be a decade starts and ends with the decade handle. 200X, 201X, 202X, 203X, 204X. The current decade began when it was 2020 and will end when it’s no longer 202X. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/27/791546842/people-cant-even-agree-on-when-the-decade-ends https://www.npr.org/2019/12/27/791546842/people-cant-even-ag... > As Jan. 1, 2020, approaches, it turns out there is a Team Zero and a Team 1 – those who believe the new decade will begin after midnight on the upcoming New Year's Eve and those who believe the burgeoning celebrations of a new decade (and all the "last decade" retrospectives) are in fact a year early. > In a recent YouGov survey, 64% of Americans said the next decade will begin on Jan. 1, 2020, and end on Dec. 31, 2029. But nearly 20% said they weren't sure – and slightly fewer people said the next decade won't start until Jan. 1, 2021. > On this question, many voices of authority are with the minority. They say that because there was no Year Zero when the current era began more than 2,000 years ago, all decades, centuries and millenia begin with Year 1.
- lucioperca 6y agoI hope they will build some of these suggested 50MW wind turbines in the next years not to far from my home such that I can have a look at them. https://sumrwind.com/ https://sumrwind.com/
- LatteLazy 6y agoI thought I was the only person who thinks they look nice!
- oblio 6y agoNext up, find a horse and a lance :-D
- gok 6y agoProject seems kinda dead? No press releases since 2017.
- cr1895 6y agoThe next-gen turbines that are _actually_ going to be built in the coming years are still hugely impressive: https://www.siemensgamesa.com/products-and-services/offshore/wind-turbine-sg-14-222-dd https://www.siemensgamesa.com/products-and-services/offshore...
- Someone 6y agoThat’s very similar in size to https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind..., which has been built (possibly not in production, but the link has a time-lapse video)
- refurb 6y agoEU leaders are big on virtual signaling so Let’s come back in 9 years and see if they deliver rather than giving them any credit for it now?
- thomasahle 6y agoYou can give them credit for living up to the 2020 reductions then?
- INTPenis 6y agoThat promise came one year too late.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kiliantics 6y agoMore like 40+ years
- admiralspoo 6y agoAlternative title: EU leaders agree to offshore >50% of emissions to Asia by the end of the decade
- xiphias2 6y agoI'm really happy that Tesla's price is so high. Decreasing price of batteries is the most important step in decreasing air pollution and CO2 emissions. I wish EU would stop subsidizing hybrids, and focus on electric cars, as hybrid subsidies are misused extremely.
- janmalec 6y ago>Decreasing price of batteries is the most important step in decreasing air pollution and CO2 emissions. Is it? What good does an electric car do if the electricity was produced using fossil fuels?
- xiphias2 6y agoBatteries are also extremely important for storing solar and wind energy, as it's a substantial cost of solar and wind farms now that producing electricity is so cheap. Tesla leadership said many times that the battery part of its operation is going at least as if not more important than the car operations over time.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jellicle 6y agoAny plan that is to be implemented by the next political leader to run your country is worthless. It has negative value, because the existence of the plan is used to prevent current action. What are you going to do IN 2020 to reduce emissions? What are you going to do in JANUARY 2021 to reduce emissions? What are you going to do in FEBRUARY 2021 to reduce emissions? These are the only important questions. The answer to each is "nothing". "The next political leader to be elected in my country will definitely reduce emissions" has no meaning.
- thomasahle 6y agoWell, Merkel has been chancellor for 15 years. Besides, the previous goal of 20% cut by 2020 was achieved, so don't be so quick to dismiss this.
- beyondcompute 6y agoToo bad EU population is a drop in a sea and it’s already in some parts quite environmentally conscious (if not to say “friendly”).
- TazeTSchnitzel 6y agoThe EU is (almost) half a billion people who are some of the richest and most polluting in the world. It's a big deal.
- beyondcompute 6y agoI got bullied out of conversation by angry mob (downvoted). But I think, I’ll still provide a clarification. (Fun fact: people in angry mobs are always righteous.) I was not saying that change is not needed. I am just saying that (total) electricity consumption, say of EU is half of that of US and 1/3 of China. 25% more than India. My electricity consumption is about the same level as of a person in Jamaica or Syria (some years it was less but gone up a bit now). And only 24% percent of my electricity nowadays is fossil (still bad). My newest laptop is from 2015. Many of the people around me are vegetarians or vegans, some people have pretty much given up traveling by plane (* scream emoji *), many use bikes to move around the city. > Richest. Shmitchest. I happen to think that some of the folks around me are doing pretty good job. Yes, it seems that it may be too late. :( Yes, more needs to be done (likely it will take decades unfortunately)! But “rich” (as you call them) have better opportunities to switch to electric vehicles, adopt energy-saving technologies earlier, and so on.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- intended 6y agoI’ve said this before and it’s only getting less crazy sounding, but this is all a preamble to governments launching geo engineering schemes. They sound good, appeal to new voters, and will have the benefit of being just in time for “its too late for change, but not too late for <cue fanfare> Geo engineering!” Govt spending follows, and politicians get to sell the idea that no change is needed.
- elric 6y agoAnd then what? Magic? Are there any viable geo engineering schemes that could be deployed in the short term, without a risk of catastrophic side effects?
- fn1 6y agoNot geo engineering, but I strongly believe DAC (direct air capture) of carbon will become widespread. (DAC because BECCS' needs/effects are too complex)
- multiplegeorges 6y agoAgreed, these efforts are great to hear about and push forward, but to be properly net zero we'll have to have DAC. There will always be some level of emissions that we need to offset.
- the8472 6y agoIf insufficient other measures have been taken up to that point then it only has to be less catastrophic than unmitigated climate change.
- hannob 6y agoSolar radiation management could be deployed in the short term. Whether there are catastrophic side effects is pretty much an open question.
- intended 6y agoThe thing is that I wasn’t selling hope, I was selling the opposite. The bulk of our habits suggest that snake oil will be sold and bought, especially in this case. There are strong reasons that this particular solution is PR and big spending friendly. It converts the big issue into something which can be solved by “somebody else” This does nothing to resolve the drives that generate pollution, and allow us to continue on our current path. It’s going to look amazing, the imagery of man grappling or synergising with Gaia will be relatively easy to sell compared to a say carbon taxes or voluntary targets. Functionally humans operate at a global scale without a consensus mechanism that is effective at a global level as well as with our current development disparity levels.
- Proven 6y agoHaha, idiots. The sole reason they agreed on that nonsense is because that's how they can increase spending ("we had to borrow to meet stricter regulations"). Green lobby must be laughing they asses off. Your debt is their profit.
- LatteLazy 6y agoIncreasingly, nations need to force the US and China to start cutting, not continue cutting their own emissions. Otherwise global will continue to rise and they'll be wasting their time.
- dalbasal 6y agoMaybe... but most efforts over the last decades to this end have been slow and hard. The alternative thesis is leadership by example. Putting these at odds has been a recipe for stalling, and both the US & China are examples of this. On that note, I think we should be using carbon reduction leadership more directly to generate industrial advantages within the EU. There are (should be) obvious advantages in getting to the future first. A lot of recent capital investment in green tech (eg tesla, panasonic, the chinese panel industry) were directly or indirectly supported by signals of long term demand (eg end dates for ICE vehicles) from european polities. EG: Telsa's investment case (besides the L5 autonomy case) is basically formed around a predicted adoption curve for electric vehicles. (Market Share)X(Market Size) for any given T. Long term investments need confident predictions of long term market size. Same for solar panels, battery tech, etc. Most of the footnotes supporting these predictions came from EU (member) politics. Not quite government guaranteed demand, but collectively credible nonetheless. There should be more effort to get this happening locally. The UK is no longer EU, but it's a nice legible example so let's use it. Scotland, and now the UK as a whole have been declaring that ICE vehicles will be banned by 2030. Whether that "ban" will really be a ban will be determined later, but that still puts one hell of a footnote on your market size predictions for 2030... directly translatable into hard capital investment. The EU (+UK) is big enough that a good chunk of this investment can be captured within it. There are costs to carbon reduction locally. Environmental benefits are more global. We should be capturing more of the economic benefits locally to even it out.
- tengbretson 6y agoUS emissions have been steadily dropping. This information is absurdly easy to find. Given how shallow your understanding of the facts is, explain to me on what basis you have formed these ideas about what the US, China and other nations should start or stop doing.
- DrBazza 6y agoAnyone here from Poland or Germany and know what those governments are going to do about brown coal?
- lnsru 6y agoContinue using coal and buying green electricity certificates from Norway? Because local green nuclear energy is devilish in Germany and can’t be produced locally anymore.
- DrBazza 6y agoIt sounds like both countries are going to do some horse-trading then to do their part.
- freeflight 6y agoAs a German it's a bit annoying to keep reading this kind of stuff when it's just flat out wrong. Right now there are still 6 commercial fission reactors running in Germany [0]. They are slated to phase out at the end of 2021 and 2022, but I really wouldn't be too surprised if they reinstate the running-time extensions that were revoked after the Fukushima disaster. The nuclear phase-out, that was decided and ratified back in 2001/2002, was backed by the first green electricity feed-in tariff scheme in the world. In major parts responsible for Germany's massive renewable capabilities because it also utilized Germanys leading position in renewable tech back then. Germany is also a major player in nuclear fusion research, being home to the largest and most advanced stellarator [1] and a major contributor to ITER [2]. It's also been at the forefront for hydrogen research and application, which has very real potential to be the green fuel of the future: Using the abundance of renewable energy for electrolysis of hydrogen, which can then be stored. Yet whenever "German energy" comes up, all that's brought up is this flat out wrong "Germany doesn't do nuclear! It's all coal or Russian gas!" meme. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernreaktoren_in_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernreaktoren_in_Deu... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
- Tade0 6y ago
- ffggvv 6y agoemissions = economic activity. britain got out at a good time. the eu just keeps getting more irrelevant
- oblio 6y agoAgreed. I think that the UK should bring back the Mallard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_A4_4468_Mallard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_A4_4468_Mallard) and heck, for old times' sake, HMS Dreadnought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906) ), while they're at it. Just to show'em how it's done!
- imtringued 6y agoIf that were true then decreasing fuel efficiency would increase economic activity. It obviously doesn't.
- pmlnr 6y agoWake me up when cargo ships are forced to cut emissions and can run on some kind of other, than fossil power (hint: probably the only thing that has enough capacity at the moment is nuclear) https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads-carbon.html https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads... Nothing is going to matter until this changes.
- Kuinox 6y agoAh yes, we will stop cargo ships. Now we will ship everything by plane, happy ?
- throwaway-8c93 6y agoAt the same time, cargo ships transport an unbelievable amount of cargo. They're an order of magnitude more efficient per tonne/km than trucks, and two orders of magnitude more efficient than air freight. Economic incentives from fuel savings alone were enough to reduce the emissions per tonne/km by a higher percentage than many devout green governments reduced theirs. Cargo ships are responsible for ~3% of global CO2 emissions. Not too bad for providing a backbone for the world's economy.
- pmlnr 6y ago> Cargo ships are responsible for ~3% of global CO2 emissions "One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds ": https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... Cargo ships are bad, much worse, than people think. And this has nothing to do with efficiency, or price, or anything else; pollution is pollution, and emissions != CO2.
- freeflight 6y ago> Cargo ships are bad, much worse, than people think. And this has nothing to do with efficiency, or price, or anything else; pollution is pollution, and emissions != CO2. This is an extremely reductive and absolutist way of thinking. We have very real solutions to reduce emissions of cars with greener options, solutions that do not work with cargo ships. Nuclear civilian cargo ships have quite disastrous potential considering the scale at which that would need to be introduced: More than 50.000 merchant ships would then be swimming nuclear reactors, good luck finding anybody willing to insure that. Not to mention that it would require building a global nuclear fission centered infrastructure to support it; Expensive, and even more potential for catastrophic accidents, even more issues with where to store the waste.
- frankfrankfrank 6y agoJust to put this into scale a bit. They are talking about cutting the energy consumption of ~446 million people by 55%, and energy is directly correlated to economic output; using energy to add value and/or utility. Let's be clear about what that means; that equation can only be affected by a few means and I can assure you with a high degree of confidence that it will not be done by impacting the ruling classes. We are talking about a combination of things like reducing productivity, reducing mobility, reducing living standards, reducing heating and cooling (comfort), reducing amenities, reducing material possessions, reducing social events, etc. There is no other way that you can cut emissions by at least 55% after decades of already cutting emissions around 20% over the last 25 years. Let alone while also importing people from around the world from low impact to high impact societies. Let's also realize that while the EU and people in the USA are pushing for these kinds of things, the Chinese and Indians and other countries are pumping out emissions at rates that are way beyond the worst the west has ever produced. For some more perspective; the EU and US emissions are roughly the same as their share of the world's GDP. By contrast, China produces twice as many emissions as the USA, but only 75% of the GDP; India has half the emissions of the USA, but only produces 10% of the GDP.
- olau 6y agoThere are studies detailing how to do this. There are some uncertainties in which technologies will prevail when you get to the last few percents before reaching 100%, but 55% is neither hard nor expensive. Much of the tech is already cheaper than fossils.
- nicoffeine 6y ago> They are talking about cutting the energy consumption of ~446 million people by 55% Emissions and energy consumption are not the same thing. > We are talking about a combination of things like reducing productivity, reducing mobility, reducing living standards, reducing heating and cooling (comfort), reducing amenities, reducing material possessions, reducing social events, etc. Economic growth is no longer tied to emissions in the EU.[1] > the Chinese and Indians and other countries are pumping out emissions at rates that are way beyond the worst the west has ever produced Not on a per-capita basis, and not considering the total CO2 output since industrialization began. > China produces twice as many emissions as the USA, but only 75% of the GDP; India has half the emissions of the USA, but only produces 10% of the GDP China manufactures more than anyone else on earth. They have an artificially low GDP because they devalue their currency to make their products more attractively priced.[2] Next time just cut to the chase and state that you don't believe that modern technology like renewable energy exists, despite all the evidence to the contrary. [1] https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screen-Shot-2020-09-17-at-4.24.45-PM.png?w=1024 https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Scree... [2] https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20858.jpeg https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20858.jpeg
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- njdullea 6y agoThat's an aggressive goal for the next 20 days.