14 ms·

EU unveils sweeping climate change plan

107 points by mhandley 5y ago

akie 5y ago
It's fantastic! And not nearly ambitious enough: > carbon neutral by 2050
- rorykoehler 5y ago
  Underwhelming. No more petrol and diesel cars in 20 years? That should have been the policy 20 years ago.
  - f6v 5y ago
    You remind of those developers that say “You have a Rails monolith? Let’s just tear everything down and rewrite it in microservices!” When in reality it takes years to move small parts of the backend into standalone services. Now imagine dismantling the whole industry with its R&D, supply chains, people’s pensions, etc.
    - Daishiman 5y ago
      We have seen with existing electrification measures that once certain tipping points are reached entire industries roll over to new technologies. No reason to think it wouldn't apply for this either.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      The counterpoint is that Telsa managed to emerge from nothing in that time. Incumbent ICE car companies had no incentive to start the transition so it's necessary to introduce an artificial constraint.
      - closeparen 5y ago
        Emerging from nothing is a lot easier and faster than migrating the long tail.
        rorykoehler 5y ago
        One of the German ICE CEO's was going on about how they have over a century of experience and Tesla will never catch up. There is something in this as most parts of the car don't change when becoming electric and the bits that do become simpler. They surely have the resources, architects and design teams to do this migration (which they have proven as they all now have electric car platforms in production). It was a matter of will not inability.
      - paganel 5y ago
        Many, many EU citizens can not afford Teslas or equivalently priced EVs. Even the electric version of the common VW Golf is 30-to-50% more expensive than its ICE counter-part (which is not that cheap, either).
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        Yeah. If you’re American, imagine being being 25% poorer, and cars being 50% more expensive (due to excise taxes, displacement taxes, 20%+ VAT and more) — that’s the reality faced by Europeans.
        SECProto 5y ago
        Make sure you also imagine that competent public transport and/or active transportation options are pretty widely available as alternatives.
        f6v 5y ago
        Major cities such as Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, and Vienna have good public transport network. But many people live in smaller cities/outskirts where car is mandatory.
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        This is not the reality that most Europeans live in. Europeans who live in major cities might enjoy their good public transport options, but in minor cities, towns and rural areas, public transport is crap to non-existent. US has 800 cars per 1000 people, but Italy and Spain have 650/1000 and even Poland, which is significantly poorer than US, has over 700 cars per 1000 people. In Europe, car ownership is only slightly less of a necessity than it is in the US, and I think if you look at the data that measure cars not per capita, but per household, the gap in car ownership between US and European countries would be even smaller.
        SECProto 5y ago
        > Europeans who live in major cities might enjoy their good public transport options, but in minor cities, towns and rural areas, public transport is crap to non-existent I just opened up google maps, picked out two random small towns in Germany, and the driving distance between them is 200km/2hrs, while the transit length is 3hrs (with a transfer in a major city). Doing the same in the Northeast, one of the best areas for transit in the US, resulted in two towns 120miles/2hrs drive distance, and 18hr/6 transfers transit distance. So yes, a car is more convenient in both cases, but transit is a competent alternative (which is what I said). France and Italy had comparable results to Germany, Spain did not. Germany, France, and Italy makes up roughly half of the EU population (add in Belgium or the Netherlands if you wanna be precise, they've got decent transit too). > US has 800 cars per 1000 people, but Italy and Spain have 650/1000 and even Poland, which is significantly poorer than US, has over 700 cars per 1000 You appear to have taken this article [1], and picked out the top three EU countries. > In Europe, car ownership is only slightly less of a necessity than it is in the US, and I think if you look at the data that measure cars not per capita, but per household, the gap in car ownership between US and European countries would be even smaller. "Owning a car" is not the same metric as "Needing to own a car to do literally anything because there are no alternatives". Germany, France, and Italy all rank higher than the US in annual passenger-km's of rail travel, despite each having populations 1/5th to 1/4th the size of the US[2]. Or look up modal share by country for other info - there's no handy Wikipedia summary, unfortunately, but for example, Germany is about 30% transit commutes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...
      - kergonath 5y ago
        Tesla is a useful idiot. It's a toy for rich people who like to buy shiny things and pretend they care. It isn't a solution to anything. What we need is lots of small and cheap cars that can be built easily and on a massive scale. Something akin to the original Volkswagen, or an automobile equivalent of the liberty ships. Or even better, more public transport, and more remote work.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      You're right, this is a challenge. But it will happen, global warning will see to it. The earlier we do it voluntarily, the better we can accommodate the consequences of this transformation. Also, such a transition would not be unprecedented, see for example how western societies adapted to the war efforts during WWI and WWII. These were radical changes of industrial production on a truly massive scale. The sort of things we need now.
    - aerique 5y ago
      No, the person you're replying to is right: we've had decades and decades of warnings. Small steps could have been taken 30 years ago but now it's too late for that.
      - blooalien 5y ago
        > "Small steps could have been taken 30 years ago but now it's too late for that." ^^^ So much exactly this! ^^^ I watched a mess of climatologists warn society on public TV about the consequences of climate change (global warming) and explain why it was a real issue to be acting upon, way back when (my late teenage years mebbe?) and apparently we've had some inkling of it bein' an issue decades longer'n that even… Truth is stranger'n fiction, I suppose.
  - junon 5y ago
    20 years ago would have been great. Not doing it for another 20 years would be worse. Let's take the victories where we can.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      Considering where car manufacturers are now with their electric platforms I think 10 years from now would be ok and 5 years possible. Sometimes you just have to rip off the plaster.
      - foepys 5y ago
        I bet all EU car makers would be very happy to do that. The only problem is: where do you get the batteries and renewable energy from?
        adrianN 5y ago
        The lobbying efforts done by car makers paint a very different picture. You get the batteries and the renewable energy by building factories that produce batteries and by building wind turbines and solar panels. It's not rocket science.
    - 0xffff2 5y ago
      This is not a victory. We are already past the point where passive measures are enough. We need to take all possible passive measures immediately (i.e. within the current term of whatever political bodies are relevant), and start looking at what active measures can be safely and economically deployed. Allowing politicians to promise action in the future (i.e. beyond their current term of office) is an absolute and total defeat.
      - junon 5y ago
        And we've been saying this for decades, nothing happens. That's the sad reality. Any progression on this front is, in my book, a victory.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    Easy for the Netherlands or Finland, hard for Romania, Latvia or Greece. The EU is quite diverse and individual countries will hopefully be more ambitious if they can.
    - aerique 5y ago
      The Netherlands will not be ambitious. Our (NL) climate policies have been a dumpster fire. We're like in the bottom of the EU when it comes to that.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    This part was always the most surprising to me. How are people expected to travel long distances individually in the future? Wouldn't other carbon-reducing initiatives lessen the need for banning gas-powered calls altogether?
    - adrianN 5y ago
      We need to implement all carbon reducing initiatives simultaneously. People are expected to travel long distances either by using fast charging and taking slightly longer breaks than before.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  30 more years of not being carbon neutral is exactly why the carbon removal XPrize is such a great idea. We must be active about carbon capture. It's not optional.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    We need to stop saying that the next great technology will solve our issues. We already have the means to do it, and we need to stop procrastinating before it's too late. If we do get a very efficient way of capturing GHGs on a large scale, then great. But it really is not a given.
unchocked 5y ago
I'm most hopeful about the carbon border tariff. People, and by extension political communities are more willing to take action when they feel able to pass costs onto others vs. feeling like they have to bear it themselves. If leading markets can create bubbles where carbon is accurately accounted for, the free-rider problem can be substantially alleviated and we might be able to finally make some progress on climate. I'm less hopeful about new fuel taxes. We've seen how that's gone in France, and even Switzerland.
- mantas 5y ago
  Looking at sanctions on Russia and their effectiveness... I can't wait to see mental gymnastics to skip those tariffs on some goods :)
  - nerbert 5y ago
    What data point have you that tells you that sanctions are not effective?
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      Russia is self-sufficient in energy and military power, existing sanctions against the country as a whole act as a catalyst of local development of alternatives to foreign goods and services. The process is far from being painless and efficient, but that is a common challenge of bootstrapping everything new in any other region/domain, and it doesn't indicate efficacy of any of the existing sanctions. Certain individuals might be at inconvenience or even net loss of course, depending on their reliance on relations with EU and US (visas, international business opportunities, exchange programs etc)
    - mantas 5y ago
      Russia is „sanctioned“, yet NordStream 2 is being built. Russia-Western Europe trade quickly recovered. Nowadays it's just sanctions in the name to keep Eastern europe silent, while Western europe gets to trade thanks to loopholes.
- 5y ago
binarymax 5y ago
Carbon neutral on one small continent by 2050 won't do anything. We pretty much need to be global carbon negative by 2030 to have a fighting chance. EDIT--I'm not stating that the EU should give up. I'm stating quite the opposite and that everyone needs to seriously rethink the economic and lifestyle relationship we currently have with our environment. This is a crisis that could be an opportunity, but the stalwarts won't change and you'll continue to see petty political fighting over energy bills and taxation.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  > won't do anything strong disagree -1 "helpless" rhetoric
  - binarymax 5y ago
    It's not rhetoric. We're seeing the effects of global warming unfold faster than we predicted 10 years ago. Everyone thought that we had until 2050 or 2060 back then but it's becoming painfully obvious that it's simply not quick enough.
    - rjknight 5y ago
      Realistically, some kind of geoengineering will be required. Given the existence of feedback loops, the sooner we deploy technology to directly reduce the temperature, the less of that technology we will have to deploy, but it seems inevitable that we will have to do something like this.
    - binarymax 5y ago
      I've hit the thread depth limit and cant reply to you @rjknight - but a technological miracle isn't something we should bet on. This is more of a social and economic problem, not a technical problem. We have the technology to be carbon negative if we all work together - but we don't want to give up our comforts.
      - blooalien 5y ago
mantas 5y ago
The most important question: how about private jets exemption that was leaked a couple days ago?
- bserge 5y ago
  Peasants need not talk about that. (Yeah, what a joke that is)
- GordonS 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this? Not that I doubt you, I'm just interested to read more about it.
  - mantas 5y ago
    It was on HN a couple days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27775620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27775620
simfoo 5y ago
I'm all for thinking and acting big on big issues. In my opinion however the EU as is is hopelessly underpowered to effectively address big issues. They just don't have the mandate to actually get all 27 states to act as one. The moment EU policies go against high member nation interests they are shut down. See Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, Malta, Luxemburg, etc for examples of this. Every single one has the power to basically veto all decisions.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  This is pointless cynical thinking. No government institution is going to be 100% effective at what it does, but the EU has shown that as far as large organizations go, it is remarkably effective at pushing certain actions that it's member states cannot do.
  - simfoo 5y ago
    I don't disagree, the past years have made me cynical about all big EU proposals :( But time and time again it has shown that proposals that actually would change things get watered down hard or shut down completely
    - blooalien 5y ago
      I too have become more than a little cynical about all of this. Sadly, the problem you describe isn't limited to the EU. Seems like all major governments are either corporate owned subsidiaries or absolute dictatorships committed to "profit" and "growth" at literally any cost, with little to no concern for how it affects the larger population of Earth.
- zpeti 5y ago
  In fact this is a way for the EU to introduce eu wide taxation through the back door. This is power that countries have always had, and it’s now moving into the EU realm. It’s more centralization and more eu control. So it’s a step towards what you want.
bassman9000 5y ago
Europe is ready to lead the way Which will be close to useless if China/India don't follow.
- illuminati1911 5y ago
  That’s what the carbon taxes are for.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    Bigger roadblock is the US which will fight these. Hope EU stays hard on this.
- ben_w 5y ago
  The scale of change ultimately required means we can’t even afford to let Togo stay on fossil fuels even if the entire rest of the planet shifts and they’re the only ones left. But the more that rich countries do, the easier it is for everyone to transition, and the longer everyone gets to make that transition.
  - bassman9000 5y ago
    But the more that rich countries do, the easier it is for everyone to transition That's a leap of faith. As of today, China is still building coal plants.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      What does faith have to do with learning curves making stuff cheaper?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  China is meeting its climate commitments and take the issue seriously, they have 99% of the world's electric busses, more high-speed rail than the rest fo the world combined, etc. This stereotypical uninformed finger-pointing is unhelpfull
camgunz 5y ago
2050 is ridiculous. It's more than a generation away. The "key proposals" are essentially some modest tax increases. Is this the best we can do over 30 years? Cool quote here: "The aim is to put the economy on a new level, not to stop it" It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating.
- redm 5y ago
  “It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating.” I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. YC itself is designed to start businesses. Business create jobs, wealth, improve our lifestyles, and grow our economy. I think any plans moving forward to address global warming have to include business and economic interests. I think what you need more of is incentives to drive innovation in the areas where government wants to push businesses and taxes and/or more regulation in areas government is trying to avoid. Businesses will always follow the money.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    > I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Because in this case, business--specifically the fossil fuel "energy" industry--has corrupted democratic governments for their own profit, at the expense of literally every human alive now and for the foreseeable future. > Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. Businesses are not a vehicle for people. They are not democracies. They are the opposite of a commune. If they were democracies, we'd have a direct way to hold them accountable and control their behavior. We obviously don't have that. > I think any plans moving forward to address global warming have to include business and economic interests. Pick any counterargument you like here: 1. Only kooks are talking about things like degrowth. It's a strawman to suggest otherwise. Of course plans will include business and economic interests. The question is what is prioritized, and that's why I said: > It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating. 2. The only way this works is by forcing markets to factor in externalities like atmospheric carbon production (or waste, etc.) into their pricing, which we've clearly failed to do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
iNane9000 5y ago
Seems like nuclear power is always the elephant in the room. Wish people that like to post emotional comments about climate change spent similar time pushing for nuclear power. Some change in public sentiment around nuclear power would be much more impactful than “Because of my political opponents, we’re all gonna burn alive!” I tend to think we will need some sort of geoengineering solution, but I think nuclear power has to be part of any effort to reduce emissions. No easy answers.
- foepys 5y ago
  Why should we create nuclear waste for hundreds or thousands of generations to deal with when we can just expand renewables and phase out coal and gas over the next 20 years? Planning and constructing a new nuclear reactor takes at least 15 years and it's the most expensive and also dangerous form of energy source. Just look at Hinkley Point C in the UK where costs exploded and construction was delayed over and over. The cost of £92/MWh (estimated in 2012) is outrageously expensive as well when wind and solar are approaching half. New nuclear reactors make no sense now.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > nuclear waste for hundreds or thousands of generations to deal with Solar and wind don't generate waste? And while batteries are getting better, they're still not to the point that solar and wind can just replace the kind of power nuclear produces. Further, lithium batteries don't produce waste?
    - foepys 5y ago
      Nuclear waste is a lot worse than any other type of waste. It's dangerous for tens of thousands of years and we don't know if we will be able to tell a civilization 10,000 years in the future that the stuff we buried deep in a cave is dangerous.
      - Macha 5y ago
        Per unit volume, sure: A cave full of nuclear waste is worse than a cave full of CO2. Per energy generated, it's not clear at all to me that the nuclear waste from a country running off nuclear power is worse than the CO2 emissions of running that same country off fossil fuels. That cave full of nuclear waste has something like "all the waste generated by the UK to date". Enough CO2 to fill a cave is one coal plant running for a few days.
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
> Tighter emission limits for cars, which are expected to effectively end new petrol and diesel vehicle sales by 2035 I hope this doesn't spell the end for the ICE. That would be heartbreaking.
- fogihujy 5y ago
  Many EU-countries are planning a ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars starting 2030. Combustion engines running on bio fuels will probably stick around until electric veichles cover all the fringe cases. Diesel engines won't go anywhere as they're needed for stuff like farming equipment, but they can run on bio-fuels aswell. Not to mention the fact that the European car fleet is relatively old and will take a long time to modernize. With no fast way to transition from fossil fuels to electric, I simply can't understand why we don't focus on synthetic fuels made with renewable energy, at least as a stop-gap solution.
  - Macha 5y ago
    Are biofuels actually better if the problem you're trying to solve is carbon emissions? (And not just fossil fuel depletion)
    - fogihujy 5y ago
      Yes and no. If done right, you can get bio-gas from old landfills and food waste, and that's gas that'll end up in the atmosphere anyway -- we might as well use it. Then there's the issue of growing crops for use as bio-fuel. In theory it's a renewable energy source, but in the real world it'll use valuable land that we will need for climate-friendly but inefficient organic farming for food.
  - pjerem 5y ago
    Synthetic fuels emits the same carbon dioxide amounts than conventional fuels. I don’t see how this is helping to reduce emissions.
    - 5y ago
blondie9x 5y ago
I hope part of the plan is to stop this stupid 'green energy' practice https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-bi...
blondie9x 5y ago
Governments of this planet are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure governments to drive faster change. Therefore to protect all of humanity globally now and for the future of our posterity I am committing to the following. I pledge to limit eating red meat. I will restrict intake of cows and lambs etc. If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less. I will try to use cycling or mass transit options whenever possible and to participate in efforts to expand transit. I will restrict flying to only when necessary and try to limit flying to only when no other choice is available. If I do fly I will try to offset all emissions. I will try my utmost to conserve energy and minimize use of heating and cooling appliances. I will try my best to limit energy use to renewable sources when I have the choice. When I cannot choose I will fight for the ability to have this choice. I will try to help those close to me understand these choices and the need for those able, to also join the pledge. I will only consume what I need. I will not perpetuate extravagance and will only support companies who champion sustainable efforts. I will do my best to strive for and support sustainable and minimalist technology. I will stay involved in the public discourse on environmental issues and stay engaged on efforts to mitigate climate change.
bserge 5y ago
So, anyway, it looks like we're not doing enough about emissions. When will politicians start taking the space sunshade idea seriously?
riversflow 5y ago
Yikes. If this is the best Europe can do we are well and truly effed. FTA >The commission is betting that instead of hordes of yellow-vest protesters taking to the streets, citizens will be willing to pay a price for cleaner air, lower emissions, and more sustainable lifestyles. color me skeptical. Granted, I’m not European just interested in international politics , but this bill seems tilted heavily in favor of particularly Germany and also France(the mentioned protesters, I know). If they really wanted this for the good of the Bloc, their would be plans to give aid (power plants, expertise, transmitted green energy, grants for the required renovations) to the poorer members/regions. Perhaps i’m just misinformed, but wouldn’t the burden of higher petrol taxes, more ambitious targets for renewables and renovation requirements be a much greater burden on the more eastern members? This particularly seems devious: >A requirement for countries to more quickly renovate buildings that are not deemed energy efficient Not the development of new stricter standards that everyone should follow, just adding more pressure on those who couldn’t afford to do it promptly (because if you are required to make an efficiency upgrade, the only reason not to make it promptly and enjoy the benefits of the efficiency is if you can’t afford it.) I’m also very very critical of carve outs. Why should their be an exemption for low-carbon alternatives to jet fuel? Just make the tax that much higher because of the impact of high altitude emissions. Apparently their is an exemption for both Private (jfc) and Cargo jets.[1] which explains the rationale, but doesn’t make it any better. I’m very saddened by the Carbon border tax, which seems like direct protectionism to me. I’m a huge fan of border taxes on imported goods to level the playing field (offshoring dirty business is unacceptable from an environmental standpoint), but it’s a bankrupt idea if you are applying it to only certain goods and only on Carbon. Tax them for dumping, for not being required to have sealed floors, for not having to catch fumes/dust, etc. Using climate change to enact rules that will disproportionately affect poorer people and give carve outs to the wealthy is disgusting. This looks like class warfare to me. It’s a cowardly and entirely inadequate attempt at addressing the problem and seems to target the poorest and give carve outs for the rich. [1] https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-...
- cjblomqvist 5y ago
  It seems it's pretty even, or even tilted in favor of the poorer countries, when it comes to carbon per capita; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... (looking at production, I'm pretty sure consumption is much more tilted towards the poorer countries so the border tax helps a lot there). Further more, EU is already shifting a lot of money to the poorer countries from the richer (by default). At least when it comes to carbon taxing - which so far seems to be the most effective (both theoretically and practically) and equal way of curbing carbon emissions - EU is the frontrunner in the world, right? So it seems you're complaining at the best in class student here?
andrepd 5y ago
Proper "Georgist" accounting of externalities is a really important step in tackling climate change and pollution (as well as a host of other issues). Companies should absolutely not be free to pollute like there's no tomorrow at absolutely zero cost. Impose a cost, calculated in some manner based on the harm caused by those emissions, together with a hard cap. Or better yet, ramp up those costs so there's diminishing returns (a curve so that you can emit a small and sustainable amount for cheap, the costs become more onerous as you emit more, eventually going up to ∞, the hard cap).
wolverine876 5y ago
> One EU diplomat told Reuters that the success of the package would rest on its ability to be realistic and socially fair, while also not destabilising the economy. > "The aim is to put the economy on a new level, not to stop it," they said. How socially fair and non-destabilizing will climate change be?
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
This is the 'wish list'. Any legislation that passes will be significantly watered down by industry. Even this, as far reaching as it is, is not enough to keep us below 2c. Now ask yourself, will the US or the BRICs also do this? I don't see it. The truth of the matter is we will resort to some sort of hamfisted geo engineering once we get desperate enough, and that will have to be kept up indefinitely until we figure out how to air capture CO2 and sequester it. We understand the basic chemical reactions around this, but we have no idea how to do this at the scale required. It's looking grim for future generations.
tonfreed 5y ago
Was this the same plan where private jets were exempted from a jet fuel tax?

107 points by mhandley 5y ago

akie 5y ago

It's fantastic! And not nearly ambitious enough: > carbon neutral by 2050

rorykoehler 5y ago
Underwhelming. No more petrol and diesel cars in 20 years? That should have been the policy 20 years ago.
- f6v 5y ago
  You remind of those developers that say “You have a Rails monolith? Let’s just tear everything down and rewrite it in microservices!” When in reality it takes years to move small parts of the backend into standalone services. Now imagine dismantling the whole industry with its R&D, supply chains, people’s pensions, etc.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    We have seen with existing electrification measures that once certain tipping points are reached entire industries roll over to new technologies. No reason to think it wouldn't apply for this either.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    The counterpoint is that Telsa managed to emerge from nothing in that time. Incumbent ICE car companies had no incentive to start the transition so it's necessary to introduce an artificial constraint.
    - closeparen 5y ago
      Emerging from nothing is a lot easier and faster than migrating the long tail.
      - rorykoehler 5y ago
        One of the German ICE CEO's was going on about how they have over a century of experience and Tesla will never catch up. There is something in this as most parts of the car don't change when becoming electric and the bits that do become simpler. They surely have the resources, architects and design teams to do this migration (which they have proven as they all now have electric car platforms in production). It was a matter of will not inability.
    - paganel 5y ago
      Many, many EU citizens can not afford Teslas or equivalently priced EVs. Even the electric version of the common VW Golf is 30-to-50% more expensive than its ICE counter-part (which is not that cheap, either).
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        Yeah. If you’re American, imagine being being 25% poorer, and cars being 50% more expensive (due to excise taxes, displacement taxes, 20%+ VAT and more) — that’s the reality faced by Europeans.
        SECProto 5y ago
        Make sure you also imagine that competent public transport and/or active transportation options are pretty widely available as alternatives.
        f6v 5y ago
        Major cities such as Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, and Vienna have good public transport network. But many people live in smaller cities/outskirts where car is mandatory.
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        This is not the reality that most Europeans live in. Europeans who live in major cities might enjoy their good public transport options, but in minor cities, towns and rural areas, public transport is crap to non-existent. US has 800 cars per 1000 people, but Italy and Spain have 650/1000 and even Poland, which is significantly poorer than US, has over 700 cars per 1000 people. In Europe, car ownership is only slightly less of a necessity than it is in the US, and I think if you look at the data that measure cars not per capita, but per household, the gap in car ownership between US and European countries would be even smaller.
        SECProto 5y ago
        > Europeans who live in major cities might enjoy their good public transport options, but in minor cities, towns and rural areas, public transport is crap to non-existent I just opened up google maps, picked out two random small towns in Germany, and the driving distance between them is 200km/2hrs, while the transit length is 3hrs (with a transfer in a major city). Doing the same in the Northeast, one of the best areas for transit in the US, resulted in two towns 120miles/2hrs drive distance, and 18hr/6 transfers transit distance. So yes, a car is more convenient in both cases, but transit is a competent alternative (which is what I said). France and Italy had comparable results to Germany, Spain did not. Germany, France, and Italy makes up roughly half of the EU population (add in Belgium or the Netherlands if you wanna be precise, they've got decent transit too). > US has 800 cars per 1000 people, but Italy and Spain have 650/1000 and even Poland, which is significantly poorer than US, has over 700 cars per 1000 You appear to have taken this article [1], and picked out the top three EU countries. > In Europe, car ownership is only slightly less of a necessity than it is in the US, and I think if you look at the data that measure cars not per capita, but per household, the gap in car ownership between US and European countries would be even smaller. "Owning a car" is not the same metric as "Needing to own a car to do literally anything because there are no alternatives". Germany, France, and Italy all rank higher than the US in annual passenger-km's of rail travel, despite each having populations 1/5th to 1/4th the size of the US[2]. Or look up modal share by country for other info - there's no handy Wikipedia summary, unfortunately, but for example, Germany is about 30% transit commutes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...
    - kergonath 5y ago
      Tesla is a useful idiot. It's a toy for rich people who like to buy shiny things and pretend they care. It isn't a solution to anything. What we need is lots of small and cheap cars that can be built easily and on a massive scale. Something akin to the original Volkswagen, or an automobile equivalent of the liberty ships. Or even better, more public transport, and more remote work.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    You're right, this is a challenge. But it will happen, global warning will see to it. The earlier we do it voluntarily, the better we can accommodate the consequences of this transformation. Also, such a transition would not be unprecedented, see for example how western societies adapted to the war efforts during WWI and WWII. These were radical changes of industrial production on a truly massive scale. The sort of things we need now.
  - aerique 5y ago
    No, the person you're replying to is right: we've had decades and decades of warnings. Small steps could have been taken 30 years ago but now it's too late for that.
    - blooalien 5y ago
      > "Small steps could have been taken 30 years ago but now it's too late for that." ^^^ So much exactly this! ^^^ I watched a mess of climatologists warn society on public TV about the consequences of climate change (global warming) and explain why it was a real issue to be acting upon, way back when (my late teenage years mebbe?) and apparently we've had some inkling of it bein' an issue decades longer'n that even… Truth is stranger'n fiction, I suppose.
- junon 5y ago
  20 years ago would have been great. Not doing it for another 20 years would be worse. Let's take the victories where we can.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    Considering where car manufacturers are now with their electric platforms I think 10 years from now would be ok and 5 years possible. Sometimes you just have to rip off the plaster.
    - foepys 5y ago
      I bet all EU car makers would be very happy to do that. The only problem is: where do you get the batteries and renewable energy from?
      - adrianN 5y ago
        The lobbying efforts done by car makers paint a very different picture. You get the batteries and the renewable energy by building factories that produce batteries and by building wind turbines and solar panels. It's not rocket science.
  - 0xffff2 5y ago
    This is not a victory. We are already past the point where passive measures are enough. We need to take all possible passive measures immediately (i.e. within the current term of whatever political bodies are relevant), and start looking at what active measures can be safely and economically deployed. Allowing politicians to promise action in the future (i.e. beyond their current term of office) is an absolute and total defeat.
    - junon 5y ago
      And we've been saying this for decades, nothing happens. That's the sad reality. Any progression on this front is, in my book, a victory.
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  Easy for the Netherlands or Finland, hard for Romania, Latvia or Greece. The EU is quite diverse and individual countries will hopefully be more ambitious if they can.
  - aerique 5y ago
    The Netherlands will not be ambitious. Our (NL) climate policies have been a dumpster fire. We're like in the bottom of the EU when it comes to that.
- rscoots 5y ago
  This part was always the most surprising to me. How are people expected to travel long distances individually in the future? Wouldn't other carbon-reducing initiatives lessen the need for banning gas-powered calls altogether?
  - adrianN 5y ago
    We need to implement all carbon reducing initiatives simultaneously. People are expected to travel long distances either by using fast charging and taking slightly longer breaks than before.
TigeriusKirk 5y ago
30 more years of not being carbon neutral is exactly why the carbon removal XPrize is such a great idea. We must be active about carbon capture. It's not optional.
- kergonath 5y ago
  We need to stop saying that the next great technology will solve our issues. We already have the means to do it, and we need to stop procrastinating before it's too late. If we do get a very efficient way of capturing GHGs on a large scale, then great. But it really is not a given.

unchocked 5y ago

I'm most hopeful about the carbon border tariff. People, and by extension political communities are more willing to take action when they feel able to pass costs onto others vs. feeling like they have to bear it themselves. If leading markets can create bubbles where carbon is accurately accounted for, the free-rider problem can be substantially alleviated and we might be able to finally make some progress on climate. I'm less hopeful about new fuel taxes. We've seen how that's gone in France, and even Switzerland.

mantas 5y ago
Looking at sanctions on Russia and their effectiveness... I can't wait to see mental gymnastics to skip those tariffs on some goods :)
- nerbert 5y ago
  What data point have you that tells you that sanctions are not effective?
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    Russia is self-sufficient in energy and military power, existing sanctions against the country as a whole act as a catalyst of local development of alternatives to foreign goods and services. The process is far from being painless and efficient, but that is a common challenge of bootstrapping everything new in any other region/domain, and it doesn't indicate efficacy of any of the existing sanctions. Certain individuals might be at inconvenience or even net loss of course, depending on their reliance on relations with EU and US (visas, international business opportunities, exchange programs etc)
  - mantas 5y ago
    Russia is „sanctioned“, yet NordStream 2 is being built. Russia-Western Europe trade quickly recovered. Nowadays it's just sanctions in the name to keep Eastern europe silent, while Western europe gets to trade thanks to loopholes.
5y ago

binarymax 5y ago

Carbon neutral on one small continent by 2050 won't do anything. We pretty much need to be global carbon negative by 2030 to have a fighting chance. EDIT--I'm not stating that the EU should give up. I'm stating quite the opposite and that everyone needs to seriously rethink the economic and lifestyle relationship we currently have with our environment. This is a crisis that could be an opportunity, but the stalwarts won't change and you'll continue to see petty political fighting over energy bills and taxation.

mistrial9 5y ago
> won't do anything strong disagree -1 "helpless" rhetoric
- binarymax 5y ago
  It's not rhetoric. We're seeing the effects of global warming unfold faster than we predicted 10 years ago. Everyone thought that we had until 2050 or 2060 back then but it's becoming painfully obvious that it's simply not quick enough.
  - rjknight 5y ago
    Realistically, some kind of geoengineering will be required. Given the existence of feedback loops, the sooner we deploy technology to directly reduce the temperature, the less of that technology we will have to deploy, but it seems inevitable that we will have to do something like this.
  - binarymax 5y ago
    I've hit the thread depth limit and cant reply to you @rjknight - but a technological miracle isn't something we should bet on. This is more of a social and economic problem, not a technical problem. We have the technology to be carbon negative if we all work together - but we don't want to give up our comforts.
    - blooalien 5y ago

mantas 5y ago

The most important question: how about private jets exemption that was leaked a couple days ago?

bserge 5y ago
Peasants need not talk about that. (Yeah, what a joke that is)
GordonS 5y ago
Do you have a source for this? Not that I doubt you, I'm just interested to read more about it.
- mantas 5y ago
  It was on HN a couple days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27775620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27775620

simfoo 5y ago

I'm all for thinking and acting big on big issues. In my opinion however the EU as is is hopelessly underpowered to effectively address big issues. They just don't have the mandate to actually get all 27 states to act as one. The moment EU policies go against high member nation interests they are shut down. See Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, Malta, Luxemburg, etc for examples of this. Every single one has the power to basically veto all decisions.

Daishiman 5y ago
This is pointless cynical thinking. No government institution is going to be 100% effective at what it does, but the EU has shown that as far as large organizations go, it is remarkably effective at pushing certain actions that it's member states cannot do.
- simfoo 5y ago
  I don't disagree, the past years have made me cynical about all big EU proposals :( But time and time again it has shown that proposals that actually would change things get watered down hard or shut down completely
  - blooalien 5y ago
    I too have become more than a little cynical about all of this. Sadly, the problem you describe isn't limited to the EU. Seems like all major governments are either corporate owned subsidiaries or absolute dictatorships committed to "profit" and "growth" at literally any cost, with little to no concern for how it affects the larger population of Earth.
zpeti 5y ago
In fact this is a way for the EU to introduce eu wide taxation through the back door. This is power that countries have always had, and it’s now moving into the EU realm. It’s more centralization and more eu control. So it’s a step towards what you want.

bassman9000 5y ago

Europe is ready to lead the way Which will be close to useless if China/India don't follow.

illuminati1911 5y ago
That’s what the carbon taxes are for.
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  Bigger roadblock is the US which will fight these. Hope EU stays hard on this.
ben_w 5y ago
The scale of change ultimately required means we can’t even afford to let Togo stay on fossil fuels even if the entire rest of the planet shifts and they’re the only ones left. But the more that rich countries do, the easier it is for everyone to transition, and the longer everyone gets to make that transition.
- bassman9000 5y ago
  But the more that rich countries do, the easier it is for everyone to transition That's a leap of faith. As of today, China is still building coal plants.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    What does faith have to do with learning curves making stuff cheaper?
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
China is meeting its climate commitments and take the issue seriously, they have 99% of the world's electric busses, more high-speed rail than the rest fo the world combined, etc. This stereotypical uninformed finger-pointing is unhelpfull

camgunz 5y ago

2050 is ridiculous. It's more than a generation away. The "key proposals" are essentially some modest tax increases. Is this the best we can do over 30 years? Cool quote here: "The aim is to put the economy on a new level, not to stop it" It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating.

redm 5y ago
“It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating.” I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. YC itself is designed to start businesses. Business create jobs, wealth, improve our lifestyles, and grow our economy. I think any plans moving forward to address global warming have to include business and economic interests. I think what you need more of is incentives to drive innovation in the areas where government wants to push businesses and taxes and/or more regulation in areas government is trying to avoid. Businesses will always follow the money.
- camgunz 5y ago
  > I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Because in this case, business--specifically the fossil fuel "energy" industry--has corrupted democratic governments for their own profit, at the expense of literally every human alive now and for the foreseeable future. > Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. Businesses are not a vehicle for people. They are not democracies. They are the opposite of a commune. If they were democracies, we'd have a direct way to hold them accountable and control their behavior. We obviously don't have that. > I think any plans moving forward to address global warming have to include business and economic interests. Pick any counterargument you like here: 1. Only kooks are talking about things like degrowth. It's a strawman to suggest otherwise. Of course plans will include business and economic interests. The question is what is prioritized, and that's why I said: > It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating. 2. The only way this works is by forcing markets to factor in externalities like atmospheric carbon production (or waste, etc.) into their pricing, which we've clearly failed to do.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

iNane9000 5y ago

Seems like nuclear power is always the elephant in the room. Wish people that like to post emotional comments about climate change spent similar time pushing for nuclear power. Some change in public sentiment around nuclear power would be much more impactful than “Because of my political opponents, we’re all gonna burn alive!” I tend to think we will need some sort of geoengineering solution, but I think nuclear power has to be part of any effort to reduce emissions. No easy answers.

foepys 5y ago
Why should we create nuclear waste for hundreds or thousands of generations to deal with when we can just expand renewables and phase out coal and gas over the next 20 years? Planning and constructing a new nuclear reactor takes at least 15 years and it's the most expensive and also dangerous form of energy source. Just look at Hinkley Point C in the UK where costs exploded and construction was delayed over and over. The cost of £92/MWh (estimated in 2012) is outrageously expensive as well when wind and solar are approaching half. New nuclear reactors make no sense now.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > nuclear waste for hundreds or thousands of generations to deal with Solar and wind don't generate waste? And while batteries are getting better, they're still not to the point that solar and wind can just replace the kind of power nuclear produces. Further, lithium batteries don't produce waste?
  - foepys 5y ago
    Nuclear waste is a lot worse than any other type of waste. It's dangerous for tens of thousands of years and we don't know if we will be able to tell a civilization 10,000 years in the future that the stuff we buried deep in a cave is dangerous.
    - Macha 5y ago
      Per unit volume, sure: A cave full of nuclear waste is worse than a cave full of CO2. Per energy generated, it's not clear at all to me that the nuclear waste from a country running off nuclear power is worse than the CO2 emissions of running that same country off fossil fuels. That cave full of nuclear waste has something like "all the waste generated by the UK to date". Enough CO2 to fill a cave is one coal plant running for a few days.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

> Tighter emission limits for cars, which are expected to effectively end new petrol and diesel vehicle sales by 2035 I hope this doesn't spell the end for the ICE. That would be heartbreaking.

fogihujy 5y ago
Many EU-countries are planning a ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars starting 2030. Combustion engines running on bio fuels will probably stick around until electric veichles cover all the fringe cases. Diesel engines won't go anywhere as they're needed for stuff like farming equipment, but they can run on bio-fuels aswell. Not to mention the fact that the European car fleet is relatively old and will take a long time to modernize. With no fast way to transition from fossil fuels to electric, I simply can't understand why we don't focus on synthetic fuels made with renewable energy, at least as a stop-gap solution.
- Macha 5y ago
  Are biofuels actually better if the problem you're trying to solve is carbon emissions? (And not just fossil fuel depletion)
  - fogihujy 5y ago
    Yes and no. If done right, you can get bio-gas from old landfills and food waste, and that's gas that'll end up in the atmosphere anyway -- we might as well use it. Then there's the issue of growing crops for use as bio-fuel. In theory it's a renewable energy source, but in the real world it'll use valuable land that we will need for climate-friendly but inefficient organic farming for food.
- pjerem 5y ago
  Synthetic fuels emits the same carbon dioxide amounts than conventional fuels. I don’t see how this is helping to reduce emissions.
  - 5y ago

blondie9x 5y ago

I hope part of the plan is to stop this stupid 'green energy' practice https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-bi...

blondie9x 5y ago

Governments of this planet are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure governments to drive faster change. Therefore to protect all of humanity globally now and for the future of our posterity I am committing to the following. I pledge to limit eating red meat. I will restrict intake of cows and lambs etc. If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less. I will try to use cycling or mass transit options whenever possible and to participate in efforts to expand transit. I will restrict flying to only when necessary and try to limit flying to only when no other choice is available. If I do fly I will try to offset all emissions. I will try my utmost to conserve energy and minimize use of heating and cooling appliances. I will try my best to limit energy use to renewable sources when I have the choice. When I cannot choose I will fight for the ability to have this choice. I will try to help those close to me understand these choices and the need for those able, to also join the pledge. I will only consume what I need. I will not perpetuate extravagance and will only support companies who champion sustainable efforts. I will do my best to strive for and support sustainable and minimalist technology. I will stay involved in the public discourse on environmental issues and stay engaged on efforts to mitigate climate change.

bserge 5y ago

So, anyway, it looks like we're not doing enough about emissions. When will politicians start taking the space sunshade idea seriously?

riversflow 5y ago

Yikes. If this is the best Europe can do we are well and truly effed. FTA >The commission is betting that instead of hordes of yellow-vest protesters taking to the streets, citizens will be willing to pay a price for cleaner air, lower emissions, and more sustainable lifestyles. color me skeptical. Granted, I’m not European just interested in international politics , but this bill seems tilted heavily in favor of particularly Germany and also France(the mentioned protesters, I know). If they really wanted this for the good of the Bloc, their would be plans to give aid (power plants, expertise, transmitted green energy, grants for the required renovations) to the poorer members/regions. Perhaps i’m just misinformed, but wouldn’t the burden of higher petrol taxes, more ambitious targets for renewables and renovation requirements be a much greater burden on the more eastern members? This particularly seems devious: >A requirement for countries to more quickly renovate buildings that are not deemed energy efficient Not the development of new stricter standards that everyone should follow, just adding more pressure on those who couldn’t afford to do it promptly (because if you are required to make an efficiency upgrade, the only reason not to make it promptly and enjoy the benefits of the efficiency is if you can’t afford it.) I’m also very very critical of carve outs. Why should their be an exemption for low-carbon alternatives to jet fuel? Just make the tax that much higher because of the impact of high altitude emissions. Apparently their is an exemption for both Private (jfc) and Cargo jets.[1] which explains the rationale, but doesn’t make it any better. I’m very saddened by the Carbon border tax, which seems like direct protectionism to me. I’m a huge fan of border taxes on imported goods to level the playing field (offshoring dirty business is unacceptable from an environmental standpoint), but it’s a bankrupt idea if you are applying it to only certain goods and only on Carbon. Tax them for dumping, for not being required to have sealed floors, for not having to catch fumes/dust, etc. Using climate change to enact rules that will disproportionately affect poorer people and give carve outs to the wealthy is disgusting. This looks like class warfare to me. It’s a cowardly and entirely inadequate attempt at addressing the problem and seems to target the poorest and give carve outs for the rich. [1] https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-...

cjblomqvist 5y ago
It seems it's pretty even, or even tilted in favor of the poorer countries, when it comes to carbon per capita; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... (looking at production, I'm pretty sure consumption is much more tilted towards the poorer countries so the border tax helps a lot there). Further more, EU is already shifting a lot of money to the poorer countries from the richer (by default). At least when it comes to carbon taxing - which so far seems to be the most effective (both theoretically and practically) and equal way of curbing carbon emissions - EU is the frontrunner in the world, right? So it seems you're complaining at the best in class student here?

andrepd 5y ago

Proper "Georgist" accounting of externalities is a really important step in tackling climate change and pollution (as well as a host of other issues). Companies should absolutely not be free to pollute like there's no tomorrow at absolutely zero cost. Impose a cost, calculated in some manner based on the harm caused by those emissions, together with a hard cap. Or better yet, ramp up those costs so there's diminishing returns (a curve so that you can emit a small and sustainable amount for cheap, the costs become more onerous as you emit more, eventually going up to ∞, the hard cap).

wolverine876 5y ago

> One EU diplomat told Reuters that the success of the package would rest on its ability to be realistic and socially fair, while also not destabilising the economy. > "The aim is to put the economy on a new level, not to stop it," they said. How socially fair and non-destabilizing will climate change be?

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

This is the 'wish list'. Any legislation that passes will be significantly watered down by industry. Even this, as far reaching as it is, is not enough to keep us below 2c. Now ask yourself, will the US or the BRICs also do this? I don't see it. The truth of the matter is we will resort to some sort of hamfisted geo engineering once we get desperate enough, and that will have to be kept up indefinitely until we figure out how to air capture CO2 and sequester it. We understand the basic chemical reactions around this, but we have no idea how to do this at the scale required. It's looking grim for future generations.

tonfreed 5y ago

Was this the same plan where private jets were exempted from a jet fuel tax?