The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040(theverge.com)
theverge.com
The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/6/24062570/europe-eu-2040-climate-change-carbon-capture-strategy
53 comments
OTOH, it could be as trustworthy as the Montreal protocol of 1987 which agreed to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999.
Instead production in signatory countries hit 0 by 1996.
Measured scepticism is rational. Blind scepticism isn't.
Instead production in signatory countries hit 0 by 1996.
Measured scepticism is rational. Blind scepticism isn't.
Those were just specific substances for which they had a replacement at hand (and those HCFC and HFC replacements? Turns out they're not so good for environment either, and they had to start restricting those too, though they're still going strong).
Not for something general, like overall polution, of which there's 0 chance to reduce to 90%, or even 50% by 2040.
Let's wait and see who called it.
Not for something general, like overall polution, of which there's 0 chance to reduce to 90%, or even 50% by 2040.
Let's wait and see who called it.
50% is trivial. It's already down 33% from 2012.
The top three air pollution sources are electricity generation, heating and transport. There are zero emission replacements at hand for all 3, all being actively deployed.
The top three air pollution sources are electricity generation, heating and transport. There are zero emission replacements at hand for all 3, all being actively deployed.
And pollution from electricity generation are 46% down in only 7 years, 2016-2023.
Reduction by 55% from 1990 levels (with no flimsy items counted into this such as sequestration) by 2030 is now seen as below-inertial scenario: emissions will be lower even if nothing else is done. We are already about 35% under 1990 levels. So you are certainly wrong on that one.
It's not blind, it's based on reasoning.
CFCs were replaced fairly easily with HFCs (which also contributed to climate change. GreenAmerica says `They were replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which do not deplete the ozone, but they do have up to 9,000 times greater warming capacity than carbon dioxide.`)
What's the alternative for fossil fuels?
Even if we increase production of nuclear energy and renewables, we're still left with cars. Electric cars require tons of lithium and after the battery did its course they lose a good chunk of their value. The economics in EV are just completely different compared to petrol cars and that's doable only if you are wealthy.
CFCs were replaced fairly easily with HFCs (which also contributed to climate change. GreenAmerica says `They were replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which do not deplete the ozone, but they do have up to 9,000 times greater warming capacity than carbon dioxide.`)
What's the alternative for fossil fuels?
Even if we increase production of nuclear energy and renewables, we're still left with cars. Electric cars require tons of lithium and after the battery did its course they lose a good chunk of their value. The economics in EV are just completely different compared to petrol cars and that's doable only if you are wealthy.
Electric cars require about 8kg of Lithium, and that's easily and economically recyclable.
An EV with thermal battery protection lasts about 250,000km, about the same as a gasoline car.
You can buy an EV that has passed European safety homologation (the BYD Seagull) for $8,000 in China. The TCO of that is obviously a lot better than a gasoline vehicle. The fact that you can't in Europe or North America is not due to economics.
An EV with thermal battery protection lasts about 250,000km, about the same as a gasoline car.
You can buy an EV that has passed European safety homologation (the BYD Seagull) for $8,000 in China. The TCO of that is obviously a lot better than a gasoline vehicle. The fact that you can't in Europe or North America is not due to economics.
Indeed. Most coal will be phased out of Europe by 2035 [1], and could run entirely on renewables by 2030 if they choose to spend accordingly (~€2T, not terribly feasible but gives an idea of fiat-time tradeoff) [2], leaving buildings (heat pumps [3]) and EVs [4] to sweep out quite a bit of the remaining emissions (with manufacturing, agriculture, and other sources still needing solutioning [5]).
[1] https://beyondfossilfuels.org/europes-coal-exit/
[2] https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/10/09/europe-can-beco...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/23/heat-pum...
[4] https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/new-registr...
[5] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240108/road-transportat...
[1] https://beyondfossilfuels.org/europes-coal-exit/
[2] https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/10/09/europe-can-beco...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/23/heat-pum...
[4] https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/new-registr...
[5] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240108/road-transportat...
sorry but this is not realistic. i looked at the [2] document and it's just a dream.
it's written in the style of "currently EU consumes this much energy, we project this to grow to that much until 2030/2040, we currently produce this much energy from renewables, so we need to multiply the amount of renewables with the correct number".
completely ignores the largest problem with solar/wind, storage. it just says that we should build enough storage. that's easy to say. i don't know of any country on this planet that made it work with purely solar/wind (please just tell me which one does, bonus point for one with a similar climate to europe), so it means we need to literally develop the technology (pls note, we do not even know what that technology will be) and then deploy it... in 6 years. that's completely unreal.
also, they recommend that we let the nuclear power generation go to zero, arguing for example, that nuclear-fuel needs to be imported into europe, but seems to be totally fine with importing in anything else (rare earth minerals etc.)
it's written in the style of "currently EU consumes this much energy, we project this to grow to that much until 2030/2040, we currently produce this much energy from renewables, so we need to multiply the amount of renewables with the correct number".
completely ignores the largest problem with solar/wind, storage. it just says that we should build enough storage. that's easy to say. i don't know of any country on this planet that made it work with purely solar/wind (please just tell me which one does, bonus point for one with a similar climate to europe), so it means we need to literally develop the technology (pls note, we do not even know what that technology will be) and then deploy it... in 6 years. that's completely unreal.
also, they recommend that we let the nuclear power generation go to zero, arguing for example, that nuclear-fuel needs to be imported into europe, but seems to be totally fine with importing in anything else (rare earth minerals etc.)
You are looking at individual countries. Europe has a transmission network, as well as battery storage, pumped storage, hydro generation, wind, solar and some nuclear. You keep adding renewables and storage, and keep retiring fossil generators. Europe has enough wind potential to power the entire world, for example. It's not impossible, it's math.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?wind=false&solar=false
https://www.energy-storage.news/europe-reached-4-5gw-of-batt...
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?wind=false&solar=false
https://www.energy-storage.news/europe-reached-4-5gw-of-batt...
That doesn't help when you have a big storm, sunless/windless winter or any other combination of factors covering big area. Plus fragility of the supply, limitations of power lines and network, etc. As soon as you add more real life factors it doesn't look that promising. To have a potential doesn't imply to have a feasibility.
I have nothing agains further improving the network and load-balancing it smarter, but it's just in my interest to have some local duplication of energy generation. Or with my heatpump being out of service I may freeze or will have to buy a generator.
I have nothing agains further improving the network and load-balancing it smarter, but it's just in my interest to have some local duplication of energy generation. Or with my heatpump being out of service I may freeze or will have to buy a generator.
I don't disagree, fossil gas generators will be the last fossil generators to go (gas peakers and oil are already uneconomical compared to battery storage [1] [2] [3]). We're just arguing time horizon and deployment trajectories [4]. Certainly, don't tear down efficient fossil gas generators until they're no longer needed, but keep building renewables, storage, and transmission like our lives depend on it, because they do.
[1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/12/battery-storage-syste...
[2] https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources...
[3] https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april...
[4] https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/world-may-be-on-track-for-tri...
[1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/12/battery-storage-syste...
[2] https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources...
[3] https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april...
[4] https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/world-may-be-on-track-for-tri...
Citation: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-07/the-ga... | https://archive.today/9YQIP ("Bloomberg Opinion: Big Gas Needs to Be a Backup; Instead of a Bridge, Utilities should emphasize their role of keeping the lights on when renewables can’t and pivot away from a reliance on increasing volumes.")
There has never been a one-hour window over the last 30 years where it hasn't been sunny or windy somewhere in Europe.
Obviously having all of Europe's electricity being generated on a single corner of Spain isn't feasible. But nobody is talking about 100% wind & solar. Hydro, storage, geothermal & nuclear can all add diversity and reliability. This can be modelled. We cannot get to 100% reliability but nothing can; local distribution SPOF bottlenecks limit reliability 99.99% regardless. And 99.99% is possible.
Obviously having all of Europe's electricity being generated on a single corner of Spain isn't feasible. But nobody is talking about 100% wind & solar. Hydro, storage, geothermal & nuclear can all add diversity and reliability. This can be modelled. We cannot get to 100% reliability but nothing can; local distribution SPOF bottlenecks limit reliability 99.99% regardless. And 99.99% is possible.
Given SpaceX's amazing progress in 2023 (and every year before) I'd bet the Mars mission is going to happen.
People don't seem to realize that in 2023 they broke the record for most amount of launches of any entity on earth. They beat the second best record (Soviet Union at 60 launches in a year). His Falcon heavy updates broke the record for most amount of cargo delivered(beating Saturn V).
The rate they are iterating on Starship means they may make their targets on that ship this year.
The private sector has made incredible progress in getting this green initiative done. While the investments in EVs and batteries have definitely helped, a lot of this rhetoric based targets have gone nowhere. Just look at the results of COP21. I was there in Paris. It feels like such a long time ago now.
The real question is why these initiatives fail? Maybe its just not possible to have the entire population transition over to a new way of thinking about emissions. After all what are emissions? They are an unaccounted for externality. Some percentage of the population cannot make their lives/businesses/operations work if they have to account for this cost.
People don't seem to realize that in 2023 they broke the record for most amount of launches of any entity on earth. They beat the second best record (Soviet Union at 60 launches in a year). His Falcon heavy updates broke the record for most amount of cargo delivered(beating Saturn V).
The rate they are iterating on Starship means they may make their targets on that ship this year.
The private sector has made incredible progress in getting this green initiative done. While the investments in EVs and batteries have definitely helped, a lot of this rhetoric based targets have gone nowhere. Just look at the results of COP21. I was there in Paris. It feels like such a long time ago now.
The real question is why these initiatives fail? Maybe its just not possible to have the entire population transition over to a new way of thinking about emissions. After all what are emissions? They are an unaccounted for externality. Some percentage of the population cannot make their lives/businesses/operations work if they have to account for this cost.
Sooo your solution is to just do nothing at all?
My solution to the problem of pollution, or to the problem of vaccuous promises by politicians which is what I pointed at?
You believe so and criticize it.
To do what? If nothing happens it wasn't worth it to point it it.
So apparently you care enough about this topic to complain were is your solutions than to add something useful to it?
To do what? If nothing happens it wasn't worth it to point it it.
So apparently you care enough about this topic to complain were is your solutions than to add something useful to it?
Hum... no. The GP is complaining that what is on the title is the equivalent of doing nothing at all.
Of course, there's an entire plan, with shorter term goals and ways to achieve them. With actionable steps, what is a huge change from most climate accords. The article just does a very bad work of citing those and not getting at any detail at all.
Of course, there's an entire plan, with shorter term goals and ways to achieve them. With actionable steps, what is a huge change from most climate accords. The article just does a very bad work of citing those and not getting at any detail at all.
The EU could take a page out of Denmark's climate playbook to easily meet emissions targets.
A large contributor of projected Danish emissions has been low-lying wetlands converted to farmland via draining. Calculations predicted that reflooding these areas could saves millions of tons of emissions, so this became a hot political topic. However, the Danish climate minister recently announced that he had wonderful climate-related news to share; the emissions from these areas were significantly less than first anticipated! And with these magical news, Denmark's 2025 emissions goals have now been met. However, what the minister failed to mention was the fact that the only reason these lands emit less than anticipated is because they have already emitted most of the greenhouse gasses stored in them, just at a much faster rate than initially predicted.
A large contributor of projected Danish emissions has been low-lying wetlands converted to farmland via draining. Calculations predicted that reflooding these areas could saves millions of tons of emissions, so this became a hot political topic. However, the Danish climate minister recently announced that he had wonderful climate-related news to share; the emissions from these areas were significantly less than first anticipated! And with these magical news, Denmark's 2025 emissions goals have now been met. However, what the minister failed to mention was the fact that the only reason these lands emit less than anticipated is because they have already emitted most of the greenhouse gasses stored in them, just at a much faster rate than initially predicted.
Still good news given all the recent farmers protests in the EU.
If they destroy productive farmland, what's the impact on food supplies and food prices?
This sounds desperate and counterproductive so good of they can 'justify' not doing it.
This sounds desperate and counterproductive so good of they can 'justify' not doing it.
This article makes it sound very unrealistic.
But emission is already down 45% since 1990 in the EU and they're ahead of the original targets because of the war with Russia.
In 2023 alone emission from the power sector was cut by 23%.
I would not be surprised if this target is met a lot sooner than 2040.
Source: https://electrek.co/2024/02/06/eu-coal-and-gas-collapse-wind...
Investing in the energy sector makes a lot of sense for the EU because one of its biggest problems is the cost of energy, mainly caused by its reliance on fossil fuels.
So also purely from an economical point of view this is a good strategy.
But emission is already down 45% since 1990 in the EU and they're ahead of the original targets because of the war with Russia.
In 2023 alone emission from the power sector was cut by 23%.
I would not be surprised if this target is met a lot sooner than 2040.
Source: https://electrek.co/2024/02/06/eu-coal-and-gas-collapse-wind...
Investing in the energy sector makes a lot of sense for the EU because one of its biggest problems is the cost of energy, mainly caused by its reliance on fossil fuels.
So also purely from an economical point of view this is a good strategy.
We recently got a series of articles on the EUs stagnating economy and industry and a few days later we get this ludicrous proposal. The EU is probably one of the most masochistic regional entities in the world.
Sometimes regulation can help an industry forward quite a bit. For example when a cleaner technology requires massive investments, but nobody wants to be first. When there is a clear cut-off date, like with ICE cars in the EU, then manufacturers can justify the investments and go ahead.
At the same time, a lot of spending on green technologies often means a lot of local jobs. Which can be good for the economy if the money would otherwise be spend on products or services that come from outside the EU.
Finally, economic indicators often don't quite capture quality of life, etc. For example, if EU cities make it harder to drive a car into city centers then that may result in lower economic growth, because fewer cars are needed. But people might be more happy walking, biking, etc.
At the same time, a lot of spending on green technologies often means a lot of local jobs. Which can be good for the economy if the money would otherwise be spend on products or services that come from outside the EU.
Finally, economic indicators often don't quite capture quality of life, etc. For example, if EU cities make it harder to drive a car into city centers then that may result in lower economic growth, because fewer cars are needed. But people might be more happy walking, biking, etc.
>But people might be more happy walking, biking, etc.
Or they might drag their tractors into the highways and block off all access to the city in protest.
I feel like I had this same conversation against a presenter at CCC recently. Do people really not see the backlash brewing against the left for proposing these ideas onto others?
Or they might drag their tractors into the highways and block off all access to the city in protest.
I feel like I had this same conversation against a presenter at CCC recently. Do people really not see the backlash brewing against the left for proposing these ideas onto others?
I don't know what farmers are up against in all countries. There are certainly lots of things wrong in the overall markets for agricultural goods.
However, in The Netherlands it basically seems that they protest for a right to pollute. Nature gets destroyed by to much nitrogen in the soil, to much polluted water. Bad water levels to support farmers, etc. Too much use of pesticides and herbicides that end up everywhere.
You can call it left to fight against pollution. In that case, I'm happy to be left.
There is an underlying problem where farmers have to work on large scale because margins are to thin.
But then rhetoric starts. For example, consumers are blamed for not wanting to pay more for produce. But conveniently left out is what about goods that get exported. You can hardly blame Dutch consumers for not paying more for goods that get exported out of The Netherlands.
However, in The Netherlands it basically seems that they protest for a right to pollute. Nature gets destroyed by to much nitrogen in the soil, to much polluted water. Bad water levels to support farmers, etc. Too much use of pesticides and herbicides that end up everywhere.
You can call it left to fight against pollution. In that case, I'm happy to be left.
There is an underlying problem where farmers have to work on large scale because margins are to thin.
But then rhetoric starts. For example, consumers are blamed for not wanting to pay more for produce. But conveniently left out is what about goods that get exported. You can hardly blame Dutch consumers for not paying more for goods that get exported out of The Netherlands.
If we don't do good things out of fear of backlash from regressives, we have already lost.
You gotta sneak it in a way that does not affect the day to day world of the normies. Thats how anything meaningful gets done.
At least in the US it is done one of three ways
1: For corrupt stealing of funds, stuff a contract into some other bill that marginally helps people. Example: The "Inflation Reduction Act" is 270+ pages. Its filled with giveaways here and there that wont be noticed by people directly, it will just eat away at them longterm in the form of higher taxes and inflation. They could totally enact small rule changes here and there to curb emissions in all of these bills and if you do it over an extended time period people wont notice the small changes.
2: Have the private sector solve it so that way people can "feel" like they can refuse. But what happens is that the market takes over and eventually this option is what people are stuck with since it becomes the cheapest. We are seeing this with EVs and hopefully we will reach a point where EVs get cheap enough and chargers become ubiquitous enough that the flywheel effect that keeps gas prices low will slow down and it enters a death spiral.
3: Have a national tragedy and use the opportunity to ram through a piece of legislation to affect massive change by forcing the opposition to have to take an unpopular side. Examples: LBJ pushing the Civil Rights Act after JFK's assassination, Patriot act after 9/11 etc.
At least in the US it is done one of three ways
1: For corrupt stealing of funds, stuff a contract into some other bill that marginally helps people. Example: The "Inflation Reduction Act" is 270+ pages. Its filled with giveaways here and there that wont be noticed by people directly, it will just eat away at them longterm in the form of higher taxes and inflation. They could totally enact small rule changes here and there to curb emissions in all of these bills and if you do it over an extended time period people wont notice the small changes.
2: Have the private sector solve it so that way people can "feel" like they can refuse. But what happens is that the market takes over and eventually this option is what people are stuck with since it becomes the cheapest. We are seeing this with EVs and hopefully we will reach a point where EVs get cheap enough and chargers become ubiquitous enough that the flywheel effect that keeps gas prices low will slow down and it enters a death spiral.
3: Have a national tragedy and use the opportunity to ram through a piece of legislation to affect massive change by forcing the opposition to have to take an unpopular side. Examples: LBJ pushing the Civil Rights Act after JFK's assassination, Patriot act after 9/11 etc.
Long term you cannot maintain "good quality of life" if you don't produce the wealth to pay for it.
We're already seeing this happening in Europe.
We're already seeing this happening in Europe.
By "pollution" they mean "net greenhouse gas emissions".
8% of it is from carbon capture or offsetting, which is bullshit. 82% reduction from 1990 levels is only 2.5x reduction in 10 years (2030-2040) from easily achievable "Fit for 55" plan, which is currently seen as below-inertial scenario and actual 2030 emissions are going to come out lower. So nothing impossible here.
CO2 emissions from power production decreased by 46% in EU in only 7 years (2016-2023) and are in freefall now. Just as an example.
CO2 emissions from power production decreased by 46% in EU in only 7 years (2016-2023) and are in freefall now. Just as an example.
EU proposes being poorer by 2040
Why care about the environment when you can be richhhhhhhh
I don't want to be rich but I don't want to be poor either. These policies won't save the planet, and will make the life of millions of people miserable. And if you are worried about the rich, look at who making money with theses decisions an who is lobbying the EU.
> These policies won't save the planet, and will make the life of millions of people miserable
Nice sleight of hand there. Are you saying these policies won't do absolutely anything at all to reduce the rate of global warming?
Nice sleight of hand there. Are you saying these policies won't do absolutely anything at all to reduce the rate of global warming?
The impact will be almost zero if you compare EU emissions to the global total. China emitted about 27% in 2019 and the EU 6.6%, How much these policies will reduce that? and how much impact do you think it will have? In the mean time the Europeans and going to suffer the negative effects of this measures and see no benefits.
They did and are still doing a great job of making us poorer by 2020.
Any type of predictions at that scale (40years) are worthless:
Could you predict Brexit in 1980?
Could you predict Brexit in 1980?
[deleted]
Modern day regimes simply have the country's universities release a few research papers ahead of time popularizing and inventing problems that have a solution equal to the changes the dictators would like to see come into effect in the society. Who are we to say climate change is not real against the universities ? Or that we do not wish to be made poor and eat bugs to fix these problems because we see no evidence on the ground they exist ?
Read that as population
Co2 is not exactly pollution
Bullshit. EU moving production to other countries is not to slash pollution. I know there will be academic explanations to convince us this is the way but once common people start to face real life problems (energy cost, food security issues, layoffs because of industry relocations, etc) they will rise the flag of revolution.
Unless this is the expected result...
I wonder what you suspect the effects of widespread sustained climate change will be? Of the 'real life' problems coming down the pipe, energy cost, food security, and industrial disturbances are the happy, rosy ones.
Moving production abroad makes all of what you mention harder in times of crisis
do you have any credible sources to those claims?
I bett it is going to involve more moving numbers on a spreadsheet than actual reductions in the real world.
[deleted]
This is as "trustworthy" as the "Only sell EVs by 2035" EUs proposal, and Musk's mission to Mars.