EU leaders agree to cut emissions by at least 55% by end of decade(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
EU leaders agree to cut emissions by at least 55% by end of decade
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/11/eu-leaders-reach-deal-to-cut-emissions-by-at-least-55-by-end-of-decade
219 comments
Bold 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.
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.
> 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.
Is the "low hanging fruits" really the right way to reason about this? I think the "economies of scale" is a better framework.
I 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/
Project seems kinda dead? No press releases since 2017.
The 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...
https://www.siemensgamesa.com/products-and-services/offshore...
That’s very similar in size to 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)
Increasingly, 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.
US 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.
US emissions are 17 tonnes of CO2 per capita. France is 5.5, the UK is 6.
US emissions are down about 25 percent from peak. France cut theirs by 40 percent already.
If some says "I accept the science and the responsibility, but I don't want to cut my emissions so fuck it", I might not like it but its honest. Pretending the US isn't vastly worse and making much less progress than other countries isn't even honest.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/france?country=FRA~GB...
US emissions are down about 25 percent from peak. France cut theirs by 40 percent already.
If some says "I accept the science and the responsibility, but I don't want to cut my emissions so fuck it", I might not like it but its honest. Pretending the US isn't vastly worse and making much less progress than other countries isn't even honest.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/france?country=FRA~GB...
Relative to when? If you choose 2005 on these graphs[0] then yes, or it can look flat like it does to me since 1990.
[0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas... fig
[0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas... fig
Maybe... 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.
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.
As emissions are cumulative, there is no wasting time by cutting your own emissions. Both is best, but change starts at home!
Mainly, China has to work on cutting coal, and the USA has a stubbornly slow-to-green transportation sector. Then there's agriculture and manufacturing, those are much harder long term trends. I'm thinking EU and progressive US areas may drive cost premiums down for green options, so that then other economies can come in at lower price points afterwards.
That's true but you have no power over the actions of other countries. They can always decide to "defect". It's better to work on the problem domestically instead of pointing fingers.
Would already be a good start if the US wouldn't put foreign policy over the environment.
That whole push to export subsidized US LNG, to places like Germany for the sole purpose of further depressing the Russian economy, is complete nonsense from an environmental and efficiency perspective.
That whole push to export subsidized US LNG, to places like Germany for the sole purpose of further depressing the Russian economy, is complete nonsense from an environmental and efficiency perspective.
What you do in one country absolutely matters in another. Even the US has a significant portion of wind and solar these days. This didn't happen because Donald Trump (or anyone else responsible) made any ambitious climate decisions, it simply happened because policies of other countries made it so cheap that it happened through market forces.
This isn't a solution for everything (there will be areas where the climate friendly solution will always be more expensive), but for example bringing down the prices of electrolyseurs would absolutely matter worldwide and is something the EU can do with policy.
This isn't a solution for everything (there will be areas where the climate friendly solution will always be more expensive), but for example bringing down the prices of electrolyseurs would absolutely matter worldwide and is something the EU can do with policy.
We need both.
Is 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?
The best bet you can make if you're confident nothing will get done is to not have any children.
Look at the ambitious CO2 emission targets (and associated fines) for EU carmakers, no one's wriggling out of that.
They moved their production out of EU into China, US or even Turkey.
Of course they won’t come back. Congrats.
Of course they won’t come back. Congrats.
Because 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.
If those emissions were accounted for, then it would be more efficient to manufacture closer to the customer, and we'd all benefit.
I 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.)
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.)
OP might have been sarcasm about VW's dieselgate...
VW's emission cheating produced more Nitrogen Oxide emissions and less carbon dioxide emissions than if the vehicles ran the same in normal conditions and test conditions. In a nutshell, the engines ran hotter while cheating, which naturally increases fuel efficency and nitrogen oxide production.
So, it was bad for breathing, but good for climate change. Except that remedying the situation was probably a lot of emissions.
So, it was bad for breathing, but good for climate change. Except that remedying the situation was probably a lot of emissions.
Oh no!!
Anyway
Anyway
VW certainly tried. Who else has been more successful at cheating?
The Volkswagen scandal was only indirectly about CO2 emissions. Volkswagen cheated regarding their NOX emissions in Diesel cars which are not relevant to climate change but potentially dangerous to those living near streets or in big cities.
Yeah that’s the easy finger pointing part. The hard part is doing things and making sacrifices yourself.
Nah. This decade is different.
Everybody will cut a lot of emissions. The economic interests point on that direction.
Everybody will cut a lot of emissions. The economic interests point on that direction.
Except developing countries who won't take kindly to deal with restrictions the developed countries didn't have, or any country that derives the slightest economic advantage from not cooperating.
> EU set to meet its climate change targets
> The European Union has already achieved one of its three targets related to climate change and energy, as a part of the Europe 2020 strategy.
https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/eng/News/Data-news/EU-...
> The European Union has already achieved one of its three targets related to climate change and energy, as a part of the Europe 2020 strategy.
https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/eng/News/Data-news/EU-...
Yes. It's called the stock market.
I’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.
Govt spending follows, and politicians get to sell the idea that no change is needed.
And 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?
The 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.
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.
Pretty much. You can keep doing everything you're doing, from flying every month to eating meat everyday! Just pay a convenient tree-planting/green-washing fee of 29.99 per month and you're set!
Not geo engineering, but I strongly believe DAC (direct air capture) of carbon will become widespread.
(DAC because BECCS' needs/effects are too complex)
(DAC because BECCS' needs/effects are too complex)
Agreed, 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.
There will always be some level of emissions that we need to offset.
Solar radiation management could be deployed in the short term. Whether there are catastrophic side effects is pretty much an open question.
If insufficient other measures have been taken up to that point then it only has to be less catastrophic than unmitigated climate change.
Any sensible geoengineering plan will be in addition to climate mitigation and emission reductions, not instead of it.
FWIW I think geoengineering should be - carefully - explored and researched.
FWIW I think geoengineering should be - carefully - explored and researched.
Why do you think that? As another comment mentioned, the EU is indeed reducing emissions: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/30/report-eu-g...
EDIT: I do strongly believe there is no way out of this situation without geoengineering. Either with carbon capture or some sort of aerosol. But this news seems genuine.
EDIT: I do strongly believe there is no way out of this situation without geoengineering. Either with carbon capture or some sort of aerosol. But this news seems genuine.
As comparison, the UK target is a cut of 68% by 2030.
It'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.
True, but Germany has a lot of coal.
Germany 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.
That 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.
ok 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&...
But there will be no nuclear after 2022 which will hinder the progress, meanwhile this;
https://www.powermag.com/germany-brings-last-new-coal-plant-...
https://www.powermag.com/germany-brings-last-new-coal-plant-...
Poland and most EU countries in Eastern Europe are using more coal than ever. You can make an incredible reduction by changing those coal plants to oil or natural gas.
This is quite ironic, the EU sets its own standards lower than the UK, but in trade negotiations accuses the UK of potentially lowering the standards to get an advantage. Same stories with subsidies. I guess it's true, cheaters are always the most afraid of being cheated.
Bojo has already stated that they aim to lower their standards to better compete with the EU, so totally understandable that the EU doesn't just believe him.
Given that UK is not able to keep its word for more than a year (internal market clause), it is sensible for EU to not trust whatever promise the current PM is making.
It's almost as if the word "standards" covers a whole host of things in a very, very wide array of policy areas.
The UK position on this is very odd: we've been quite effective, but nobody wants to take credit for it in public.
The UK seems peculiarly obsessed with wind power. And a few times last month, it was (unusually?) wind-less and the wind power contribution to the national grid dropped to almost zero, whilst at the same time...fossil fuel and nuclear had to pick up the slack.
Anyone here from Poland or Germany and know what those governments are going to do about brown coal?
Polish person here.
Likely nothing until the current deposits are depleted, which is poised happen in the next 20 years:
https://wysokienapiecie.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/wegiel...
Brown coal is only commercially viable if it's not transported too far, so it's been in steady decline for years now(yellow line - brown coal production in Poland over the years):
https://wysokienapiecie.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/wydoby...
To my knowledge no large new mines were opened in the past decade.
All this brown coal will likely be replaced with imported hard coal, gas and electricity - currently 8% of the electricity consumed in Poland is imported - mostly from Germany and Sweden - at an average total rate of 1.2GW.
Likely nothing until the current deposits are depleted, which is poised happen in the next 20 years:
https://wysokienapiecie.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/wegiel...
Brown coal is only commercially viable if it's not transported too far, so it's been in steady decline for years now(yellow line - brown coal production in Poland over the years):
https://wysokienapiecie.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/wydoby...
To my knowledge no large new mines were opened in the past decade.
All this brown coal will likely be replaced with imported hard coal, gas and electricity - currently 8% of the electricity consumed in Poland is imported - mostly from Germany and Sweden - at an average total rate of 1.2GW.
I guess if green energy provided by your neighbors becomes super cheap, you might just import it and shut down the coal plants. Should be feasible for 2025 - 2030.
That will never happen for national security reasons. Even in 2050 I'd imagine 10% of the energy will come from carbon sources.
You want to keep one gas plant open and one coal ready to start quickly. There could be war, natural disaster like volcano eruption that blocks the sun etc.
You want to keep one gas plant open and one coal ready to start quickly. There could be war, natural disaster like volcano eruption that blocks the sun etc.
Imported energy is already cheaper than the one generated by coal plants - the only limiting factor is the capacity of connections.
Meanwhile there's currently over 2.5GW of solar capacity in this country - most of which was built during the last two years when a subsidy program for residential installations was introduced.
It so happens that coal plants cannot operate at full capacity during the summer due to cooling issues, so having more solar is actually pretty beneficial.
Meanwhile there's currently over 2.5GW of solar capacity in this country - most of which was built during the last two years when a subsidy program for residential installations was introduced.
It so happens that coal plants cannot operate at full capacity during the summer due to cooling issues, so having more solar is actually pretty beneficial.
Interesting, thanks.
Germany already pledged to shut them down. The problem is that the timeline is stupidly long. The country is also in the process of introducing a minimum CO2 price that is going up year by year. Hopefully that will convince the operators of the coal plants to turn their plants down because of economics instead of a direct ban.
For Germany check out the graph on this page (grey is black coal, brown is brown coal): https://www.bmu.de/themen/klima-energie/klimaschutz/national...
It will be reduced to half by 2030 and phased out completely by 2038. That's the worst case by law, in practice coal might be phased out faster.
It will be reduced to half by 2030 and phased out completely by 2038. That's the worst case by law, in practice coal might be phased out faster.
PL: 2 nuclear plants (one in place of old brown coal mine). There could be one left which won't be economical in the near future.
The rest of coal is getting to expensive to extract.
The rest of coal is getting to expensive to extract.
Germany prefers to shut down nuclear instead
Continue 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.
As 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_Deu...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
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_Deu...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
It sounds like both countries are going to do some horse-trading then to do their part.
[deleted]
I'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.
I wish EU would stop subsidizing hybrids, and focus on electric cars, as hybrid subsidies are misused extremely.
>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?
Batteries 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.
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.
Any 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.
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.
Well, 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.
[deleted]
Bit of a nitpick but is end of the decade in 2029 or 2030?
I 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-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.
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-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.
When did the sixties end?
Depends on the country. In some places it ended way into the 80s.
That's an aggressive goal for the next 20 days.
Wake 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...
Nothing is going to matter until this changes.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads...
Nothing is going to matter until this changes.
At 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.
Cargo ships are responsible for ~3% of global CO2 emissions. Not too bad for providing a backbone for the world's economy.
> 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...
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.
"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...
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.
> 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.
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.
Nothing is going to matter unless you wake up yourself and go do something about emissions. Nobody is going to do it for you while you are sleeping.
Pretty much the entire US navy runs on nuclear power, so it's not unthinkable to move to zero emissions propulsion.
Cargo ships are a tiny part of the entire supply chain and provide an incredibly efficient service. It's environmentally friendlier to buy something that's in season in the other hemisphere and ship it to you than to grow it locally off season.
Ah yes, we will stop cargo ships. Now we will ship everything by plane, happy ?
[deleted]
Unless 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.
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.
It'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.
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.
Is 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.
I 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.
Global 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.
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.
Added 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.
The fact that this plugs one hole in the sinking ship and not two is hardly evidence that it's crap.
> The fact that this plugs one hole in the sinking ship and not two is hardly evidence that it's crap.
This is a much more eloquent explanation, and I am saving this for the future. This is exactly what I meant.
This is a much more eloquent explanation, and I am saving this for the future. This is exactly what I meant.
> Added to which, China can be dealt with via restructuring a trade agreement provided there is the political will. Which it looks like there is.
Except EU is already too weak to force China to do anything, and by moving carbon-intensive production outside Europe they would be giving China even more leverage...
Except EU is already too weak to force China to do anything, and by moving carbon-intensive production outside Europe they would be giving China even more leverage...
China is highly dependent on the EU and the US for trade. The EU is the biggest trading bloc in the world. The EU has a lot of leverage.
The problem is that China trivially buys off a single member state to nix things like this from happening, as the EU must agree unanimously on these matters.
The problem is that China trivially buys off a single member state to nix things like this from happening, as the EU must agree unanimously on these matters.
> The EU is the biggest trading bloc in the world.
That recently changed: https://www.dw.com/en/asia-pacific-nations-sign-worlds-bigge...
> China is highly dependent on the EU and the US for trade
This is double-edged sword - EU and US are dependent on the imported goods. if the trade between China and the rest of the world stopped China would end up with abundance, and EU would be in serious trouble, not being able to buy basic things they need. Always better to have some real stuff than virtual money.
That recently changed: https://www.dw.com/en/asia-pacific-nations-sign-worlds-bigge...
> China is highly dependent on the EU and the US for trade
This is double-edged sword - EU and US are dependent on the imported goods. if the trade between China and the rest of the world stopped China would end up with abundance, and EU would be in serious trouble, not being able to buy basic things they need. Always better to have some real stuff than virtual money.
> > The EU is the biggest trading bloc in the world.
> That recently changed:
Both of those are by population and not by GDP.
GDP measures buying/negotiating power. ASEAN is _tiny_.
The US is still top of the heap.
Both of those are by population and not by GDP.
GDP measures buying/negotiating power. ASEAN is _tiny_.
The US is still top of the heap.
You must be thinking about AESAN countries alone, which have about $3 trillion GDP, but this free trade agreement also includes China ($13.6T), Japan ($5T) and Australia ($1.4T), placing it ahead of both USA ($20T) and EU ($15.6T)
That was my point - that China can just focus on trading with other Asian countries and be well. Especially if they someday manage to add India ($2.7T) to the mix.
That was my point - that China can just focus on trading with other Asian countries and be well. Especially if they someday manage to add India ($2.7T) to the mix.
The EU can at the very least stop purchasing or slap tariffs on pollution heavy items.
[deleted]
Is it a huge move in the same way the Paris agreement was?
Because it turns out that not one single country managed to hit the targets that were set.
Because it turns out that not one single country managed to hit the targets that were set.
First, could that be because the accord was signed in 2015 and its emissions targets are in 2030?
Second, countries set their own emissions targets. So it's more of a gentleman's agreement.
Third, it's also false. At least 50 cities are on track [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/11/paris-cl...]. In fact people track who is naughty and nice and there are some countries making good progress and still on track [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/clima...].
Second, countries set their own emissions targets. So it's more of a gentleman's agreement.
Third, it's also false. At least 50 cities are on track [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/11/paris-cl...]. In fact people track who is naughty and nice and there are some countries making good progress and still on track [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/clima...].
India is hitting their targets.
With any policy there is a serious risk of unintended consequences, however.
If this policy does not explicitly include trade, there’s a real risk that European companies will lose in the market as their products are more expensive compared to high pollution imports, or they’ll be forced to move manufacturing to locales where they are permitted to pollute more, both of which are bad for the EU and the world.
If this policy does not explicitly include trade, there’s a real risk that European companies will lose in the market as their products are more expensive compared to high pollution imports, or they’ll be forced to move manufacturing to locales where they are permitted to pollute more, both of which are bad for the EU and the world.
The people want green policies. The people vote in the politicians. The politicians tend not to last more than a few years.
The fact that many industries (and associated jobs) will migrate outside the EU by the end of the decade is a tragedy for the EU, bit isn't on the minds of either the politicians or the people right now.
The fact that many industries (and associated jobs) will migrate outside the EU by the end of the decade is a tragedy for the EU, bit isn't on the minds of either the politicians or the people right now.
"Will somebody please think about the economy?!"
We will run this planet into the ground until there is nothing left but at least the stock market will be healthy.
We will run this planet into the ground until there is nothing left but at least the stock market will be healthy.
The economy is the biggest concern of any country. The actual solution is a economically viable path to green energy, not "let's just migrate everything and ignore the cost", because people (particularly in poorer classes) will revolt otherwise (or elect the other, more fiscally responsible party).
This policy is probably a necessary precondition for including trade. It lets them negotiate from the moral high ground.
From the mora high ground, but economically from a weak position. “We’ve cut our emissions and are importing a lot of your gadgets. You should cut your emissions too, so that we can stop importing your gadgets.”
> economically from a weak position
Why is being an importer a weaker economic position than being the exporter? Honestly, I think the exporter is the weaker position and there's economic research to agree with that.
Why is being an importer a weaker economic position than being the exporter? Honestly, I think the exporter is the weaker position and there's economic research to agree with that.
It's very easy to come up with counterexamples. International companies like Google are far from weak.
If you are a net importer you have to take on loans otherwise you would not be able to purchase imports without any money.
The exporter country can spend the money on purchasing assets in your country. In the case of china the money you spent to buy cheap widgets will be used by the Chinese to buy American assets such as real estate instead of other consumer goods. This would be a good thing if it wasn't for stupid communities that make it hard to build more housing. Instead the existing housing stock gets inflated.
If you are a net importer you have to take on loans otherwise you would not be able to purchase imports without any money.
The exporter country can spend the money on purchasing assets in your country. In the case of china the money you spent to buy cheap widgets will be used by the Chinese to buy American assets such as real estate instead of other consumer goods. This would be a good thing if it wasn't for stupid communities that make it hard to build more housing. Instead the existing housing stock gets inflated.
You're making a lot of pretty wrong economic claims and I think there are enough easy distinctions between Google and the market in manufactured goods that I don't need to spend a lot of time responding to that.
> If you are a net importer you have to take on loans otherwise you would not be able to purchase imports without any money.
Not apriori true at all. Imagine I am a country of one. I have $100 million of cash and export absolutely nothing. I buy an equity stake in some companies in some other country (Nigeria) and wooh boy it's fast growing and I'm getting 12% returns. I then spend all of those returns buying goods from China. I'm a net importer and yet haven't taken out a single loan.
> If you are a net importer you have to take on loans otherwise you would not be able to purchase imports without any money.
Not apriori true at all. Imagine I am a country of one. I have $100 million of cash and export absolutely nothing. I buy an equity stake in some companies in some other country (Nigeria) and wooh boy it's fast growing and I'm getting 12% returns. I then spend all of those returns buying goods from China. I'm a net importer and yet haven't taken out a single loan.
Analysis paralysis. Legal frameworks are rarely just conjured up out of a singular document, the exact same way that a finished program is almost never published as a single commit. I say do what you can, when you can, then iterate until it's good.
If that makes things too complicated, well... some of the greatest legal achievements in history stem from compiling existing law into coherent codes based on what worked previously.
If that makes things too complicated, well... some of the greatest legal achievements in history stem from compiling existing law into coherent codes based on what worked previously.
Government isn't like designing some dohicky where the perfect is the enemy of the good. If you allow an escape valve for the status quo to continue, it will. It's an adversarial problem.
I've never understood this... Why not just ban dirty imports and offshore manufacturing? Prices will go up, but at least the money is kept in the economy.
Indeed, this is a common position on the Left. Unfortunately, free trade orthodoxy is pretty strong still so even pricing in of externalities is politically verboten.
I imagine it may be hard to audit, and that some people will complain about “protectionism”.
As the majority of what I think I know about international trade comes from reading journalists explaining why the UK is doing Brexit wrong, I don’t actually think I know how big these issues really are — “this molehill is close, those mountains are far away”, to paraphrase Father Ted.
As the majority of what I think I know about international trade comes from reading journalists explaining why the UK is doing Brexit wrong, I don’t actually think I know how big these issues really are — “this molehill is close, those mountains are far away”, to paraphrase Father Ted.
> As the majority of what I think I know about international trade comes from reading journalists explaining why the UK is doing Brexit wrong, I don’t actually think I know how big these issues really are — “this molehill is close, those mountains are far away”, to paraphrase Father Ted.
I tend to assume that the epistemic landscape is biased towards those with the cash to influence it and try to weigh against that when considering an issue. With protectionism, it is a little hard because there are certainly domestic industries that benefit from protection.
I tend to assume that the epistemic landscape is biased towards those with the cash to influence it and try to weigh against that when considering an issue. With protectionism, it is a little hard because there are certainly domestic industries that benefit from protection.
That's a good reasoning.
Now imagine how much money and influence China has and how it can affect our corrupted politicians.
Now imagine how much money and influence China has and how it can affect our corrupted politicians.
China is not a person nor really a cohesive entity. Wealthy people in both China and the United States have much to gain from int'l trade unencumbered from restrictions related to worker's rights or environmental damage.
That would be very difficult to accomplish within existing WTO rules.
Prices going up is not very popular.
This is why I always buy $10K+ Rolex watches instead of $20 made in China Casios. Worth it.
To be fair the ‘let’s just import everything from China’ column has been getting the majority of entries in recent decades.
If done wrong, the regulation just becomes a forced offshoring and willful destruction of national industry.
If done wrong, the regulation just becomes a forced offshoring and willful destruction of national industry.
Too say this is a prerequisite to bring negotiations to the table so that partners like China will have something to match, well to that I say, just look at how good that did in the USA or Australia.
"It's easy to come onto HN and dismiss something like this."
So easy that it happens every single time, like clockwork. There seems to be a cross section of people who eagerly confuse blanket cynicism with thoughtful analysis.
So easy that it happens every single time, like clockwork. There seems to be a cross section of people who eagerly confuse blanket cynicism with thoughtful analysis.
I find the criticism of this policy to be poignant.
> It's easy to come onto HN and dismiss something like this.
It's easy because the EU and european countries have a history of virtue signaling.
Like how they are so great at recycling by sending their garbage to china.
https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-plastic-waste-3786393-Jan2...
Norway is such an amazing "green" country.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/P...
Pretty much everything from environment to human rights, the EU and europe are the most destructive and yet pretend to be the best.
If the EU cuts emissions by 55%, it just means that they are going to ship their emissions to china, ASEAN, india and eventually africa in the next 80 years. That's it. I highly doubt they are planning on lowering their standard of living by 55%.
It's easy because the EU and european countries have a history of virtue signaling.
Like how they are so great at recycling by sending their garbage to china.
https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-plastic-waste-3786393-Jan2...
Norway is such an amazing "green" country.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/P...
Pretty much everything from environment to human rights, the EU and europe are the most destructive and yet pretend to be the best.
If the EU cuts emissions by 55%, it just means that they are going to ship their emissions to china, ASEAN, india and eventually africa in the next 80 years. That's it. I highly doubt they are planning on lowering their standard of living by 55%.
This is being looked at. See:
- https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
- https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-carbon-bord...
- https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
- https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-carbon-bord...
Thanks 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?
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?
Perhaps your optimism about the diligence of politicians should meet the reality of history. Unintended consequences and people skirting the law are endemic to lawmaking.
That'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.
What's also endemic is people not bothering to participate in the lawmaking process and then throwing a tantrum that laws are bad.
If you don't bother and the other side does: guess whose suggestions end up in the law. Democracy is not a spectator sport. If you don't show up it has consequences.
If you don't bother and the other side does: guess whose suggestions end up in the law. Democracy is not a spectator sport. If you don't show up it has consequences.
[deleted]
Or perhaps we only hear about the failures because they make the news?
When a policy works, it's what is expected so it's not notable.
When a policy works, it's what is expected so it's not notable.
I don't have optimism about the diligence of politicians. I have optimism about (and direct experience with!) the diligence of the bureaucracy that advises those politicians, and that carries out the actual operation of policy, maintenance of infrastructure, etc.
The people you see on camera and in the news are a tiny, tiny slice of the operation of government. It is a grave misunderstanding of how society functions to equate "politicians" with "the government". This is true of any large system: a company is not its CEO, a non-profit is not its executive director, a program is not the interface it exposes to the outside world, and so on. In dealing with large systems, equating the part with the whole like this is effectively throwing away 99% of your power to understand and change those systems.
The people you see on camera and in the news are a tiny, tiny slice of the operation of government. It is a grave misunderstanding of how society functions to equate "politicians" with "the government". This is true of any large system: a company is not its CEO, a non-profit is not its executive director, a program is not the interface it exposes to the outside world, and so on. In dealing with large systems, equating the part with the whole like this is effectively throwing away 99% of your power to understand and change those systems.
I mean the thing is: This obvious edge case was there since the start of the european emission trading system - and it wasn't adressed for more than a decade.
It's good that they're finally working on it. But it's also something that should have happened a very long time ago.
It's good that they're finally working on it. But it's also something that should have happened a very long time ago.
I 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-ca....
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-ca....
> They've been leading the charge on all clean energy tech so far.
No, they did not. Germany did and China profitted.
No, they did not. Germany did and China profitted.
China has brought more renewable power online than almost everyone else combined.
(although they have also brought online a shittonne of coal power, too)
(although they have also brought online a shittonne of coal power, too)
Germany 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).
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).
Re: 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.
I'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.
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.
A 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.
And you wouldn't have any way of verifying whether it's true and demonstrating it's false.
The 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.
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.
There 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.
That's exactly why every country should do it.
It's why the EU should measure all carbon inputs - be they in the EU or imported, and then tax that to reduce them, and either spend the tax revenue on subsidising greener processes, or on mittigation for climate change effects in Europe, or if you're altruistic mittigation for climate change globally, or on a UBI to offset the average cost of carbon -- those that use less will benefit, those that use more won't lose out.
Yeah the difficult thing about industrialization is that the cat’s out of the bag in 2 ways.
1) we recognize the positive impacts that industrialization brings, directly and indirectly. Directly raising GDP has an indirect, positive net effect on quality of life (not spiritually or philosophically, though, I might argue; although, I only think of these things because I live in an industrialized, developed, “rich” nation).
2) we recognize the horrible impact that industrialization has on our world.
The industrialized nations are the ones leading the charge in saying, “hey, wait a minute, industrialization is bad! It’s wrecking our world and we will die a horrible death as a species if we continue at this rate so slow down!” But those nations who are just hitting their stride, so to speak, aren’t gonna stop. That’s totally unfair. They think, “what the fuck am I supposed to do? Just sit here and play with sticks? I want the money, I want the goods, I want to be a rich, developed nation.” And so they keep burning, and will keep burning, unless (IMO) the already rich and developed nations somehow help them to develop in the cleanest way possible.
1) we recognize the positive impacts that industrialization brings, directly and indirectly. Directly raising GDP has an indirect, positive net effect on quality of life (not spiritually or philosophically, though, I might argue; although, I only think of these things because I live in an industrialized, developed, “rich” nation).
2) we recognize the horrible impact that industrialization has on our world.
The industrialized nations are the ones leading the charge in saying, “hey, wait a minute, industrialization is bad! It’s wrecking our world and we will die a horrible death as a species if we continue at this rate so slow down!” But those nations who are just hitting their stride, so to speak, aren’t gonna stop. That’s totally unfair. They think, “what the fuck am I supposed to do? Just sit here and play with sticks? I want the money, I want the goods, I want to be a rich, developed nation.” And so they keep burning, and will keep burning, unless (IMO) the already rich and developed nations somehow help them to develop in the cleanest way possible.
> Directly raising GDP has an indirect, positive net effect on quality of life (not spiritually or philosophically, though, I might argue; although, I only think of these things because I live in an industrialized, developed, “rich” nation).
I don't think you can solve these by fiat.
Governments can only realistically focus on improving the liberty and prosperity of their citizens (you know "life, liberty...).
Happiness is very subjective and I'd say in many cases comes from inside. You could be the richest, most famous and powerful person in the world and still be unhappy.
I don't think you can solve these by fiat.
Governments can only realistically focus on improving the liberty and prosperity of their citizens (you know "life, liberty...).
Happiness is very subjective and I'd say in many cases comes from inside. You could be the richest, most famous and powerful person in the world and still be unhappy.
I would argue that raising GDP indirectly allows easier access to clean water, food, solid housing, vaccines, etc. All of those things allow for better quality of life. Where I agree with you is in the spiritual or philosophical sense of “quality of life”—aka happiness or fulfillment. At a certain point, no, money does not increase happiness or fulfillment. But it does increase quality of life.
Good lucking getting China to agree.
It'd have to be economic, like a tariff proportional to the amount of emissions created by producing each good
One 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.
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.
What's your point? China isn't cooperative, so no point in trying to reduce emissions?
If 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?
Reducing emissions does not equate to handicapping the economy.
There are actually a lot of opportunities for growth if you reduce emission. It's actually funny how in a growth starved world nobody cares about potential growth...
If reducing emissions is good for economic growth, then why is government action necessary to enforce it?
The nature of the threat posed by our current level of emissions is a time sensitive one. Further, "economic growth" doesn't mean anything at the level of individual companies, if your product necessarily implies high emissions (e.g. coal) then your company will experience the opposite of growth even if the overall growth from the green sector eclipses that loss.
Suppose we are 100% confident about the threat. Even then, I fear that it is likely that the EU unilaterally cutting emissions - and most likely limiting their own economic growth - will hurt the EU (particularly relative to China) and only have a minor effect on addressing the threat.
By economic growth I mean actual overall economic growth. E.g. if in some location, powering something by coal is more cost-efficient than powering it by solar but you convert to solar anyway, you are limiting economic growth. I do get that it may actually make economic sense if you count third-party effects - e.g. that replacing coal with solar makes the area a much nicer place to be, increasing the value of the land. But my point is that if you truly believe that cutting emissions is a road to increasing the wealth of your nation, you should be talking about increasing the wealth of your nation and adopting policies to that end and see emissions decrease as a side-effect.
Otherwise, there is a very easy way of reducing emissions - have people emigrate, make them unable to afford housing or afford to have children, shut down manufacturing and other economic activity, destroy infrastructure or allow it to decay.
Given that a lot of people, particularly young people, are struggling in many places in Europe and do not see a particularly bright future to put it mildly, and that China is growing at a rapid pace, unilaterally stunting your already barely-there economic growth just comes off as another act of self-flagellation by Europe.
By economic growth I mean actual overall economic growth. E.g. if in some location, powering something by coal is more cost-efficient than powering it by solar but you convert to solar anyway, you are limiting economic growth. I do get that it may actually make economic sense if you count third-party effects - e.g. that replacing coal with solar makes the area a much nicer place to be, increasing the value of the land. But my point is that if you truly believe that cutting emissions is a road to increasing the wealth of your nation, you should be talking about increasing the wealth of your nation and adopting policies to that end and see emissions decrease as a side-effect.
Otherwise, there is a very easy way of reducing emissions - have people emigrate, make them unable to afford housing or afford to have children, shut down manufacturing and other economic activity, destroy infrastructure or allow it to decay.
Given that a lot of people, particularly young people, are struggling in many places in Europe and do not see a particularly bright future to put it mildly, and that China is growing at a rapid pace, unilaterally stunting your already barely-there economic growth just comes off as another act of self-flagellation by Europe.
China actually has more ambitious CO2 targets than many other countries: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
Looks like the page you linked considers China's climate targets "Highly Insufficient" with the CO2 output mostly staying the same for the next decade.
China is a country where many people are still living in mud huts or close to it.
If they manage to lift those hundreds of millions of people out of poverty AND "just" keep their emissions constant, I consider that as a win for humanity.
Everyone else, especially in developed countries, needs to bring their per capita emissions radically down.
If they manage to lift those hundreds of millions of people out of poverty AND "just" keep their emissions constant, I consider that as a win for humanity.
Everyone else, especially in developed countries, needs to bring their per capita emissions radically down.
> I consider that as a win for humanity.
Is it though? How do we people of the Earth now win if it is 2100 and there is 2x more of us and the emissions are the same?
Is it though? How do we people of the Earth now win if it is 2100 and there is 2x more of us and the emissions are the same?
Because I don't actually think it will work that way. Humans are generally rational and non-starving people even more so. China sees itself as an eternal kingdom, I doubt they plan to boil themselves in this newfound prosperity.
Did anybody plan to breathe polluted air and experience climate change? The more people there is, the harder the impact on the environment.
China's population has stabilized and is predicted to decrease rather significantly over this century.
At least they are honest enough not to pretend that climate change does not exist.
Depending on how you measure the CO2 emissions you could argue that not China is the first one that should take action but the ones that did most of the damage.
Depending on how you measure the CO2 emissions you could argue that not China is the first one that should take action but the ones that did most of the damage.
I am personally more worried about getting the US to agree.
They have the worst carbon emissions per capita by far (twice of world export leading Germany).
China set some goals and i heard commentators says that if the same leadership sets a goal China tends to over deliver.
Here is the goal:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/27/china-ca...
Yes, 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.htm...
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.htm...
This 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...
https://www.nytimes.com/ask/answers/lower-personal-carbon-fo...
Here are two calculators for you to learn more about the topic:
https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon...
https://www.nytimes.com/ask/answers/lower-personal-carbon-fo...
> 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...
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...
China 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
The real problem is the US. High per capital emissions and weak commitments to reduce emissions
Both are big polluters, both are real problems.
Emissions 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.
Even 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
Manufacturing is dirty but then the whole world consumes these goods so that's not only a China problem
The US is free to plunge millions of its own citizens into poverty to take advantage of this "loophole" if it wishes.
> 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
Well I do see far more electric vehicles in Beijing and in Washington DC if that's what you mean
The 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.
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.
In 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.
Promises to do things in the future seem to be a mainstay of international climate discussions, from Kyoto to Paris and onward.
The 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.
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.
Don't let best be the enemy of good.
classic 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
emissions = economic activity.
britain got out at a good time. the eu just keeps getting more irrelevant
britain got out at a good time. the eu just keeps getting more irrelevant
If that were true then decreasing fuel efficiency would increase economic activity. It obviously doesn't.
Agreed.
I think that the UK should bring back the 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) ), while they're at it.
Just to show'em how it's done!
I think that the UK should bring back the 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) ), while they're at it.
Just to show'em how it's done!
As the saying goes : "Promises only bind those who believe in them."
Too bad EU population is a drop in a sea and it’s already in some parts quite environmentally conscious (if not to say “friendly”).
The EU is (almost) half a billion people who are some of the richest and most polluting in the world. It's a big deal.
I 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.
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.
Alternative title: EU leaders agree to offshore >50% of emissions to Asia by the end of the decade
EU 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?
You can give them credit for living up to the 2020 reductions then?
Just 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.
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.
> 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/Scree...
[2] https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20858.jpeg
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/Scree...
[2] https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20858.jpeg
There 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.
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-g...