SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The European Union's investment arm said Thursday it will stop funding fossil fuel projects from 2022 as part of a new strategy aimed at fighting climate change, in a decision environmental campaigners hailed as a "significant victory".
The European Investment Bank, the world's largest multilateral lender, had been criticised by climate groups for funding gas projects that potentially threatened the EU's commitment to the Paris climate goals.
But despite gas proving a potential sticking point, the EIB's board of directors—composed of state representatives and the European Commission—approved the new energy policy on Thursday.
"We will stop financing fossil fuels, and we will launch the most ambitious climate investment strategy of any public financial institution anywhere," EIB President Werner Hoyer said in a statement.
The EIB said the new energy plan would also "unlock" one trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) of climate action and environmentally sustainable investment over the next decade.
[...] Nineteen EU member states including France and Germany voted for the new policy, according to Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
But three countries—Poland, Romania and Hungary—voted against, wanting more flexibility for gas funding, as did Estonia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Malta, which abstained.
Austria and Luxembourg also abstained, objecting to nuclear power being eligible for funding under the new policy, Greenpeace and the WWF said.
The European Commission said it supported the new policy, and it voted in favour.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2019, @02:58PM (2 children)
Yes, I do. That's because I think you are asking us to make huge sacrifices that don't improve our situation on Earth.
Really? What of them and their minuscule additional emissions?
Indeed.
Or don't exist in the first place. I don't see any point to making something more expensive merely because you don't like how someone drives around at the mall.
In other words, a serious performance degradation over used fossil fuel-powered cars.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday November 18 2019, @05:12PM (1 child)
> Really? What of them and their minuscule additional emissions? ...
> I don't see any point to making something more expensive merely because you don't like how someone drives around at the mall.
That's disingenuous. How people drive around the mall is NOT the point. It is merely one example of how people unthinkingly burn fossil fuels unnecessarily, and by doing so, actually make themselves worse off.
For another example, consider traffic lights. They absolutely could be better, in some cases a lot better, at minimizing the time cars wait at intersections. Most are essentially brainless, responding very mechanically to inputs from traffic sensors and timers. They can't handle changes in circumstances, such as a sports game letting out or a lane being closed for road construction, and will create a totally unnecessary traffic jam because they can't adjust their timing. The closed lane really messes them up, because no traffic at all is sensed in that lane.
The worst kind of traffic light is the "political" light, the one that was placed or adjusted (or more like, maladjusted) not because it was really needed or a good idea, but because the strip mall tenants at that intersection clamored for it. If the tenants did no more, it wouldn't be so bad. But they also firmly believe that the longer they force travelers to sit at a red light, the more likely those travelers are to notice their stores and perhaps visit and buy, so they press local authorities to make a mess of the timing. If a privately owned toll road is nearby, the owners would also like the traffic lights to do a bad job, to push more people to take their toll road. Then there's the red light camera operators also wanting the lights set up to maximize red light violations, and safety and the environment be damned.
> > You talk as if I asked you and everyone to make huge sacrifices.
> Yes, I do. That's because I think you are asking us to make huge sacrifices that don't improve our situation on Earth.
Not waiting as much at red lights is win-win. Definitely not a sacrifice, having to do less waiting at red lights.
Here's another one: the hood ornament, and similar un-aerodynamic automobile features. One of the worst is the front grill with the massive openings. There is zero reason to let air blow past the sides of the radiator and swirl around in the engine bay. Dirties things up more under the hood, and reduces fuel economy. But people think more air intake equals more power, so for decades, manufacturers have been faking us out with useless air intake. Cars from the 1960s will have what appears to be a chrome lined grill opening, but behind the parts near the sides of the car, it's actually the body of the car, except it's been painted a flat black! And today, we still see that, with some of the cells blocked in what appears to be openings in a front grill in a grid style.
> In other words, a serious performance degradation over used fossil fuel-powered cars.
Doubtless you regard that move as a sacrifice. It wasn't. It was a trade-off. Yes, the low range is the worst limitation. But on the positive side, the car is super low maintenance. I love, love, love that part. No oil changes, no tuneups. And, no fumes from the tailpipe. Also, it's quiet. I can actually hear the radio at low volumes. And it's smooth and responsive.
I actually dodged a tornado with the Leaf. Came around a corner, and saw tree branches whipping back and forth more and more violently, and stopped, trying to see what was going on all around, and figure if I should stay put, back or turn around, or resume travel in my original direction. I saw a tree branch seemingly just floating along, high in the air. Some door sized boards propped against a nearby wall lifted up and swirled away. Staying put was looking like a real bad idea. When the road in front of me cleared for a moment, and I saw calmer conditions ahead, I floored it. A gasoline powered car couldn't have got off the line as quick.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2019, @11:16PM
Except that they aren't making themselves worse off.
You would need to downshift first.