SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the they-said-it-couldn't-be-done dept.
In March 2007, the EU set itself some ambitious climate targets.
By 2020, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be 20 percent below 1990 levels, renewable energy should make up 20% of the energy mix, and the share of it in the transport sector should be up by 10 percent.
A briefing [PDF] to the EU Parliament now shows those targets are about to be beaten, by a margin.
GHG emissions, including those of air traffic, had already decreased 22 percent by 2017. The share of renewable energy sources had risen, by 2016, to 17%.
Interestingly, the drop in GHG emission intensity, the ratio of GHG emissions to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is even more pronounced. One euro in GDP, in 2017, compared to 315g carbon dioxide: half the level of 1990. Between 1990 and 2017, the combined GDP of the EU increased by 58% while total GHG emissions fell by 22%.
The figures mentioned do not include GHG emissions through land use. According to the briefing, the EU's land absorbs more carbon than it emits; member states are bound by regulation to at least preserve this situation. Of the 28 member states, 25 now have developed climate change adaptation plans, including measures like using less water, adapting building regulations, building flood defenses, developing crops that cope better in drought conditions etcetera.
For the period 2014-2020, the EU had vowed to spend at least 20% (€206 billion) of its budget to climate change measures. That target was already reached in 2017. For the 2021-2027 period, the European Commission proposed to increase that level to 25% of a €1134,6 billion overall budget.
Under current trends, the EU's GHG emission levels will have dropped by 30% by 2030. The new target set by the European Commission, though, is a drop of at least 40 percent, while the share of renewable energy should be 32%. Combined with a 32% increase in overall energy efficiency, this should result in a 45% drop in GHG emissions. Parliament itself proposes an even more ambitious target of 55 percent GHG emission reductions by 2030.
Under the 2011 Energy Roadmap, the 2050 target was a reduction of 80% in GHG emission levels compared to 1990. In November 2018, that target was changed to zero percent GHG emissions, through a socially fair transition in a cost-efficient manner.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday September 01 2019, @10:21PM (20 children)
Who exactly is the "we" implied by that "our past"?
This is what brought is in this situation in the first place. And your opinion sides on "do nothing about the causes".
Why do you think it's wise to do the same thing over and expect different results?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NickM on Sunday September 01 2019, @10:59PM (12 children)
The we I implied is the western capitalist societies that won the cold war.
Also I don't except different result that the whole point of my post. We are bad a long term planning but we are quite competant at dealing with short term economic issues.
Correspondingly I don't care about climate change as long as the 2019 Moody's report on the economic implications of climate change¹ is right. According to them Canada stand to profit from that crisis and I am a Canadian so climate change is in my rational economic interest.
1- https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2019/economic-implications-of-climate-change.pdf [moodysanalytics.com]
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday September 01 2019, @11:23PM (4 children)
And yet you exclude the western capitalist societies in Europe, those that seem on track (nay, ahead of it) to meet those targets. Did they not win the cold war or what?
Maybe it worth resolving that bit of a cognitive dissonance, dontcha think?
I mean, the "we are bad a long term planning" with "Canada stands to profit" one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Touché) by NickM on Sunday September 01 2019, @11:31PM (3 children)
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 02 2019, @05:11AM (2 children)
Don't picture yourself surprised if doing nothing still have consequences.
Mostly the unpleasant kind, no organism on this Earth survive too long by doing nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @06:28AM (1 child)
First off, Canada is going to need to build a nice tall wall on their southern border to keep the Amérique-Aztlán invaders out.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 02 2019, @06:43AM
Not a new idea [www.cbc.ca].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01 2019, @11:25PM (4 children)
Who won what now? Last I checked, not a shot was fired, no territories were exchanged and both parties are still around building up their armies and aiming ICBMs at each other.
I suppose you could say capitalism won. Though one must wonder what kind of ideological victory leave's one advocates in a soon-to-be uninhabitable, war torn world where the only remaining salvation rests in digging deep enough into the martian soil.
But sure. You win. *Slow Clap*
(Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Monday September 02 2019, @12:14AM (1 child)
Who won what now?
He said, *we won the propaganda war*, and that Canada will benefit from global warming without having to lift a finger, which is probably true, they got lots of land. Too bad all those caravans have to go through the US to get there... Instead of caging them, we should offer free transport, or at least a clear path...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @12:29AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 02 2019, @02:27AM
Actually, no, both parties aren't still building up armies. One of the parties is deceased. The Soviet is no more. You are mistaking Russia for the Soviet. I suppose that can happen, as direct descendants can often resemble their ancestors.
In Russia, we have new owners, who face many of the same pressures and problems that the Czar faced, and the Soviet inherited from the Czar. China and the rest of Asia are still there, and all of Europe. The US is still around, making demands, and offering punishments and rewards for various forms of conduct.
The US and it's allies won the Cold War, but victory is something of a disappointment. We still have to learn to get along with others, after all.
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Monday September 02 2019, @07:40AM
It was called the Cold War because "not a shot was fired"! You are simply stating the obvious.
And you are quite wrong, The last recorded from the Liaison Missions was:
Source Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Emphasis mine. Further reading here [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Touché) by Mykl on Monday September 02 2019, @01:41AM (1 child)
You don't happen to have an MBA, do you? This is classic short-term "next quarter" thinking. Canada may profit in the short term, but in the longer term, we're all screwed.
(Score: 1) by NickM on Monday September 02 2019, @02:37AM
That report speculate up to 2100 using the different scenarios (up to +8.5C) brought forward by the IPCC. That is "next quarter" thinking only on the historical time scale. By then my wife and I will be dead and the daughter of my sister will be old if still alive.
And no I don't have a MBA but I am thinking of getting one in my spare time as that would be paid by my employer.
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 2, Informative) by NickM on Sunday September 01 2019, @11:25PM (6 children)
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 02 2019, @11:21AM
Bullshit.
the trend is already visible in 2014 [worldbank.org]
2018 showed a big drop in totals [weforum.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quietus on Monday September 02 2019, @11:24AM (4 children)
Maybe you should read the linked report first?
(Score: 1) by NickM on Monday September 02 2019, @04:41PM (3 children)
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Monday September 02 2019, @08:53PM (1 child)
Valid point, if I understand you correctly: you want the raw data, separated from the carbon credit system, and see whether they actually show a decrease, and how much, correct?
The report on which the briefing was, in all probability, based, came from the EEA (European Environmental Agency): here [europa.eu]. (It might be that page will redirect you to a more recent (2018) version: just follow along).
That report gives a graphical overview of the data, and adds some background. That background makes clear that the EU makes a distinction between two large sectors in the economy: those that fall under the ETS trading scheme (including, since 2013, commercial air traffic), and those that fall under the so-called Effort Sharing Decision regulation.
A further distinction seems to be made between projections, which are based on a calculation which includes ETS data, and historical GHG emission data. This last type of data is based on National Inventory Reports, as prescribed by the United Nations' IPCC (description here [unfccc.int], guidance and reporting rules here [iges.or.jp]). The EU also has its own MMR reporting rules on top of that, here [europa.eu] (warning:legalese, but if you want to know what AAU, ERU or tCER means...).
Immediately under Figure 1, you'll find a link National emissions reported to the UNFCCC and to the EU Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Mechanism [europa.eu]. To the right of the page you'll see links to download the raw data either as an ASCII (csv) or Access file.
You'll find the 2018 EEA compilation here [europa.eu]. From page 66 on you'll find the methodology. Notice also figures 2.3 and 2.4, showing the trend for the ETS, respectively non-ETS (ESD) industries.
(Score: 1) by NickM on Monday September 02 2019, @10:20PM
Thanks, it seems like I have a lot of reading to do.
And most importantly according to the data from Table 1.1 of the 2018 AGI report. I must conceed that they managed to get a raw 22% reduction in CO2 emission from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2016 while Canada manged to get a 21% increase and the USA a 6% increase.
To my surprise, the collectivist approach used by the EU is a valid approach to greenhouse emission reduction even tough I found it quite costly and I wonder why do to they need to massage the presented numbers when the raw data support the result they present.
Ps. I don't oppose environmental mesure. In fact I consider that tar sand extraction is a blight upon Canada. It is a blight mostly because of the enormous quantity of water irreversibly polluted, up to 3 barrels of water by barrel of crude oil. The industry says it is a negligible amount but I consider that 7% of the water used by Alberta to be a considerable amount of water considering that it cannot be cleaned with current technology and must be contained in open air sludge ponds. Ponds that kills untold amount of wildlife. Yet most of my compatriots are fixated on CO2 when there are more pressing environmental issues, and yes I am aware that addressing them will make our greenhouse gases decrease. (I speak as a selfish Canadian, if I was from India I would have a different discourse because they stand to loose a lot from climate change)
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @09:01PM
Nature don't care if you believe the article.