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: 3, Insightful) by dwilson on Sunday November 17 2019, @09:33PM (8 children)
Let's be clear up front here, I do think fossil fuels need to be phased out wherever possible. wherever possible != everywhere they're in use.
I'm very much in favour of wind and solar being put in, and will happily pay a bit extra on my utility bill to help it happen. I would not be averse to living down the road from a Nuclear plant, provided it's a Gen III+ or Gen IV design. I think shutting down the Coal generating plants is long overdue, and that natural gas turbines are a reasonable interim solution while Wind/Solar/Nuclear get ramped up.
That being said, your attitude comes across as an eco-nutter, like it's an all-or-nothing situation and how dare anyone intend to keep using fossil fuels. Sometimes, they're the right tools for the job, and will be for a long time.
Perhaps because at the current time, for some people, in some places, fossil fuels don't cost more money, and aren't less convenient. Since the rest of your post deals with automobiles, I'll confine my response to that.
Example: I have two pick-up trucks, and both run on diesel fuel. One has a 'milage' rating of ~5L/100km and the other is roughly ~11L/km. Both are completely paid for.
In no way, shape, or form is it cheaper for me to go drop $50,000 USD (up-front, of course. Buying with a payment plan means paying interest, potentially doubling the cost. For the sake of your argument, we don't want that) on the new Tesla pickup once it's available, vs keeping my current ones maintained and usable. I live and work on a farm; I do actually need a pick-up.
I'll allow that it would me more convenient to only have one vehicle that can be used for everything, and to be truthful I could use the 11L/100km truck exclusively. It's newer, safer, in better shape and a nicer ride. But because I do care about my impact on the climate (and my wallet!) the 5L/100km truck is my daily driver. It burns less fuel, with a less-harmful pollution mix (It's naturally aspirated, so heavy on the CO2/CO and much lower on the NOx. On a modern Turbocharged diesel, that ratio is somewhat reversed). The newer truck only gets used for the really heavy loads, or long trips.
So there you have it. No "defiance of all reason and sanity" involved. No "clinging to the more expensive and less convenient". When the cost of buying and maintaining an electric pickup drops below what the purchase+ongoing-maintenance costs of my newer truck, I'll buy one. Simple as that. That likely means buying a used one, since I bought these used as well. Fair's fair.
I could also add that, in my case, having to put fuel in the tank is not more inconvenient than plugging it in to a power source. This is a farm, and -everything- runs on diesel fuel, and will until batteries stop sucking. Fueling my truck up involves driving it about three hundred feet, from the parking pad in front of the house over to the fuel tanks. The local Co-op delivers fuel by the truckload, straight to us.
- D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @11:31PM
Wake me up when EU Bank refuses you personal loan (grin)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday November 18 2019, @02:04AM (3 children)
You talk as if I asked you and everyone to make huge sacrifices. I did not ask anyone to drop $50,000 on a new battery electric pickup. I'm talking about the kinds of weirdos who sacrifice in order _not_ to change their fossil fuel habits-- the kind of person who insists on driving from one store to another in the same strip mall rather than walking, even though just walking would be faster, or, worse, doesn't bother to plan at all, and impulsively makes two or more separate trips in one day, when they could have easily taken care of their business in one trip, and who drives around the parking lot two or three times trying to get that parking spot next to the door. I'm talking about the people who hit the drive thru every day, letting their engines idle while their orders are taken and prepared. The ones who sit in their cars for half an hour or more at a time, and run the engine for the A/C, instead of going inside. The kind of person who has no need of it but drives an expensive monster gas guzzler anyway, because they feel safer in a biiig car, and they want to show off and think that sort of vehicle impresses others.
But that's the kind of stuff people do with any resource that's dirt cheap. Think nothing of putting 100 miles on the car every day, driving all over town or doing the hour long commute to work thing, spinning their wheels, then complaining there aren't enough hours in the day. All the worse that the price is artificially low because many of the costs have been externalized. Currently, where I live in Texas, I see gas prices ranging from $2.08 to $2.39 per gallon. That's amazingly cheap. The last gas spike was circa 2008, when gas hit $4 per gallon, and wow, were the monster gas guzzling SUVs being dumped in droves.
Myself, a year ago I got a used Nissan Leaf, the very cheapest one I could find, in part so I could experience what it is really like to own a battery electric. (Also, I felt more comfortable getting that kind of car from the slimy used car dealership. Simply fewer potential problems for them to lie about.) An old Leaf is definitely not for everyone, not with a paltry range of just 50 miles, thanks to the batteries having degraded over the years. I have found the car to be of limited use. One unexpected problem is the wife freaking out because she fears the range is even less, and refusing to use it even for trips it can do. I have also learned that the public charging network is not reliable enough. So that limits the range to 25 miles. Sucks to have driven to some destination 40 miles away, only to discover that the charging stations are all occupied, or out of order, turned off or locked behind a gate for the night, or whatever, and be forced to wait 2 hours for a spot to open up and then 2 more hours to recharge enough to get home.
(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.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday November 18 2019, @06:44AM
It's still in pre-order, and I doubt they'll make a right-hand-drive version, but the Rivian pick-up/SUV models look nice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMfxJEfb4lw [youtube.com]
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @09:32AM (1 child)
Why is it so hard to think further than you can see outside of your window?
It's not about your fucking truck! This is about the *FUTURE* policy. You know, like 10 or 30 years from now. And this is not about a fucking TRUCK! Will I have to repeat that again??
This is about providing funding for things like COAL POWER PLANTS, or GAS POWER PLANTS, where there are alternatives that could be used TODAY. So instead of providing funding for a COAL POWER PLANT, the bank will now provide funding for things like SOLAR POWER PLANT or WIND POWER PLANT or PUMPED STORAGE instead.
So, stop thinking about "me me me". No one gives a shit about your truck. This is about new, industrial scale capital projects. No one wants to see a COAL POWER PLANT funded today spewing shit into the air 60 YEARS in the future, when we are all dead. That's the purpose of this policy change.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2019, @11:19PM
Alternatives that could be used at a higher price and reduced reliability. If ten or twenty years from now, the renewable+storage mix turns out to be superior to the fossil fuel mix, then we'll switch over without any drama. In the meantime, there's no reason to rush the future.