SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
EU unveils sweeping climate change plan:
The European Union has announced a raft of climate change proposals aimed at pushing it towards its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.
A dozen draft proposals, which still need to be approved by the bloc's 27 member states and the EU parliament, were announced on Wednesday.
They include plans to tax jet fuel and effectively ban the sale of petrol and diesel powered cars within 20 years.
The proposals, however, could face years of negotiations.
The plans triggered serious infighting at the European Commission, the bloc's administrative arm, as the final tweaks were being made, sources told the AFP news agency.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
EU Unveils Sweeping Climate Change Plan
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 43 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
She's so tough she won't take 'yes' for an answer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Unixnut on Sunday July 18 2021, @02:32PM (6 children)
> Yes, it seems a bit unfair, but what percentage of emissions come from private jets? Is it a big deal?
Same can be said for high end sports cars (Ferrari, etc...). They are rarely driven, don't do many miles, and as a consequence don't contribute much to CO2 output.
Same thing for private yachts. Many spend most of the year moored somewhere, or in dry dock, so don't produce that much CO2.
By your logic, we can exempt all of the above. What that does result in is a return to the feudal society. A "nobility" in all but name, able to enjoy jetting around the world, their cars, yachts and other luxuries, while the masses are forced and taxed into some peasant like existence.
Which is pretty much what the EU has been trying to do since its creation, so it is not exactly surprising, however it should not be something that should be quietly accepted, let alone justified.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday July 18 2021, @02:41PM (3 children)
It does seem like a very strange omission from the law.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday July 18 2021, @02:46PM (2 children)
That is because the other stuff is already exempt :-)
This law change would introduce taxes where there were none, so they had to add an exemption. Not sure why they did it in such a ham-fisted way. Normally they are more subtle about keeping their privileges. Not sure if this was just a lack of diplomatic skill, or they feel that they are strong enough to pull it off brazenly and nobody will be able to do much about it.
Possibly this is a distraction, to draw attention to this exemption while allowing the "proper" exemptions to be passed. This exemption might be "given up" publicly later on, satiating the protests but allowing them what they wanted anyway.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 18 2021, @03:47PM (1 child)
"Ham-fisted" loses meaning in a society that increasingly see things in black and white. Increasingly in our society people and ideas are being clumped into false dichotomies - you are with us, or you are against us. The notion that somebody can support an idea, yet not support things claimed to be motivated by an effort to further that idea, is a notion increasingly lost on our society.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Unixnut on Sunday July 18 2021, @05:44PM
Hmm, I was going to respond with saying the "Black and White" society is a typically USA thing, where very much the idea of compromise is unheard of. Unfortunately it does seem to have been expanding beyond the USA to the English speaking world, so even the UK is having a similar attitude now. It does not bode well for a stable and peaceful society, because by its very nature, a society without compromise and tolerance of others must be authoritarian in order to suppress those others. You end up with two sides locked in a power struggle over who gets to control the machinery of state to suppress the other.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Sunday July 18 2021, @09:18PM (1 child)
>some peasant like existence.
My knowledge of peasant history is limited, but AFAIK few if any had electric cars :-)
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday July 19 2021, @04:12PM
It's all relative, but as an example: peasants had restricted mobility.
Indeed most of humanity for most of history rarely were able to venture further than the next few villages from theirs. Back in the day only the nobility could afford a "Grand tour" of Europe, or to spend Summer down on the French Riviera or Italian lakes. Now millions of people do the same trip each summer, be it by train, car or plane.
The ability for Joe average to hop on a plane and fly half way around the world is a recent phenomenon. Something that (according to the powers that be) is unsustainable, so it must be curtailed for the masses, with exemptions only for themselves and the rich.
Electric cars are a good example, as they are almost in every way an inferior technology to what they are replacing. Their long recharge times and limited range make them far less flexible than ICE vehicles, thereby limiting the range a person can travel per unit time. They are more similar to horses than cars, where a horse could only travel a certain distance a day, and then would need many hours to feed and rest before you could resume, and whose range decreased with age (like a BEV's range decreases with battery age). While the ICE car was a fundamental step forward from the horse, the BEV is a step back to those times.
Sure, there is promise of magic energy storage capacity with sub 5 minute recharge time, 500 mile ranges and no capacity reduction with age, but until I actually see something concrete in production and available for purchase for the masses, I can't consider them.
COVID restrictions have also put a major dent in travel, but unless they find a way to permanently make international travel expensive and time consuming, that may return to normal. However I think their goal is to make it expensive enough to severely restrict international travel to the rich, and those who have to travel. I guess it would be somewhat a return to the "Jet-set" age of the 50's and 60's.