Britain leads the way in battling emissions.

[happy_Alex]

Here's some good news, the Labour led UK is to pass laws that make it leagally binding for the Government to cut emissions. This shows a strong socialist element of action over rhetoric and a willingness to take the tough collective and political action necessary to arrest climate change.

Stands in stark contrast to the political equivocation of the US oil-sponsored climate change denying administration. Let's hope the rest of the world takes notice.

New law in the climate jungle

 

[Masquerouge]

So is this something that has an actual chance to pass and be enforced, or is it like in the US where a couple of months before leaving office the President will propose very appealing laws that have virtually no chance to pass?

 

[sysyphus]

Not only that, but unless it's a constitutional change, subsequent governments can simpy undo any past laws placing such burderns.

That said, the UK is doing vastly better on the environmental front than its useless and listless child nation in which I live, so I'll refrain from further comment.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Here's some good news, the Labour led UK is to pass laws that make it leagally binding for the Government to cut emissions. This shows a strong socialist element of action over rhetoric and a willingness to take the tough collective and political action necessary to arrest climate change.

Stands in stark contrast to the political equivocation of the US oil-sponsored climate change denying administration. Let's hope the rest of the world takes notice.

New law in the climate jungle

Passing a law forcing the British economy to cut emissions is the same as passing a law forcing cuts in economic growth. Despite the best efforts of the government, the British economy will continue growing, so emissions will continue to increase. Theres alot that a government can do to manage a countrys emissions, this isnt one of them. This is the easy, non thinking way of giving the appearance that youre on the job and doing something. A sensible government policy would be to create an environment where non fossil renewable alternatives can gain a foothold and become profitable. The same exact way that governments colluded with the private sector to create a world dominated by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[El_Machinae]

That said, the UK is doing vastly better on the environmental front than its useless and listless child nation in which I live, so I'll refrain from further comment.

Alberta recently passed legislation. IIRC, there's an externality tax on
emissions after a certain point.

 

[happy_Alex]

Passing a law forcing the British economy to cut emissions is the same as passing a law forcing cuts in economic growth. Despite the best efforts of the government, the British economy will continue growing, so emissions will continue to increase. Theres alot that a government can do to manage a countrys emissions, this isnt one of them. This is the easy, non thinking way of giving the appearance that youre on the job and doing something. A sensible government policy would be to create an environment where non fossil renewable alternatives can gain a foothold and become profitable. The same exact way that governments colluded with the private sector to create a world dominated by the burning of fossil fuels.

Well that is an excellent point bozo, can we achieve economic growth and environmentalism, beacuse as you say while human populations continue to expand growth will occur. It seems that globally while capitalism exists partially or wholly environmental degradation will occur because 'land' (or resources) are a Factor of Production.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is whether economic growth is a necesseity and if so what degree of growth is acceptable. There's definately alot to unpack here but so far economists on this forum at least have not been very forthcoming with soloutions.

 

[Steph]

Already posted somewhere else, but I still think these maps are interesting

The countries that increased the most carbon emissions from 1980 to 2000

Between 1980 and 2000, 72% of territories increased their emissions of carbon dioxide, totalling 6.6 billion tonnes a year. Other territories reduced their emissions by 1.9 billion tonnes a year.
The biggest increases in carbon dioxide emissions over this period were in China, the United States and India. 42% of the world population live in these 3 territories, they caused 45% of the world increases. The per person increase in emissions from the United States was over 3 times larger than China’s, and over 4 times India’s.

So we are talking of the emerging economies of China and India, that should require a lot of carbon emission increase. But the US are increasing in 3 -4 times faster per capita

An now the countries that decreased the most carbon emissions from 1980 to 2000

Between 1980 and 2000, roughly 58 territories decreased their annual carbon dioxide emissions. Together these territories reduced annual emissions by 1.9 billion tonnes; carbon emission increases from other territories were 3.5 times greater than this decrease.

Almost half of the decrease was in territories formerly in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, followed by Germany at 15%, Poland at 8%, and France at 6%. Decline in industrial production and factory closure contributed to some decreases. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation emitted the third largest quantity of carbon dioxide in 2000.

And this is the total carbon emissions.

These data start to be a bit old (2000), it would be nice to have more recent data

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I never understand those maps

 

[Steph]

I never understand those maps

As I carefully select which ones to include, you can safely bet it shows US = Bad and France = Good.
Unfortunately, on these maps it doesn't show clearly that UK = worse.
I could try to dig one showing that if you want, but it's such a well known fact I think it's not necessary.

 

[happy_Alex]

@ Steph

good maps, very intresting...

No wonder some organisations in the US have put up such an intellectual and political barrage of holocaust, ahem climate change deninying ideaology.

Just look at how many climate change naysaying threads there are on this forum from posters in the US, for example.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Perhaps the question we should be asking is whether economic growth is a necesseity and if so what degree of growth is acceptable. There's definately alot to unpack here but so far economists on this forum at least have not been very forthcoming with soloutions.

Im not an economist, but I think unless theres a major global economic downturn, growth is just going to happen. Growth means more emissions but that doesnt mean the only solution is to make your economy contract. But of course, thats not how they describe it when theyre pitching these cockamamie ideas.

 

[Mise]

Bozo, the cuts in emissions will come from increased energy efficiency, such as switching off lights and computers in offices at night, and replacing horrendously inefficient incandescent lightbulbs with energy saving lightbulbs (Australia introduced laws mandating the phase-in of these lightbulbs recently, and the EU is following suit; a major electronics chain in the UK has already stopped selling incandescent bulbs, and I'd imagine most others will gradually phase them out too; the EU is debating whether to lift the 66% duty on cheap, energy efficient lightbulbs produced by China, which will make them as cheap as regular incandescent ones). The other major area where businesses could improve is in Transport, which accounts for 30% of all CO2 emissions in the UK (IIRC - don't quote me on that).

Business in the West is very inefficient when it comes to energy - it could easily cut emissions by 20% at very little cost, so the economy as a whole would not suffer in any significant way.

It's not about "cut backs", but rather about streamlining businesses to be more energy efficient.

These targets are not only attainable, but the public at large is in support of them. I see no reason why, with a bit of effort, we can't meet them, and still maintain our economic strength.

 

[Whomp]

Happy Alex I appreciate what you're stating on what your government is doing. If you read the article it said the country is not doing quite as much as Iceland and California. California is the globe's 8th largest economy and 12th largest source of emissions. Their plan is to reduce them by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Personally, I think the global economies can benefit enormously by collapsing the oil monopoly in the Middle East. Transportation accounts for 50% of oil consumption. Hybrids and companies like this show enormous promise.
http://www.hy-drive.com/main/Default.asp?Page=20

Undoubtedly, this shift will make geopolitics that much more interesting if the importing countries change.

We're in the early stages of a significant shift in market share within energy related businesses. Toyota is already crushing their competitors on full hybrids at 70% of their market (Daimler is still two year away) but there's room in many other fields like micro turbines.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo, the cuts in emissions will come from increased energy efficiency, such as switching off lights and computers in offices at night, and replacing horrendously inefficient incandescent lightbulbs with energy saving lightbulbs (Australia introduced laws mandating the phase-in of these lightbulbs recently, and the EU is following suit; a major electronics chain in the UK has already stopped selling incandescent bulbs, and I'd imagine most others will gradually phase them out too; the EU is debating whether to lift the 66% duty on cheap, energy efficient lightbulbs produced by China, which will make them as cheap as regular incandescent ones). The other major area where businesses could improve is in Transport, which accounts for 30% of all CO2 emissions in the UK (IIRC - don't quote me on that).

Business in the West is very inefficient when it comes to energy - it could easily cut emissions by 20% at very little cost, so the economy as a whole would not suffer in any significant way.

It's not about "cut backs", but rather about streamlining businesses to be more energy efficient.

These targets are not only attainable, but the public at large is in support of them. I see no reason why, with a bit of effort, we can't meet them, and still maintain our economic strength.

Conservation and energy efficiency will only get you so far. The top priority has to be making a whole range of alternate energy sources commercially viable and profitable, or else its just a waste of time.

 

[happy_Alex]

Happy Alex I appreciate what you're stating on what your government is doing. If you read the article it said the country is not doing quite as much as Iceland and California. California is the globe's 8th largest economy and 12th largest source of emissions. Their plan is to reduce them by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Personally, I think the global economies can benefit enormously by collapsing the oil monopoly in the Middle East. Transportation accounts for 50% of oil consumption. Hybrids and companies like this show enormous promise.
http://www.hy-drive.com/main/Default.asp?Page=20

Undoubtedly, this shift will make geopolitics that much more interesting if the importing countries change.

We're in the early stages of a significant shift in market share within energy related businesses. Toyota is already crushing their competitors on full hybrids at 70% of their market (Daimler is still two year away) but there's room in many other fields like micro turbines.

Thanks. I yearn for the day when our dependance on middle-east oil has diminished, I think it will bring benefits for the people, for one thing they will have to think much harder about theirs governments when the cashflow runs out.

Hybrids are soooooooo PC at the moment!

Here's and intresting article about the alternative Hydrogen economy. Note, though that there still needs to be a source of primary energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

There's alot of room for improvment with primary sources of renewables, photo voltaic panels are only 12-20% efficient!

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Passing a law forcing the British economy to cut emissions is the same as passing a law forcing cuts in economic growth. Despite the best efforts of the government, the British economy will continue growing, so emissions will continue to increase.

Don't the maps, with France and the UK as examples of countries with positive economic growth and reductions in carbon emissions over the period, rather gainsay your assertion ?

 

[Whomp]

Granted, we're operating from a much larger number but according to the International Energy Agency from 2000 to 2004, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent.

This should not be tit for tat, though. Everyone needs to do their part, business, government and consumer.

I don't think Wal Mart and Yahoo get enough credit for their mission to sell 100 million incadscent light bulbs due to this article in Fast Times.

What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.

That's the law of large numbers--a small action, multiplied by 110 million.

The single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is power plants--half our electricity comes from coal plants. One bulb swapped out: enough electricity saved to turn off two entire power plants--or skip building the next two.

Wal Mart's suppliers were not particularly happy when Wal Mart told them to drop their prices. Phillips and GE have brought the price down in half. Wal Mart's forced the price down so maybe Tesco and other retailers in Europe will follow.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html

http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2006/09/06/walmarts-bright-idea.aspx

 

[El_Machinae]

I have eighteen bulbs in my house, and gave one to my neighbour.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Conservation and energy efficiency will only get you so far. The top priority has to be making a whole range of alternate energy sources commercially viable and profitable, or else its just a waste of time.

Indeed. Countries, or more specifically companies, making changes now might initially get some economic setbacks.. in the long run they will have an amazing advantage against their rivals though. There will be a point where the rivals have to adapt as well, maybe when oil and gas prices have sky-rocketed again.