Sweden Pledges To Cut All Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2045 (independent.co.uk) 237
Sweden has announced ambitious plans to completely phase out greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. The nation also reaffirmed the urgency of tackling climate change and called for all countries to "step up and fulfill the Paris Agreement." The Independent reports: "Our target is to be an entirely fossil-fuel-free welfare state," said Climate Minister Isabella Lovin. "We see that the advantages of a climate-smart society are so huge, both when it comes to health, job creation and also security. Being dependent on fossil fuels and gas from Russia is not what we need now,â she added. All parties but the far-right Sweden Democrats party agreed to pass the law in the coming month, which will oblige the government to set tougher goals to cut fossil fuel emissions every four years until the 2045 cut-off date. Plans also include a 70 per cent cut to emissions in the domestic transport sector by 2030. The Government said the target would require domestic emissions to be cut by at least 85 per cent and the remaining emissions would be offset by planting trees or by sustainable investments abroad. The law is expected to enter into force as early as 2018.
Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? (Score:2, Insightful)
We've gone past a point of no return. On top of that, an almost 30 year plan? When governments make 5-year plans they generally fall apart...
Re:Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? (Score:5, Informative)
No, even the worse estimates still show that it will take a 50 years for us to get to what would be considered a normal global average for human history.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Shame you had nothing to say about the graphs.
Nobody said anything of any significance about any graphs.
Why don't you go to realclimate or "skepticalscience" to find some info on them, notable not for what they say but what they do not say.
Info you apparently don't know yourself, since you asked us some fairly basic questions e.g.
What does a "normal global average" mean
And
What is normal and what is natural variation?
Sounds like you don't even understand the basics of the topic you are posting on. Are we somehow responsible for your ignorance? Should we care about your ignorance?
Re: (Score:2)
The Government said the target would require domestic emissions to be cut by at least 85 per cent and the remaining emissions would be offset by planting trees or by sustainable investments abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
No, even the worse estimates still show that it will take a 50 years for us to get to what would be considered a normal global average for human history.
Sweden better hurry then.
And as usual, we're missing the cost/benefits analysis here.
Re: (Score:2)
Note: the (in)famous "hockey stick" graph only covered the Little Ice Age period from about 1400 to present. That was one of the reasons I didn't like "An Inconvenient Truth" even though I agreed with the overall message. When you cherry pick data to try to exaggerate what is already a good point, you just give fodder to the opposition. The above graph would've been just as effective as the hockey stick graph, without be
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The original hockey stick graph (MBH98) was a first of its kind. It has never been done before. It took a few years for the range to be extended further into the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be happy to be corrected if you can find one of those graphs you say exists.
Re: (Score:2)
estimates still show that it will take a 50 years
Assuming that Sweden will still exist as the nation we know it with the current political climate. Climate Change is the least of the Earth's problems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no "additional costs of dealing with climate change" over and above any costs you incur dealing with a climate that varies naturally. That is to say, if you're going to build on the coast you build sea defences (because sea level rise has been constant for hundreds of years and storms occur, naturally) and if you're going to build near or on river flood plains you build flood defences because floods occur, naturally. This is just common sense. Their frequency isn't increasing in any case but how often they happen doesn't make any difference to whether you should defend against them.
Severity definitely adds to the cost. If you design a levy for 12 foot of water and there is 24 foot of water then your levy can't contain it. Even frequency can add to the cost. If your basement floods once every 10 years then you can replace the carpet and move on. If your basement floods every week then this no longer is an option. So yes there are incremental costs to dealing with more severe weather events. Yes, you could build a house that is practically invincible to all known weather events th
Re:Isn't this just virtue signaling at this point? (Score:4, Insightful)
because sea level rise has been constant for hundreds of years and storms occur, naturally
Sea level rise has sharply accelerated in past 100 years compared to the centuries before that. This means that sea defences have be build higher on an accelerated pace too. And even if the height of your defences keeps up with the rising waters, the cost of an occasional breach will rise quicker. http://www.realclimate.org/ima... [realclimate.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So governments should use planning horizons that are significantly shorter than five years? Let's imagine a government that actually worked that way.
Right away you'd get a military that was far, far more cost effective -- over the next five years. Right off the bat pull the plug on every program that has the word "Future" in the title. Axe the F35 (1.5 trillion), the littoral combat ships (18 to be constructed at 300-700 million a piece, not counting the "mission modules" each will have which will cost 10
Re: (Score:2)
We've gone past a point of no return.
We've past a point of no return. We're still on course for turning our planet into Venus 2.
That's not a plan, Stan (Score:3)
On a side note: that's one angry looking lady...
Re: (Score:3)
then at least there's a concrete and measurable result
And a lock-in to a potentially sub par solution. A government should chose a destination, not the method of getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what they have done. The commitment is to be greenhouse gas neutral by 2045. The method of getting there is no specified, future governments are only required to enact policies designed to get there and can be sued if they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
future governments are only required to enact policies designed to get there and can be sued if they don't.
Future governments can simply withdraw the plan. It is not within the power of the current government to govern beyond the four years of their mandate.
Re: (Score:2)
It is, the law is binding on future governments.
It's not the only time either. For example future governments are bound to properly deal with the country's nuclear waste and can't simply cancel the storage facilities or try to do them on the cheap. Well, not without being sued and losing anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A government should chose a destination, not the method of getting there.
In a perfect world filled with benevolent, responsible actors, that would be sufficient. In the real world, specific actions are often necessary to achieve nebulous goals, and government often has to lend a helping hand... or foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Burning petrol doesn't produce extra CO2 you're just giving back the CO2 that the plants that got eaten by the dinosaurs took from the atmosphere.
One process takes a few years, the other takes hundreds of millions.
Re: (Score:2)
So it is left up to industry and individuals to come up with a solution to breathing, and using carbon based fuels?
Yes. The government isn't some magical entity that has hidden solutions for everything. Worse still governments don't do R&D on potential projects either. Instead they set goals and bias the industry towards those goals e.g. Regulations on emissions, subsidies for groups that can meat the solutions to spur private R&D investment, punishment through taxation of things that don't meet the goal, and finally tariffs on bypassing the government (e.g. importing something cheaper from elsewhere).
The indust
Re: (Score:2)
So it is left up to industry and individuals to come up with a solution to breathing, and using carbon based fuels? But no one will be punished or rewarded if they come up with a solution or not?
That's a recipe for the tragedy of the commons.
Give a capitalst a choice that either wlll put him above his competitors now but won't be viable long term, or one that will benefit both him and his competitors 20 years down the road, and he'll invariably pick the first.
Freedom never works when not restricted. Man will exploit what he can, even to his own detriment, because if he won't, his brother will. The main problem is to make the restrictions fair.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the next administration's job to follow through.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a goal with defined plan how to get there. The prime minister each year write a paper outlining how far off Sweden is from reaching the goal and whats happend in the last year and present it to the parlament. Also in it outline new legislation that will make sure the goal is reached by the end date.
The parlament then can accept of reject the proposals for further changes to make sure Sweden can reach the final goal.
So its not a farfetched goal and its not a very detailed plan but rather a method how to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure you understand ridicule. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of funny each time I see someone attack energy independence as if it's a "left" issue. Nixon was trying to get a plan together for the same sort of thing until Watergate came out and he couldn't get anything done.
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
Title IX
Also we would have had Single-payer universal health care and a form of Universal Basic Income. If only he hadn't been so paranoid and hadn't sent the Plumbers to Watergate.
Though Teddy Kennedy partly blamed himself for the healthcare thing, he'd stalled the vote on it to get a few more concessions for lower income taxpayers out of Nixon (which Nixon was willing to compromise on)...but then...watergate happened before they sealed the deal and had the vote and afte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit tricky unless we import it or stand up to the "nuclear lobby" that pushed so hard to shut down the Clinton era thorium research. Westinghouse et al all have a vested interest in 1970s dinosaurs instead of something potentially viable.
Smart (Score:2, Insightful)
How about imports (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lead by example to reach a common goal so that other countries don't produce CO2 either? And then put a tariff on anything coming from the United States of Donald Trump.
nitpicking inaccurate title (Score:2)
That's cool and all, but they are *not* pledging to end all greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas, and if they have a plan to make everyone in the country stop farting, I'd love to hear it (also, on a more realistic note, livestock too) Same goes for CO2, unless they're pledging to hold their breath until the planet cools down. What they're actually pledging to to stop using fossil fuels for energy, which will necessarily lead to a decrease in net CO2 emissions, but is distinctly separate
Re: (Score:2)
If we're picking nits, the headline is correct, and it's from the linked story. The summary is wrong, and also from the story. There is no titl.
US Lead ? I don't think so (Score:2, Interesting)
The US will never be a leader in what to do with Climate Change the country keeps changing it's mind every 4 to 8 years. Other Countries need to get together and lead, ignoring the US. Even China and India are getting concerned from what I heard. So Sweden is doing the correct thing.
People in the US have a addiction to large gas guzzling Auto worse that the most hard core heron addict. The newest two excuses I hear is 1) They are higher and I can see better. 2) they are larger thus safer. Ignoring the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was a heron addict once, but I turned my life around when I managed to switch to pelicans.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a heron addict once, but I turned my life around when I managed to switch to pelicans.
yes, misspelled heroin, but I cannot mod you up, whoever you are, you had me laughing for a while :)
Re: (Score:2)
When Regan came in the first thin he did was rip them down and said Carter was nuts
The panels had to come down for roof renovation, but they didn't go back up because carter peanuts reagan big oil etc.
Please report to the local health center Monday. (Score:2)
Please report to the local health center Monday.
We will be distributing anal plugs with catalytic converters to eliminate CO2 and CH4 emissions.
Consumption of beans and other legumes is now prohibited.
Makes Sense (Score:3)
If you have to import your coal and oil it only makes sense to go to completely fossil free solutions.
So Sweden will cease to exist in 2045. (Score:2)
The only thing these measures do is create a two-tiered system where the nomenklatura still drive and fly as they please while imposing everything on regular people.
Strangers in a cold land (Score:2)
Strange. "I will lead Sweden in terraforming the Earth to make Sweden a slightly more temperate land" doesn't have much purchase there, I guess.
Are they stopping manufacturing cars and aircraft? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self-deluded leftists and memes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We Are Superior! (Score:2)
Swedes wil fly or float to and from Sweden how? (Score:2)
There is no substitute on the horizon for kerosene belching jets. Even ferries are currently mostly diesel. So perhaps swedes will use their renewable chargedteslas togoto aver pavilions of the illusion of places beyond their orders,or wait, electric trains long way round to other carbon spewing countries?
Re:They want to be a welfare state? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good. Why do we need to compete against each other when we have the technology to almost live in a utopia? Are you a misanthrope?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Good. Why do we need to compete against each other when we have the technology to almost live in a utopia?
Totally false.
O RLY? Let's take a look at your logic.
Only a small fraction of the population is wealthy on this planet,
The claim was about technology, not about present distribution of resources. Irrelevant distraction.
Another side effect of removing competition by making everyone wealthy is you will then need to control tightly the population to not exhaust resources.
The evidence suggests that once you care for people's needs and make them happy, the birth rate falls, it does not increase. So in fact, there is a negative feedback loop here which specifically prevents what you're afraid of.
Furthermore, there is one way in which humanity could enjoy exponential growth without exhausting its resources and living space: reach for the sta
Re: (Score:2)
The claim was about technology, not about present distribution of resources. Irrelevant distraction
Technology doesn't get you very far without sufficient resources.
reach for the stars.
The stars are too far. You're watching too much Star Trek.
It's called direct democracy and minimum guaranteed income.
You can't guarantee a sufficient minimum income that would turn a country into Utopia, while not even trying to compete with other countries. Where would the money be coming from ?
Re: (Score:2)
It it too much to ask for a single example of this working at scale? It's a beautiful fiction, like Star Trek. In the meantime the prudent thing to do is assume that humans need to compete and remain competitive.
Re: They want to be a welfare state? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that actually observed birth rates in developed nations do not support this
Re: (Score:2)
Wild guesses may come true or not. I talked about actually observed data
Re: (Score:2)
Wild guesses may come true or not. I talked about actually observed data
Extrapolating short term observed data is a wild guess. Applying theory of evolution is not.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that assuming the current advantage that humans hold over microorganisms to be permanent is also a wild guess. 4 kids might not be enough down the road a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Birth rates of second generation Turks in Germany are barely higher than the average. This implies that western welfare states actually need a constant influx of immigrants otherwise all the old people will overwhelm the system.
Re:They want to be a welfare state? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welfare has a very different meaning outside the US. It does not bear a negative connotation unlike there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Welfare has a very different meaning outside the US. It does not bear a negative connotation unlike there.
The former Communist East Germany was a welfare state. Zero unemployment, free medical care, etc.
However, that did not mean that the folks there were living "well" when compared to the folks next door in the former Democratic West Germany next door. When folks are willing to risk their lives, crawling under barbed wire an jumping over walls, under a hail of machine gun fire, to escape the welfare state . . . well (fittingly), all is not necessarily well in a welfare state.
Oddly enough, the former East G
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Were they crawling under barbed wire to escape from a welfare state or a totalitarian police state?
Idiot
Re: They want to be a welfare state? (Score:3)
Nope they were a socialist state and a dictatorship. West Germany and Sweden ate welfare states. For example, they both provide healthcare for everyone and money for unemployed people or the poor in general.
Re: They want to be a welfare state? (Score:3)
The Swedish think about that differently and it is very ignorant of you. Just because in your opinion anarchy is preferable and the state is not the facility to support the people by the people, you should not dismiss their choice.
Re: (Score:3)
All this just indicates that nomenclatures don't necessarily travel very well.
Especially if you get them wrong. The Germans never called themselves FROG. They called themselves BRD (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). It was the english that called them FRG (not FROG) and colloquially they were called West Germany to prevent just the confusion that you just artificially created.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They want to be a welfare state? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welfare has a very different meaning outside the US. It does not bear a negative connotation unlike there.
The system does not, the recipients are a very mixed bag. On the one hand, most of us are proud that we have a system that will take care of everyone from cradle to grave with many forms of social security and benefits of various kinds. I don't want to see people living in tent camps or people who can't get treatment because they lack health insurance and that we take care of people that are injured, sick and infirm, mentally challenged and so on. That we have a work life that has regulated vacations, sick days, maternity leave, paternity leave, overtime to allow employees to combine work and family life and to prevent employees from being abused. Long resignation periods, unemployment benefits and re-education programs to allow people caught by shifting needs to find new work without drastic and abrupt changes.
All of that said, it's a constant balance between the worthy recipients and people who just want to be welfare queens, that don't want to work but play the system to get every benefit they can have and commit fraud to get benefits they don't. And it's tough, because every so often there's people in the media who'd genuinely would like to work and pay taxes and contribute to society but who also genuinely can't who feel they're under constant suspicion and looked down on by other people as lazy bums who simply won't work. And I don't have any good solution for that because we need those control systems, we can't base ourselves on trust alone. There are people who claim unemployment benefits and work off the record. There are people who claim to be a single mum and get extra support while actually living as a couple. There are people who've tricked the doctor to get disability benefit who seem very healthy the rest of the time.
But that we want the system, no doubt. Even though there's always disagreements about particular forms and implementations of benefits programs, overall we want them.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
All of that said, it's a constant balance between the worthy recipients and people who just want to be welfare queens, that don't want to work but play the system to get every benefit they can have and commit fraud to get benefits they don't.
But enough about billionaires like Donald Trump.
Re: They want to be a welfare state? (Score:2, Insightful)
It amazes me how much hand wringing is done over potential abuse of socialized basic needs, while billions are poured into crony pork barrels without batting an eyelash.
Re: (Score:3)
It amazes me how much hand wringing is done over potential abuse of socialized basic needs, while billions are poured into crony pork barrels without batting an eyelash.
A lot of time, money, and effort is spent to that end, so it's not all that surprising. Propaganda works, especially on people who haven't had any training in recognizing it. I had a teacher in Jr. High who taught us about the primary techniques of propaganda and while I forget the names of most of them today :) they're usually pretty easy to spot if you are looking for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if they try to eliminate all fossil fuels and remain competitive with the rest of the developed world at the same time,
They aren't. They're going to remain cooperative with the rest of the developed world. You know, exactly unlike England and the USA. Brexit and Trump, two big fat signs saying "we're dumbshits".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they try to eliminate all fossil fuels and remain competitive with the rest of the developed world at the same time,
They aren't. They're going to remain cooperative with the rest of the developed world. You know, exactly unlike England and the USA. Brexit and Trump, two big fat signs saying "we're dumbshits".
The evidence is only able to suggest that a simple majority of us are dumb-shits.
Re:They want to be a welfare state? (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence is only able to suggest that a simple majority of us are dumb-shits.
Some people are dumbshits because they voted for these things, and the rest of us are dumbshits because we couldn't figure out a way to stop them even though we outnumber them.
Re: (Score:3)
Though some of the challenges in our era are unique, I see a lot of parallels between what's going on to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who don't vote give the ones who do more power, then don't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a law being enforced by the green party. That all other parties is on board is simply because everyone needs the greens to get to power - despite they having only less than 7% voted for them. They are the only party that have supported both the bloc in the parliament in the past.
Rest of us 93% hopes that they will fall below 4% votes in our election next year (it looks hopeful) and be gone from the parliament.
Most citizens doesn't agree on this law. We understand that it will hurt us enormously econ
Re: (Score:3)
Re: They want to be a welfare state? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are already a welfare state where all people have healthcare, good schools (by US standards) for all, kindergarten and of course support for poor people. Do not try to look down at them. It won't work. They are actually more humane than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, really only about 16% of that is AGW sensitive. It'll have to be a big one. Cows are another matter. Even though I'm a Brit, I'm not going to start on the Holy Grail French ca
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't take much to ruin a claim of zero emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know that. The current climate might be drastically different from what it is now if animals hadn't been farting for millions of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are so out of touch with reality. Europe's massive deforestation and desertification over the last few centuries means that it is strongly dependent on the Americas for carbon capture. And European air quality sucks https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea... [nasa.gov] As you can see from that map, that pollution is home-made; it doesn't come from the US, China,
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to prevent water evaporating and animals exhaling?
Why would they do something like that? Both of the things you mention have been going on for billions of years without causing problems. It's sad that we have so many people who are so scientifically illiterate they don't understand why.