EU Parliament Votes For 60% Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cut By 2030 (theguardian.com) 101
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: EU capitals have been put under pressure to agree to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2030 compared with 1990, after the European parliament voted in favor of an "ambitious" climate law that would also oblige each member state to be carbon neutral by 2050. The vote, which sets the chamber's position as it goes into negotiations with the 27 member states and the European commission, won the backing of 392 MEPs, with 161 voting against and 142 abstaining.
Speaking to the Guardian, Pascal Canfin, the chair of the chamber's environment committee, who proposed the 2030 target, said he was convinced the position would drive member countries to raise their sights when their representatives sit together in the EU setting known as the council. The parliament's vote was a rejection of a 55% emissions reduction target for 2030 proposed by the commission, the EU's executive body led by Ursula von der Leyen. "Having the parliament supporting 60% helps the progressive countries in the council to drive ambition upwards," Canfin said. Following the vote, Finland's environment minister, Krista Mikkonen, said she would propose that her government update its national position in line with that of the EU parliament.
Speaking to the Guardian, Pascal Canfin, the chair of the chamber's environment committee, who proposed the 2030 target, said he was convinced the position would drive member countries to raise their sights when their representatives sit together in the EU setting known as the council. The parliament's vote was a rejection of a 55% emissions reduction target for 2030 proposed by the commission, the EU's executive body led by Ursula von der Leyen. "Having the parliament supporting 60% helps the progressive countries in the council to drive ambition upwards," Canfin said. Following the vote, Finland's environment minister, Krista Mikkonen, said she would propose that her government update its national position in line with that of the EU parliament.
Cue Hysteria? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are going from the proposed 55% to 60% by 2030. It's not going to be entirely painless, but it's far from impossible. Hysterical shills for the fossil fuel industry and the car industry will probably start hyperventilating, but this just isn't that big a deal. Even Australia was projected to get close to 50% if the government didn't actively sabotage it (but, of course, they did).
Re: (Score:1)
They can pick up a lot of that by sucking up their cities sewer gases. Methane is a much worse green house gas than carbon dioxide so they can pick up a whole bunch by burning that methane, rather than just releasing it to atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
>Methane is a much worse green house gas than carbon dioxide
No it isn't. While it is more potent a retainer of longer wave photons, methane stays in the atmosphere for about 10 years compared to CO2 which hangs around for around 200. So C02 ultimately is worse. The interaction with the oceans compensates somewhat, but not enough to tip the balance the other way.
Re:Cue Hysteria? (Score:4, Informative)
>Methane is a much worse green house gas than carbon dioxide
No it isn't. While it is more potent a retainer of longer wave photons, methane stays in the atmosphere for about 10 years compared to CO2 which hangs around for around 200. So C02 ultimately is worse. The interaction with the oceans compensates somewhat, but not enough to tip the balance the other way.
The methane converts into CO2 [noaa.gov] and then also stays around for another 200 years...
It's definitely worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it does, but worth remembering is that CO2 is 400 times more prevalent in the atmosphere. So while it is a worse gas in that it causes more heating in its methane form, it's a tiny contributor to warming overall.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce emissions, it just means if we want to tackle the big contributors the focus needs to remain on CO2 and not a distraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>So what you say is ...
I said what I wrote. Not what you said I said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please point to a study showing that sewer gases cause a significant fraction of total CO2-equivalent climate gas emissions. I take "a lot" to mean at least 5% of current total emissions.
Re: (Score:1)
It is being done. Sewage is actually a significant contributor to green house gases not because of methane (as sewage treatment is often aerobic), but because it is massively energy intensive. Putting the whole lot through a biodigester still doesn't make it energy neutral but can provide quite a lot of the power. Looking at how do do this cheaper (at the moment the sewage has to be pressure boiled at 140C before digested) is a major area of research.
https://wwtonline.co.uk/news/n... [wwtonline.co.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Cue Hysteria? (Score:4, Informative)
The point of the goals is to produce a plan to implement them. It is not the job of the parliament to do it, it is the job of the executive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A plan is better than pretending climate change doesn't exist and sucking fossil fuel industry cock, as numerous developed world right-wing governments continue doing.
Note the high number of abstentions, bought and paid for by Big Coal, Big Natural Gas and Big Petroleum.
Re: (Score:3)
Having some more literate people in charge would still be desirable. But people that are literate and popular with the voters at the same time are quite rare.
The carbon emission taxes appear to have had at least some effects towards the intended goal. In recent news Poland's government, announced that they want to phase out their extensive power generation based on coal by 2049.
One of the reaso
Re: (Score:2)
A plan is better than pretending climate change doesn't exist and sucking fossil fuel industry cock, as numerous developed world right-wing governments continue doing.
They don't call it sweet crude for nothin'.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is called parliamentary democracy in Europe and "the Republic" in the US and has been in use for many years. Please propose better, or GTFO.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah,
democracy and separation of powers - the worst government principle ever - unfortunately we do not know a better one.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried feudalism?
Re: (Score:2)
Was tried several times in various variations ...
But if you want to proclaim me king, I'm for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know if I'd call the EU government democratic, though.
The parliament is elected by the people. The president of the commission is proposed by the democratically elected governments who are members of the council and the president and commission are confirmed (or not) by the parliament.
You could claim it's not the best democracy, but to claim it's not democratic at all is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
It is as democratic as France or Germany, and as such 100 times more democratic that the U :P
Re: (Score:2)
as such 100 times more democratic that the U
What?
Re:Cue Hysteria? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the Netherlands we had some hard targets without a plan. When we had to set limits on nitrogen compound emissions or PFAS limits, they just came up for a figure without any study into how to achieve those goals or what it would mean to society. Then, a judge stated: if parliament imposed these limits, and we are bound by them EU treaties, then yes they can be enforced. So: we set the limit for PFAS effectively to zero (“any measurable content is too much”), and we hadn’t reduced NOx reductions enough, so all construction in the country was put to a halt. Overnight. No soil could be moved; all of it had PFAS, so did the salt used to de-ice roads and runways, and so on. Oops.
In the end, they rushed through a law that set the national speed limit to 100km/h, not because it was good policy, not because it had a great environmental impact (it doesn’t), the only reason for that law is that they desperately needed a tiny amount of NOx reduction so that they could start up essential construction projects again. One effect is that the past few years, significantly fewer houses have been built, which isn’t great given the serious shortage of housing here.
That is what you get if you set yourself ambitious goals, without having a plan, and then make a binding promise to meet your targets.
Re: (Score:2)
This builds on the Paris agreement that was signed in 2015 and as you've accounted for, plans are mainly up to the member states.
Re: Cue Hysteria? (Score:2)
Oh brother!
Is that why another piece of Beatrix park in Amsterdam just got leveled for yet another needlessly lavish corporate building? And in many other cities I see green areas overtaken, again, not by residential but corporate buildings? Did they really transfer the NOx emissions like that? Wow!
I knew it was a good decision not to dive fully into the societal and political issues of my second motherland, despite all the years I'm here...that story of yours is heartbreaking....sigh.
Funfact. I am in charg
Re: (Score:2)
that story of yours is heartbreaking....sigh.
The only thing heartbreaking is the basis for it. The reality is there is a material reduction in vehicle emissions with reduced speed as well as a reduction in accidents and fatalities.
Actually I'd be interested in a study if the culling of a population by letting idiots kill themselves at faster speed limits leads to an overall reduction in CO2 emissions over a lifetime vs the reduced emissions of the vehicle they'd be driving on their highway commute :-)
Re: (Score:2)
not because it was good policy, not because it had a great environmental impact
There are plenty of studies which have shown that road fatalities go down, accident rates go down, and overall CO2 emissions reduce by 15-25% depending on the vehicle (as a side benefit as does fuel consumption leading to less of a dependence on oil and less expense for travel).
It not only is good policy, but it also has an environmental impact. You can't claim it doesn't have an impact and say the only reason they did it is because it had an impact.
Now as to it really made a material difference with half t
Re: (Score:2)
The country is hardly a parking lot though, try getti
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah that I agree with, the decision came out of the blue.
The country is hardly a parking lot though, try getting off the highways (or railways) sometime.
I do man. Only a true masochist would try the A4 during peak hour. The trip through Alphen a/d Rijn is actually quite cathartic. Mind you regardless of where you go if you commute during peak hour you will hit a major highway somewhere near the larger cities and that is unavoidable. Unfortunately the scenic route up to Schiphol is one of the few that actually makes good sense time wise. In most cases the scenic route is so scenic that despite ever
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite - road congestion that comes about from low speed limits and attention wear from longer drive time contribute to far more accidents, and that's not even starting about the fact that a too low speed limit entices people to break the law and then speed through places where it *is* meaningful to reduce speed at
The only reason to impose overly low speed limits is a sneaky push for self-driving technologies since
Re: (Score:2)
That's nonsense - Germany has no speed limit on the Autobahn and few accidents
LOL. Now *THAT* is nonsense.
You seem to be confused between being a good driver, and having safe conditions. The two are very different things. Germany has lots of good drivers. The vast majority of cars on the highway also travel the recommended 130km/h. That all doesn't change the fact that regardless of how good you are as a driver the fatality rate goes down as speed limits are reduced and enforced. That is a simple fact that the EU has done an extensive study on as countries have varied their speed lim
Re: (Score:2)
>That is what you get if you set yourself ambitious goals, without having a plan, and then make a binding promise to meet your targets.
More like, that's what you get when you have politicians more interested in virtue signaling to their lefty constituents than in governing in the real world.
Re: (Score:3)
These goals are meaningless without a plan.
A plan is meaningless without a goal. If you don't create a goal first your plan can literally be anything and you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
Re: (Score:2)
It's for the member states to make the specific plans, as this builds on the Paris agreement that was signed in 2015 they should already be in place.
Re: Cue Hysteria? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Several countries are already looking at using this to recover from COVID. Big push for clean energy, lots of new jobs and investment.
It's how we get out of this mess.
Re: (Score:1)
Get better by, in addition, making energy, waste management, vehicles more expensive?...sure, but also getting less competitive compared to those that don't yet want to commit to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Get better by, in addition, making energy, waste management, vehicles more accountable for their emissions?
FTFY.
The fossil fuel industry has been getting a free lunch since its inception. Climate change is happening 100% because nobody has ever been held accountable for their emissions. If we'd been paying for waste disposal the whole time, the true cost of a fossil fuel economy would have driven us away far faster.
If you're squawking about things costing more, you're saying, "If I have to choose between the long-term financial impacts of climate change and the short-term rebalancing of budgets, I'm choosing cli
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing CO2 emissions doesn't fix the problem (Score:2)
To fix this (putting the climate back the way it's supposed to be) requires lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That means carbon sequestration - removing CO2 from he atmosphere and somehow burying it underground (thus returning the carbon back to where
Re: Reducing CO2 emissions doesn't fix the problem (Score:2)
No, it's because carbon sequestration doesn't work. The Australian government have chucked billions at it, and every year we are assured that it is totally going to work, soon. So far, no luck, but we have thrown a lot of money away and allowed fossil fuel companies to keep burning coal, on this assurance that maybe one day we'll magically un-burn the carbon and bury it back in a hole.
Re: (Score:2)
vehicular emissions? (Score:1)
Re:vehicular emissions? (Score:4, Informative)
This must just cover electricity generation, not even the EU would set such an ambitious target for cars and heavy vehicles. I'd read tfa but come on, this is dotslash
It covers all man made emissions, cars etc included. It still has to pass the council and member states. The text https://www.europarl.europa.eu... [europa.eu] (not very reader friendly).
Re: (Score:2)
If I were to by EU emission allowances for the CO2 I exhale and let the market sort it out, the cost would be somewhere around $1.5 a month to give you an idea of how hard that part is. Anyone who tells you there is a free lunch is lying, but so is anyone who tells you that it's so expensive it cannot possibly be considered.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we did. And it covers industries and house hold heating.
Stop moving between Brussels and Strasbourg (Score:1, Insightful)
Stop moving the entire EU senate every month between Brussels and Strasbourg.
That alone will be good enough for an extra precent cut.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/... [euronews.com]
Re:Stop moving between Brussels and Strasbourg (Score:4, Informative)
As wasteful as it is, it's no where near a percent cut. 19,000 tonnes (high estimate) vs 4,000,000,000 tonnes.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop moving the entire EU senate every month between Brussels and Strasbourg.
That alone will be good enough for an extra precent cut.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/... [euronews.com]
What senate?
What is moving between Brussels and Strasbourg is the European Parliament. However, the organ comparable to a "senate" or "upper chamber" of the EU legislative would be the Council of the European Union, which stays in Brussels.
Why does the parliament move between Brussels and Strasbourg at all? Because France. To be fair, however, EU parliamentarians are supposed to travel between the parliament and their constituency all the time, so it does not matter that much that the parliament is in two d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Stop moving the entire EU senate every month between Brussels and Strasbourg.
I assume you mean the parliament.
They've already done that. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic the parliament has been sitting in Brussels.
That alone will be good enough for an extra precent cut.
What a ridiculous overestimate.
Euronews estimates that the annual cost of the sessions in Strasbourg is €114m. If you think that €114m is anywhere near 1% of the EU economy you must be the least numerate person on the continent.
I guess ... (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe is pushing ahead with completion of the 'Nord Stream 2' pipeline to double natural gas imports from Russia over the next few years. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, not even close to this:
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/783088774/europe-is-burning-u-s-wood-as-climate-friendly-fuel-but-green-groups-protest
or this:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/5-million-scottish-trees-felled-wind-farms-2466690
Re: (Score:2)
Nord Stream 2 has nothing to do with doubling natural gas. It's got to do with doubling the ways you can *get* natural gas. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but tensions in the eastern block countries has on multiple occasions cut off gas completely. Even now the original pipeline is not running at full capacity, and that's despite the Netherlands dramatically cutting their gas output this year because of geological issues.
Not every "expansion" project has to do with increased consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the pipeline is more ecologically sensible too than bringing in US liquefied gas by ship - the Trump administration has been pushing so hard mainly because they want to sell that US gas. The alleged strategic reasons are a diversion. The US themselves are dealing with Russia for resources, not only for services towards elections.
Also, natural gas may not be entirely ecological, but it is much better than coal. That is also one of the reasons that the US has gotten less bad, as natural gas (from frack
Ah, 2030... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of time for all of them to enjoy a political career and get out before the deadline comes.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, if political careers in Europe only span 9 years, there's another reason to want to go live there. No career politicians in power until they're 70 or 80? Sign me up!
Re: (Score:2)
Says you from the disunited states of America.
Re: (Score:2)
And why would that happen?
Re: (Score:1)
UK left because the voters are idiots, and you seem to be one, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are not deep into european matters.
I think in 50 - 100 years it will be in some sense more like the US. Instead of a federation of "nations" it will be a federation of regions, like Catalonia, Brittany Bavaria etc.
The eu will grow and grow, and there is no failure what so ever foreseeable.
Re: (Score:2)
EU is already creaking at the joints, what with Germany, France and other 'old' countries doing everything they can at everyone else's expense, and the citizenry of newer countries increasingly not taking it in stride
The migrant crisis was meant to distract us from TTP getting passed, which Donald Trump thankfully threw out of the window and which would have impoverished both US and EU workers and relaxed standards to the lowest common denominator, but it's doing a good job at showing peo
Re: (Score:2)
Dude .... you have no idea about what you are talking.
UK is only "formaly" out of the eu. At the moment all eu "regulations" are still intact. And they try to get a new deal before they terminate.
Big companies are exiting in troves from the UK - and your claim of "living standard" is a blunt lie. On what basis would the standard of living of a person in UK increase in a few months after BReXIT? Seriously? How should that even remotely be possible?
The rest of your anti eu talk is just nonsense. The eu popula
Re: (Score:3)
And why would that happen?
The why can be found in the political instability caused by setting ambitious goals without materializing achievable plans. For my country, it's unrealistic to think we could go from 10% to 50% renewables in 10 year. Meanwhile we're rejecting nuclear as option. In Germany they even closed them down. So apart using a 30% less energy altogether - also very unrealistic - we do not have a real option. It's wishthinking.
I'm not saying it will happen, but seen the social unrest, year and tense national and supern
Re: (Score:3)
The goal is an eu wide goal and not one for individual countries.
I'm pretty sure your country can cut down by 50%, just like any other - you might not see the options where that is possible.
Germany did not shut down its nuclear power. No idea why that myth is repeated on /. all the time.
We are slowly exiting from it. And ATM about 10% of our electricity comes from nukes.
but seen the social unrest, year and tense national and supernational European politics in general, instabilities may surely occur and is
Browsed throught the first link (Score:2)
But if they are bad emissions? Why not just solve the whole problem, 10% per year and be done with it, problem solved?
So what is the End Goal again? What are we doing?
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt there's enough funds to do everything in one go. For example, takes time for leccie cars to feed into the second hand market, and old clunkers get taken off the road. Have to give some time for people to adjust.
Mind you, they (and the rest of the world) should have started this 10 years ago, making the transition easier. But hey, I live in Australia... the most polluting country in the world per capita, so I don't really have a leg to stand on.
Re: Browsed throught the first link (Score:2)
And where would we find any funds since we were told we'd have to pay for the corona relief fund for the next 20 years?
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason to have started this earlier. This is an excellent read: The Energy Trap [ucsd.edu], and explains why it becomes more and more costly the longer we delay.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, takes time for leccie cars to feed into the second hand market...
Leccie? Leccie?! WTF? There's some slang we need to stamp out right now. Leccie. If you insist on using a juvenile short word, call them bat cars. For battery. At least then you sound like a 10 year old, not a 3 year old. Leccie.... Fucking hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Settle down there, big fella. Wouldn't want you to bust a coronary.
I have news for you. Sitting down for this? You live in a global, connected world. I know this may come as a shock! In this connected world, you will be exposed to various dialects.
The term "leccie" or "leccy" is well used in Australia. In fact, Australia is well known on the world stage for our endearing terminology. So why would I let my side down? Here, I'll even help you out [nomadsworld.com].
In fact, I'm going to point out the irony of you using
sure (Score:3)
So we've hit those Paris targets then, have we?
Certainly you'd want to make sure you comply with previous commitments before you make even bigger promises for the future, or you'd end up a complete laughingstock to any but the most frothing zealots, surely?
Re: (Score:1)
So we've hit those Paris targets then, have we?
Certainly you'd want to make sure you comply with previous commitments before you make even bigger promises for the future, or you'd end up a complete laughingstock to any but the most frothing zealots, surely?
Much closed than the US is ever likely to get... [nationalgeographic.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Europe should then pause and push others to reach the same level. There is no point in being the only one and won't make much change without other large contributors.
Re: (Score:2)
So...."no" then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. People are like, hey we only want a 1% tax increase to pay for (idea).
Yeah ... but you have ten other things you want us to do right now too and they all need tax increases. And then next year you'll want to do 10 other things and they all need tax increases.
That's how we got where we are now paying nearly half of everything we make in taxes and wondering why we can no longer afford to live.
Piss off. No more.
Re: (Score:2)
So we've hit those Paris targets then, have we?
What the EU has done is recognise the Paris targets are actually woefully inadequate. That doesn't mean we sit with our thumbs up our arses for another 10 years before we consider what we should be doing.