80% Reduction By 2050?

[Gray-Wolf]

Loophole in minister's new emissions target

By Ben Russell, Home Affairs Correspondent

Friday, 17 October 2008

Ed Miliband announced a tough new target for cutting Britain's greenhouse gas emissions yesterday – but excluded aviation and shipping.

The new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change won enthusiastic support from some environmentalists for introducing legislation to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. But he also faced warnings that not including aircraft and ships in the target was like "telling everyone you're going on a calorie-controlled diet but not counting cream cakes".

In his first statement since the formation of the new Department of Energy and Climate Change, Mr Miliband said the80 per cent cut in emissions was needed to keep global warming below dangerous levels.

He said that international aviation and shipping would not be included in British targets for cutting carbon emissions, although he did stress that the two sectors must play their part in cutting greenhouse gas levels and said that deeper cuts would be needed in other industries if increases in air and sea travel emissions continued.

Officials said the Government was working hard to secure international agreements to curb emissions from air and sea travel. But some environmentalists and MPs said the move conflicted with the recent announcement of a major expansion at Stansted Airport and plans for a third runway at Heathrow.

Mr Miliband delighted campaigners by announcing support for a new system of guaranteed premium prices for organisations that generate their own renewable power. Ministers are expected to give the go-ahead for the "feed-in tariffs" for wind and solar power schemes generating more than 2.5 megawatts – a move designed to give a dramatic boost to small-scale renewable power schemes run by companies, community groups and local authorities.

He also pledged action to crack down on high electricity and gas prices for people on pre-payment meters, warning power firms that he would consider legislation to ban overcharging if they did not act to bring prices down.

Mr Miliband said: "In tough economic times, some people ask whether we should retreat from our climate change objectives. In our view, it would be quite wrong to row back and those who say we should misunderstand the relationship between the economic and environmental tasks we face."

================================================================================

===================

Certainly wants to talk the talk but is he serious????

[Devonian]

It's 42 years away.

In 42 years time will oil consumption still be going up like crazy? I can't see how. Indeed, I can't see how it could be at present levels - we'll surely be at peak oil by then if we keep using it in a unrestricted way we are now.

So, it's likely that oil produced CO2 will be on the decline by then.

Coal. We might have resorted to coal as a primary energy source - but somehow I doubt it, it has a 'going back' feel to it.

Renewables/ nuclear. There is likely to be more nuclear power (a serious accident not withstanding), and renewables are bound to be used more.

So, I'd be surprised if achieving reductions in CO2 emissions - by 2050 - is difficult. 80%? A big ask, but perhaps not as big as it might seem?

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

It's 42 years away.

In 42 years time will oil consumption still be going up like crazy? I can't see how. Indeed, I can't see how it could be at present levels - we'll surely be at peak oil by then if we keep using it in a unrestricted way we are now.

So, it's likely that oil produced CO2 will be on the decline by then.

Coal. We might have resorted to coal as a primary energy source - but somehow I doubt it, it has a 'going back' feel to it.

Renewables/ nuclear. There is likely to be more nuclear power (a serious accident not withstanding), and renewables are bound to be used more.

So, I'd be surprised if achieving reductions in CO2 emissions - by 2050 - is difficult. 80%? A big ask, but perhaps not as big as it might seem?

Maybe not, but this still sounds like a politician trying to gain a bit of popularity knowing full well that it's so far in the future (in political terms) he doesn't have anything to worry about with regards to how feasible it really may or may not be.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Personally I have my doubts that 80% cuts is a realistic target- at least not without creating big humanitarian issues in the process. I say this in the sense that if we're too draconian about it, it could cripple both economies and quality of life. I think 40-60% (60% has often been quoted in the recent past) is a perfectly reasonable aim though.

[HighPressure]

Its a real surprise not to see aviation or shipping included, aviation because the government wants more airports and more flights and you can't do that if you impose emission limits on aircraft. Shipping currently the worst polluters on the planet, I guess don't stop still in the UK so we can palm that off as someone else's problem?

As for 80%or even a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 I don't see where that is going to come from? The energy sector which accounts for @40% of all emissions would have to be almost entirely non fossil by then and the programme to do this just doesn't exist? I really don't think government ministers actually even read the facts before they come out with this rubbish. Here is a Guardian report from last December on the UK governments Wind power targets:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...renewableenergy

Coupled with this we now face a period of recession and falling fossil fuel prices across the world. This 80% target is built on foundations of sand and is absolute twoddle.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Utter unnecessary nonsense....80% indeed.

BFTP

[Thundery wintry showers]

If shipping and aviation aren't included then 80% is indeed nonsense.

I'm one of the loudest preachers on the forum for the view that action is needed as soon as possible- but unless we want to cripple quality of life, and indeed the global economy, through extreme draconianism, we're going to have to do it slowly over a period of time. I think aiming for 80% cuts in CO2 by 2050 is just asking too much too soon. In contrast, we are struggling to make any cuts at all at the moment.

Have they considered setting targets for the percentage of energy use that isn't dependent on fossil fuels, or limits on the rate of use of fossil fuels? Personally I have a feeling that might help precipitate faster and more useful change than setting CO2 emissions limits- and it would also help reduce CO2 because fossil fuels are the main source of anthropogenic CO2- and also most of the other gases that could contribute to climate change. Even if, as is widely suspected, CO2 is the main driver, there is a risk of focsuing too much on CO2 at the expense of the other factors.

[Roger J Smith]

Here's my look ahead to the news for October 31st, 2050:

The Express Times Independent Guardian and Sun

_______________________________________________________________________

If there can only be one newspaper, let it be this one.----------------------10/31/2050

Ice Age swallows up Edinburgh

Newcastle gone by Obamas?

President George Bush IV pleaded with Europe to fire up the coal

fired power stations and drive "even when you could walk" as

Americans shiver through the coldest winter yet, and the ice front

knocks over buildings in Chicago, Detroit and Buffalo.

Scientists said, "we warned people this was coming in 2025, but

everyone was so distracted by the old global warming myth

that humankind made the fatal error of cutting back on greenhouse

gas emissions."

The government of the UK, already relocated to Bermuda,

said, "you're on your own, Cumbria, best of British luck, Yorkshire,

and may Obama have mercy on your souls, Glasgow."

Meanwhile in Clacton-on-Sea, it was raining and 2 degrees. :lol: