The problem with such long-term plans is of course that none of the politicians who decided this today will be around in 2050.
The most relevant question is: What are they going to do in the next 1-2 years to make the first steps? That's far more relevant than any long-term goal.
Few of these politicians will be around next year, even. The PM has resigned already, and chances are that the next PM will end up triggering new elections before the end of the year. The new General Election will likely see a massive shakeup due to the fallout from Brexit.
This commitment is not worth the paper it's printed on, sadly.
It's long term when it comes to the service life of a politician. How many currently-serving politicians will still be around in 30 years to take the blame if we miss the targets?
That's irrelevant and comparing apples and oranges.
30 years is not a long time for such a comprehensive change and it is sensible and needed to have plans and objectives over such timescale.
I don't understand the point of trying to create an argument on this. It's quite obvious that this comes along with actions over 1, 2 years and beyond from now. And we see that happening every day.
If people think that the goal is achievable within 5 years they do not live in the real world.
And no one is disagreeing with that. There needs to be intermediary steps between now and 2050. That was the entire question, "what are they doing in the next 1-2 years".
Just saying "we'll do it within 30 years" is easy, saying "and here's our year-by-year plan" is a lot harder. If there's not a year-by-year plan, when 30 years is up there's no one left to take the blame if we fail.
Why isn't it a long time? 30 years ago the internet didnt exist, we've gone from making 100 million tonnes of plastic to 400 million tonnes (and 30 years before that, we were making almost 0 plastic). The entire US highway system took 60 years. We've made it to Mars in less than 10 years. After WWII, vast amounts of Western Europe were rebuilt in a decade. The entirety of the UKs coal mining industry was decimated in 5 years.
Net zero emissions over the whole of the UK is a very profound change and I am not even sure that the technologies exist today to make it happen sustainably or at all.
I think many people really do not realise how profound and far reaching that is, bearing in mind that the aim is not to destroy the country's fabric and economy in the process.
There is a plan which, surprisingly perhaps, came before the headlines, and it's pretty well thought out. The cross party Committee on Climate Change has been working on a plan for a few years, see updates here:
Which led to the Chancellor saying pft, too expensive last month, and Theresa "committing" to it this month. Though she immediately backed away from simply adopting the report and muttered something about carbon offsets (avoiding the issue).
Things have been planned. Coal has almost run out, gas is running out (probably calculation showed it will end by 2050). So why not set a target that no fossil fuel will be burnt (and forget to mention there will be none left to burn)
Theresa has nothing to do having got the boot, so it's her attempt at swan song. The chances of a Johnson government caring about anything other than Brexit are none at all. So real steps will have to wait for the general election...
Tories are currently looking at quadrupling the tax on storage batteries, having just about destroyed home solar.
Climate change is to UK PMs what Israel/Palestine is to US Presidents: everyone has a wonderful and magical plan to solve it, touted at election time, which will be completely ignored for their entire time in charge, until it pops out again as their "attempted legacy" once they become lame-ducks with no weight whatsoever.
Except Gordon's fuel escalator, which was progressing nicely until it started working. Once there were truck drivers organising go-slows and demos at refineries they ran away from it. Fuel was down around 90p a litre back then IIRC. It did seem to be making the roads a bit quieter...
* On the one hand, supposedly one of the best users of clean energy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649). Side question: where does it all come from? The UK doesn't have a lot of sunshine, nor do I see a lot of wind farms compared to other EU countries. Maybe north and around the coast? Wind seems likely given all the news about record wind output when speeds pick up. Wikipedia's number for zero-carbon production seem quite different than BBC's though.
* Government makes a vague declaration for the distant future, but Chancellor says we can't afford to do it.
Most of the UK's renewable energy comes from Scottish wind and tidal farms. Almost all energy-based corruption (I count giving public money in any form to the coal industry as corruption at this point, given all we know) comes from the UK Government. The Scottish Government is no angel either though: they refuse to outright-ban fracking (there's an indefinite moratorium on fracking in Scotland though, which is better than nothing) and they are not serious about keeping north sea oil in the ground.
Coal has declined markedly, in good part thanks to the EU (2020/2025?) target to cease coal burning. Drax is now mostly biomass not coal. Biomass that's mostly imported US pellets from mature woodland, so far from as green as it's painted. Still counted in the renewables total though. Drax remains the UK's largest single emitter.
Something like 20% of UK energy is now wind, mainly offshore. There's about 20GW capacity, with 5GW more planned or being built. Many of those are Danish owned or E.On. This is happening despite the government not because of. They've effectively made onshore wind impossible now, hence all the offshore.
Solar is about 5% of the total. Nuclear about 20%.
We already had a 2008 Act committing to 80% reduction by 2050, all Theresa has done is add the rest.
Gas is the big elephant in the room as it's about 40% of the total, and a chunk of coal was replaced by gas thanks to rush to gas some years back. I think about 5 or 10% of gas is landfill recovery - small, but surprisingly noticeable. More than I would have guessed, anyway. The rest is a mix of other sources including hydro, pumped hydro, and the interconnects.
Biomass seems to get included whenever a piece, or Downing Street press release, wants to tout UK generation at over 50% renewable. Separate when it wants to point out that our biomass sources aren't ideal, or the real breakdown of progress. :)
Drax capacity is 2/3 biomass, 1/3 coal, but coal now seems to be used as generation of last resort to meet demand when other sources can't. Not sure how or why the subsidies are paid. Maybe some is to keep plants run ready but idle - but that's a complete guess, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find it's just free money for no good reason. I do know Drax got a subsidy to convert that last third to biomass when the total coal phase out comes...
It's all rather embarrassing for the UK. There is clear creative accounting. Progress since the coalition in 2010 has been more via (reluctantly) abiding EU targets and industry building renewables for simple economics than UK policy. The cross-party committees on climate change have been on the ball but that's not policy. Government tries to take full credit for all of course, but in truth is holding progress back.
Where I live in Scotland there appear to be small groups of windmills every few kilometres and with most of the nearby hills have large windfarms - this map appears to be a bit out of date, but you get the idea:
The areas of Scotland that have no windfarms look like the various national parks and/or particularly scenic areas. Having said that, I was quite surprised to see this windfarm from a nearby mountain:
These seem like excellent resources! It's still odd that the UK has been criticised for coal subsidies and the transparency around this if coal has shrunk so dramatically and even imports are relatively small.
you should see the futuristic landscape of wind turbines in scotland set against dramatic rural landscapes with ancient farm walls and hedges, a sight to behold
An interesting little "gotcha" to this (unless I'm mistaken, please correct if so) is that imported energy is not taken into account. The UK recently ran 2 weeks "without using coal" [1], but this completely ignored any imported energy which did [2].
So, this is great - provided we don't simply pass the buck (like by sending all of our plastics to Asia).
You could provide evidence that the statement is outrageous or mistaken.
Technically, the burden is on the parent to explain themselves, but that's always true and readers are capable of assessing the comment and its (lack of) evidence without a content-free two-word demand from you.
See Rob Aley's comment above for a better approach.
Yes, because it surfaces the opinion that the claim was outrageous, which it wasn’t.
Subsidising fossil fuels in a time of overwhelming evidence for the need to curtail carbon emissions is outrageous. Suggesting a political talking point might have a gotcha, with a request for correction, isn’t. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary, yourself. In which case: could you please provide that?
This is what’s annoying about the endemic “citation needed” pox on HN. This is not an encyclopaedia, it’s a discussion forum. If you have something to share: share it. If not, please don’t pretend other people have to do your homework.
At 2.15pm today, the UK was importing ~11% via it's euro interconnects (biggest 3.8% from the Netherlands). It of course varies depending on demand and weather, and sometimes we export back to the continent.
According to [1], the UK imported ~6% in total in 2018 :
It's not just imported energy that's the issue, it's imported goods. If continue to effectively outsource all our manufacturing elsewhere, and then count that as a win on CO2 emissions, we haven't really achieved anything.
2050 is too late. Make it 2025 at the most otherwise no one in power now will have to deal with it, and it's right now that we need to start making big changes.
Brits' environmental footprints are less than 3% of the global total—and declining. Three percent is the upper bound of how much the UK can reduce emissions itself. Reducing 90% of UK emissions by 2050 will cost roughly $5 trillion. But this barely makes a dent in the current global emissions trajectory.
Because of diminishing returns, it is very hard to imagine reducing UK emissions to zero. This would mean replacing every last lightbulb with LEDs powered by zero carbon energy and having everyone fly in electric planes. It is much easier to conceive of an UK scientists or engineers improving technology, say, carbon capture technology so that the diffuse benefits reduce global emissions by >3%.
I don't know where you got the 3% from but isn't UK population just 0.8% of the global total and therefore, per capita, it should be reduced significantly?
Since global warming is global, perhaps it would make sense to invest those trillions offshore in the countries where the impact per dollar would be higher.
Every nation needs to hit net zero. No ifs. No exceptions. The UK Chancellor's knee-jerk estimate is a quarter of yours. Even that was quickly called ridiculously high by the chair of government's own committee on climate that spent a couple of years drafting the plan.
It's going to be far easier to persuade reluctant nations, perhaps via sanctions, once much of the world is progressing or already there. Hoping for a magical future technological deus ex machina is as convincing as it normally is in novels. CCS has yet to be shown to have any viability at scale, yet may very well be needed as well to achieve net negative.
Fortunately the sensible plan put forward last month is far more than LED light bulbs, which are mostly LED already.
49 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 97.5 ms ] threadThe most relevant question is: What are they going to do in the next 1-2 years to make the first steps? That's far more relevant than any long-term goal.
This commitment is not worth the paper it's printed on, sadly.
30 years is not a long time for such a comprehensive change and it is sensible and needed to have plans and objectives over such timescale.
I don't understand the point of trying to create an argument on this. It's quite obvious that this comes along with actions over 1, 2 years and beyond from now. And we see that happening every day.
If people think that the goal is achievable within 5 years they do not live in the real world.
Just saying "we'll do it within 30 years" is easy, saying "and here's our year-by-year plan" is a lot harder. If there's not a year-by-year plan, when 30 years is up there's no one left to take the blame if we fail.
30 years is an absolute eternity.
Net zero emissions over the whole of the UK is a very profound change and I am not even sure that the technologies exist today to make it happen sustainably or at all.
I think many people really do not realise how profound and far reaching that is, bearing in mind that the aim is not to destroy the country's fabric and economy in the process.
https://www.theccc.org.uk
The 2050 net zero report, was published 6 weeks back:
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contr...
Which led to the Chancellor saying pft, too expensive last month, and Theresa "committing" to it this month. Though she immediately backed away from simply adopting the report and muttered something about carbon offsets (avoiding the issue).
Tories are currently looking at quadrupling the tax on storage batteries, having just about destroyed home solar.
Climate change is to UK PMs what Israel/Palestine is to US Presidents: everyone has a wonderful and magical plan to solve it, touted at election time, which will be completely ignored for their entire time in charge, until it pops out again as their "attempted legacy" once they become lame-ducks with no weight whatsoever.
Except Gordon's fuel escalator, which was progressing nicely until it started working. Once there were truck drivers organising go-slows and demos at refineries they ran away from it. Fuel was down around 90p a litre back then IIRC. It did seem to be making the roads a bit quieter...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/uks-bigg...
* On the one hand, supposedly one of the best users of clean energy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649). Side question: where does it all come from? The UK doesn't have a lot of sunshine, nor do I see a lot of wind farms compared to other EU countries. Maybe north and around the coast? Wind seems likely given all the news about record wind output when speeds pick up. Wikipedia's number for zero-carbon production seem quite different than BBC's though.
* Government makes a vague declaration for the distant future, but Chancellor says we can't afford to do it.
* UK criticized for coal subsidies and lack of transparency (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-s...)
Something like 20% of UK energy is now wind, mainly offshore. There's about 20GW capacity, with 5GW more planned or being built. Many of those are Danish owned or E.On. This is happening despite the government not because of. They've effectively made onshore wind impossible now, hence all the offshore.
Solar is about 5% of the total. Nuclear about 20%.
We already had a 2008 Act committing to 80% reduction by 2050, all Theresa has done is add the rest.
Coal progress looks great but feels contradictory with the New Scientist link. Not a lot of people talking about the large gas dependency...
Biomass seems to get included whenever a piece, or Downing Street press release, wants to tout UK generation at over 50% renewable. Separate when it wants to point out that our biomass sources aren't ideal, or the real breakdown of progress. :)
This is a rather nice page that shows the decline of coal in recent years, how long since last used, with real time updates: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...
Drax capacity is 2/3 biomass, 1/3 coal, but coal now seems to be used as generation of last resort to meet demand when other sources can't. Not sure how or why the subsidies are paid. Maybe some is to keep plants run ready but idle - but that's a complete guess, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find it's just free money for no good reason. I do know Drax got a subsidy to convert that last third to biomass when the total coal phase out comes...
It's all rather embarrassing for the UK. There is clear creative accounting. Progress since the coalition in 2010 has been more via (reluctantly) abiding EU targets and industry building renewables for simple economics than UK policy. The cross-party committees on climate change have been on the ball but that's not policy. Government tries to take full credit for all of course, but in truth is holding progress back.
https://esenergyvis.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/number_of_tu...
The areas of Scotland that have no windfarms look like the various national parks and/or particularly scenic areas. Having said that, I was quite surprised to see this windfarm from a nearby mountain:
https://sse.com/whatwedo/ourprojectsandassets/renewables/Str...
At 600m its no wonder it is described as "one of their windiest sites" - I suspect you probably can't even see that windfarm from a public road.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-...
For "live" hourly data : http://gridwatch.co.uk/
For what it's worth, wind tends to be heavily concentrated in (windy!) areas (or off-shore), so if you don't frequent them you may not notice.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
This will obviously change as conditions change!
The issue is that 40% of electricity on the grid (and 57% of the electricity generated in the country) comes from gas at the time I'm writing this.
For Scotland at least the stats are:
- Onshore wind 7.8GW
- Hydro 1.655GW
- Offshore wind 0.623GW
- Solar PV 0.344GW
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Scotland (referencing https://www.scottishrenewables.com/forums/renewables-in-numb... )
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United... it isn't quite as clear for the UK as a whole but is probably a similar breakdown.
So, this is great - provided we don't simply pass the buck (like by sending all of our plastics to Asia).
Edit: Provide citations [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259 [2] https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-mb10... (11.8% imported)
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/where-do-british-imports-come-from...
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Technically, the burden is on the parent to explain themselves, but that's always true and readers are capable of assessing the comment and its (lack of) evidence without a content-free two-word demand from you.
See Rob Aley's comment above for a better approach.
Subsidising fossil fuels in a time of overwhelming evidence for the need to curtail carbon emissions is outrageous. Suggesting a political talking point might have a gotcha, with a request for correction, isn’t. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary, yourself. In which case: could you please provide that?
This is what’s annoying about the endemic “citation needed” pox on HN. This is not an encyclopaedia, it’s a discussion forum. If you have something to share: share it. If not, please don’t pretend other people have to do your homework.
According to [1], the UK imported ~6% in total in 2018 :
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-generati...
Because of diminishing returns, it is very hard to imagine reducing UK emissions to zero. This would mean replacing every last lightbulb with LEDs powered by zero carbon energy and having everyone fly in electric planes. It is much easier to conceive of an UK scientists or engineers improving technology, say, carbon capture technology so that the diffuse benefits reduce global emissions by >3%.
Since global warming is global, perhaps it would make sense to invest those trillions offshore in the countries where the impact per dollar would be higher.
It's going to be far easier to persuade reluctant nations, perhaps via sanctions, once much of the world is progressing or already there. Hoping for a magical future technological deus ex machina is as convincing as it normally is in novels. CCS has yet to be shown to have any viability at scale, yet may very well be needed as well to achieve net negative.
Fortunately the sensible plan put forward last month is far more than LED light bulbs, which are mostly LED already.