So tracing has been rubbish but apart from that, the other claims were all wrong.
Yes youâre right obviously, but to me that doesnât seem ambitious. To my mind an ambitious government should be making serious in roads into removing the need or even having and mining coal at all. It just shouldnât be on the table unless and this is a big unless, the government wants to secure the short term future of any existing coal fired power stations in the UK. And I do mean short term but even that has a big backwards thinking to it. Opening a new mine for the short term makes zero sense.
Basically that investment should be elsewhere and I donât think thereâs a valid argument to say that they are doing it for the benefit of that local community. That certainly is something but letâs be honest when we say that Conservative governments, particularly this one donât think that way.
This !
The 2050 promises are simply green washing for most nations, making it someone elseâs problem. For change to be occurring today targets need to be set for 2025, 2030 and 2040.
Otherwise itâs like my new year resolution to go to the gym. I might even pay for membership. But ultimately end in failure.
I tend to think of the Honest Government Ads. They target Australia but equally apply to the UK, US and others.ln terms of self congratulatory patting on back for doing fuck all, supporting fossil fuel industries and subsidising technologies that provide the illusion of being green.
Itâs difficult to measure the UK or many other countries because of what amounts to loop holes, accountancy tricks, watered down targets and changing priorities of governments. What I would say for the promises is show me the policies, that back up these promises. How do they fit with other polices that do the exact opposite?
For the UK how does it fit in with policies around coal mines and increased North Sea gas, building more roads, and Heathrow terminals. How does it fit in with cuts in funding to green initiatives?
There is a lack of a coherent strategy beyond what amounts to PR. Again this applies to most countries but I would struggle to call the UK a leader.
Having said that I would highlight Scotland as a great example for renewable energy. But I would largely attribute this to Holyrood rather than Westminster.
Far far more needs to be done. As a service/knowledge based economy the UK could be world leaders. But I struggle to see how they are any better than the rest (beyond having lots of empty promises)
2 Likes
Governmentâs Net Zero Strategy is a major step forward, CCC says
The UK Governmentâs new Net Zero Strategy sets out for the first time how the Government intends to halve UK emissions in little over a decade, and to eliminate them by 2050. It is an achievable, affordable plan that will bring jobs, investment and wider benefits to the UK. It is also a strong example to bring to the COP26 summit of how to follow climate change targets with action.
Thatâs the conclusion of a new independent assessment of the Net Zero Strategy published today by the Climate Change Committee (CCC). Chairman, Lord Deben, said:
âThe Net Zero Strategy is a genuine step forward. The UK was the first major industrialised nation to set Net Zero into law â now we have policy plans to get us there. As we welcome world leaders to COP26 in Glasgow, that is an important statement.
âUntil now, only the Climate Change Committee had offered a path to Net Zero. Now we have the Governmentâs own plan for meeting the UKâs emissions targets. Ministers have made the big decisions â to decarbonise the power sector by 2035, to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles, to back heat pumps for homes. And they have proposed policies to do it. I applaud their ambition. Now they must deliver these goals and fill in the remaining gaps in funding and implementation. My Committee will hold their feet to the fire, as we are required to under the Climate Change Act. This is the UKâs climate governance working as it should.â
The plans in the Net Zero Strategy bring together announcements from various sectoral decarbonisation strategies from the last year and augment them with new commitments in a range of areas. They are broadly aligned to those set out by the Climate Change Committee in its advice to Government on the Sixth Carbon Budget in December 2020.
- Overall, the Strategyâs ambitions align to the UKâs emissions targets of Net Zero by 2050 and a 78% reduction from 1990 to 2035 (63% relative to 2019).
- At its core is an ambition for a fully decarbonised power sector by 2035, with electrification, supported by low-carbon hydrogen, leading to a phase-out of fossil fuels from surface transport, home heating and much of industry beginning without delay.
- The Government has proposed deployment levels of low-carbon options (e.g. offshore wind, low-carbon hydrogen production, carbon capture, electric cars, heat pumps, energy efficiency, tree planting) across the economy for the next 15 years that are similar to the Committeeâs proposals and together would deliver the carbon budgets.
- The Government presents credible proposals for driving delivery and scaling up private investment in almost every area of the economy. These include contract auctions for renewable power, a zero-emission vehicle mandate, an obligation on boiler manufacturers to grow the heat pump market, grants and contracts for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) and hydrogen use.
- There are also steps forward on the cross-cutting challenges of delivering a Net Zero nation, including strong proposals on innovation and engaging business, on governance, local delivery and on skills.
The Strategy is not the end of the road, however. There are some strategic gaps, as well as uncertainties over how the Governmentâs ambitions will be delivered in some sectors:
- Plans to tackle emissions from agriculture are still unclear. A credible strategy, led by Defra, and integrated with the challenges for how we use our land and our soil, is needed.
- While the CCC welcomes the Governmentâs clear backing for a major scale-up of the heat pump market, plans to deliver this across the UK housing stock remain early stage. The commitment to remove price distortions that currently favour gas over electricity is a necessary step that cannot be delayed, while quick decisions will be needed following the new consultation for a âmarket-based mechanismâ. Currently vague plans must be quickly pinned down for improving home energy efficiency for the 60% of UK households that are owner-occupiers but not in fuel poverty.
- The Strategy makes positive statements that recognise the need for public engagement, but insufficient action is currently proposed. The CCC will provide further advice on this.
- There is less emphasis on reducing demand for high carbon activities than in the CCCâs scenarios. The Government does not include an explicit ambition on diet change, or reductions in the growth of aviation, and policies for managing travel demand have not been developed to match the funding that has been committed. These remain valuable options with major co-benefits and can help manage delivery risks around a techno-centric approach. They must be explored further with a view to early action.
- Strengthened focus on Net Zero across Government does not yet constitute a full âNet Zero testâ which the CCC proposed this summer. The risk remains of policy or planning decisions being made that are incompatible with a Net Zero UK and could blow the Net Zero Strategy off course.
- The Treasury Net Zero Review clearly endorsed the case for Net Zero and strengthened understanding of many of the major policy challenges. However, these were not followed through into decisions and it remains unclear how the Treasury will use the tax system to support the transition to Net Zero, or how it will fill the fiscal gap implied by falling fuel duties.
These gaps should now be addressed and the strong proposals in the Net Zero Strategy must move through consultation and policy development into implementation as quickly as possible. The CCC will monitor progress on delivery closely and report its findings in its annual report to Parliament next summer.
A government committee, chaired by a Tory Lord, says the government strategy is good. Well thatâs a winning argument there
What if the Russians turn the gas off? What if China declares war? What if Israel nukes Iran? What if aliens invade?
Maybe we should focus on what we know is actually happening. Climate breakdown in our lifetime, accelerated by your fucking huge coal mines
4 Likes
As @Arminius has already posted, some long grass targets and vague promises weâre probably unlikely to ever meet. Youâre happy enough with this to give the Government a big tick. Iâm not.
The elephants in the room are a number of climate wrecking projects the government are trying to push through over the next five to ten years including the Cambo Oil Field; The new mega coal mine at Whitehaven; exploiting oil deposits in Surrey; Heathrow.
You simply cannot have these projects and be on track for net zero. All these projects will lock high carbon emissions for decades.
This is a government with a track record of making big pledges with no clue how to meet them, and then flapping around trying to creative account their way around it.
2 Likes
Wish they were my fucking huge coal mines. We have 2 choices, use less energy (HA) or have less people using it in the first world. The idea that renewables can provide for the current population is nonsense.
Which is why we are discussing targets for the future
Thanks Captain Obvious
Youâre welcome, youâll remember Iâve been banging on about this for years. Less people. In the first world before I get the usual ist insult.
How can a question be factually incorrect? 
If it gets its facts wrong.
Birth rates are already falling in the first world, as well as a lot of what weâd call the developing world. There is a looming demographic timebomb in the west as we head towards less that two children per couple.
Population reduction is not the answer, as it already happening and it not going to solve the problem.
We need to use less energy, be far more efficient in the energy we do use, and take what we do need from renewables. Thatâs always been the only solution to this problem.
2 Likes
Iâm really struggling to see how we achieve that to be honest given that as we modernise our energy needs continually increase. I dont see that changing even if Europe, the UK the US etc. level off on their energy consumption there will always be other nations simply playing catch up.
I just cant shake the feeling that we need some technological breakthrough combined with some kind of global concerted effort. Doing it as individual nations will not solve anything. It needs a massive combined effort nt only to reduce emissions but also address the energy requirements going forward.
That aside Iâm looking forward to see how recent posts age over the next few months.
Donât worry, ITER will be showing the way to unlimited energy in 40 years. As itâs always been. We need Dr Octopus.
Yes it absolutely is and to argue otherwise is frankly crazy. Less people consume less but weâve been here before. Now Iâve specified 1st world as you did make a valid point. Take half the cars off the road. half the flights, half the air-con, half the heating by having half the people. But the answer isnât that itâs changing peopleâs behaviour? The behaviour that consumes more and more? OK.
OK. Letâs reduce the population in the UK.
How do we get a population of 30-40m in the ten years we have got to seriously reduce CO2.
Are we talking bolt guns? Iâd just be interesting in knowing.
It is not because the vast majority of emissions are generated by the least amount of people.
Who said 10 years? Wasnât me. Iâm thinking long term, people should have less children. Before you say they are, the government could speed this process up but then Iâll be accused of picking on the poor. Bolt guns are for rapists, murderers and cunts who throw rubbish out of car windows. And who attack police officersâŚâŚ