# Britain adopts 2050 net zero emissions target



## MeeTooTeeTwo (Jun 28, 2019)

https://news.yahoo.com/britain-adop...JQngmGZYtwcxXnwArXHwWMsavXQ2rnX-b4QmMSU3k5Tiu

Well they'd better get their skates on and find a replacement for Metformin


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 1, 2019)

That’s what you might call kicking the problem into the long grass. 2050 is well beyond the tipping point. And it’s a good job Scotland produces most of its electricity from renewables, and sells excess south of the border, otherwise the current overall figures for the UK would be pitiful.

The Tories have reduced grants and sell back  schemes for fitting solar panels, they have reduced the grants on electric cars, and encourage fracking. Shows their attitude to being “green”. And it’s about time someone got around to taxing airline fuel at the same rate as they tax petrol. That’s a win win.


----------



## Docb (Jul 1, 2019)

The trouble with renewables is that given one windmill,  you could not build another using only the power from the one you had.  Global warming is real and needs attention but leaving solutions in the hands of the media, promises of polititians and desires of children will never produce any answers.  Nor will cutting your emissions by shifting poluting processes to some where else.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 1, 2019)

That’s a bit gloomy Docb. So who does produce the answers? I agree, the promises of politicians are just smoke, but those children become voters very quickly. Car manufacturers have responded very quickly. But it takes two to tango. The government could ban petrol and diesel cars from 2025. That would show proper commitment.


----------



## Docb (Jul 1, 2019)

Lets hope that children don't get into deciding how to treat disease, that could be fun.  Banning the use of carbon based fuels in vehicles sounds good what about the carbon dioxide produced whilst making the batteries and shifting them round the world in big diesel guzzling boats? Big reasons why the automotive industry like electric cars are that they have limited life so lots more will have to be made and that goverments will fall over themselves to give them money to build new factories (lots of carbon produced there).  Heavy vehicles are a big polluter.  Ever wondered why nobody talks about electric lorries?  One of them is that you need them to cart the electric cars about.

Yes my prognosis is a bit gloomy.  The answers could come if we had altruistic systems and institutions for deciding things, but we don't. Decisions are made by vested interests.  What will happen is that the world will adapt to higher temperatures and things will happen, like famine and disease, which will result in populations declining to maintain balance.  

Cheery sod aren't I.


----------



## ypauly (Jul 1, 2019)

The UK alone will achieve nothing, these targets are pointless unless the whole world adopts them.


----------



## Bronco Billy (Jul 1, 2019)

Until the US, China and India join the party, we may as well not bother taxing our citizens to the hilt, making them unemployed or making ourselves less competitive. That’s if you believe climate change is man-made anyway.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 2, 2019)

We will make folk unemployed and make ourselves less competitive with Brexit anyway.

And anyone who doesn’t believe that the current climate change is man made is ignoring most of the scientists on the planet. And probably believes that microplastics in the marine food chain come from plastic asteroids that fell to Earth when the planet was young.


----------



## ypauly (Jul 2, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> We will make folk unemployed and make ourselves less competitive with Brexit anyway.
> 
> And anyone who doesn’t believe that the current climate change is man made is ignoring most of the scientists on the planet. And probably believes that microplastics in the marine food chain come from plastic asteroids that fell to Earth when the planet was young.


According to the scientists 96% of greenhouse gasses are from natural sources such as volcanoes and animals. That said we should be taking care of the planet whether it is or isn't.


----------



## Docb (Jul 2, 2019)

It is not fanciful to relate increases in global temperature to the activity of human kind and its desire for instant energy.  The evidence for that is pretty good.  What are a little fanciful are the predictions of the consequences.  They range from no effect through to Armageddon.  To my mind, there will be changes but the biosphere will react and adapt to them and man would be better off reacting and adapting as well.  Armageddon is as likely as no effect at all.   

One thing for sure is that the effects of human kinds shennanegans are puny when compared with the cosmic forces that created the planet and that will eventually destroy it.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 2, 2019)

ypauly said:


> According to the scientists 96% of greenhouse gasses are from natural sources such as volcanoes and animals. That said we should be taking care of the planet whether it is or isn't.


Which scientists say that, then?


----------



## ypauly (Jul 2, 2019)

Ipcc


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 2, 2019)

No they didn’t. Why are they bothering to report on mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Hardly worth it if it were mostly natural. I’ve read their current reports, unspun.


----------



## ypauly (Jul 2, 2019)

You may be correct I may have read it wrong as it has been a while but I remember something in the order of 750 gigatonnes of Co2 in the annual cycle of which man is responsible for 29 gigatonnes.

It isn't the percentage that matters it is earths ability to deal with the increase with less trees e.t.c


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 3, 2019)

I can’t see how anyone can look at the weekly news reports of extreme climate events (record temperatures, record flooding, record storm intensities, receding sea ice etc etc) and not think that the climate is not changing. Events which used to only happen once in a generation are now being seen every other year, and at ever growing extremes. 

The changes in the atmospheric composition are well documented. 

I think (despite the best efforts of the vested interests) the carefully curated disinformation and pseudo-science intended to persuade people that they hold no individual and corporate responsibility is looking increasingly silly.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jul 3, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> And anyone who doesn’t believe that the current climate change is man made is ignoring most of the scientists on the planet.


They're all in the pocket of George Soros, and some of them are recalcitrant when it comes to sharing their data with "independent investigators".

j/k, but all denialism looks like the same kind of kookiness at some level.  

I like the plastic asteroids!


----------



## ypauly (Jul 3, 2019)

Very true, it 


everydayupsanddowns said:


> I can’t see how anyone can look at the weekly news reports of extreme climate events (record temperatures, record flooding, record storm intensities, receding sea ice etc etc) and not think that the climate is not changing. Events which used to only happen once in a generation are now being seen every other year, and at ever growing extremes.
> 
> The changes in the atmospheric composition are well documented.
> 
> I think (despite the best efforts of the vested interests) the carefully curated disinformation and pseudo-science intended to persuade people that they hold no individual and corporate responsibility is looking increasingly silly.


Is the rate of the change that is the issue, its hard to see what little britain can do alone without serious economic damage from becoming uncompetitive


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 3, 2019)

I see what you did there @Eddy Edson


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 3, 2019)

ypauly said:


> Very true, it
> 
> Is the rate of the change that is the issue, its hard to see what little britain can do alone without serious economic damage from becoming uncompetitive



Conversely one could consider it a significant opportunity. To get one step ahead of the game, and to do what we’ve often excelled at as a country - to innovate and create solutions to problems - except that this time we could capitalise on them. Everyone will need to head in this direction sooner or later, and when they do they will need the tech engineering and solutions to the challenges it involves.


----------



## Docb (Jul 4, 2019)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Conversely one could consider it a significant opportunity. To get one step ahead of the game, and to do what we’ve often excelled at as a country - to innovate and create solutions to problems - except that this time we could capitalise on them. Everyone will need to head in this direction sooner or later, and when they do they will need the tech engineering and solutions to the challenges it involves.



Unfortunately the problems are all the result of chemistry and tech enginerring can't do much about the laws of thermodynamics.  Don't hold your breath when it comes to tech solutions.

Also, are these extreme events more common or more reported.  Thats not a climate change denier point, but it is a point about being curious about the consequences.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jul 4, 2019)

Docb said:


> Unfortunately the problems are all the result of chemistry and tech enginerring can't do much about the laws of thermodynamics.  Don't hold your breath when it comes to tech solutions.



And yet technology moves on, and things which would have seemed utterly impossible 20, 30, 50 years ago are now in our hands. 

Star Trek tricorders came and went as the clamshell phone fell out of favour and we opted instead for all the knowledge on earth and most of the music ever produced, a camera, darkroom and TV editing suite on a small wireless oblong in most people’s pockets.


----------



## Docb (Jul 4, 2019)

Ah, everdayetc, your example illustrates very well why technology will not solve climate change problems.  Being able to store that stuff on your mobile phone - something technology is very good at - does nothing for enabling you to travel at will to see your granny without generating CO2.  As I say, its all down to the chemistry, and technology will help you to look at it, monitor it, measure it ,spreadsheet it, and fuss about it, but it won't change the simple fact to go and see your granny at will require a finite amount of energy and somewhere along the line you will be able to trace that to burning a hydrocarbon.  Forget fuel cells, forget hydrogen, forget renewables, you can sort out the technological bits but they are all defeated in the end by the chemistry.   

You could of course ignore your granny and only eat what you can lurking find within walking distance from your shelter.  Last lot who did that got hit by an ice age.


----------



## KARNAK (Jul 4, 2019)

Hi @Docb my Granny is sat on my lap, mind you she has been dead for 42 years, now that's what they call a green house gas.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 5, 2019)

The day after the 9/11 attacks, all flights in the US were grounded.

For a lot of folk in the US, for the first time in their lives, they saw a clear blue sky.


----------

