France Unveils Plan To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 50 Percent By 2030 (france24.com) 107
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Agence France-Presse: The French government unveiled a plan on Monday to accelerate cuts to its greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a reduction of 50 percent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. Unveiled by Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne, the roadmap includes detailed figures for reductions for individual sectors of the economy, ranging from the transport industry to households. The objectives -- from speeding up the transition to electric cars or switching freight from road to rivers -- are aimed at bringing France's ambitions for slashing carbon pollution into line with the EU's target for 2030.
France has so far cut its emissions by 25 percent compared with 1990 levels, requiring major fresh efforts if it is to hit the new 50-percent target. "We're asking for a bit from the smallest (polluters) and a lot from the biggest," an aide to Borne told reporters, meaning around half of efforts would be for companies, a quarter for households and a quarter for local administrations. "Among other developed countries, the United Kingdom has the most ambitious short-term goals of any major economy, with an objective of 2030 emissions being 68 percent below 1990 levels," notes AFP. "The United States has committed to cut greenhouse gases 50-52 percent by 2030 below 2005 levels, while Germany has set a 65 percent reduction target compared to 1990."
France has so far cut its emissions by 25 percent compared with 1990 levels, requiring major fresh efforts if it is to hit the new 50-percent target. "We're asking for a bit from the smallest (polluters) and a lot from the biggest," an aide to Borne told reporters, meaning around half of efforts would be for companies, a quarter for households and a quarter for local administrations. "Among other developed countries, the United Kingdom has the most ambitious short-term goals of any major economy, with an objective of 2030 emissions being 68 percent below 1990 levels," notes AFP. "The United States has committed to cut greenhouse gases 50-52 percent by 2030 below 2005 levels, while Germany has set a 65 percent reduction target compared to 1990."
France taking the lead again (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:France taking the lead again (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But they are virtually useless for any actual assessment, unless you're happy to penalize countries purely for their size. Under ideal conditions, if everyone did their fair part, the impact would scale linearily with population size. China is always going to have a larger absolute impact than Luxembourg; there's no added value in that number.
Basically the only useful measure* is output per captia as a way to compare how well different souvereign jurisdictions are doing in minimizing their emissions.
*It
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It makes sense to cut emissions where it's easiest to do so. It might be cheaper to remove 1t of CO2 in Palau compared to the USA. Or it might be the opposite. You don't know.
That's why the only fair solution to the greenhouse gas emission problem is the following:
1. You establish a world-wide cap, as in the number of tons of CO2 that can be emitted in a given year. Nothing stops that number from being revised with time as science evolves, but we have to start with something.
2. You divide that cap per inhab
Re: (Score:3)
That's nice in theory but how do we enforce this on any nation?
Right now we have Russia firing artillery into Ukraine. Russia has simply decided to no longer participate in most any international agreements. Ukraine has a far bigger issue than CO2 emissions. Any nation on either side of this fight is going to be looking for ways to keep the lights on with Russia threatening global energy supplies, because large amounts of fossil fuels, uranium, and shipping of commodities in general, are within artillery
Re: (Score:3)
That's nice in theory but how do we enforce this on any nation?
Good question.
There is no perfect solution, but the best start would be to get a critical mass of countries to join a pact. Those countries would trade emissions credits.
They could also tax imports coming from countries outside the pact, based on the per capita emissions of those countries.
The big problem of course is to convince high emissions countries with a lot of people with poor understanding of the situation (lots of deniers) like the USA to be part of the pact. But if you can get say, 60% of the wor
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, what seems more likely to happen is that polluting countries like Canada get to buy credits from developing nations.
You are failing to look long term.
Once in place this cap-n-trade policy creates an economic incentive to build more nuclear power plants. Canada has an established nuclear power industry, few other nations do. Create a means by which one nation can tax another by beating them to how many nuclear power plants they can build and nations with an established nuclear power industry will be building nuclear power plants at a rate even greater than the peak seen in the 1970s and 1980s.
There was a time in the USA
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, what seems more likely to happen is that polluting countries like Canada get to buy credits from developing nations.
You are failing to look long term.
On the contrary. I just disagree with you on the likely outcomes. You are welcome to criticize my ideas, but it's not as if you suggested any better alternative.
Once in place this cap-n-trade policy creates an economic incentive to build more nuclear power plants.
Not only that, but also hydro, solar, wind, and reduce energy waste.
Even converting from coal to gas would be a good start in many places.
Canada has an established nuclear power industry, few other nations do. Create a means by which one nation can tax another by beating them to how many nuclear power plants they can build and nations with an established nuclear power industry will be building nuclear power plants at a rate even greater than the peak seen in the 1970s and 1980s.
The faster the CO2 emissions get reduced, the better it is. But I doubt countries like Canada will be able to act fast.
No matter how many nuclear plants Canada can come with, it's not going to tax India. At best,
Re: (Score:2)
You are welcome to criticize my ideas, but it's not as if you suggested any better alternative.
I just explained how your idea is almost certainly going to be counterproductive, so the better alternative is to not do that.
Your logic sounds like the stereotypical politician, "Something must be done, this is something therefore it must be done!"
The faster the CO2 emissions get reduced, the better it is.
Agreed.
But I doubt countries like Canada will be able to act fast.
It doesn't matter if countries like Canada can act fast, only that it is faster than the nations in relative poverty. Tax Canada for their CO2 emissions to give money to a nation with lower CO2 emissions then what is going to happen with that money? The
Re: (Score:2)
You are welcome to criticize my ideas, but it's not as if you suggested any better alternative.
I just explained how your idea is almost certainly going to be counterproductive, so the better alternative is to not do that.
Your logic sounds like the stereotypical politician, "Something must be done, this is something therefore it must be done!"
I disagree that your message is an explanation on why my idea is counterproductive.
Not doing anything means CO2 emissions are likely to continue to rise world-wide, despite the effort of some countries like France. You haven't suggested any plan to reduce emissions. And you certainty haven't explain why would emissions be higher with my plan than without it.
You are more like "your solution is not perfect therefore let's do nothing!".
It doesn't matter if countries like Canada can act fast, only that it is faster than the nations in relative poverty.
I disagree. There is no such thing as being stuck in poverty. Just because
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't suggested any plan to reduce emissions.
If you haven't seen suggestions for reducing CO2 emissions then you must be new here, I've posted suggestions before as have many others. We need nuclear fission, hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, synthesized fuels, and to ease over the transition we need more natural gas. None of this requires cap-n-trade to happen. It only requires politicians that are taking the problem seriously. I can agree that if we make CO2 emissions expensive enough then they will have to get serious. The problem is getting the
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't suggested any plan to reduce emissions.
If you haven't seen suggestions for reducing CO2 emissions then you must be new here, I've posted suggestions before as have many others. We need nuclear fission, hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, synthesized fuels, and to ease over the transition we need more natural gas. None of this requires cap-n-trade to happen.
Why would a power utility shut down a coal plant if emitting CO2 is free?
Either there is a price on carbon (cap-n-trade or carbon tax, either can work), or you have central planning (by politicians). I don't trust politicians to pick winners and losers to reduce emissions.
We have all the technologies you listed, and yet, carbon emissions are going up.
And I haven't read all your previous posts all over the internet and I won't, I wouldn't even know where to find them.
It only requires politicians that are taking the problem seriously. I can agree that if we make CO2 emissions expensive enough then they will have to get serious. The problem is getting the nations that would be paying for these carbon credits to agree to pay them. Don't they have a vote in this process? I'm sure they do. It would be much easier to convince them to agree to some kind of internal cap-n-trade, something that won't suck out their wealth for the benefit of some other nations.
An internal cap and trade or carbon tax w
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a power utility shut down a coal plant if emitting CO2 is free?
Because coal costs money, therefore CO2 emissions are not free.
Either there is a price on carbon (cap-n-trade or carbon tax, either can work), or you have central planning (by politicians). I don't trust politicians to pick winners and losers to reduce emissions.
That looks like a false dilemma to me because there must be more than those options. I don't trust politicians to pick winners and losers either but your idea is still putting the politicians in the position of picking those winners and losers. It will take politicians to agree to your idea, and then these same politicians to agree on how CO2 is measured, and the politicians to enforce the taxes.
We have all the technologies you listed, and yet, carbon emissions are going up.
Yes, we have all those technologies. What we do
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a power utility shut down a coal plant if emitting CO2 is free?
Because coal costs money, therefore CO2 emissions are not free.
Relying on the price of coal to rise, without taking into account the externalties (such as the cost of CO2 emissions) is a recipe for disaster. Or at least way too much CO2 being emitted forever.
Coal is cheap. If you can produce electricity from coal at 5c/kWh or from solar at 5.1c/kWh, utility companies are going to chose coal. Unless politicians regulate, but more on that later.
That looks like a false dilemma to me because there must be more than those options. I don't trust politicians to pick winners and losers either but your idea is still putting the politicians in the position of picking those winners and losers. It will take politicians to agree to your idea, and then these same politicians to agree on how CO2 is measured, and the politicians to enforce the taxes.
That's not picking winners and losers.
Politicians would only set the word-wide cap on emissions.
How CO2 is measured is not reall
Re: (Score:2)
With your suggestion, politicians need to decide whether coal plants should continue to run or be banned.
With your plan politicians would decide whether coal plants need to close or not also. The make this decision by implementing the tax or not. They know what level of taxes would force utilities to close their coal plants. But that's not the real problem because these same politicians are making policies on how to regulate hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, solar panels, and so on. These policies on where and how these things are built impact costs just as much as a carbon tax on coal. Democrat p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:France taking the lead again (Score:5, Informative)
Per capita emissions are a better metric. China has a lot of people.
Excluding small island nations and the like:
UAE 21.6t ... ...
Canada 16.9t
Australia 16.9t
United States 15.7t
South Korea 13.2t
Russia 12.3t
China 7.7t
France+Monaco 5.2t
So right now the average Chinese person emits about half what the average North American does.
The issue here is that we can't reasonably expect developing nations like China to give up that development in the name of climate change. Cumulatively, they have only emitted about half what the US has, for example. So what we need to do is demonstrate that we can have a really high standard of living without massive emissions, and share the technology needed to make that happen.
Currently China has accepted that, and is expected to peak well below where we did. It's still too high. We also need to make sure India and Brazil go down the same route to a first-world lifestyle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see precisely one problem with per-capita metrics:
If we're not careful, Pollution City, inc. can hide their factories in populous nations.
Not only can they hide their own scum and villainy, they steal brownie points from the population.
But like I said, we just need to be careful. And vigilant.
Re: (Score:2)
Not mentioning that all international freight and planes are unaccounted for as no country want to add it to their carbon emissions. So they are just not counted...
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem to be quite easy and reasonably fair to split the emissions in half between the departure and arrival country.
Or even simpler, to count the emissions in the country where the kerosene was purchased.
Re: (Score:2)
It would. They don't.
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Per capita emissions are a better metric.
No their not. We have had this discussion and it has been long decided that per capital emissions in this case are meaningless. Over all emissions are the problem, period. The environment doesn't care about bullshit made up numbers.
The only thing that per capita emissions are good for is so some Trolls can divert attention away from the real problem, China, and bash some other target country of their choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to tell the Chinese that because there are more of them, they don't get to live a Western lifestyle?
Re: (Score:1)
China is not "the real problem".
The real problem are idiots like you, and countries that "could" reduce CO2 pollution somewhat easily: but don't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you going to tell the Chinese that because there are more of them, they don't get to live a Western lifestyle?
China is not "the real problem".
Oh look, we managed to flush out two of the top Trolls in one post. Yes, China is "the real problem."
https://www.wri.org/insights/i... [wri.org]
Now that we have put that to rest. Nobody is telling any one that they can't have a better quality of life. All that is being said is they can't have a better quality of life in the same way previous generations did. An this is a fact.
The only person that might be telling people they can't have a better quality of life are people like you and your sock puppet up t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, we managed to flush out two of the top Trolls in one post. Yes, China is "the real problem."
No it is not. And calling me a troll is kind of funny.
Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, so I write it in bold: The real problem are idiots like you, and countries that "could" reduce CO2 pollution somewhat easily: but don't.
You could do something. Could have started doing something 30 years ago, like Germany, you could have dramatically reduced your and your Countries CO2 foot print, like Ge
Re: (Score:2)
snipped -- not read
Calling you a Troll, is my way of keeping the dialog civil. You are widely regarded as one of the worse posters here. You are constantly wrong about things you post and when it is pointed out a resort to attacks against the persons character. You rarely offer any from of response with out some ad hominem attack against the poster in question.
As for the quality of your posts, you are breath takingly ignorant on many of the things you claim to have knowledge on here. You will sometimes start a post
Re: (Score:2)
Calling you a Troll, is my way of keeping the dialog civil. You are widely regarded as one of the worse posters here.
My karma is at max.
As for the quality of your posts, you are breath takingly ignorant on many of the things you claim to have knowledge on here. :P
As I only post about stuff I know: up to you
Re: (Score:3)
My karma is at max.
If you say so, troll, if you say so...:)
Re: France taking the lead again (Score:2)
Over all emissions are the problem, period. The environment doesn't care about bullshit made up numbers.
The environment also doesnt care about made up geographical limitations called "countries". The only thing that matters is the overall worldwide émission. The only fair and effective way to decrease it is to assign a number of permitted emissions per capita corresponding to the overall amount we accept to emit.
Of course, the question is: do we want to be fair, even though it means impacts on our own lifestyle, or do we prefer to selfishly push an agenda where others have to male more efforts to c
Re: (Score:2)
Many years ago when the US was the leading polluter the only thing that matter to Trolls like sphere and AmiMoJo was that fact. The used it to bash US climate policies. Then this was well deserved.
But then the US emissions started dropping with China and India taking the lead. They could no longer bash the US with over all emissions so they switched to the "per capita" model. Since then India as rapidly reduced emissions.
A few years back there was a large debate on /. about the per capita use. It
Re: (Score:2)
It has not been "decided" (as if Slashdot could decide anything) that per capita emissions is useless as a metric. Since the overall CO2 emissions are the sum total of the individual emissions, it is very useful to know where those emissions are concentrated, since addressing those concentrations is likely to have a bigger bang for the buck.
Re: (Score:1)
It was decided, discussion over.
Per Capita for Domestic not Industrial (Score:2)
Similarly, I suspect the steel industry in China is vastly more polluting that the steel industry in North America or Europe per ton of steel p
Re: (Score:2)
They are already one of the cleanest countries in the world due to their nuclear baseload. If only the rest of the world followed their lead.
Yes, they have a real strategy around this. It would be interesting to really understand the French history around this, because I still remember when they sunk the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand because they wanted to keep blowing up islands in the pacific. It seems amazing that despite these events, they were able to maintain support for a nuclear power program. I met an older French couple many years ago who went out and protested against the French govt after they sunk the ship, and were deeply impacted
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenpeace is a fossil fuel group. They are funded by the fossil fuel industry to attack nuclear energy.
This is one of the reasons that many of the founders left Greenpeace and now denounce the group they formed. Greenpeace was founded to protest nuclear weapons, not nuclear energy. Most of the founders of Greenpeace are pro nuclear energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe France was able to get support for nuclear power but not nuclear weapons because they are two very different things. Do we get rid of nuclear medicine because some ignorant morons in Greenpeace claim there is a connection with nuclear weapons? It seems to me that outside of a handful of very unfortunate accidents in the early days of nuclear medicine that this is a technology that saved many lives. We learned from those mistakes and put in processes to make a repeat very unlikely. Likewise we had
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they have a real strategy around this. It would be interesting to really understand the French history around this, because I still remember when they sunk the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand because they wanted to keep blowing up islands in the pacific. It seems amazing that despite these events, they were able to maintain support for a nuclear power program.
As I remember, they started to seriously roll out nuclear after the oil crisis, and probably just didn't listen to the whiners too much because it was a national security issue. In 82 some guy even tried to blow up a reactor with an RPG (it didn't work) and obviously that didn't stop them (https://i.imgur.com/CEM60Xw.png)
The French are really pretty hardcore despite the undeserved reputation of being a bunch of pussies.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
France isn't even following their lead.
France will shut down 14 of the country's 58 nuclear reactors currently in operation by 2035. Plans to triple its wind power electricity output by 2030, and increase solar energy output fivefold in that period
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Otherwise you get a situation like Germany where they failed to deep decarbonize after spending 500 billion euros.
Well, the facts speak clearly against your stupid idea.
Re: France taking the lead again (Score:3)
The facts support his assertation: Germany failed to decarbonize its energy mix, after 500 billions spent on renewables alone.
Meanwhile, coherent countries like France, and even China if you care to look at patterns from last 20 years, invest in BOTH renewables and nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany hadn't expected to fully decarbonize by now, but they did get about 50% electricity from renewables last year which is among the highest in the world.
"reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 39% compared with 1990 but aims to reach a 65% reduction by 2030"
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland seem plenty coherent, and plan to close all of their reactors by 2030.
Re: (Score:2)
Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland seem plenty coherent, and plan to close all of their reactors by 2030.
A plan is just a plan until put in place. I've been watching the Battleship New Jersey YouTube channel where the host likes to dig up old plans of the battleship and compare that to what was actually done. Many of the plans were abandoned, and there were plenty of unauthorized alterations made that do not show in the plans. An example might be an office in a store room off to the side of crew quarters. This likely saved a lot of walking for some crew, and perhaps offered some privacy to get work done, b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not in the business of designing ships, but in my HVAC career I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a storage room, so you better plan for it to have pleenty of air even if it's called a storage room on the plans. (I came to that conclusion after I had to field complaints about a pri
Re: (Score:2)
Hey sure, those aging nuke plants nobody wants could probably be restarted if necessary. So what?
But the EU does seem to be moving nicely along towards renewables and most have no intention to build new nuclear. France probably won't either.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't.
Germany has reduced its CO2 output from electricity production by over 30%, households over 50% ...
You simply have no clue about the topic, but like to make loud argument.
Re: France taking the lead again (Score:2)
A fat guy going from 200kg to 150kg is still overweight. That's the situation of Germany after years of transitioning, and 500 billions spent.
This is the problem when your end goal is solely to communicate about xx% of renewables deployed, instead of the end goal being less CO2 emitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and an idiot making idiot comments is still an idiot.
So: how much did your country reduce CO2 emissions during the lat 30 years?
Oh, not even a noticeable fraction of Germany, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and an idiot making idiot comments is still an idiot.
On that, we do agree. You seem eager to prove your point every day on slashdot.
So: how much did your country reduce CO2 emissions during the lat 30 years?
That is the dumbest comment from you so far. My country actually emits 1/10th per kWh compared to Germany.
Take Sweden for instance: they emitted 48g CO2eq/kWh in 2000, and 45g CO2eq/kWh in 2020. This is only a 6% decrease.
On the other hand, Germany was emitting 499g CO2eq/kWh in 2000, and 386g CO2eq/kWh in 2020. This is a whooping 23% decrease (sources here [ourworldindata.org]). But they still emit 8-9 times more than Sweden. After spending 500 bil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only liar here is you, you perfectly well know that Germany has reduced its CO2 footprint by electricity production by over 30% - and households far over 50%, industry I do not know.
So up to you to stay an idiot and call others liars ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
France hasn't even been able to start up the Flamanville 3 EPR reactor which was set to go online in 2012. SMR's are many years into the future, and based on the track record the conventional plants will take 10-15 years to build if ever. The plants will require massive state subsidies and won't produce power at a competitive price. Half of France's nuke plants were offline this past winter. Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland plan to close all of their reactors by 2030.
Meanwhile Germany has do
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has also done well in lowering CO2 emissions. They did so in large part by switching from coal to natural gas. Germany also saw reductions from burning more natural gas than coal, a trend I expect to see reverse given the shortages of natural gas supplies in Europe. Out of desperation we are seeing old coal plants being reopened all across Europe, especially in Germany.
Lowering CO2 emissions is like someone trying to lose a lot of weight. Those first few pounds are easy since that's people losin
Re: (Score:2)
Haha UK (Score:2)
the United Kingdom has the most ambitious short-term goals of any major economy, with an objective of 2030 emissions being 68 percent below 1990 levels,
For those of you not in the UK, you need to put this in context - we currently have a lame duck government, with a PM and policy platform that nobody voted for, and far less than a majority will vote for in the coming election next year. They don't really care about any of this because they won't be the government that will actually have to achieve it. By putting out these big goals, they will then be able to claim (when the new government fails to meet their crazy goals) that they had a big plan to save us
Re: (Score:3)
At this stage different will be enough. Either Labour will do surprisingly well, or the Conservatives will be forced to rethink and change to get back in next time.
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot to mention we have higher taxes, probably the lowest levels of honesty and integrity in public office ever known and a Brexit that has barely been delivered (and still isn't fully completed in NI), even to the dislike of Brexiteers - never mind the remainers.
Even with all that, the largest opposition party (Labour) can't find a way to differentiate themselves without also shooting themselves in the foot. I suspect our next government might be lead by Labour, but will likely include a good number
Don't make me laugh (Score:2)
"Among other developed countries, the United Kingdom has the most ambitious short-term goals of any major economy"
A joke.
The UK needs £600 billions and 5 decades to fix waste-water alone.
There's no money for nothing, this will not happen either.
The Dutch will do 100% in 2030 (Score:1, Troll)
But they prefer to wreck their economy and food supply chain in order to be the first in Europe to meet all the climate goals.
The French have made sound and lucky choices (Score:2, Troll)
The French have made sound choices. Due to their lack of fossil fuels they were force to acknowledge that energy security was of critical importance in the 1970s and they invested in nuclear power and electrification. They also invested in closing the nuclear fuel cycle, not because it was cheap but because it provided continuity of supply through self sufficiency.
The investment in nuclear and electrification was a lucky choice because it has left them well placed in terms of the carbon intensity of their e
meanwhile in the United States... (Score:1)
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/20... [pv-magazine-usa.com]
Once again, proving the US GOP is nothing more than the paid off pu
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats proposed a half trillion dollars in additional corporate subsidies and it is the fault of the Republicans for trying to raise the debt ceiling?
Oh, right, we don't care that the corporate oligarchy gets to privatize profits and socialize losses if it pleases the gods of wind and sun.
Why is it important that we subsidize wind and solar energy? I thought wind and solar power reached a point that they are cheaper than coal and natural gas. No "greedy" corporation would pass up wind and solar power i
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats proposed a half trillion dollars in additional corporate subsidies and it is the fault of the Republicans for trying to raise the debt ceiling?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
The debt "ceiling" is permission to write the check for what congress has already approved and budgeted. If they didn't want to spend the money, they should not have approved the spending on the front end. This is exactly like you buying shit with your credit card, then refusing to pay when the bill comes. Bad things happen when either things occur.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change denial is not an energy policy- it's just appears to be a requirement of joining the GOP.
Denial of hydro and nuclear fission being necessary energy sources to lower CO2 emissions is a denial of the studies showing otherwise, including studies from the US DOE, but is a requirement of joining the Democrat party.
Republicans did more to lower CO2 emissions than the Democrats. They did so by supporting natural gas fracking but it was still more effective than anything out of the Democrats. Republicans have been supportive of nuclear fission for energy since nuclear fission was an option, while Dem
Pension (Score:1)
Due to our commitment to cutting our emissions another 50%, we must also cut pensions by 50%. New retirement age in La France will now be 85.
proof of devotion (Score:2)
The only proof of the level of devotion is who will flagellate themselves the most.
Re: (Score:1)
indeed, don't forget rising India.
What France or even US does won't matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No more energy usage for the little people
The plan builds on several already existing conditions: increasing sales of electric cars, increased use of (electric) trains, reduction of fuel used in boilers (prohibited since last year in new buildings); and a new one: progressive prohibition/replacement of natural gas boilers. Note that prohibitions affecting citizen are accompanied with subsidies, and exceptions when no other technical solutions are available (e.g. remote houses where the electric company is unable to provide sufficient power to cover
Re: (Score:2)
An optimist would say that France is leading the way.
Re:Kind of pointless though (Score:5, Insightful)
Reducing pollution is never irrelevant. It may not fix the immediate CO2 problem.. but it will help with pollution problems because of the reduction in smoke and it's related polluting industries.
Re: (Score:2)
irrelevant in the face of growing emissions from China and Germany.
TFS says Germany has even more ambitious reduction goals than France (but they start from much higher).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has made huge progress and will keep making progress (with some setbacks) so it's a terrible choice as an excuse for everybody else to not bother.
Re: (Score:3)
The link leads to a paywall so not all that helpful. This link seems to work: https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]
Out of curiosity I thought I'd check when Germany built Nord Stream One. It seems that started pumping gas in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, Germany's CO2 emissions took a steeper downward turn in 2011, and a large natural gas pipeline opened the same year. I do not believe these to be merely coincidental. What might explain the dip in CO2 emissions after 1980 then? https://en.wik [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Lol ...
Re: (Score:2)
You completely overlook gains in efficiency (or equate them with a reduced standard of living). An LED lightbulb uses about 85% less energy than incandescent... and was that transition so awful after all?
Yes Germany is in a difficult position having a high population density and being rather short on natural resources. (Some of their former leaders even developed an awfully radic
Re: (Score:2)
You completely overlook gains in efficiency (or equate them with a reduced standard of living). An LED lightbulb uses about 85% less energy than incandescent... and was that transition so awful after all?
Lighting was a tiny part of total energy use before CFL and LED became common, after that the portion merely got smaller. Even then the losses to heat would be regained by lowered heating required elsewhere in cold climates. I'd notice a temperature rise while in a well lit bedroom with incandescent lights. That's a couple hundred watts of heating from the lights, and perhaps another hundred or so from my body heat. Call that 300 watts total and it's like a 120 volt space heater on low running constantl
Re: (Score:2)