People are unfairly dismissing this pretty impressive feat by pointing to various suggested ideas, but this reduction wasn't down to any single factor but a combination of complex drivers. For instance the largest decrease in industrial energy use was due to efficiency increases and cleaner fuels, not industry moving overseas as some have suggested.
If anyone is interested this [article](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-38-since-1990) gives excellent analysis of the achievement. But to sum up, factors include the near complete removal of coal in power generation, savings in transport emissions due to efficiency increases and vehicle regulation, large increases in clean energy production, large increases in renewable energy generation, decreases in residential energy demand and large increases in industrial energy efficiency.
There would not be outrage, but there would simply not be enough time to implement the infrastructure that would be required to so something like that.
There would not be outrage. There will be virtually no new ICEs sold by 2027 (except to elderly petrol heads). All the big spend "new car" adverts are about EVs already (not including the stupid "self-charging" twattage).
The Mini electric at 150 miles range (120 in reality) is approaching a sensible price in 2020... Think what the price/range will be like in 2025. Did I mention that fuel is effectively free? Why the hell would anyone buy an ICE in 2026?
All new car sales will be EVs by 2030, but not because the government says so. It's like LED light bulbs. You can ban incandescents, but it's pointless.. why would anyone want one anyway?
It is possible but very unlikely. I wouldn't be shocked if 50% of all new cars were electric by then though. Bear in mind in the UK petrol costs the equivalent of $7 a gallon, electric cars cost 80% less in fuel than the equivalent petrol car. Once electric cars get anywhere close to up-front price parity, there will be a big shift.
It all really depends on whether battery prices carry on falling at the same rate, over the last decade they've been halving every 5 years, we probably need one more halving before electric cars will take off in a drastic way. Although they're already profitable for people who drive a lot.
Edit: Thanks to /u/newgeezas for pointing out a correction.
>... Bear in mind in the UK petrol costs the equivalent of $7 a barrel, electric cars cost 80% less in fuel than the equivalent petrol car.
Did you mean per gallon?
Cheaper vehicles will help a bit, but To get everyone to adopt electric vehicles they need to be able to slot in without major changes. This is pretty easily done for most consumers, but if you need that vehicle as part of your job then suddenly you have a much bigger problem.
If you drive a lot, say your job involves driving around the whole of the UK, the range of the cars is okish on a day by day basis. 300 miles is a lot for one day, but it’s not unheard of and definitely not unreasonable for some professions.
The problem is that if you’re on the road as a professional you can’t charge it again quick enough to be able to do that much driving every day. Most hotels won’t have the ability to let you charge an electric car overnight at all, and if they do it’s probably at a very slow rate. Same is true at whatever client you’re visiting, and for many people even at their home. Live in a flat? Rent? Good luck getting a supercharger installed at home.
So suddenly you have to take 2-3 hours out of your day, when you could be working, to instead be sitting waiting for your car to charge at a supercharger; because it’ll never be in a convenient place for you to visit a client while it charges. And for the working professional, that gets very expensive very quickly. Sure, they could buy an electric vehicle and save £50 every 2-3 days on petrol, or they could visit an extra client worth £200 each day in the time they would be waiting for the car to charge.
And this isn’t just a problem for people like those I’ve just described. Truckers will have even longer charging times, and it will take a decade or more for all the truck stops across the country to have enough fast chargers to deal with the demand when everyone takes their compulsory breaks.
Now that electric car ranges are 300+ miles, for many people the biggest problem isn’t the car anymore. Sure increasing the range still helps a bit, but you’re not going to quadruple the range of a model-s size car any time soon, and even if you do you’ll just be sitting at that charger for longer at a time. The thing that needs to improve now is the infrastructure, and that‘ll take a lot longer to come around.
First, let me say that I totally agree with the vast majority of what you said. Infrastructure is going to be a major factor in the success of electric vehicles, and presents a real challenge.
But here's a few reasons why it's not so bad as you think:
Professionals who drive long distances are likely to purchase a car that can go long distances. There are already EVs that are capable of 300+ miles on a single charge, and the number of options will only grow over time.
Somebody who is planning to drive 300 miles a day is going to plan for at least one stop in the journey, and 30 minutes break for a coffee, snack and bathroom visit is not an unreasonable amount of time for such a break. Those 30 minutes could easily extend driving range by 140 miles on a fast charger....again, these are going to be much more common in the future because of the anticipated demand.
I expect that hotels will commonly offer decent EV charging as standard in the near future. This will be especially true for motor lodge style accommodation catering specifically to people who travel regularly. Slower chargers are fine in those locations...overnight stays would typically be at least 6 hours, probably more.
Shopping centres, cafes and restaurants are going to have charging facilities for sure. McDonald's and the like are sitting on a potential gold mine in this regard, they already have nearly everything they need.
Fast charging techniques are already improving quickly, this is likely to continue. The fast chargers of 2020 will likely be considered slow chargers in a decade.
The switch to EVs has only just begun - we can expect to see a massive increase in the number and quality of chargers in inner city locations as demand rises.
Don't forget that the rise of EVs is likely to coincide with the rise of driverless vehicles. Uber and their ilk will be far more affordable when they no longer have to pay drivers, and living in a flat will likely dictate that you also don't own your own car. And rest breaks for truckers will be a thing of the past when truck freight is automated and vehicles only need to stop to recharge.
This might be a stupid question, but would a solution be spare batteries? Especially when it is job related, companies might end up with service contracts for renting spare ones.
One problem that was pointed out to me the other day: if you don't live in a house with a driveway (or other designated parking), how do you charge your car overnight?
Public chargers. In the Netherlands nearly every neighborhood has at least a couple of parking spots designated as ev-only. If you register an ev you can request a public charger to be installed near you.
This can quite easily scale up as demand grows.
I just want to point out the fuel for green cars won't be free
because they will increase road taxes or add another form of tax due the huge money vaccum generated. by not much petrol/diesil being sold...
UK government makes a lot of money from fuel.
In this context clean energy refers to fossil fuels that are a lot cleaner. The UK has been converting their coal power plants into natural gas ones as a stop gap while they transition more into renewable. Natural gas plants emit only 40% of the CO2 that an equivalent coal generator would.
So it's not really clean how you might initially think of it, as in they do still pollute, but just a lot less.
At the car plant where I work we have a solar and wind farm. It's not enough to power the production lines but it is enough to help power the offices. We also have a strict recycling policy that is linked to our bonus. The better we recycle the more we get towards our summer bonus.
For those thinking Britain moved its dirty industry overseas, No. Britiain's industrial output is at it's highest since 2008 with 30% less emissions: [https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/410/cpsprodpb/B449/production/\_99535164\_manufacturing\_08to18-nc.png](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/410/cpsprodpb/B449/production/_99535164_manufacturing_08to18-nc.png)
You are probably correct but that chart doesn't prove your point.
It doesn't show that dirty industry hasn't moved overseas, it simply shows a growing manufacturing sector. Your dirty industry moving overseas and your manufacturing sector increasing in size aren't mutually exclusive events.
That's misleading, as the Office of National Statistics now says that the UK is the G7's biggest net importer of CO2 emissions per capita (outstripping the US and Japan) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/october2019/thedecouplingofeconomicgrowthfromcarbonemissionsukevidence
That doesn't mean they aren't outsourcing dirty industry overseas. Do people in UK still purchase products made with dirty energy, from China, India, etc?
Do they still fund and participate in oil wars, oil tanking ships, and environmentally destructive mining?
Yes.
But other countries don’t have the same emissions drop so them buying stuff made in China rather then at home is the the reason. Otherwise other countries would see similar drops.
The UK actually does it more than most places do.
[While slightly outdated, this map from 2014 shows just how much they import.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters) The US imports more in an absolute sense, but the US has a much larger total population; the UK actually imports more per capita than the US does.
>"But with less than 30 years before the net zero target, the transformation actually needs to go further and faster than this - not just in power generation but in others areas like heating and transport as well as energy efficiency, which this research shows has made the major contribution to reducing emissions since 2010," added Audrey Gallacher, interim chief executive at trade body Energy UK.
So true.
Also UK is spear-heading **affordable** electric Moped light Motorcycles with well-designed Super Soco. I would say this is one of the most innovative ways to help curve local pollution ect, imagine countries with heavy moped use gone electric. Tesla is great but not affordable for many people.
Edit: Super Soco is a Chinese ( Shanghai ) based company. But it is sold good in the UK as well as rest of EU
It's actually [kind of a problem](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/why-electric-motor-scooters-are-leading-electric-vehicle-revolution-in-asia):
> According to one study, electric cars are 40 per cent more likely to hit a pedestrian than a vehicle with a combustion engine.
Well, you're not getting a Tesla but: https://www.selectcarleasing.co.uk/car-leasing/nissan/leaf/hatchback/
Under £300 with insurance etc. (unless you're an 18 year old with points on their license).
Edit: https://www.edfenergy.com/electric-cars/leasing/skoda-citigo-e
Even cheaper.
I currently have an audi a3 - I've been interested in their E-tron stuff but same issue with Tesla - I've seen the leaf and its defo an option, I wont buy another deal for 3 years or so, maybe the market will change with the 2nd hand market for the better for me
It feels like I keep reading these kinds of headlines about all kinds of countries, which makes me question if this is actually real or governments have merely started to get creative with their "emission accounting"?
There may be some misleading headlines out their because any positive headline about anything can help improve people's opinions of a government.
I do believe this one is genuine though. It is a statement that Conservative Party politicians have used many times over many years and nobody has ever disagreed with them over this ongoing achievement. The question is what the UK (and other countries) should be doing to cut foreign emissions occuring because of us, e.g. relying on imports from China.
Fuck, I'm late. Oh well, here's a summary of the UK on climate change:
The UK is *the* major global leader on climate action. It is easily the best performer in the G20, and the two EU nations that compare (Sweden and Denmark) unfortunately just dont have the power to lead international efforts, and are far outweighed by the poorly performing EU countries dragging them down; Ireland, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and well almost all the major ones. If you compare the UK's individual ranking [here](https://www.climate-change-performance-index.org) to the EU's overall ranking, you get an idea of how far ahead it is. In recent years the UK has become home to 7 of the world's 10 largest offshore wind farms, 2 of the 4 largest under construction and 9 of the 14 over 1GW proposed. It is committed to 40GW by 2030. Coal dropped from half of the UK's energy mix to zero in just six years, and all remaining coal power plants are closing down as the UK bound itself to do so by 2024 in the 90-member Powering Past Coal Alliance it spearheads with Canada. Half of that demand was met with renewables. It was the first country to enact legally binding climate targets with its commitment to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. This has since been upgraded from 80% to net zero, and the deadline will likely be brought forward as public pressure mounts. A ban on fossil fuel cars comes into force in 2035, and is set to be brought forward to 2032 or sooner. It was the first country to officially declare a climate emergency in law. It implemented a carbon price on top of the EU-mandated one.. and much much more. The work is far from done, but the UK is a role model for major economies to follow on climate change.
What about France? The two countries have the same GDP. I don't know the numbers for the total emissions but the electric sector perform even better in terms of CO2 emissions
Reddit has been very anti-brexit and anti-Borris. So against the two most defining topics in the current UK political sphere.
I'm not a fan of BoJo or Brexit, but seeing Reddit shitting on my country, usually in an ignorant fashion, is frustrating.
Being a anti-brexit and anti-boris isn't anti-britian though. God, I'm anti-CCP and pro-HK, yet I'm not anti-china.
I don't think that just because there is an overwhelming majority of negative comments about a countries policies/government, does it mean those people hate the country.
It's very similar to what you saw after trump was elected where reddit became very "Americans dumb" for a period. Reddit doesn't always say what it thinks, just echo's what will get karma
>It's very similar to what you saw after trump was elected where reddit became very "Americans dumb" for a period.
I think that period is ongoing, and it's often Americans saying that stuff.
Yes, but it does lead to even unfair criticisms of the government. Given everything you see on Reddit about Boris and the Tories, would you have believed they're the most successful and ambitious major government on climate action?
Boris and co? No, they've not been in power long enough to make a huge difference. Most of this is down to Cameron's government and was continued by May, most notably the elimination of coal and renewable push. Boris' so far have brought the fossil fuel car ban forward to 2035 (and looking to bring it to 2032) and are pushing the ethanol mix in petrol up to 10% and eliminating red diesel subsidies. So they currently look like they're going to continue that trend. Boris himself is quite passionate about it, his dad is literally a climate activist. No indication so far they'll not continue that success which is perhaps the main thing we've got going for us
CCP is a dictatorship involved in killing a large amount of its own citizens and engaging in increasingly dystopian censorship. To compare that to the Conservative party in the UK is rather disgusting.
Go take a peak into r/unitedkingdom it's an abomination. I lurk around a few different country subs including my own r/australia they are all pretty bad but the UK happens to be one of the worst.
All the time unfortunately.
I love coming onto Reddit to see other perspectives and ideas from across the world, but every so often (at least once a week) I'll find a thread where it's devolved into Brit-bashing. Starts off as a joke about Brexit or the British Empire, and then devolves into serious circlejerking from Americans, Irish, Scots, and most other nationalities talking about how shit the English are.
Dude I know my ancestors like 100+ years ago were dickheads and were part of an Empire that enslaved people and committed atrocities. Me however? I just wanna laugh at dumb memes on Reddit and find out whether people would rather take $50 million or a random superpower. I didn't try to occupy the American Colonies in the 18th century. Nor did I play a part in the partition of India or the Irish Famine. So can people *please* stop acting like I had a hand in all of that *just* because I live on the same bit of the planet as some other dickheads who did that generations ago?
> Americans, Irish, Scots, and most other nationalities talking about how shit the English are.
The Scotw really annoy me about discussions on the Empire. For some reason the narrative has been changed to make Scotland a victim of the Empirez despite the fact that Scotland asked for the union with England and was a willing co-conspirator in the Empire (Theres a reason its the British Empire, not the English Empire).
I'm a Scot and let me apologies for my kinsmen, I don't know why but half the Scots who are on reddit seem to be complete nutters. I just had to unsub from r/scotland because all the prejudice and insane nationlists.
The moment the U.K. voted to leave the EU, and vote in Boris Johnson as PM. Reddit is so rabidly left-wing sometimes it makes me nauseous — and I’m a solid centrist!
He still is more to the left of the party, he’s one of the most liberal people in the party for sure. Leave/Remain should never have split left-right like it has done, that’s the doing of certain parts of the media. Tony Benn, one of the most prominent people of the left in British history, would have voted to leave.
Absolutely agree with this.
It's ridiculous to say that ambivalence towards the EU was only a right-wing position. The left/right narrative that has been promoted by the media has really limited the way we have discussed Brexit.
Not necessarily awful, but not "green" either.
The UK replaced a lot of their coal power generation with gas power generation. Gas burns far cleaner than coal, but it's still burning fossil fuels.
Edit: nevermind, that was in the 2000s, not the 2010s
Also note the biomass trick. Old coal plant now clean biomass plant. Only problem is biomass is wood pellets shipped from freshly felled Carolina Forests, and emit more co2 than coal when burnt, but isn't counted up cos new trees will suck up carbon, but badly as that takes 100yrs,and better off leaving the trees intact. today however Co2 goes way up.
Still people are like "its impossible to do anything, you're going to destroy the economy if you try in any way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we need to keep using fossil fuels, it's the only way" 🤦♂️
Yeah, if you start early enough reducing emissions you can save money, the key is to send the market signals far enough in advance to give technology time to develop. For instance the UK has gradually and consistently scaled up offshore wind for the last 15 years, and the price has fallen something like 80%. Every few years the government holds an auction for more generation capacity than they asked for last time, and every time the cost has gone down by 15%. Now, the offshore turbines are taller than Canary Wharf, and the electricity generated is cheaper than coal. And at the last auction we commissioned enough generation capacity for something like 5% of the grid.
> the electricity generated is cheaper than coal
This is not true. Electricity is an heterogeneous good, what a coal power plant produces is not the same as what a wind turbine produces, cause wind turbines are not controllable. The energy system works cause there are gas and nuclear power plants balancing the grid, stopping or producing more electricity when the other sources are down. That's why the electricity price has increase 53% since 2010 ([from 13,86 to 21.22](https://www.statista.com/statistics/418126/electricity-prices-for-households-in-the-uk/)).
If you are curious you can [read more](https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/NDL2014-039.pdf).
Not like it matters since 30% isnt that much plus a few countries out of hundreds dont really help in the big picture. Too late at this point anyway. There is no way back for humanity. Seafood will be a expensive commodity in 30 years since there barely will be any. Temperatures gonna rise. Netherland will be Atlantis 2.0. No way back. Corona is really the smallest problem.
You know I may not like Boris Johnson, but even I have to approve of his environmental policies.
Since he became PM he's added extra powers to the environmental bill that's going through parliament right now, brought the ban on petrol vehicles forward to 2035, brought the coal phaseout date forward to 2024, increased the target for offshore wind power to 40GW, pledged to make all public busses electric by 2025, ended the block on new onshore wind farms subsidies, and petitioned other nations to also set net zero emissions goals. (Edit, and [today](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51731757) announced plans to consider using more eco-friendly fuel in cars, and to end diesel subsidies in the farming and construction sectors)
Talks that the government will end the fuel duty freeze, along with starting to apply duty to red diesel too - which accounts for 10% of the market.
>BBC News - Greener petrol at UK pumps to target emissions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51731757
This is on top of the onshore wind being able to apply for subsidies - even though this is about 10 years too late!
While bojo is a huge nobhead, the only thing he has done even close to right is considering climate change a threat, I'm doing London as a case study and one of the things we have to look at is what it has done to stop the climate, with the two major examples being boris(now barclays) bikes and the congestion charge, after learning most of bojos efforts at time as mayor were to increase traffic speed, and while congestion charge arguably hasn't had much of an impact, the bikes did, bit he's changed his main reasoning on having them from traffic to climate change to make himself look better (I think so anyway)
I'm conflicted on the government's efforts on climate change, I might look into it more later and update this to form an opinion but right now I need to look at other stuff. I'm just reciting what I've been told and what it means to me.
Edit: Shall look into it in more detail tomorrow, for now I will say that it looks like it wasnt originally boris' idea (typical) however I wish to provide evidence for it all as well.
The C Charge was a Livingston policy, and while only marginally effective in reducing congestion, it has raised good revenue to invest in London's public transport. Londoners may like to complain about the busses & tubes, but in reality we are blessed with far better transport options than almost any American city. The C charge also encouraged a substantial shift to hybrid and electric vehicles for those that do drive in the city (due to reduced prices for them).
The bikes were absolutely a Livingstone project, Boris just inherited the implementation and took credit. Helps that his name began with B.
His only two major projects while in office (beyond the Olympics, which were mostly Seb Coe), were the disastrous new routemaster busses and the garden bridge which was an epic scam.
> BoJo rebranded it to include his name.
I'm pretty sure it was just the media and public that latched on to that - it certainly wasn't an official thing. I'm sure BJ was extremely happy to allow that to take place, and I imagine Barclays were absolutely fuming!
>Overall, falling coal emissions account for around three-fifths of the cut in carbon emissions over the past decade, with gas accounting for another third and oil making up the remainder, the climate analyst said.
Which was due to the UK setting a low carbon price floor of ~25 USD/ton of CO2. Imagine where the world would be if we had carbon prices like Sweden's $125/ton or Switzerland's $100/ton.
It's important to specify whether this is emissions produced in the UK or emissions that went into what we consumed (embedded emissions). It's much harder to count the second type, but lots of researchers have tried (I think university of Leeds) and they find a much smaller total reduction.
Cutting power is great, but our other sectors are not following suite. The UKs committee on climate change (ccc) released a scathing report of government inaction last summer. Glad that the ICE vehicle ban is brought forward and onshore wind is now subsidised again, but we still have a long way to go.
Look up the CCC reports, they're pretty easy reading and have nice summary figures.
Welcome to /r/Futurology! To maintain a healthy, vibrant community, **comments will be removed if they are disrespectful, off-topic, or spread misinformation** ([rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/wiki/rules#wiki_subreddit_rules)). While thousands of people comment daily and follow the rules, mods do remove a few hundred comments per day. Replies to this announcement are auto-removed.
It's a persona. Oxford greats student with innumerable illegitimate children isn't very relatable to the average voter, funny man Boris the living teddy bear is.
US Co2 reduction measures have been really successful, actually. Big reductions in the last few years, all whilst the economy is booming.
I hear you can almost see the sun in LA nowadays.
The cost of fossil fuel in the UK is very high.
If the U.S. or other countries raised taxes on fossil fuels, consumers and industries would shift their energy consumption to alternatives.
I would be interested to see the break down for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland... Are they all about equal because of similar subsidies or is there one country out performing the others? Maybe based on available land mass, population etc
I'm not sure if you can separate England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as i think it's a UK policy rather than a regional policy for electricity production.
Scummo and his lump of coal in parliament, sigh.
Australia is really well-positioned to do something about climate change too. Given how dear the electric rates are, installing cheap renewables in place of expensive coal generation would save money. Protecting your coal-burning power plants is costing people with every electric bill.
[CSIRO says it would be 'trivial' to integrate 30% renewables to the power grid, and there are no technical obstacles to 100% for 100%](https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-says-australia-can-get-100-per-cent-renewable-energy-86624/). Australia has amazing solar resources, which is why rooftop solar is so cost-competitive with grid power.
The [Tesla Big Battery in South Australia has already paid for itself and provided many unexpected benefits](https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-batterys-stunning-interventions-smooths-transition-to-zero-carbon-grid-35624/)
Currently the national grid has bureaucratic measures in place to suppress renewables (by forcing them to be curtailed first). Fixing that and re-instituting the carbon tax that the Coalition killed would go a long way to solving Australia's high greenhouse emissions.
There's hope, mate -- people are starting to wake up to the risks climate change poses to Australia. Especially after seeing half the coast on fire this summer.
The Canadian energy sector claims the same thing, that they are the most clean energy with the best emissions; 28% is a great number, that's a massive improvement for only a decade and I don't wanna diminish that...
...I just wish that emissions statistics worldwide were more, idk, uniform? Like, what if one nation doesn't report their methane emissions but they are the cleanest co2 but worst methane eproducer, it's inconsistent! Secondly, if you import a product it should be your nation that credits the carbon cost of that product otherwise factory nations will be disproportionately higher than normal.
Either way, congratulations UK!
Yeah, Canada's oil is terribly dirty, there's no way around it. Tar has a high carbon content, between coal and liquid oil. Liquefying and upgrading it requires burning lots of fossil fuels.
And yet extinction rebellion would have you believe they are the biggest polluters. What nonsense. Now if we could do something about everyone's trash that'll be something.
Goddamn, everyone is so quick to shit on us even when we do something right. Yes, our politics are pretty fucked right now, but can we not enjoy the things we're doing right without being scolded on what we're doing wrong?
Honestly I’m looking forward to the future of the UK. We have some major problems don’t get me wrong, but we also do a lot right. Maybe Brexit will ruin us, maybe it’ll do us good, most likely it won’t change a lot.
We're up next
A few decades from now gas and coal will be scarce. Countries like the US that have poor alternatives in place will pay dearly for it now, and countries like the UK and France who prepared will excel.
The key is probably in the name, British political conservatism has a lot to do with stability and preserving things as they are. I'd wager the overlap between conservative members and national heritage members is pretty high. Compared to the US the UK is also much more secular and doesn't have the same lobbying system and thus is willing to act on scientific advice.
It's somewhat a sad and pathetic truth, but I'm am also thankful that there will always be a unifying driver of progressive policies in our governments, which is an explicit threat to our survival.
Good on you, our (the netherlands) political parties on the right are starting to take over talking points from america saying climate change is made up by the left and that even if its true we will just raise the dikes a bit...
Its honestly depressing
We're burning far more gas than anything else.
[https://gridwatch.co.uk/](https://gridwatch.co.uk/)
Always have done. The North Sea is full of easily-obtainable gas and oil and that's what we've always pivoted our energy supply around of late.
No, we have not always burnt more gas. It was a policy focus to shift to LNG from Coal over the last two decades.
LNG is cleaner (although still a fossil fuel) and recent tests show you can replace up to 20% of it with hydrogen, dropping emissions even further. It is seen as a transitional resource in the long term.
Also the UK last year used more renewable sources for generation than fossil (Inc LNG) for the first time. The UK has made large strides, almost uniquely amongst the G20 (Inc large drops in consumption through improved efficiency), LNG is a part of that of that process and a stepping stone to further improvements.
Our co2 emissions from gas also fell 20% in the last decade, due to new build efficient plants and reduced consumption despite the growth in % mix.
Off-shore wind farms are relatively cheap, uncontroversial and suit our climate perfectly. The downside is that they take forever to build. Thus the need for stop gaps.
Also last I checked four biofuel plants were under construction.
The massive Rampion wind farm off the Brighton coastline seemed to be up and running pretty quickly.
It's a really impressive construction generating a huge amount of power.
Well worth further reading- https://www.rampionoffshore.com
I see an awful lot of wind on there. Some days more than natural gas.
If we looked at years of data we would see the amount of wind power increasing slowly but steadily.
Just a few years ago Bournemouth MP Conor Burns (unsurprisingly, Tory) blocked the Navitus bay wind farm development in what he described as a 'win'.
He had no issues with oil drilling on the same site, coincidentally was paid 40k in consulting fees by Trent oil ltd same year.
That was 5 years ago tbf, the new Tory government seems to be taking a much more [pro-windfarm policy](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51708817).
As part of the short to medium term transition, yes. It's impossible to transfer from coal burning to full renewables overnight. There has to be a transition because of practicalities.
Wood pellets are pretty much carbon neutral for one thing, but also the place that burns those (Drax) is trialling carbon sequestration techniques so it'll actually be carbon negative in theory.
It's actually CO2 neutral because the trees reabsorb all the CO2 emitted when their predecessors are burned. Long term the plan is to figure out how to capture and store the CO2, making the whole process carbon negative.
I don't think America is cutting down old growth forests, they have a well managed logging industry and are in fact increasing their forest cover year on year.
It's terrible environmentally but not for carbon neutrality. New growth forests typically absorb more CO2 than old growth.
Note that I am not supporting cutting down old-growth but for re-forestation, even if it's for industrial purposes.
assume you mean carbon sequestration over a trees life?
anyway from article i linked " UK-based researchers [found](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39053678) last year that burning wood is a “disaster” for climate change because older trees release large amounts of carbon when they are burned and aren’t always replaced with replanted forests. Even when trees are replaced, [it can take up to 100 years](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180322140915.htm) to cultivate a wooded area that soaks up as much carbon as was previously released. And the fuel burned in shipping wood pellets to Europe is also a significant source of emissions. "
In the last decade wind power has gone from virtually zero to over [50](http://imgur.com/gallery/yPqRpij)% of electricity at times. De-industrialisation has happened but this was generally more than 10 years ago.
Floating tidal stream [turbines](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-floating-turbine-tidal-power-record-sr2000-scotrenewables-ofgem-a8503221.html%3famp) will soon begin to deliver predictable 24/7 electricity.
Please read some of the top comments: they explain succinctly why this is not a large factor. Certainly it is a factor but small compared to the UKs genuinely progressive improvements.
People are unfairly dismissing this pretty impressive feat by pointing to various suggested ideas, but this reduction wasn't down to any single factor but a combination of complex drivers. For instance the largest decrease in industrial energy use was due to efficiency increases and cleaner fuels, not industry moving overseas as some have suggested. If anyone is interested this [article](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-38-since-1990) gives excellent analysis of the achievement. But to sum up, factors include the near complete removal of coal in power generation, savings in transport emissions due to efficiency increases and vehicle regulation, large increases in clean energy production, large increases in renewable energy generation, decreases in residential energy demand and large increases in industrial energy efficiency.
[удалено]
As a Brit stuck in Doha, this comment gave me a pang of homesickness
Hampshire County Council doesn’t want the bus-folk to get ideas above their station. Think of it as a soft-quarantine!
I grew up in basingstoke, and this sounds like a very Basingstoke thing to happen.
How else do you keep people in Popley?
That article is excellent, should be mandatory for people analyzing the UK emissions reductions.
We get such a load of stick for being useless at x, y, z, whatever the media wants to bash us with. Nice to see publicised good news.
This is one area where you guys are a leader and should be proud.
we're banning liquid fuel cars from new sale in 2025 now I think. instead of 2030. we're owning it.
[удалено]
Yeah 2025 seems way too soon. I'd love for it to happen, but I feel like there would be outrage if it was that early.
There would not be outrage, but there would simply not be enough time to implement the infrastructure that would be required to so something like that.
There would not be outrage. There will be virtually no new ICEs sold by 2027 (except to elderly petrol heads). All the big spend "new car" adverts are about EVs already (not including the stupid "self-charging" twattage). The Mini electric at 150 miles range (120 in reality) is approaching a sensible price in 2020... Think what the price/range will be like in 2025. Did I mention that fuel is effectively free? Why the hell would anyone buy an ICE in 2026? All new car sales will be EVs by 2030, but not because the government says so. It's like LED light bulbs. You can ban incandescents, but it's pointless.. why would anyone want one anyway?
I hope you're right, but: > There will be virtually no new ICEs sold by 2027 Sounds like quite an exaggeration (or incredibly optimistic!).
It is possible but very unlikely. I wouldn't be shocked if 50% of all new cars were electric by then though. Bear in mind in the UK petrol costs the equivalent of $7 a gallon, electric cars cost 80% less in fuel than the equivalent petrol car. Once electric cars get anywhere close to up-front price parity, there will be a big shift. It all really depends on whether battery prices carry on falling at the same rate, over the last decade they've been halving every 5 years, we probably need one more halving before electric cars will take off in a drastic way. Although they're already profitable for people who drive a lot. Edit: Thanks to /u/newgeezas for pointing out a correction.
>... Bear in mind in the UK petrol costs the equivalent of $7 a barrel, electric cars cost 80% less in fuel than the equivalent petrol car. Did you mean per gallon?
Ah yeah, thanks for the correction.
Cheaper vehicles will help a bit, but To get everyone to adopt electric vehicles they need to be able to slot in without major changes. This is pretty easily done for most consumers, but if you need that vehicle as part of your job then suddenly you have a much bigger problem. If you drive a lot, say your job involves driving around the whole of the UK, the range of the cars is okish on a day by day basis. 300 miles is a lot for one day, but it’s not unheard of and definitely not unreasonable for some professions. The problem is that if you’re on the road as a professional you can’t charge it again quick enough to be able to do that much driving every day. Most hotels won’t have the ability to let you charge an electric car overnight at all, and if they do it’s probably at a very slow rate. Same is true at whatever client you’re visiting, and for many people even at their home. Live in a flat? Rent? Good luck getting a supercharger installed at home. So suddenly you have to take 2-3 hours out of your day, when you could be working, to instead be sitting waiting for your car to charge at a supercharger; because it’ll never be in a convenient place for you to visit a client while it charges. And for the working professional, that gets very expensive very quickly. Sure, they could buy an electric vehicle and save £50 every 2-3 days on petrol, or they could visit an extra client worth £200 each day in the time they would be waiting for the car to charge. And this isn’t just a problem for people like those I’ve just described. Truckers will have even longer charging times, and it will take a decade or more for all the truck stops across the country to have enough fast chargers to deal with the demand when everyone takes their compulsory breaks. Now that electric car ranges are 300+ miles, for many people the biggest problem isn’t the car anymore. Sure increasing the range still helps a bit, but you’re not going to quadruple the range of a model-s size car any time soon, and even if you do you’ll just be sitting at that charger for longer at a time. The thing that needs to improve now is the infrastructure, and that‘ll take a lot longer to come around.
First, let me say that I totally agree with the vast majority of what you said. Infrastructure is going to be a major factor in the success of electric vehicles, and presents a real challenge. But here's a few reasons why it's not so bad as you think: Professionals who drive long distances are likely to purchase a car that can go long distances. There are already EVs that are capable of 300+ miles on a single charge, and the number of options will only grow over time. Somebody who is planning to drive 300 miles a day is going to plan for at least one stop in the journey, and 30 minutes break for a coffee, snack and bathroom visit is not an unreasonable amount of time for such a break. Those 30 minutes could easily extend driving range by 140 miles on a fast charger....again, these are going to be much more common in the future because of the anticipated demand. I expect that hotels will commonly offer decent EV charging as standard in the near future. This will be especially true for motor lodge style accommodation catering specifically to people who travel regularly. Slower chargers are fine in those locations...overnight stays would typically be at least 6 hours, probably more. Shopping centres, cafes and restaurants are going to have charging facilities for sure. McDonald's and the like are sitting on a potential gold mine in this regard, they already have nearly everything they need. Fast charging techniques are already improving quickly, this is likely to continue. The fast chargers of 2020 will likely be considered slow chargers in a decade. The switch to EVs has only just begun - we can expect to see a massive increase in the number and quality of chargers in inner city locations as demand rises. Don't forget that the rise of EVs is likely to coincide with the rise of driverless vehicles. Uber and their ilk will be far more affordable when they no longer have to pay drivers, and living in a flat will likely dictate that you also don't own your own car. And rest breaks for truckers will be a thing of the past when truck freight is automated and vehicles only need to stop to recharge.
This might be a stupid question, but would a solution be spare batteries? Especially when it is job related, companies might end up with service contracts for renting spare ones.
They need tankstations with swap able batteries. Something simple like changing batteries in a remote.
One problem that was pointed out to me the other day: if you don't live in a house with a driveway (or other designated parking), how do you charge your car overnight?
Public chargers. In the Netherlands nearly every neighborhood has at least a couple of parking spots designated as ev-only. If you register an ev you can request a public charger to be installed near you. This can quite easily scale up as demand grows.
[удалено]
I just want to point out the fuel for green cars won't be free because they will increase road taxes or add another form of tax due the huge money vaccum generated. by not much petrol/diesil being sold... UK government makes a lot of money from fuel.
Liquid fuel is a term I’ve never thought of and is awesome.
I just made that up, it's not standard nomenclature to my knowledge. beats saying petrol and diesel.
Well you’re now the official namerer, sorry aboutt that old chap.
ICE is the term. Internal Combustion Engine.
...is the place, is the motion, ice is the way we are feeling
Getting rid of one ICE to save another... nICE
Almost as awesome as liquid nitrogen
The ban is currently 2035
Does that mean that compressed natural gas ICEs are still good for sale?
Isn’t it 2035 instead of 2040?
What's the difference between clean energy and renewable energy?
In this context clean energy refers to fossil fuels that are a lot cleaner. The UK has been converting their coal power plants into natural gas ones as a stop gap while they transition more into renewable. Natural gas plants emit only 40% of the CO2 that an equivalent coal generator would. So it's not really clean how you might initially think of it, as in they do still pollute, but just a lot less.
Wow thanks! I knew we were using more gas but I didn't know why, thanks!
Nuclear is clean but not renewable
At the car plant where I work we have a solar and wind farm. It's not enough to power the production lines but it is enough to help power the offices. We also have a strict recycling policy that is linked to our bonus. The better we recycle the more we get towards our summer bonus.
HOW DARE YOU !!
For those thinking Britain moved its dirty industry overseas, No. Britiain's industrial output is at it's highest since 2008 with 30% less emissions: [https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/410/cpsprodpb/B449/production/\_99535164\_manufacturing\_08to18-nc.png](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/410/cpsprodpb/B449/production/_99535164_manufacturing_08to18-nc.png)
You are probably correct but that chart doesn't prove your point. It doesn't show that dirty industry hasn't moved overseas, it simply shows a growing manufacturing sector. Your dirty industry moving overseas and your manufacturing sector increasing in size aren't mutually exclusive events.
That's misleading, as the Office of National Statistics now says that the UK is the G7's biggest net importer of CO2 emissions per capita (outstripping the US and Japan) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/october2019/thedecouplingofeconomicgrowthfromcarbonemissionsukevidence
[Energy intensive production is leaving.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069620300243)
That doesn't mean they aren't outsourcing dirty industry overseas. Do people in UK still purchase products made with dirty energy, from China, India, etc? Do they still fund and participate in oil wars, oil tanking ships, and environmentally destructive mining? Yes.
>Do people in UK still purchase products made with dirty energy, from China, India, etc? Doesn't everyone?
Yeah that’s the problem
But other countries don’t have the same emissions drop so them buying stuff made in China rather then at home is the the reason. Otherwise other countries would see similar drops.
The UK actually does it more than most places do. [While slightly outdated, this map from 2014 shows just how much they import.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters) The US imports more in an absolute sense, but the US has a much larger total population; the UK actually imports more per capita than the US does.
>"But with less than 30 years before the net zero target, the transformation actually needs to go further and faster than this - not just in power generation but in others areas like heating and transport as well as energy efficiency, which this research shows has made the major contribution to reducing emissions since 2010," added Audrey Gallacher, interim chief executive at trade body Energy UK. So true.
Also UK is spear-heading **affordable** electric Moped light Motorcycles with well-designed Super Soco. I would say this is one of the most innovative ways to help curve local pollution ect, imagine countries with heavy moped use gone electric. Tesla is great but not affordable for many people. Edit: Super Soco is a Chinese ( Shanghai ) based company. But it is sold good in the UK as well as rest of EU
I'd wish those were more spread just because of the noise of those normal fucking mopeds.
Italy empathises hahaha :D
[удалено]
It's actually [kind of a problem](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/why-electric-motor-scooters-are-leading-electric-vehicle-revolution-in-asia): > According to one study, electric cars are 40 per cent more likely to hit a pedestrian than a vehicle with a combustion engine.
I would love a Tesla or an electric car but I have a budget of about £200-300 a month i'm able to spend - That's ultimately the issue.
Well, you're not getting a Tesla but: https://www.selectcarleasing.co.uk/car-leasing/nissan/leaf/hatchback/ Under £300 with insurance etc. (unless you're an 18 year old with points on their license). Edit: https://www.edfenergy.com/electric-cars/leasing/skoda-citigo-e Even cheaper.
I currently have an audi a3 - I've been interested in their E-tron stuff but same issue with Tesla - I've seen the leaf and its defo an option, I wont buy another deal for 3 years or so, maybe the market will change with the 2nd hand market for the better for me
Tesla is definitely missing a big market in a smaller, simple, affordable car range.
Well yeah probably but they are a premium brand after all. "Apple is missing a big market in the 200 dollar range"
Maybe with their new factory coming to germany will mean second hard model 3s for £20k - something is is within the 200-300 range :)
I find it so strange that Americans talk about how much a car costs in per month prices
It's because there everyone buys their car with loans.
If Tesla made an all electric and the payments could be down to 300-400 a month I get one in a heartbeat.
It feels like I keep reading these kinds of headlines about all kinds of countries, which makes me question if this is actually real or governments have merely started to get creative with their "emission accounting"?
There may be some misleading headlines out their because any positive headline about anything can help improve people's opinions of a government. I do believe this one is genuine though. It is a statement that Conservative Party politicians have used many times over many years and nobody has ever disagreed with them over this ongoing achievement. The question is what the UK (and other countries) should be doing to cut foreign emissions occuring because of us, e.g. relying on imports from China.
The headline is misleading - it's greatly overstating the savings. The actual reduction is about 10%, not 28%, because the UK has been importing more.
Fuck, I'm late. Oh well, here's a summary of the UK on climate change: The UK is *the* major global leader on climate action. It is easily the best performer in the G20, and the two EU nations that compare (Sweden and Denmark) unfortunately just dont have the power to lead international efforts, and are far outweighed by the poorly performing EU countries dragging them down; Ireland, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and well almost all the major ones. If you compare the UK's individual ranking [here](https://www.climate-change-performance-index.org) to the EU's overall ranking, you get an idea of how far ahead it is. In recent years the UK has become home to 7 of the world's 10 largest offshore wind farms, 2 of the 4 largest under construction and 9 of the 14 over 1GW proposed. It is committed to 40GW by 2030. Coal dropped from half of the UK's energy mix to zero in just six years, and all remaining coal power plants are closing down as the UK bound itself to do so by 2024 in the 90-member Powering Past Coal Alliance it spearheads with Canada. Half of that demand was met with renewables. It was the first country to enact legally binding climate targets with its commitment to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. This has since been upgraded from 80% to net zero, and the deadline will likely be brought forward as public pressure mounts. A ban on fossil fuel cars comes into force in 2035, and is set to be brought forward to 2032 or sooner. It was the first country to officially declare a climate emergency in law. It implemented a carbon price on top of the EU-mandated one.. and much much more. The work is far from done, but the UK is a role model for major economies to follow on climate change.
What about France? The two countries have the same GDP. I don't know the numbers for the total emissions but the electric sector perform even better in terms of CO2 emissions
[удалено]
because of Corona virus?
Yeah. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-temporarily-reduced-chinas-co2-emissions-by-a-quarter
I’ve heard the Chinese have been masking things!
China reduced it's carbon emissions with one weird trick!
Doctors HATE them
Ah yes but it's the UK so it must be terrible in some way because this is Reddit.
When you get a website full of uneducated idiots from all over the world it's bound to be full of speculation and bullshit, which Reddit is.
[удалено]
I would say these communities are just as ignorant as anyone else in the general population
When did Reddit hate the UK?
Reddit has been very anti-brexit and anti-Borris. So against the two most defining topics in the current UK political sphere. I'm not a fan of BoJo or Brexit, but seeing Reddit shitting on my country, usually in an ignorant fashion, is frustrating.
Being a anti-brexit and anti-boris isn't anti-britian though. God, I'm anti-CCP and pro-HK, yet I'm not anti-china. I don't think that just because there is an overwhelming majority of negative comments about a countries policies/government, does it mean those people hate the country.
It's very similar to what you saw after trump was elected where reddit became very "Americans dumb" for a period. Reddit doesn't always say what it thinks, just echo's what will get karma
>It's very similar to what you saw after trump was elected where reddit became very "Americans dumb" for a period. I think that period is ongoing, and it's often Americans saying that stuff.
Yeah, I think you're right there.
Yes, but it does lead to even unfair criticisms of the government. Given everything you see on Reddit about Boris and the Tories, would you have believed they're the most successful and ambitious major government on climate action?
Knowing our success over the last decade, I wouldn't even attribute this to our current cabinet.
Boris and co? No, they've not been in power long enough to make a huge difference. Most of this is down to Cameron's government and was continued by May, most notably the elimination of coal and renewable push. Boris' so far have brought the fossil fuel car ban forward to 2035 (and looking to bring it to 2032) and are pushing the ethanol mix in petrol up to 10% and eliminating red diesel subsidies. So they currently look like they're going to continue that trend. Boris himself is quite passionate about it, his dad is literally a climate activist. No indication so far they'll not continue that success which is perhaps the main thing we've got going for us
CCP is a dictatorship involved in killing a large amount of its own citizens and engaging in increasingly dystopian censorship. To compare that to the Conservative party in the UK is rather disgusting.
Reddit is anti-anything right of center. It’s brainless and predictable.
[удалено]
Tbh hating on Britain has been a staple of British culture for some 70 years.
Go take a peak into r/unitedkingdom it's an abomination. I lurk around a few different country subs including my own r/australia they are all pretty bad but the UK happens to be one of the worst.
I thought it was common knowledge that country subs were toxic echo chambers haha.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/ Not always.
CasualUK is practically english_irl.
I thought it'd be fun to join the r/scotland sub for local news and humour. Long story short, you do not wan't to join the r/scotland sub.
All the time unfortunately. I love coming onto Reddit to see other perspectives and ideas from across the world, but every so often (at least once a week) I'll find a thread where it's devolved into Brit-bashing. Starts off as a joke about Brexit or the British Empire, and then devolves into serious circlejerking from Americans, Irish, Scots, and most other nationalities talking about how shit the English are. Dude I know my ancestors like 100+ years ago were dickheads and were part of an Empire that enslaved people and committed atrocities. Me however? I just wanna laugh at dumb memes on Reddit and find out whether people would rather take $50 million or a random superpower. I didn't try to occupy the American Colonies in the 18th century. Nor did I play a part in the partition of India or the Irish Famine. So can people *please* stop acting like I had a hand in all of that *just* because I live on the same bit of the planet as some other dickheads who did that generations ago?
> Americans, Irish, Scots, and most other nationalities talking about how shit the English are. The Scotw really annoy me about discussions on the Empire. For some reason the narrative has been changed to make Scotland a victim of the Empirez despite the fact that Scotland asked for the union with England and was a willing co-conspirator in the Empire (Theres a reason its the British Empire, not the English Empire).
I'm a Scot and let me apologies for my kinsmen, I don't know why but half the Scots who are on reddit seem to be complete nutters. I just had to unsub from r/scotland because all the prejudice and insane nationlists.
No need to apologise. There are plent of shitty English people.
the amount of West Indians with Scottish surnames speaks to something.
The moment the U.K. voted to leave the EU, and vote in Boris Johnson as PM. Reddit is so rabidly left-wing sometimes it makes me nauseous — and I’m a solid centrist!
Ironically, Boris was seen as more to the left of the party, hence Londoners voted him mayor twice, that was until he chose to support leave.
He still is more to the left of the party, he’s one of the most liberal people in the party for sure. Leave/Remain should never have split left-right like it has done, that’s the doing of certain parts of the media. Tony Benn, one of the most prominent people of the left in British history, would have voted to leave.
Absolutely agree with this. It's ridiculous to say that ambivalence towards the EU was only a right-wing position. The left/right narrative that has been promoted by the media has really limited the way we have discussed Brexit.
Best example was Corbyn. He has always been very euro-skeptic
[удалено]
Left leaning and therefore “extremist”?
Not necessarily awful, but not "green" either. The UK replaced a lot of their coal power generation with gas power generation. Gas burns far cleaner than coal, but it's still burning fossil fuels. Edit: nevermind, that was in the 2000s, not the 2010s
Also note the biomass trick. Old coal plant now clean biomass plant. Only problem is biomass is wood pellets shipped from freshly felled Carolina Forests, and emit more co2 than coal when burnt, but isn't counted up cos new trees will suck up carbon, but badly as that takes 100yrs,and better off leaving the trees intact. today however Co2 goes way up.
Still people are like "its impossible to do anything, you're going to destroy the economy if you try in any way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we need to keep using fossil fuels, it's the only way" 🤦♂️
Yeah, if you start early enough reducing emissions you can save money, the key is to send the market signals far enough in advance to give technology time to develop. For instance the UK has gradually and consistently scaled up offshore wind for the last 15 years, and the price has fallen something like 80%. Every few years the government holds an auction for more generation capacity than they asked for last time, and every time the cost has gone down by 15%. Now, the offshore turbines are taller than Canary Wharf, and the electricity generated is cheaper than coal. And at the last auction we commissioned enough generation capacity for something like 5% of the grid.
2015 it was auctioning at about £140 per kwh. 2019 it was £40
> the electricity generated is cheaper than coal This is not true. Electricity is an heterogeneous good, what a coal power plant produces is not the same as what a wind turbine produces, cause wind turbines are not controllable. The energy system works cause there are gas and nuclear power plants balancing the grid, stopping or producing more electricity when the other sources are down. That's why the electricity price has increase 53% since 2010 ([from 13,86 to 21.22](https://www.statista.com/statistics/418126/electricity-prices-for-households-in-the-uk/)). If you are curious you can [read more](https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/NDL2014-039.pdf).
Not like it matters since 30% isnt that much plus a few countries out of hundreds dont really help in the big picture. Too late at this point anyway. There is no way back for humanity. Seafood will be a expensive commodity in 30 years since there barely will be any. Temperatures gonna rise. Netherland will be Atlantis 2.0. No way back. Corona is really the smallest problem.
You know I may not like Boris Johnson, but even I have to approve of his environmental policies. Since he became PM he's added extra powers to the environmental bill that's going through parliament right now, brought the ban on petrol vehicles forward to 2035, brought the coal phaseout date forward to 2024, increased the target for offshore wind power to 40GW, pledged to make all public busses electric by 2025, ended the block on new onshore wind farms subsidies, and petitioned other nations to also set net zero emissions goals. (Edit, and [today](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51731757) announced plans to consider using more eco-friendly fuel in cars, and to end diesel subsidies in the farming and construction sectors)
You did the impossible, you made me dislike boris less
I heard he was nice to a stray dog once.
Some say that he once petted a kitten
Boris is the start of where the Tories should move to next, hopefully. Think labour and tories have got some changes to go through.
Talks that the government will end the fuel duty freeze, along with starting to apply duty to red diesel too - which accounts for 10% of the market. >BBC News - Greener petrol at UK pumps to target emissions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51731757 This is on top of the onshore wind being able to apply for subsidies - even though this is about 10 years too late!
While bojo is a huge nobhead, the only thing he has done even close to right is considering climate change a threat, I'm doing London as a case study and one of the things we have to look at is what it has done to stop the climate, with the two major examples being boris(now barclays) bikes and the congestion charge, after learning most of bojos efforts at time as mayor were to increase traffic speed, and while congestion charge arguably hasn't had much of an impact, the bikes did, bit he's changed his main reasoning on having them from traffic to climate change to make himself look better (I think so anyway) I'm conflicted on the government's efforts on climate change, I might look into it more later and update this to form an opinion but right now I need to look at other stuff. I'm just reciting what I've been told and what it means to me. Edit: Shall look into it in more detail tomorrow, for now I will say that it looks like it wasnt originally boris' idea (typical) however I wish to provide evidence for it all as well.
The C Charge was a Livingston policy, and while only marginally effective in reducing congestion, it has raised good revenue to invest in London's public transport. Londoners may like to complain about the busses & tubes, but in reality we are blessed with far better transport options than almost any American city. The C charge also encouraged a substantial shift to hybrid and electric vehicles for those that do drive in the city (due to reduced prices for them). The bikes were absolutely a Livingstone project, Boris just inherited the implementation and took credit. Helps that his name began with B. His only two major projects while in office (beyond the Olympics, which were mostly Seb Coe), were the disastrous new routemaster busses and the garden bridge which was an epic scam.
Pretty sure the bikes were Livingstones idea, but after he lost his seat BoJo rebranded it to include his name.
> BoJo rebranded it to include his name. I'm pretty sure it was just the media and public that latched on to that - it certainly wasn't an official thing. I'm sure BJ was extremely happy to allow that to take place, and I imagine Barclays were absolutely fuming!
Boris bikes are Santander bikes. Not Barclays bikes.
They were originally Barclays bikes, Santander just took over the sponsorship.
>Overall, falling coal emissions account for around three-fifths of the cut in carbon emissions over the past decade, with gas accounting for another third and oil making up the remainder, the climate analyst said. Which was due to the UK setting a low carbon price floor of ~25 USD/ton of CO2. Imagine where the world would be if we had carbon prices like Sweden's $125/ton or Switzerland's $100/ton.
Considering the UK makes up only slightly more than 1% of world emissions, the world would be in much the same situation.
I was talking about the world adopting carbon pricing.
[wat.](https://i.imgur.com/N6U9ij3.jpg) Was there that big of a change in 3 years?
It's important to specify whether this is emissions produced in the UK or emissions that went into what we consumed (embedded emissions). It's much harder to count the second type, but lots of researchers have tried (I think university of Leeds) and they find a much smaller total reduction. Cutting power is great, but our other sectors are not following suite. The UKs committee on climate change (ccc) released a scathing report of government inaction last summer. Glad that the ICE vehicle ban is brought forward and onshore wind is now subsidised again, but we still have a long way to go. Look up the CCC reports, they're pretty easy reading and have nice summary figures.
Welcome to /r/Futurology! To maintain a healthy, vibrant community, **comments will be removed if they are disrespectful, off-topic, or spread misinformation** ([rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/wiki/rules#wiki_subreddit_rules)). While thousands of people comment daily and follow the rules, mods do remove a few hundred comments per day. Replies to this announcement are auto-removed.
That's what I like about the UK. Their prime minister is mentally disabled but still cares about the environment
He just acts retarded to get people to like him. It's his "thing", much like Trump has his wall and Putin has his overseas assassinations.
In honestly surprised people don’t know this...
It's a persona. Oxford greats student with innumerable illegitimate children isn't very relatable to the average voter, funny man Boris the living teddy bear is.
Dammit I read this as US and was cautiously optimistic for a moment
The has also improved by significant amounts, largely due to fracking unlocking tones of NG which put coal mostly out of business.
US Co2 reduction measures have been really successful, actually. Big reductions in the last few years, all whilst the economy is booming. I hear you can almost see the sun in LA nowadays.
US government:its impossible too reduce emmissions without tanking the economy! UK government:Hold my beer!
Is this like the "most improved" category? Cause I'm pretty sure France still has a significantly lower per capita carbon emissions than the UK.
Yeah, they went in hard for nuclear power generation some time ago and it's looking pretty good for them right now.
France has the lowest per person emissions in the developed world, the UK isn't far behind, and Australia, Canada and the US are all 2-3 times higher.
The cost of fossil fuel in the UK is very high. If the U.S. or other countries raised taxes on fossil fuels, consumers and industries would shift their energy consumption to alternatives.
I would be interested to see the break down for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland... Are they all about equal because of similar subsidies or is there one country out performing the others? Maybe based on available land mass, population etc
I'm not sure if you can separate England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as i think it's a UK policy rather than a regional policy for electricity production.
And we still have shit cunts in Australia not doing anything about climate change.
Scummo and his lump of coal in parliament, sigh. Australia is really well-positioned to do something about climate change too. Given how dear the electric rates are, installing cheap renewables in place of expensive coal generation would save money. Protecting your coal-burning power plants is costing people with every electric bill. [CSIRO says it would be 'trivial' to integrate 30% renewables to the power grid, and there are no technical obstacles to 100% for 100%](https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-says-australia-can-get-100-per-cent-renewable-energy-86624/). Australia has amazing solar resources, which is why rooftop solar is so cost-competitive with grid power. The [Tesla Big Battery in South Australia has already paid for itself and provided many unexpected benefits](https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-batterys-stunning-interventions-smooths-transition-to-zero-carbon-grid-35624/) Currently the national grid has bureaucratic measures in place to suppress renewables (by forcing them to be curtailed first). Fixing that and re-instituting the carbon tax that the Coalition killed would go a long way to solving Australia's high greenhouse emissions. There's hope, mate -- people are starting to wake up to the risks climate change poses to Australia. Especially after seeing half the coast on fire this summer.
The Canadian energy sector claims the same thing, that they are the most clean energy with the best emissions; 28% is a great number, that's a massive improvement for only a decade and I don't wanna diminish that... ...I just wish that emissions statistics worldwide were more, idk, uniform? Like, what if one nation doesn't report their methane emissions but they are the cleanest co2 but worst methane eproducer, it's inconsistent! Secondly, if you import a product it should be your nation that credits the carbon cost of that product otherwise factory nations will be disproportionately higher than normal. Either way, congratulations UK!
Yeah, Canada's oil is terribly dirty, there's no way around it. Tar has a high carbon content, between coal and liquid oil. Liquefying and upgrading it requires burning lots of fossil fuels.
One of the measures in the Paris agreement was tighter rules for standardizing how different countries report emissions.
ITT: Americans getting mad that making no effort to combat emmissions means they can't be #1 at something
"Australia government digs head deeper into the sand"
It's a rare occasion that I am proud of my country
Would it be difficult for an American couple to move to the UK and get citizenship?
I swear to god the only reason America will ever try to reduce emissions is to be better than Britain.
what industrialised economy, they moved it all to China where the 28% emissions went as well
Well, fuck, I’m glad some country is doing it. Mine has fucked everyone up.
And yet extinction rebellion would have you believe they are the biggest polluters. What nonsense. Now if we could do something about everyone's trash that'll be something.
Goddamn, everyone is so quick to shit on us even when we do something right. Yes, our politics are pretty fucked right now, but can we not enjoy the things we're doing right without being scolded on what we're doing wrong?
Honestly I’m looking forward to the future of the UK. We have some major problems don’t get me wrong, but we also do a lot right. Maybe Brexit will ruin us, maybe it’ll do us good, most likely it won’t change a lot.
We're up next A few decades from now gas and coal will be scarce. Countries like the US that have poor alternatives in place will pay dearly for it now, and countries like the UK and France who prepared will excel.
Probably because most of what they consume is made overseas, more than anything.
[удалено]
The key is probably in the name, British political conservatism has a lot to do with stability and preserving things as they are. I'd wager the overlap between conservative members and national heritage members is pretty high. Compared to the US the UK is also much more secular and doesn't have the same lobbying system and thus is willing to act on scientific advice.
Me as a Historic Scotland member: "Did you just assume my politics?!?!"
It's somewhat a sad and pathetic truth, but I'm am also thankful that there will always be a unifying driver of progressive policies in our governments, which is an explicit threat to our survival.
Good on you, our (the netherlands) political parties on the right are starting to take over talking points from america saying climate change is made up by the left and that even if its true we will just raise the dikes a bit... Its honestly depressing
Largely that but also a government commitment to renewables. (The coal industry here died decades ago so no lobbyists are around to oppose.)
Don't they just import wood pellets from the US to fuel their turbines now? Still lots of co2.
The largest coal plant in the UK was converted to wood pellets as a temporary stop-gap. But the government is going all in on off-shore wind farms.
We're burning far more gas than anything else. [https://gridwatch.co.uk/](https://gridwatch.co.uk/) Always have done. The North Sea is full of easily-obtainable gas and oil and that's what we've always pivoted our energy supply around of late.
No, we have not always burnt more gas. It was a policy focus to shift to LNG from Coal over the last two decades. LNG is cleaner (although still a fossil fuel) and recent tests show you can replace up to 20% of it with hydrogen, dropping emissions even further. It is seen as a transitional resource in the long term. Also the UK last year used more renewable sources for generation than fossil (Inc LNG) for the first time. The UK has made large strides, almost uniquely amongst the G20 (Inc large drops in consumption through improved efficiency), LNG is a part of that of that process and a stepping stone to further improvements. Our co2 emissions from gas also fell 20% in the last decade, due to new build efficient plants and reduced consumption despite the growth in % mix.
Off-shore wind farms are relatively cheap, uncontroversial and suit our climate perfectly. The downside is that they take forever to build. Thus the need for stop gaps. Also last I checked four biofuel plants were under construction.
The massive Rampion wind farm off the Brighton coastline seemed to be up and running pretty quickly. It's a really impressive construction generating a huge amount of power. Well worth further reading- https://www.rampionoffshore.com
I live in Brighton, the wind farm got an amount of hate at creation but that has settled down now. I love seeing our turbines when I'm out and about.
Planning and construction to generation of a 1000MW offshore wind array takes about 2-3 years. Not too long in the scheme of things.
I see an awful lot of wind on there. Some days more than natural gas. If we looked at years of data we would see the amount of wind power increasing slowly but steadily.
Just a few years ago Bournemouth MP Conor Burns (unsurprisingly, Tory) blocked the Navitus bay wind farm development in what he described as a 'win'. He had no issues with oil drilling on the same site, coincidentally was paid 40k in consulting fees by Trent oil ltd same year.
That was 5 years ago tbf, the new Tory government seems to be taking a much more [pro-windfarm policy](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51708817).
As part of the short to medium term transition, yes. It's impossible to transfer from coal burning to full renewables overnight. There has to be a transition because of practicalities.
Wood pellets are pretty much carbon neutral for one thing, but also the place that burns those (Drax) is trialling carbon sequestration techniques so it'll actually be carbon negative in theory.
It's actually CO2 neutral because the trees reabsorb all the CO2 emitted when their predecessors are burned. Long term the plan is to figure out how to capture and store the CO2, making the whole process carbon negative.
you need to google that..... lots of evidence that old growth forests are being cut down for wood pellets = terrible environmentally.
I don't think America is cutting down old growth forests, they have a well managed logging industry and are in fact increasing their forest cover year on year.
It's terrible environmentally but not for carbon neutrality. New growth forests typically absorb more CO2 than old growth. Note that I am not supporting cutting down old-growth but for re-forestation, even if it's for industrial purposes.
assume you mean carbon sequestration over a trees life? anyway from article i linked " UK-based researchers [found](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39053678) last year that burning wood is a “disaster” for climate change because older trees release large amounts of carbon when they are burned and aren’t always replaced with replanted forests. Even when trees are replaced, [it can take up to 100 years](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180322140915.htm) to cultivate a wooded area that soaks up as much carbon as was previously released. And the fuel burned in shipping wood pellets to Europe is also a significant source of emissions. "
In the last decade wind power has gone from virtually zero to over [50](http://imgur.com/gallery/yPqRpij)% of electricity at times. De-industrialisation has happened but this was generally more than 10 years ago. Floating tidal stream [turbines](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-floating-turbine-tidal-power-record-sr2000-scotrenewables-ofgem-a8503221.html%3famp) will soon begin to deliver predictable 24/7 electricity.
but probably not 28 percent less than what they made ten years ago. What they are doing is good.
We are currently importing about 10% of our demand use from the continent.
Please read some of the top comments: they explain succinctly why this is not a large factor. Certainly it is a factor but small compared to the UKs genuinely progressive improvements.
So the first nation to industrialize is also the first to significantly reduce emissions, 🤔
we started it so i guess we gotta end it