So says... yes you guessed, its the Guardian again.
My first thought was, oh how typical, not "because its right", but for electoral reasons. But thats probably wrong thinking: if the grass roots are pushing for it, then splendid. However... the details are poor (there is a little bit more here.
The bill will set out a statutory commitment to cut CO2 emissions by 60% from 1990 levels by 2050, requiring annual cuts way above anything the Labour government has achieved so far. 2050 is a fair way off (to be fair rolling 5 year targets of an unknown value are also suggested)... and cuts way above whats achieved so far? That will require some real effort and some good ideas. So what are the ideas? Under the plans, ministers will establish an independent body, the Carbon Committee, to work with government to reduce emissions across the economy. I doubt that will do it.
Unsurprisingly, FOE are unimpressed - The lack of annual targets in today's bill means the government will continue to dawdle on this crucial issue. We need a climate change bill which sets binding emissions-reduction targets of 6% a year... All very well, but without some idea of how to achieve 6%/y, we'll just miss these targets.
- Log in to post comments
Of course, I might be among the first ones to support the proposed destruction of the British economy. We may sacrifice Great Britain today in order to - hopefully - learn an important message for tomorrow. If it's only Britain who will pay for this stupidity, it won't hurt much. The message is that it is really dangerous to allow lunatics to dictate nation-wide and world-wide policies.
But I am afraid that all these things are just words and they will stay words until a cheap technology to control the climate will be settled. No one will ever realize these mad programs seriously. Meanwhile, the U.S. will have a less increasing - or decreasing - CO2 emissions, but for different reasons.
Six percent of reduction per year is complete nonsense given the contemporary technologies. You would need another world war to nuke away most of Great Britain and prevent them from reviving. Without killing tens of millions of people or forcing them to live in concentration camps, it's a difficult task.
Six percent per year is comparable to the reductions in the Eastern bloc after the collapse of communism when the heavy industry producing steel and products sellable into the Soviet Union only had to stop.
That will never happen in a capitalist world.
One of the curious things is the assumption that left always means green and visa versa. Socialists and communists have pretty poor environmental records in government because their obsession is providing jobs (cynics may insert for themselves here). On the other hand a lot of far right nationalist parties have an idealized vision of the yeoman farmer. You could see this struggle in the early history of the German Green party in which the serious people had to fend off both the Young Pioneers and the Bismark Jugend.
Re: "Of course, I might be among the first ones to support the proposed destruction of the British economy."
Lubos, when are you and your free market fundamentalists going to learn that measures promoting environmental sustainability will not decimate an economy?
Take, for instance, the automotive sector in the US and here in Canada. Ford, GM, and Chevrolet have been posting huge losses (or at least significantly reduced profits) and cutting thousands of jobs and they're among the worst auto companies in terms of fuel efficiency ratings (churning out way too many SUVs, wasteful cars, and the like).
The auto industry in Asia is doing fairly well. Profits are somewhat steady and jobs are fairly secure. As well, these companies (Honda, Toyota, etc.) are producing great numbers of hybrids or at least much more fuel efficient vehicles than their counterparts in North America.
This is but one example which indicates that environmentally friendly measures are actually beneficial to the economy.
Oh, and one other thing. Sen. John McCain commissioned a study on the benefits of environmentally friendly technology in the US which indicated that almost a million new jobs would be created, great profits would be made, and the US economy would be further enriched due to technological advances. If the US became a driving force behind such technology, it could export mass quantities of it to other countries as well as developing countries and gain a significant amount of money doing so.
Come on, Lubos! Even a loyal Republican is dispelling your myth.
As someone with experience in this type of legislative goal-setting, let me say that for all practical purposes there is no such thing as too specific and too soon. The sooner it becomes clear a goal is not being met, the sooner the necessary discussion of how to catch up will happen. It's a bad sign when politicians set the first benchmark for a date beyond the next election.
I should add that there are numerous immediate steps that could be included in such a bill, e.g. banning incandescent lightbulbs, barring new developments in locations that are not amenable to public transit, etc. They may not add up to even 6% and certainly wouldn't all be able to be implemented in a single year, but their inclusion would be an indication of sincerity on the part of the drafters of the bill.
"I should add that there are numerous immediate steps that could be included in such a bill"
Banning car use on Wednesdays. ;)
60% reduction in CO_2 by 2050? Seeing that 50% of global CO_2 emissions are from oil which will be depleted by 2050, all the UK government has to worry about to hit that target is getting people to stop burning coal - wow, I've just remembered that Margaret Thatcher did that when she shut down the coal industry in the 80s! Maybe Tony Blair will now be very thankful that Margaret Thatcher succeeded in shutting down the pits when she did. ;-)
nc, I assume you remember that we actually get our coal from abroad, like Columbia? The only reason the UK hasnt built any new coal plants was because we started using up the North sea gas instead. The problem there is that its running out, so we are now net importers of both gas and oil. Our balance of payments will take a big hit.
guthrie, indeed. It seems that the UK now has plans to build at least one new coal-fired power station, currently in the erm, pipeline (seam?).