It's always 20-30 years in the future.
In 2000, it was 2030.
Or to put it differently: "Let the next generation deal with it."
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
46 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22057 readers
94 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Still waiting to see "reducing emission by 1/3 in 10 years". I'm pretty sure that's a must for achieving neutrality by 2050. Somehow, no politician talks about that idea.
Here you can check whether countries on track to meet their climate pledges.
The problem here is that many countries are just outsourcing their CO² output. If you move the factory to Asia, the CO² output doesn't show up in your country, but instead in Asia.
Another issue with the charts by the BBC is that they don't show per-capita data but instead the total amount, and the "needed for 1.5°" curve is also not adjusted per-capita but instead adjusted based on what the country is doing so far. So for example, it allows for the USA to have per-capita yearly CO² emissions of ~10t by 2030, while Kenya only gets 0.95t per capita.
Actually, they say Kenya is wildly not on track to reach the 1.5° goal, while even the incredible increase that they are projecting based on the policies curve would only put them up to 2.4t CO² per capita, compared to the 10t CO² per capita that they put as the "USA would be awesome if they managed to reduce to that level".
Well we can't start right now, X hasn't started yet and Y isn't as good as the fossil alternative. And anyway we're missing the 1.5° target so there is obviously no reason to get carbon neutral anymore ....
Still nice to see that the swiss are aware of the problem and are setting goalposts let's hope they actually get them.
Almost all European (and many other) countries have set similar goals for 2000, 2020, 2035 and noch 2050, and we are all just breezing by them. On the contrary, the CO2 output has increased since 2000.
Setting goals doesn't matter if there is no plan and no punishment for not keeping it.
The current plan of basically all countries is "let's wait another 20 years and see if some magic technological solution to our problems appear". That's not planning, that's superstition.
'by 2050' is absolutely meaningless.
This would probably be easier if people weren’t so scared of nuclear energy.
So, we're going to replace all our cars with EVs, which require us to extract rare earth, whose mining process is a source for CO2. I still haven't understood how we'll achieve net zero in that way. Also, is efuel so bad?
view more: next ›