Britain aims to take lead on aggressive (60%) carbon cuts (Nature, news)

[jpak]

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061113/full/061113-10.html

Climate policy experts have cautiously welcomed the British government's newly announced plan to make drastic cuts to the country's greenhouse-gas emissions over the next half-century.

Under the plan, announced by the Queen at today's official opening of the new parliamentary session, emissions of carbon dioxide will be slashed by 60% by 2050.

But members of the opposing Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties say they are hoping to beef up the measures even more, in a bid to maintain Britain's status as a champion of the fight against climate change.

The plan, formulated by Britain's Labour government, will involve the creation of an independent 'carbon committee' to monitor progress towards the 60% cut relative to 1990 levels. It will impose five-year targets to meet this aim — although environmental advocates and opposition politicians have called for yearly emissions-reduction targets.

<more>

[Greeby]

1. There's just one problem with implementing that

And that problem's name is President Tony

[Nihil]

7. And a second problem lurks ...

> emissions of carbon dioxide will be slashed by 60% by 2050

2050 is a long way off. Very few of the politicians present in the
chamber will even be alive then, much less paying attention to old
political slogans - and this is based on current lifespans, with the
incredibly huge assumption that conditions for living will not have
changed in that time.

We are also talking about ten different governments (at least) by
that year. There is no way that they will all adhere to Blairite
promises.

This strikes me as yet another abyssmal Blair fudge: claim the moon
but do nothing about reaching it. Even if the bastard doesn't get
hauled off to the Hague, he will still be free (from his Carlyle job)
to fob off any failure as "the fault of my successors, not my vision".

:mad:

[applegrove]

2. Good for Britain. May innovation follow. And the rest of us.

[Vorta]

3. Why is this not slashing our own throats?

Is Her Majesty referring to new technologies which make coal energy less dirty, or some other cost effective approach? Or is this going to be an acquiescence to unproven pop science to make people feel good on the one hand while bankrupting industry and consumers on the other?

[phantom power]

4. I wouldn't presume to say what they mean, but I'll say this...

If you want to see "bankrupt industry and consumers," just wait and see what happens if we keep dumping CO2. I don't think we have to wait long at all, since earth's climate is already sliding down into a new basin of attraction.

[buddysmellgood]

5. This will create jobs, technologies and opportunity.

[Vorta]

6. That's great, but I am on a budget

Two years ago, new legislation was passed which required home central air conditioning systems to be more efficient. Not a huge problem, as long as it only meant that when you had to replace your unit you would have to buy a slightly more expensive and efficient unit. Unfortunately for the consumer, the law seems to have been written by the AC contractors association and requires that you not only buy a more expensive unit, but that your ductwork will probably have to be replaced as well as your air handler. So the cost of replacing your ac unit just went from about a thousand dollars to closer to six thousand dollars. That's not progress in my book.

So, guess what people will do? They will go back to using high powered wall units, which cost $500. In fact, the new home I am building will have wall units and no duct work. Truth be told, I had planned to do it that way because I think wall units are superior, but I am betting others will find them attractive once again when they find out how much this new law is going to cost them.