Net Zero carbon

[cromwell]

As I understand it the government has committed to the UK to being carbon neutral by 2050.
Which refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken away.
We have reduced our emissions with measures such as doing away with coal fired power stations and building the largest off shore wind farm in the world (also by willfully exporting much of our heavy industries overseas).
But to go forward from where we are now means that the ordinary person is going to notice changes, possibly big changes.
Gas boilers are slated for replacement; new ones won't be installed in new build homes post 2025. Eventually they will be banned and replaced by electric boilers and or expensive heat pumps.
New patrol and diesel cars will not be on sale post 2030 to be replaced by electric cars (ECVs).

So we are going to need lots more electricity which for reliability means more nuclear power stations. Especially as the existing nuclear power station at Dungeness has just been closed with immediate effect, seven years early.

Then we have to address "carbon heavy" industries like cement and steel which account for up to 80% of our emissions (according to the Telegraph on Saturday). I'm not sure how you do this.

But as the Telegraph article postulated, how are you going to achieve all this without net zero being seen to be "an elitist project"?
it's OK saying that UK holidaymakers shouldn't be flying abroad for their holidays, but hard to sustain when the world leaders are jetting everywhere! That's do as we say writ large.

And then there are the fanatics, the ones who will never be satisfied whatever is done. The kind who say eating meat should be taxed to reduce consumption. This should be fun. Come and have your Big Mac Locust burger! No ta, will be the usual reaction.

So in the near future we will be having interesting times. Expect a massive PR campaign to support all measures; but if the perception is that all this is a project run by hypocritical politicians under the slogan do as we say, not do as we do - watch out for fireworks.

[Suff]

There are some clue's here as to where they are going.

Farmers get subsidies for leaving areas of their ground to trees or hedgerows. Programs are ongoing to reforest land and there is a general push to reduce carbon consumption in everything we do.

Heat pumps are a bit hit and miss at the moment but solid support will drive improvements in them. They can be as much as 5:1 efficiency. Gas is 3:1 lower cost than electricity so, theoretically, when you install a heat pump your bills can fall.

There will need to be an uplift in the grid, however something like 20% to 50% and this is over 29 years. The standard lifetime of the plumbing in a power station is circa 25 years. Standard nuclear reactors have a 40 year life although they are trying to up it to 60 years.

One we start moving energy markets will change the way we use power. When renewables are plentiful, people will schedule vehicles/heat pumps for hot water, washing machines, etc. When power is more expensive (lower renewable supply), we will use less power. Today renewable energy often goes negative in price. Simply we get too much of it at a time and have nowhere to put it or use it. That will change. We have 29 years to change it.

As for the beef stuff? As I've been telling the idiots in the climate lobby for two decades, "you can use taxation as a tool to force decarbonisation. Just expect the people to vote for whatever lunatic is saying what they want to hear about taxation". Trump was the end result of the Obama regime. They used taxation and public spending in this way, the people said "no I'll vote for this crazy man".

The world is changing. When the chip shortage stops blocking car production, we're going to see a LOT more electric vehicles than new FF vehicles. Oh and remember, it is "electrified" vehicles from 2030, that includes hybrid. It is Electric ONLY from 2035 and that does not include hybrids.

Remember, when the EU stuck their 95g/km limit on emissions the vehicle manufacturers _chose_ those electric vehicles they say they're being forced to make. Because of that choice, grids have to change. Might as well go the whole hog and do the gas infrastructure at the same time.

It won't help the liveable bioshpere that much, but it will give our progeny a cat in hells chance of survival. Something they don't have without these reductions.

I don't agree with some of the stuff they are doing, but I do agree something has to be done.

[Workingman]

There is not, never has been and never will be a net zero CO2 country, region, city or hamlet. It is a Fairy story worthy of Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm.

All these EVs, Windmills and Heat Pumps are not made out of Pixie dust, they all require huge amounts of CO2 and energy in their production as well as the destruction of various environments that causes.

And it is the environmental destruction; marine, land and atmospheric, that will get us the worst. For every extra person we need more food, air to breathe, clothing, drinking water, housing, gadgets and gizmos.

CO2 is only one item on a much bigger menu.

[cromwell]

And it is the environmental destruction; marine, land and atmospheric, that will get us the worst. For every extra person we need more food, air to breathe, clothing, drinking water, housing, gadgets and gizmos.

It is certainly true that of all the problems we face, overpopulation is rarely if ever mentioned.

And I think there is a reason for this. The prevailing economic system is capitalism and in particular consumerism.
And the more consumers you have the better it is, as far as capitalism is concerned. More food is eaten, more cars sold, more houses built - and every sale generates a profit, all things being equal.
So more people = more profit. But also of course as you point out, more consumption of the earth's resources.

How this particular circle gets squared I really don't know.

[Workingman]

How this particular circle gets squared I really don't know.

Fret ye not.

We'll all have a heat pump, an EV, a windmill in the garden and solar panels on the roof. Boohoo and Primark will supply us clothes made from recycled bottles and our food will come from the hydroponic farms in our lofts, which will also clean the rainwater for us to drink.

Technology will save us... it's a given.

[Suff]

Don't think technology is going to save you. The most vociferous campaigners are determined to send you back to the level of the African bushman. Never mind the fact that this kind of farming can't feed 2bn people, let alone 7.7bn.

By doing "something" the UK has become one of the best at mitigating CO2 emissions. So much so that we have moved from #6 emitter in the world to #13 (or lower, it keeps moving). This is not just about offshoring industry. By almost removing coal power, putting in wind and solar, becoming smarter about consumption and providing options, the UK has managed to put itself on the right side of this debate. As we continue to do so, we will stay on the right side.

Consider, if we do not go EV and install heat pumps, we will significantly miss our commitment to the Paris accord. That was a legal commitment signed by our government. It is no less binding than the NI protocol of the EU exit treaty, but people seem to think that it is a "whatever" thing. It is not. We have three choices, comply, withdraw or try to renegotiate. Just as with any international treaty.

The fact that we are trying to comply, whilst others are trying to renege, stands the UK in good stead.

Also we have manage to do our emissions reduction without damaging the growth of our economy. Should we not carry out graduated and gradual change over the next 29 years, we would have to go on a crash diet of emissions, massively damaging our economy.

Or we could renege on our international treaty obligations. But I'm told we don't do that; we're a responsible country in the International community.