Cost of reducing emssions

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Interesting though it may be, what is the relevance in comparing the 5% figure UK have historically contributed since, presumably, the Industrial Revolution, with the 1% UK currently contributes?

There is a limit to how much CO2 the environment can cope with, be it the greenhouse effect, or the acidification of the oceans.

Since the UK has approx 1% of the World's population, then should we go down the morally questionable route of questioning our actions going forward on the basis of emissions, then be it 1% of current emissions, or 5% of cumulative emissions, there is no excuse for us to not do our part.

As there is a limit to how much cumulative CO2 can be released from FF's and added to the environment before we reach a tipping point of runaway global warming, it seems reasonable to at least consider our contribution to that additional CO2.

On a side issue, I think the UK (and all countries tbf) can excuse their emissions prior to the problem of AGW and its potential seriousness being identified and scientifically accepted around 50yrs ago. Plus of course the technological benefits that the carbon economy has brought us. But we can only excuse these for the purposes of 'blame' going forward, not for their impact on the environment nor their 'consumption' of the carbon budget they have taken up when considering necessary action going forward.

Now, we are in a simple position, we know the problem is real, we know the problem is massive (hence its classification as 'climate crisis'), we know that the cost is only going to get worse the more we delay in acting, and we know we have the solutions. So, the faster we act to mitigate, the smaller the total cost will be, both economically and environmentally.

GreatApe

The problems are mostly nonsense like your 'rice may become less nutritious' argument a while back
And humanity productivity increases exponentially so it's will be exponentially easier to deal with in the future

Excluding the things that are economic to do today which we should keep doing like efficiency standards, building standards and yes where economic PV/Wind/nuclear/hydropower. But those would be for economic reasons not carbon reasons

michaels

I can't help thinking we could probably reduce emissions more by spending 10bn pa in developing countries to encourage them to go straight to wind/solar etc rather than FF than by spending 100bn pa in the UK - thoughts?

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

I can't help thinking we could probably reduce emissions more by spending 10bn pa in developing countries to encourage them to go straight to wind/solar etc rather than FF than by spending 100bn pa in the UK - thoughts?

There is no way to leapfrog fossil fuels the only reason we in the west can do significant wind and solar is because we already have the grid and fossil infrastructure

If you build out a fossil infrastructure for the world's poor emmissions would rise significantly but so will their heath and quality of life and wellbeing

Overall I think it's a worthwhile endeavour the rich countries should just build the poor countries a cheap affordable coal and gas grid and infrastructure. Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day give him electricity and he can grow his economic output 10% a year until 30 years later his nation is fully develop from abject poverty to middle income level in one generation

But then many people want poor people to stay poor so there won't be the incentive to do this

mmmmikey

A few observations on this.....


1. Just because "the Donald" claims he doesn't believe in global warming doesn't mean that the US isn't doing anything to tackle emissions and won't continue to do so. It's happening at a state level. When he eventually goes to prison (or whatever) common sense and reason will no doubt return and this will regain it's focus at a federal level. So I don't really buy the "US isn't doing anything so why should we?" argument.


2. China may still be building coal power electricity stations but it's also massively investing in solar technologies, etc. As soon as it suits China to change economically it almost certainly will do and will be in a position to do very quickly (anyone who disagrees will be locked up, or something like that). So I similarly don't buy the "China isn't doing anything so why should we?" argument.


3. A lot of the money we spend on green initiatives will create good quality, highly paid jobs, generating tax revenue and generally stimulating the economy so this isn't money down the pan (quite apart from the environmental benefits).


Quite apart from any of the above, I personally would rather be living in a country of positive thinking, ambitious and practical people who accept and rise to the challenge of global warming rather than deny the science and think of excuses for not doing so.


Perhaps there should be another board called "polluting and unethical money saving" for those that don't agree.....


Anyway, enough of that, going outside now to plant a few money trees

1961Nick

michaels wrote: »

I can't help thinking we could probably reduce emissions more by spending 10bn pa in developing countries to encourage them to go straight to wind/solar etc rather than FF than by spending 100bn pa in the UK - thoughts?

I agree entirely with that sentiment. The only way to curb AGW effectively is to make it a global effort ... and to keep politicians away from any decision making.

A global fund with contributions based on GDP & current emissions.

mmmmikey

1961Nick wrote: »

I agree entirely with that sentiment. The only way to curb AGW effectively is to make it a global effort ... and to keep politicians away from any decision making.

A global fund with contributions based on GDP & current emissions.

Yep, me too. Good to be able to agree on something even if we do have differing views elsewhere

ABrass

Cutting out subsidies for fossil fuels abroad night be a good start on the path towards reducing emissions elsewhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/uk-spent-nearly-2bn-on-fossil-fuel-projects-overseas-last-year

michaels

GreatApe wrote: »

There is no way to leapfrog fossil fuels the only reason we in the west can do significant wind and solar is because we already have the grid and fossil infrastructure

If you build out a fossil infrastructure for the world's poor emmissions would rise significantly but so will their heath and quality of life and wellbeing

Overall I think it's a worthwhile endeavour the rich countries should just build the poor countries a cheap affordable coal and gas grid and infrastructure. Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day give him electricity and he can grow his economic output 10% a year until 30 years later his nation is fully develop from abject poverty to middle income level in one generation

But then many people want poor people to stay poor so there won't be the incentive to do this

I'm not sure if that is true, certainly for telecoms there has been no need for a wired network and in countries with less transport infrastructure perhaps local RE micro-grids plus battery/generator backup will be easier to introduce than trying to go big infrastructure full grid deployment?

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is true, certainly for telecoms there has been no need for a wired network and in countries with less transport infrastructure perhaps local RE micro-grids plus battery/generator backup will be easier to introduce than trying to go big infrastructure full grid deployment?

How do you imagine a poor farmer who can barely afford shoes will be able to buy solar panels and batteries and generators? He is so poor he doesn't even use electricity and probably isn't on the grid.

For him to leave poverty he needs to leave the farm and go to the city.
This has happened and is continuing to happen at huge rates as the world urbanises

Once in the city he has a higher wages (still poor compared to UK) but he has no way or no reason to self generate or build a 'microgrid'. Some nations like China and Turkey are about 98% apartments there isn't even a roof for you to put panels on you need the grid to bring in power to the cities

Also looking at the world Bank data it shows India as 88% already connected to the grid the data ends 2017 project forward to today and it's probably over 90%

So they are already connected to the grid they aren't going to go backwards and disconnect

India will increase its electricity consumption and production by 4x over the next 20 years and the number of households connected to the grid will go from 90% to 99%

The rest of the poor world is in the same boat.
To not be poor they need to move into the cities which need big powerful grids
Plus grids and conventional generation are affordable and they work