Community | June 27, 2009 | 4 comments

Scotland to cut emissions 42% by 2020

source: http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/06/26/scotland-goes-one-up-on-ipcc-recommendations-plans-to-...

Image
JanforGore
Hello USA. Not politically feasible?

excerpt:

'As developed nations juggle with the numbers attempting to dodge the issue of agreement on ambitious carbon emissions cuts, the Scottish government has unveiled plans to cut the country’s carbon emissions by a staggering 42 percent, more than the 40 percent recommendation given by IPCC.

This is the most ambitious emissions reduction goal adopted by any country thus far, Germany has plans to 40 its emissions by 40 percent while Britain formally adopted a 34 percent reduction goal this April. Scotland, with its strong renewable energy infrastructure and bold plans to expand the same, has raised the bar even further.

In the recent weeks the developed countries have been in the line of fire of the green groups as they proposed disappointing emission reduction goals. Completely ignoring the IPCC recommendations of 25-40 percent reductions by 2020, Japan and Russia proposed cutting their respective emissions by merely 8 and 10-15 percent. These are only just better than the Kyoto Protocol goals which bind them to cut their emissions by 5-6 percent by 2012 from 1990 levels.

The driving engine behind this highly ambitious goal is the strong renewable energy infrastructure of Scotland. The Scottish government has unveiled numerous clean energy projects in the recent years which has helped the nation make the transition from fossil fuels to clean fuels.

Scotland’s geographic position is a blessing as it harnesses the high speed winds coming from the North Sea to generate electricity through offshore as well as onshore wind energy farms. The total wind energy potential is estimated to be 25 GW. Scotland has quite a few wind farms including one which is the largest onshore farm in Europe.

Last year the Scottish government announced a three fold increase in subsidies on small scale wind and solar energy systems for home owners and small businesses. This shows that the government is serious about promoting renewable sources as reliable sources of energy. Similar efforts from other countries are essential if we want to replace fossil fuels as the major source of power generation around the world.

Scotland has also taken some innovative initiatives in order to conserve and produce energy in a clean manner. The Glasgow City Council was provided with blueprint of a revolutionary idea of harnessing solar power. The plan, developed by Glasgow-based ZM Architecture, calls for deployment of floating lily-shaped solar panels in the Clyde river which will generate electricity & supply directly to the national grid. The company hopes that the city council would approve a pilot project which could eventually result in a large scale implementation of the project.'

end of excerpt.

This is what REAL political will looks like.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Earth and Science,   Sustainable Agriculture
  2. tags:
    News,  Green,  Earth and Science,  Environment,  8 more
  3.     
    |

4 comments // Scotland to cut emissions 42% by 2020

  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Yes, it is. And it is even more embarrassing when elected leaders say the bill the House just voted for in the midnight hour "is a bold step." Compared to what? This comes down absolutely to the consumptive lifestyle Americans have become accustomed to and don't want to have to change even for the better... even if it means jeopardizing their own sustainability and that of their own children to not do so, with a lack of politicians with no guts to truly do the right thing because they are so afraid they will piss a CEO or a voter off that then won't "like them." Unbelievable and embarrassing.

    • 2 years ago
  • pjacobs51
    • 0
      pjacobs51  

    • "Why are Europeans always ahead of the curve?"

      Let's compare a Porsche to a Chevy. Hmm, that explains alot.

      Slacking in the USA, it is very embarrassing!

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • Sweden's carbon tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list.

      excerpt:

      'If there's a paradise for environmentalists, this Nordic nation of 9.2 million people must be it. In 2007 Sweden topped the list of countries that did the most to save the planet - for the second year running - according to German environmental group, Germanwatch. Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9%, largely exceeding the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, while enjoying economic growth of 44% in fixed prices.

      Under Kyoto, Sweden was even told it could increase its emissions by 4% given the progress it had already made. But "this was not considered ambitious enough," explains Emma Lindberg, a climate change expert at the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

      "So parliament decided to cut emissions by another 4% [below 1990 levels]. The mindset was 'we need to do what's good for the environment because it's good for Sweden and its economy'."

      The main reason for this success, say experts, is the introduction of a carbon tax in 1991. Swedes today pay an extra 2.34 kronor (20p) per litre when they fill the tank (although many key industries receive tax relief or are exempted). "Our carbon emissions would have been 20% higher without the carbon tax," says the Swedish environment minister, Andreas Carlgren.

      "It was the one major reason that steered society towards climate-friendly solutions," reckons Lindberg. "It made polluting more expensive and focused people on finding energy-efficient solutions."

      "It increased the use of bioenergy," concurs Professor Thomas B Johansson from the University of Lund, a former director of energy and climate at the UN Development Programme. "It had a major impact in particular on heating. Every city in Sweden uses district heating [where steam and hot water are piped to a building in a particular area]. Before, coal or oil were used for district heating. Now biomass is used, usually waste from forests and forest industries."

      Another reason is that, paradoxically, energy consumption remained relatively stable at a time of high economic growth. "Non-energy-intensive industries, such as the service sector, grew more in Sweden, compared to energy-intensive industries, such as paper mills," states Johansson.

      Sweden also became conscious of its dependency on fossil fuels early on, after the oil shocks of the 70s. "The country switched in the 80s to direct electric heating and in recent years increasingly uses heat pumps, which uses two-thirds less electricity to heat. People were also helped with subsidies to substitute," says Johansson.

      And Swedes were perhaps environmentally aware at an earlier time than most. "The general public concern in terms of climate change really arose in the mid-80s. The authorities were very active in the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988," reckons Johansson.'

      end ot excerpt.

      Why are Europeans always ahead of the curve? Embarrassing that what we got was all we will get and it isn't even close to what these nations are doing.

    • 2 years ago
  • lamborghini
more from Community:
from the community

top videos