User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
And given that nuclear can't make any difference in that timescale, what "Plan B" would? i.e., how do we reduce our short-term future electricity demand (and/or increase supply) without increasing fossil fuel consumption?
This is the big question for the whole world not just the UK. Another question is ... how do we continue to grow our economies with rapidly declining fossil fuel consumption?
After reading the IPCC conclusions on Dangerous Antropogenic Climate Change the world's politicians have decided that CO2 emissions MUST fall to 80% of the 1990 levels by 2050 - however this assumes that the levels of CO2 start falling steadily from NOW.
If the 80% decline is to be met by 2050 then by 2020 we need to have reduced emissions by 30% or so - if we delay the decline then the deadline is not 2050 but some much sooner time - especially if we continue to actually increase emissions in the short term, or if the politicians are too optimistic with their 'best guess' as to what is safe.
So, what is the UK (and the world) to do? ... it looks like the UK can easily meet the 30% targets just by avoiding imports of coal, oil and gas ... a large number of new nukes may be out of the question as well, since they put a lot of CO2 into the air during the construction phase (just at the time we will be struggling to reduce the emissions).
It doesn't look like the UK has a coherent, adequate, timely plan 'A' let alone plan 'B' and we actually have oil, gas, and some coal - unlike most other European countries!
Does that mean we will get dangerous climate change because growth will be more important than climate change? ... if so forget about the nukes! ... we will need the money and declining energy earmarked for them to rebuild all our major coastal cities on higher ground.
Dear Xeroid,
This simple, harsh, and depressing answer to your last rhetorical question, 'Does that mean we will get dangerous climate change because growth will be more important than climate change?' is 'yes, 'we' will choose growth above any other consideration, until the bitter end!'
Anything else is unthinkable and unrealistic, regardless of the consequences. Putting ameliorating climate change would mean reversing, at the very least, as a timid start, the last thirty odd years of Western and now global economic policy, the so-called Reagan-Thatcher 'revolution' which has become the socio-economic paradigm of our age. The presumed foundation of our wealth and prosperity, though the model is now beginning to falter and totter. Such a reversal will not be easy or occure overnight. Too many people, though a minority, have benefitted and have never been richer or more powerful. One is almost talking about a social revolution and the resistance to this type of change will be dedicated, and red in tooth and claw.
The more I understand how the world all hangs together the more I'm sure you are correct, and therefore am basing my strategy on that basis!
That means the oil, gas and coal will not last anything like as long as they could ... no growth in primary energy = no growth in economy!
So, what do I advise my son or grandchildren to help them plan for the future ... their long term outlook is 80 years or so?