OT cutting greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050

[Michael Chare]

Does anyone thing that we can cut greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero by 2050? What would have to be done to achieve this? Nuclear fusion might help, but so far no one has got it to work properly.

[Andy Burns]

Nope.

This shows how much we've already cut since 1990, and how much we'd have to cut to reach net zero

[Scott]

I think the simple answer is to shift the emissions off-shore. Most of our manufacturing takes place in China and the major emitters such as steel could be transferred. The government could even offer a grant!

Any remaining gas-fired stations should be relocated into international waters to eliminate UK emissions.

Electric vehicles could be imported from Korea and returned there for scrapping. Shipping would need battery power sufficient to take the ship out of UK territorial waters. (I understand they already use 'clean' fuel in the EU and 'dirty' fuel once they leave.)

The alternative would be to attribute the emissions for products made in China and elsewhere for sale in the UK to the UK stats then it would be impossible to meet the target. This would be a more honest representation of our lifestyle.

[Tim Streater]

We'd all have to stop breathing, too. So would all animals, birds, and insects.

[Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp]

The only answer I can think of is nuclear power.

Trump is making a lot of progress aided by North Korea and Iran.

The heat output will be of a pulsed nature and if there are any survivors, their needs will be minimal.

The alternative is a global strategy everyone agrees to, a bit like the EU single market but more stringent.

It's a good time to build a fallout shelter :-)

AB

[Andy Burns]

Sorry, this ...

[Jethro_uk]

Population reduction. By fair means or foul. All else is pissing in the wind.

Start by having no kids for a couple of generations and see if that eases pressure on resources. If not, just wait for something nasty to do it for us.

If nature is kind, it'll render our species infertile for a bit until we get the message. But I'd be doubtful.

[Jethro_uk]

Incidentally, reading a few online "discussions" on the topic (presumably as it's fashionable again) there's a hilarious lack of comprehension amongst the masses. They really don't seem to get that when our ecosystems collapse, grumbling about how you are going to get to work will seem a tad misplaced. Seems the starting point is "how can I carry on exactly as before ?" which misses the point spectacularly.

[Michael Chare]

Trouble is we don't even immediately send back all those who enter the country illegally.

[Jimbo]

Nukes for power generation and electric cars.

Don?t need that for zero gg emissions.

[Jimbo]

Nope,. just plant enough plants to consume that.

[Jethro_uk]

It's got f*ck all to do with *where* the people are living.

7 billion and counting people need air, water and food wherever they live.

Ironically reducing *just* the UKs population makes it an even more attractive destination when other areas become uninhabitable.

There really is No Way Out.

[Tim+]

Only by creative accounting. Buying carbon credits off third world countries etc.

A global nuclear war would definitely help. Ebola or other plague would be effective too if it spreads far enough.

Seriously, population is the big issue and pretending that we can engineer our way out of the coming apocalypse is almost certainly a fantasy.

I have a theory that almost all economic activity causes CO2 production at some level or other eventually and we?re basically doomed (at some indeterminate point in the future). All I?m certain of is that date is getting nearer.

Tim

[tabbypurr]

Of course we can do it. But only a lunatic would try with any degree of seriousness. The death toll would be enormous. What do you think would happen if we cut off all use of petroleum products?

NT

[The Natural Philosopher]

Still wouldn't work. Need to smelt iron and steel and make cement.,

We are a carbon based life form and almsot everything that has changed since the stone age requires carbon based fuel

[The Natural Philosopher]

Correct.

Incorrect.

Excess CO2 is simply irrelevant - and is highly beneficial to plants. Te area of green is expanding into arid regions and this extra growth will; fix more CO2 as will photosynthetic algae in the sea

All I am certain is that of all the things that could destroy civilization, fear of carbon dioxide is infinitely more dangerous than carbon dioxide itself

[Michael Chare]

Immigrants from Africa and the Middle East will propably use more power to keep warm and because of our higher standard of living thus contributing more to global warming. They will occupy land this reducing UK wild life and vegitation.

[alan_m]

Doesn't zero carbon also mean zero carbon used in the manufacture of the cars and the building of the power station(s)?

I bet the great unwashed haven't realised that their heating bills will increase by x3 (at today's prices) if they have to heat by electricity.

Too cheap to even meter?

[Tim Streater]

So where would you put those plants, then? I mean, stooging about this country I don't notice thousands of acres of freshly tilled soil that people are perversely refusing to plant up.

[Tim Streater]

Ah, but that contradicts the current orthodoxy. Doubtless Jo Brand will soon knock on your door to issue a penalty.