Re: Tackling the Climate Emergency:Economic and judicial instruments
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:50 am
Open to critical enquiry
https://scrutable.science/
According to this BBC report water is used to spray-clean the silicon wafers. One company uses 31,000 tonnes of water each day!If this and other reservoirs in Taiwan dry up, it could be detrimental for the global electronics sector, because so many of the products people use are powered by semiconductors - computer chips - made by Taiwanese companies.
Around 90% of the most advanced microchips are manufactured in Taiwan.
They're key to objects ranging from ventilators to smartphones, and the pandemic has left demand high and supply tight.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56927010Germany's climate change laws are "insufficient" and violate fundamental freedoms by putting the burden of curbing CO2 emissions on the young, its highest court has ruled.
It said the law failed to give enough detail on cutting CO2 emissions after current targets end in 2030.
"The provisions irreversibly offload major emission reduction burdens onto periods after 2030," the court said.
The government will now have to revise the law by the end of the next year.
The decision comes a week after the EU unveiled ambitious new climate change targets.
Under the law, which was agreed between member states and the EU Parliament, the bloc will cut carbon emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels.
Like the EU legislation, Germany's domestic climate change law also provides for a 55% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030.
The 2019 law was agreed as part of Germany's response to the 2016 Paris climate deal, which aims to keep the global temperature rise well under 2C - and preferably to 1.5C - to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
But the German Constitutional Court said on Thursday that current measures "violate the freedoms of the complainants, some of whom are still very young" because they delay too much of the action needed to reach the Paris targets until after 2030.
"In order to achieve this, the reductions still required after 2030 will have to be achieved more urgently and at short notice," it said in a statement.
So, the UK carbon budget approach?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:31 pmLegally-binding targets, set by scientists, with check-in points every 3-5 years, would be a good way to go.
Yes, in theory - I'm looking forward to seeing the updated version.Sciolus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:58 pmThat's a good result. We'll see it makes any difference.
So, the UK carbon budget approach?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:31 pmLegally-binding targets, set by scientists, with check-in points every 3-5 years, would be a good way to go.
If I'm understanding the article correctly, the court decided that even though the Victorian government forestry agency (VicForests) has broken the law it doesn't matter because it's not subject to that law. So it can log away, even in areas where endangered species live, with nothing to stop them.In its judgment on Monday, the court found the initial judgment – including that VicForests had breached the code of practice by not complying with the precautionary principle in some forests – was factually correct.
But it found that VicForests’ logging was exempt from national environment laws even if it did not comply with the RFA [Regional Forests Agreements].
I think a bit different. My reading is that it broke the Regional Forest Agreement. However, that agreement didn't have the status of a law.Fishnut wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:15 amWhen judicial instruments fail:
Logging exempt from environment laws despite destroying threatened species’ Victorian habitat, court finds
If I'm understanding the article correctly, the court decided that even though the Victorian government forestry agency (VicForests) has broken the law it doesn't matter because it's not subject to that law. So it can log away, even in areas where endangered species live, with nothing to stop them.In its judgment on Monday, the court found the initial judgment – including that VicForests had breached the code of practice by not complying with the precautionary principle in some forests – was factually correct.
But it found that VicForests’ logging was exempt from national environment laws even if it did not comply with the RFA [Regional Forests Agreements].
You might be right. It's really confusing, at least to me!Woodchopper wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:31 amI think a bit different. My reading is that it broke the Regional Forest Agreement. However, that agreement didn't have the status of a law.Fishnut wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:15 amWhen judicial instruments fail:
Logging exempt from environment laws despite destroying threatened species’ Victorian habitat, court finds
If I'm understanding the article correctly, the court decided that even though the Victorian government forestry agency (VicForests) has broken the law it doesn't matter because it's not subject to that law. So it can log away, even in areas where endangered species live, with nothing to stop them.In its judgment on Monday, the court found the initial judgment – including that VicForests had breached the code of practice by not complying with the precautionary principle in some forests – was factually correct.
But it found that VicForests’ logging was exempt from national environment laws even if it did not comply with the RFA [Regional Forests Agreements].
I think educating people on what instruments are already available to them to pressure for change would be incredibly valuable. I've seen it work very well with wildlife stuff, for example.discovolante wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 11:06 amI do wonder if, now that quite a bit of awareness has been raised about the fact that climate change is A Thing and maybe a tad less, but still some, awareness on the technical 'solutions' for it, there is scope to bring in some legal education about climate change and environment related law. I mean that's an incredibly complex topic, and will vary from region to region, and sector to sector, and I certainly don't know much about it myself, but even a broad brush approach could perhaps steer people towards exerting pressure in the right places. And by 'people' I mean people who are already engaged to some extent.
Much of the public discourse around nature conservation is focused on encouraging people to “connect” with nature and appreciate the birds and wildlife that can be found in their local area. And by this measure nature conservation in the UK has been very successful. Indeed, in the UK we often congratulate ourselves on our supposedly high levels of environmentally literacy... But we in the UK are in no position to lecture anybody: biodiversity loss, bird population declines, and the destruction of nature have intensified at precisely the same time that the number of Brits ostensibly concerned about these things has dramatically increased. Simply “caring” about nature is clearly not enough.
...
Consider, for example, the decline in farmland birds. You don’t need me to tell you that resident farmland birds such as Skylark, Grey Partridge, Yellowhammer, Tree Sparrow and Corn Bunting have all experienced catastrophic declines over the past half century. What is more, we know exactly why these birds have declined. It’s because of what is euphemistically called the “intensification” of agriculture. But what does “intensification” really mean? It means changes in land use arising from a push to increase yields as much as possible so as to maximise profit margins. The correct word for this is capitalism... We call it “intensification” rather than “capitalism” in part because the latter sounds too confrontational and too political for the conflict-averse mainstream of UK bird conservation.
My inner pedant feels compelled to point out that similar, and often worse, damage was caused by centrally planned economies in which there was little or no profit motive. So environmental destruction appears not to be inherently capitalistic, but instead an inherent component of economic development. (Or at least the development that has occurred so far).Fishnut wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:26 pmConsider, for example, the decline in farmland birds. You don’t need me to tell you that resident farmland birds such as Skylark, Grey Partridge, Yellowhammer, Tree Sparrow and Corn Bunting have all experienced catastrophic declines over the past half century. What is more, we know exactly why these birds have declined. It’s because of what is euphemistically called the “intensification” of agriculture. But what does “intensification” really mean? It means changes in land use arising from a push to increase yields as much as possible so as to maximise profit margins. The correct word for this is capitalism... We call it “intensification” rather than “capitalism” in part because the latter sounds too confrontational and too political for the conflict-averse mainstream of UK bird conservation.
The difficulty of deep carbon reduction is widely underestimated. I haven't been able to read all the 38-page Death of Fossil Fuels thread, but I would doubt it was able to present a convincing agenda to achieve net zero carbon by 2030, even in a wealthy country let alone the world. Because I've never seen that. To me, 80% by 2050 looked like very hard work, the old target, let alone zero. In a feasible political world where you don't do serious damage to people's wealths and livelihoods.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:06 pmAs discussed on other threads, rapid action is needed to reconcile scientific knowledge about the causes of present and future climate disruption, and the current lack of meaningful political action to address it. For instance, the Paris Agreement's commitments are far too weak, and most countries aren't going to make them anyway:
The Death of Fossil Fuels thread has been doing a fascinating job covering the technological advances that mean that a net-zero-carbon world by 2030 is completely achievable. Unfortunately, the availability and advantages of that technology don't do enough to overcome the economic, societal and political impediments to the effecting the necessary transitions.
That's a fair point. You made me think about the eradication of sparrows in China which, along with deforestation and other ecological disruptions contributed to Great Chinese Famine. And I've no doubt similar situations occurred in Russia, I'm just being too lazy to search for specifics. That said, there is a general sense that the natural world is there to be exploited which feels very capitalistic in a 'knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing' kind of way (which I know is about cynics rather than capitalists, but feels applicable to both).Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 7:22 amMy inner pedant feels compelled to point out that similar, and often worse, damage was caused by centrally planned economies in which there was little or no profit motive. So environmental destruction appears not to be inherently capitalistic, but instead an inherent component of economic development. (Or at least the development that has occurred so far).Fishnut wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:26 pmConsider, for example, the decline in farmland birds. You don’t need me to tell you that resident farmland birds such as Skylark, Grey Partridge, Yellowhammer, Tree Sparrow and Corn Bunting have all experienced catastrophic declines over the past half century. What is more, we know exactly why these birds have declined. It’s because of what is euphemistically called the “intensification” of agriculture. But what does “intensification” really mean? It means changes in land use arising from a push to increase yields as much as possible so as to maximise profit margins. The correct word for this is capitalism... We call it “intensification” rather than “capitalism” in part because the latter sounds too confrontational and too political for the conflict-averse mainstream of UK bird conservation.
Welcome Ivan!IvanV wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 3:10 pmThe difficulty of deep carbon reduction is widely underestimated. I haven't been able to read all the 38-page Death of Fossil Fuels thread, but I would doubt it was able to present a convincing agenda to achieve net zero carbon by 2030, even in a wealthy country let alone the world. Because I've never seen that. To me, 80% by 2050 looked like very hard work, the old target, let alone zero. In a feasible political world where you don't do serious damage to people's wealths and livelihoods.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:06 pmAs discussed on other threads, rapid action is needed to reconcile scientific knowledge about the causes of present and future climate disruption, and the current lack of meaningful political action to address it. For instance, the Paris Agreement's commitments are far too weak, and most countries aren't going to make them anyway:
The Death of Fossil Fuels thread has been doing a fascinating job covering the technological advances that mean that a net-zero-carbon world by 2030 is completely achievable. Unfortunately, the availability and advantages of that technology don't do enough to overcome the economic, societal and political impediments to the effecting the necessary transitions.
When you talk about net zero, I hope that means not very much of the net business, and mostly actual zero. Because cheap offsets are not part of the long term solution. Cheap offsets only exist because other countries are outputting so much carbon and so inefficiently that you can pay them only a small amount of money to reduce quite a lot. That can't persist in a world heading towards zero. Also it's probably mostly greenwash anyway. You are paying people not to do things. But they will do other things instead. So probably it didn't make much difference to their output. Very difficult to prove it isn't a game of whack-a-mole.
In Britain's case, about 25% of our final energy use comes from electricity. We've got the wind/solar/nuclear stuff up quite high now. The biomass is probably not very zero, though there is supposed to be some kind of audit on it. But as you increase all that, it gets harder. How do you balance electricity through periods of low wind and low sun? Just look at the last 6 weeks (April to mid May 2021) on gridwatch. Not much there. If you don't have gas power stations to cover that, the storage quantities are infeasible. You need something like 200 Dinorwigs if you are to cover low output periods from storage rather than gas. And that's just for our present electricity needs. When heating and cars are all electric too, then you need a lot more electricity and a lot more Dinorwigs, something like 500.* And existing battery arrays are only a small fraction of a Dinorwig. Doing this from storage is currently a non-starter. And if we head into a hydrogen economy, we need even more electricity, because hydrogen is a rather inefficient way of storing electricity. And running electrolysers only at very low load factor to absorb peak output makes the hydrogen rather expensive.
This is why the CCC's plan involves large amounts of CCS. It remains the most feasible way of getting electricity to somewhere close to zero by 2050. But it remains undemonstrated at scale for the moment. The last demonstration scheme was cancelled for massively busting its budget, and the new money is smaller than the old budget.
Then how are we heating people's houses and other buildings if we turn the gas off? The good solution is ground source heat pumps, preferably with shared loops as that keeps the costs down, but presents ample source for neighbourly disagreement. Other solutions will require even more reliable zero-carbon electricity, which as I hope you realise from the above is a problem. (And an air source heat pump is not going to give people the quality of heat many of them will be very happy with, as well as being noisy.) But the amount of cost in building retrofits is beyond belief, and the amount of effort to achieve it staggers belief by 2050 let alone 2030. And how is it being funded?
Then there's electric vehicles. It's one thing for a few smaller countries to go electric, it's another thing entirely when a large fraction of the world is trying to do it all together in short order. The idea that the mining industry can open up enough mines to deliver all the materials needed for that, and the car manufacturing industry reequip to deliver electric cars, and not-yet-invented electric heavy vehicles, is beyond belief.
Then there's aviation. And ships. And steel. And cement. And mining. And manufacturing. And construction. Heating and light transport is the easy stuff.
When the British govt upped its 80% by 2050 to 0 by 2050, I thought it was a kind of gullibility test. The goverment was not taking the reasonable actions to achieve 80% by 2050, and it increases the target. The only sensible grounds were to kind of shock people into doing things so that they might start heading towards 80%. But the damaging thing about increasing the target to zero is that a lot of sensible things to achieve large reductions in output now become things you shouldn't do, because they aren't on the path to zero. For example, we are now worrying about going zero even on quiet railway lines, when under the more reasonable target you could keep a proportion of diesel lines, the carbon per pax mile still being pretty small.
At some point there is a trade-off between how much we reduce our lifestyles by converting to much more expensive ways of living, and adapting to a changing climate. There is a moral case and economic case and leadership case for the wealthy part of the world to reduce its carbon much more and faster than the less wealthy part of the world. And it isn't doing enough. But when the rest of the world is going to carry on emitting carbon in large quantity for a long time yet, then there is a point when going all the way to zero so quickly becomes so far from the cost-benefit boundary that it's pointless. And will result in us having to absorb some adaptation costs anyway.
*There's an unintentionally hilarious paper somewhere where someone spots some Scottish glen with the volume of something like 500 Dinorwigs, and proposes the world's biggest dam to create such an energy store. Since there is no prospect of a lower reservoir of similar capacity, they propose using the sea as the lower reservoir, so it would be a salt-water lake. As critics point out, the flows of water required to operate are not capable of being handled, as they would cause massive erosion. The mass difference between full and empty, if you had to run it down over a few days, would cause earthquakes.
Carbon removal technologies like CCS are not "net" in the dubious sense that is usually used in this context. They are actual verifiable on-going carbon removal. Whereas "net" is usually used in the context of the schemes such as the one quoted by Millennie Al, and unfortunately they are mostly like that.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:15 pmWelcome Ivan!
As for "net" - I have no hope for CCS at scale in a useful timeframe. I certainly don't think it's worth gambling on - we need a better plan than that. The only offsetting I'd consider genuine would be sensible ecological restoration schemes - rewetting wetlands, permitting forest regeneration, etc. A carbon market would help to fund that stuff, which does really work, and also has synergistic benefits for all sorts of things, from flood-protection to fish nurseries to indigenous land rights. I don't mind a bit of sensible, science-grounded accounting along those lines.
I agree with a lot of what they say. But they don't actually have anything like a practical solution to carbon emission without CCS. People underestimate how difficult and expensive abating carbon is, once you've done the easy stuff. They just don't address this point. All they say is, just stop emitting, really stop emitting, emitting is really bad. And there is an issue that people in many places are not even doing the easy stuff, they talk about coal a lot, but stopping burning coal is part of the easy stuff. But they have no agenda for how you do the difficult stuff. Or even an acknowledgement that there is difficult stuff, and how you get past it without large economic effects.Fishnut wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 10:45 amI really recommend the article I linked to here as an explanation of the problems with "net zero" as a concept, a goal, and a practical solution to carbon emission.
I think you misunderstood my comment, I was saying they were explaining the problems with net zero as a practical solution, not that they were offering one.IvanV wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:50 amI agree with a lot of what they say. But they don't actually have anything like a practical solution to carbon emission without CCS. People underestimate how difficult and expensive abating carbon is, once you've done the easy stuff. They just don't address this point. All they say is, just stop emitting, really stop emitting, emitting is really bad. And there is an issue that people in many places are not even doing the easy stuff, they talk about coal a lot, but stopping burning coal is part of the easy stuff. But they have no agenda for how you do the difficult stuff. Or even an acknowledgement that there is difficult stuff, and how you get past it without large economic effects....Fishnut wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 10:45 amI really recommend the article I linked to here as an explanation of the problems with "net zero" as a concept, a goal, and a practical solution to carbon emission.