Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#11

Post by t1E9mE7JTRjf »

idiotsecant wrote: post #9
okokwhatever wrote: post #5

Bullshit. EU moving production to other countries is not to slash pollution. I know there will be academic explanations to convince us this is the way but once common people start to face real life problems (energy cost, food security issues, layoffs because of industry relocations, etc) they will rise the flag of revolution. Unless this is the expected result...

I wonder what you suspect the effects of widespread sustained climate change will be? Of the 'real life' problems coming down the pipe, energy cost, food security, and industrial disturbances are the happy, rosy ones.

do you have any credible sources to those claims?

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#12

Post by toomuchtodo »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #10
coldtea wrote: post #2

Proposing things is free after all, and few of the politicians of 2024 will be there in 2040 to be called about it, and even if they are, they can blame it on previous office holders and whatever... This is as "trustworthy" as the "Only sell EVs by 2035" EUs proposal, and Musk's mission to Mars.

OTOH, it could be as trustworthy as the Montreal protocol of 1987 which agreed to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999. Instead production in signatory countries hit 0 by 1996. Measured scepticism is rational. Blind scepticism isn't.

Indeed. Most coal will be phased out of Europe by 2035 [1], and could run entirely on renewables by 2030 if they choose to spend accordingly (~€2T, not terribly feasible but gives an idea of fiat-time tradeoff) [2], leaving buildings (heat pumps [3]) and EVs [4] to sweep out quite a bit of the remaining emissions (with manufacturing, agriculture, and other sources still needing solutioning [5]).

[1] https://beyondfossilfuels.org/europes-coal-exit/

[2] https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/10/09/europe-can-beco...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/23/heat-pum...

[4] https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/new-registr...

[5] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240108/road-transportat...

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#13

Post by coldtea »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #10
coldtea wrote: post #2

Proposing things is free after all, and few of the politicians of 2024 will be there in 2040 to be called about it, and even if they are, they can blame it on previous office holders and whatever... This is as "trustworthy" as the "Only sell EVs by 2035" EUs proposal, and Musk's mission to Mars.

OTOH, it could be as trustworthy as the Montreal protocol of 1987 which agreed to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999. Instead production in signatory countries hit 0 by 1996. Measured scepticism is rational. Blind scepticism isn't.

Those were just specific substances for which they had a replacement at hand (and those HCFC and HFC replacements? Turns out they're not so good for environment either, and they had to start restricting those too, though they're still going strong).

Not for something general, like overall polution, of which there's 0 chance to reduce to 90%, or even 50% by 2040.

Let's wait and see who called it.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#15

Post by bryanlarsen »

coldtea wrote: post #13
bryanlarsen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, it could be as trustworthy as the Montreal protocol of 1987 which agreed to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999. Instead production in signatory countries hit 0 by 1996. Measured scepticism is rational. Blind scepticism isn't.

Those were just specific substances for which they had a replacement at hand (and those HCFC and HFC replacements? Turns out they're not so good for environment either, and they had to start restricting those too, though they're still going strong). Not for something general, like overall polution, of which there's 0 chance to reduce to 90%, or even 50% by 2040. Let's wait and see who called it.

50% is trivial. It's already down 33% from 2012.

The top three air pollution sources are electricity generation, heating and transport. There are zero emission replacements at hand for all 3, all being actively deployed.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#16

Post by jokethrowaway »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #10
coldtea wrote: post #2

Proposing things is free after all, and few of the politicians of 2024 will be there in 2040 to be called about it, and even if they are, they can blame it on previous office holders and whatever... This is as "trustworthy" as the "Only sell EVs by 2035" EUs proposal, and Musk's mission to Mars.

OTOH, it could be as trustworthy as the Montreal protocol of 1987 which agreed to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999. Instead production in signatory countries hit 0 by 1996. Measured scepticism is rational. Blind scepticism isn't.

It's not blind, it's based on reasoning.

CFCs were replaced fairly easily with HFCs (which also contributed to climate change. GreenAmerica says `They were replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which do not deplete the ozone, but they do have up to 9,000 times greater warming capacity than carbon dioxide.`)

What's the alternative for fossil fuels?

Even if we increase production of nuclear energy and renewables, we're still left with cars. Electric cars require tons of lithium and after the battery did its course they lose a good chunk of their value. The economics in EV are just completely different compared to petrol cars and that's doable only if you are wealthy.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#18

Post by nhma »

The EU could take a page out of Denmark's climate playbook to easily meet emissions targets.

A large contributor of projected Danish emissions has been low-lying wetlands converted to farmland via draining. Calculations predicted that reflooding these areas could saves millions of tons of emissions, so this became a hot political topic. However, the Danish climate minister recently announced that he had wonderful climate-related news to share; the emissions from these areas were significantly less than first anticipated! And with these magical news, Denmark's 2025 emissions goals have now been met. However, what the minister failed to mention was the fact that the only reason these lands emit less than anticipated is because they have already emitted most of the greenhouse gasses stored in them, just at a much faster rate than initially predicted.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#19

Post by bryanlarsen »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #16
bryanlarsen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, it could be as trustworthy as the Montreal protocol of 1987 which agreed to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999. Instead production in signatory countries hit 0 by 1996. Measured scepticism is rational. Blind scepticism isn't.

It's not blind, it's based on reasoning. CFCs were replaced fairly easily with HFCs (which also contributed to climate change. GreenAmerica says `They were replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which do not deplete the ozone, but they do have up to 9,000 times greater warming capacity than carbon dioxide.`) What's the alternative for fossil fuels? Even if we increase production of nuclear energy and renewables, we'r…

Electric cars require about 8kg of Lithium, and that's easily and economically recyclable.

An EV with thermal battery protection lasts about 250,000km, about the same as a gasoline car.

You can buy an EV that has passed European safety homologation (the BYD Seagull) for $8,000 in China. The TCO of that is obviously a lot better than a gasoline vehicle. The fact that you can't in Europe or North America is not due to economics.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#20

Post by phicoh »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #17

We recently got a series of articles on the EUs stagnating economy and industry and a few days later we get this ludicrous proposal. The EU is probably one of the most masochistic regional entities in the world.

Sometimes regulation can help an industry forward quite a bit. For example when a cleaner technology requires massive investments, but nobody wants to be first. When there is a clear cut-off date, like with ICE cars in the EU, then manufacturers can justify the investments and go ahead.

At the same time, a lot of spending on green technologies often means a lot of local jobs. Which can be good for the economy if the money would otherwise be spend on products or services that come from outside the EU.

Finally, economic indicators often don't quite capture quality of life, etc. For example, if EU cities make it harder to drive a car into city centers then that may result in lower economic growth, because fewer cars are needed. But people might be more happy walking, biking, etc.

Post reply on HN