Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: EU climate policies  (Read 5062 times)

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
EU climate policies
« on: November 30, 2021, 01:45:27 PM »
This thread is for discussion of EU climate policies. Both on a EU level but also national legislation in specific member states if this is relevant.

The plan was launched this summer but it got buried in the pre COP26 publicity.

Here is the EU official version:

Today, the European Commission adopted a package of proposals to make the EU's climate, energy, land use, transport and taxation policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. Achieving these emission reductions in the next decade is crucial to Europe becoming the world's first climate-neutral continent by 2050 and making the European Green Deal a reality. With today's proposals, the Commission is presenting the legislative tools to deliver on the targets agreed in the European Climate Law and fundamentally transform our economy and society for a fair, green and prosperous future.

for the details see:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_3541
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2021, 01:52:44 PM »
EU’s reformed agricultural policy fails its climate goals, say green groups

Lawmakers have approved a reform to the Common Agricultural Policy, which critics say fails to deliver on the bloc’s Green Deal and climate goals

European lawmakers overwhelming approved a controversial reform of the EU’s common agricultural policy (Cap) on Tuesday, which youth activists and green groups say is inadequate to address the climate and biodiversity crisis.

In Strasbourg, European lawmakers signed off on the package following three years of negotiations with member states and the European Commission.

The Cap is a huge subsidy programme for farmers across the EU, which accounts for nearly a third of the EU’s agreed budget for the period 2021-2027. It has long been criticised by environmentalists for supporting large agribusiness interests, encouraging overproduction and negatively impacting biodiversity.

The European Commission in Brussels says the policy changes align the bloc’s agricultural policy with its climate objectives while providing a fairer distribution of support to small and medium-sized family farms and young farmers.

...

Under the reform, farmers receiving Cap support need to dedicate at least 3% of their arable land to protecting biodiversity.

Farmers can apply to voluntary “ecoschemes” that reward them for climate and environmentally friendly practices such as organic farming and agroecology. Member states must allocate at least 25% of their income support budget to these schemes. They have to redistribute at least 10% of the support to smaller farms and at least 3% to young farmers.

Opposition lawmakers said the reform failed to align the EU’s agricultural policy with its Green Deal, citing the absence of a cap on payments to large agro-industry and that only a quarter of the support is earmarked to promote sustainable agriculture.

Green lawmakers said the farm to fork and biodiversity strategies already agreed by the EU, which include halving the use of pesticides, increasing the share of land under organic farming to at least 25% and that 10% of agricultural land show high diversity features by 2030, were not reflected in the new Cap.

And the draft strategic plans compiled by some countries “confirm our fear that the environmental ambition will be set as low as possible,” Metz, of the Green political grouping, said.

“It’s giving member states a blank cheque with no guarantees of good results on the ground. Member states will use the new flexibility to change exactly nothing about the status quo.”

...

The EU’s Court of Auditors found that the Cap has failed to cut the agriculture sector’s emissions and the proposed reforms lack measurable objectives and incentives to link the Cap with the union’s climate targets.

Christine Chemnitz, head of international agricultural policy at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, told Climate Home News that the Cap was “a major obstacle” for the EU to meet its climate objectives.

She described the policy change “a desperately missed opportunity” to transform the EU’s agricultural production.

The EU’s highly industrialised and intensive model has harmful knock-on effects for developing countries, said Chemnitz. For example, EU livestock consume large amounts of soy imported from deforested areas of Latin America, while EU surplus milk has been dumped on the West African market, undercutting local farmers.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/11/23/eus-reformed-agricultural-policy-fails-climate-goals-say-green-groups/

So the new agricultural policy is not ambitious enough for climate but it also does not address fair trade. Typical EU compromise though...
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2021, 01:58:33 PM »
Germany

Olaf Scholz will head a three-party coalition with broad plans for Germany's transition to a green economy, under a deal to end 16 years of government led by Angela Merkel.

Almost two months after his Social Democrat party won federal elections, he will go into power with the Greens and business-friendly Free Democrats.

Climate protection forms a big part of the coalition deal.

The parties aim to phase out coal use by 2030, eight years ahead of schedule.

They will also seek to use 2% of German territory for wind power and focus on hydrogen-based energy too. By 2030, the parties want 80% of electricity to be sourced from renewable energy and 15 million electric cars to be on German roads.

...

What are their plans?
Making Germany climate neutral by 2045 is a big focus of the deal, entitled "Daring more progress". Phasing out coal will take place "ideally" by 2030, and solar energy will become compulsory on the roofs of new commercial buildings and the general rule for new private homes. The 16 states will have to provide 2% of their area for wind power. The goal to phase out cars with internal combustion engines remains the EU's target of 2035.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59399702

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2021, 05:32:39 PM »
An interesting point is that when the UK initiated Brexit, they took the UK emissions reductions away with them.  The EU had nicely formed a policy which left much of the East bloc until later so they could continue to grow.  With the loss of the UK emissions reductions the EU had to find another 4.5% reductions from the remaining 27.

It caused a lot of friction.

I looked at that target for "electric" vehicles in Germany and did a quick look around.

Germany sold 2.9 million vehicles in 2020.  At that rate 14m "electric" vehicles (they hit 1m in August), is 4.8 years of every single car in Germany being electric.  Or 9.6 years of half the cars being electric.

Given that the transition plans for VW only reach 1.5m electric vehicles a year, world wide, by 2025, I wonder how they are going to make this one stick.  The only way I could see it is a ruling that only electric vehicles can be sold from 2025.  This would give them enough time with the existing supply until 2025.

It is OK to have aspirations.  But there have to be solid initiatives to back them up.  Currently the commitment in Germany to remove pure FF cars is 2040.  Only giving manufacturers 4 years to transition is going to cause havoc in their car industry with the obvious change in voter loyalty along with it.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2021, 01:20:20 PM »
A look inside:

Trade officials ‘taking a chainsaw’ to EU forest protection plans

European trade officials have been accused of “taking a chainsaw” to a draft EU law to protect the world’s forests, as a leaked document revealed an attempt to water down the plans.

The European Commission is due to unveil a proposal on Wednesday to prevent EU sales of beef, soya, cocoa and other products linked to deforestation. A leaked memo seen by the Guardian reveals that commission trade officials have raised “serious concerns” about the regulation drafted by their environment department colleagues.

...

To help make this promise a reality, the EU is proposing to prevent beef, palm oil and other commodities driving deforestation from being sold in its market. In a departure from past EU laws, the commission proposed to regulate products linked to all deforestation, legal or illegal, according to an earlier leaked draft. Previous laws have sought to clamp down on illegal deforestation only.

Trade officials have attempted to throw out that provision, arguing that it would be “a direct challenge to notions of sovereignty over land use decisions, whether in the EU or in third countries”. The memo says targeting all deforestation “will be particularly difficult to accept” in forested countries, including Brazil whose president, Jair Bolsonaro, disputes the notion that forests are a global public good. Refocusing the law on illegal deforestation would bring the EU into line with the US and UK, who are considering narrower laws, the officials add.

The trade officials also say the costs of complying with the EU law would hurt subsistence-level farmers, and warn of retaliation by foreign governments through the World Trade Organization.

In another move to limit the regulation, they argue that the law should be limited to deforestation rather than forest degradation, citing the absence of international definitions on the latter which they say would make the law hard to enforce.

“Combined with the absence of international standards, [including forest degradation] poses serious policy and legal concerns and we consider it a risky avenue to try to justify this on the basis of public morals,” the memo states.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/12/trade-officials-taking-a-chainsaw-to-eu-forest-protection-plans
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Jim Hunt

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5828
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 804
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2021, 02:34:10 PM »
A snippet of "anecdotal" information. I've just finished a BSI PEL/69 Zoom meeting.

One of the other participants was bemoaning the fact that the EC requested "industry" comments on a proposal of theirs. Assorted members of a variety of CENELEC technical committees responded. They were all ignored. Allegedly "industry" is currently incapable of delivering what the resulting legislation mandates.

Much the same story back here in Brexited Blighty?

https://V2G.co.uk/2021/11/the-electric-vehicles-smart-charge-points-regulations-2021/
"The evil that is in the world always comes from ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding." Albert Camus, The Plague

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2021, 08:40:23 PM »
The UK is technically not in the EU but the pellet burning is promoted by the EU too.

The UK’s Biomass Subsidies Are Harming Residents in North Carolina Communities Like Mine

Enviva’s wood pellet facility, which feeds the UK’s Drax power station, produces dust and noise pollution that exacerbates existing health inequalities, argues North Carolina activist Belinda Joyner.

I live in Northampton County in the U.S. state of North Carolina, where absentee companies have been polluting for years. My neighbors and I are tired of having our community treated as a dumping ground. This community is my home, it’s where I grew up, and we have been fighting polluters for more than 25 years — a large natural gas pipeline and the nearby Enviva wood-pellet biomass production facility are just two of the most recent developments.

My community is predominantly African American and one in five of my neighbors live below the poverty line, which flies in the face of the promises these same companies have made for decades: that we should accept pollution in return for economic development. I’m here to say that Enviva’s biomass production is no different than the other polluters we have battled and I’m dismayed that the broken promises are no longer just about jobs, but about the environment, too.

Scientists tell us that power plants that burn biomass from forests, relying on wood pellets produced at facilities like the one in Northampton’s backyard, emit massive amounts of carbon pollution that’s heating up our planet and making floods, droughts, and natural disasters worse. Government leaders and the public have been falsely led to believe burning biomass is part of the solution to climate change, but it’s not.

Drax power station, for example, is now the world’s largest biomass-burner and the biggest single source of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. Nevertheless, according to 2020 estimates, Drax earned nearly £3 million a day in direct subsidies from the UK government, with UK taxpayers set to spend £10 billion supporting Drax up until 2027. But that’s not the extent of the damage.

Many people don’t realize that the biomass industry is hurting communities like mine in the Southeastern United States, where most of the trees burned in the UK for electricity are cut down, turned into pellets, and shipped across the Atlantic Ocean. Making millions of these wood pellets robs us of our natural heritage by harming forests that are sometimes hundreds of years old. It also pollutes the air and makes us sick. Northampton is ranked as one of the least healthy counties in North Carolina.

I’m ready for the Governor of North Carolina to do more, as well as the President of the United States, but the UK’s enormous demand for biomass is the largest driver of this problem and so UK officials must be held accountable. I turn to UK leaders with an earnest request to stop subsidizing the biomass industry since it drives demand for wood pellets manufactured at Enviva – making our lives miserable.

...

You may ask, “why don’t you just move?” I recognize the vulnerability of my community to climate change and corporate extraction and pollution but, again, this is my home and I believe I have a right to a clean, healthy, safe environment right here. Research shows that governments are quick to armor the homes of wealthier communities while declaring poor neighborhoods unsalvageable. That is unjust and inequitable.

Enviva’s wood pellet manufacturing plant is a nightmare. It creates industrial noise so loud, it is impossible for residents to sleep, study, or enjoy being inside or outside their own homes. Dust from the pellet manufacturing process visibly settles on the houses and cars of residents, entering individuals’ lungs. We already have high asthma rates, nose bleeds, heart complications, and other health problems, and Enviva’s wood pellet production is only making it worse. No wonder our community was devastated by COVID-19. In fact, the air quality in our region has been so bad, we were wearing face masks long before the pandemic made it common practice.

The centuries-old trees that are supposed to help clean the air and reduce carbon emissions from the pellet manufacturing and transportation process are no longer there. They were cut down in a matter of days, in part to make wood pellets to produce electricity in other countries, destroying some of our most precious ecosystems and displacing countless animals that now meander in search of a new home.

Enviva promises to sequester carbon by replanting trees. But even if trees are immediately replanted, new trees will not adequately recapture the carbon in the atmosphere. Nor will they provide a home for wildlife in the way they once did. They won’t provide flood control during heavy rains either, making our chances of adapting to climate change rather bleak as floods become commonplace. We can’t renew a centuries-old ecosystem by planting trees. Trees may be renewable, but forests are not.

...

https://www.desmog.com/2021/12/14/the-uks-biomass-subsidies-are-harming-residents-in-north-carolina-communities-like-mine/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2022, 07:16:37 PM »
And as a comment on the above story (same caveat):

The 'green' row over the UK's largest renewable power plant

...

The Drax power station near Selby, Yorkshire, is surrounded by both busy roads and small farms. A faint humming noise emanates all around the complex, while water vapour rises slowly and steadily from the cooling towers.

The scale of operations at this converted coal plant is gargantuan. It's the UK's largest renewable power station. Wood pellets are imported from the US on enormous ships that take up to 21 days in transit. They are then transported overland via rail, and Drax receives about 17 deliveries of wood pellets a day, operating 24 hours a day, six days a week.

Once inside, the pellets are pulverised into a powder, blown into boilers and then burnt. The steam from this process powers turbines that produce electricity.

In 2020, Drax generated 11% of the UK's renewable power - enough for four million homes. While the UK is by far the largest consumer of wood pellets, globally, biomass is a massive industry that is growing in value and reach.

...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59546281

We simply do not have the actual biomass to spare which is wgy we need to stop this stupid policy all together.

Now on to other Eu climate conundrums...
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2022, 07:56:09 PM »
Since it is by now suddenly 2022 the EU is consulting about what we call green energy. The more serious part is what gets subsidized in some way.

Candidates are the ever popular nuclear energy and natural gas.

Germanies take:

Germany backs gas as “transition” fuel in EU green finance guidelines

In a letter, Berlin stressed its opposition to nuclear while calling on the European Commission to ease restrictions on gas in the transition to clean energy

The deadline for EU member states to provide feedback to Brussels on a proposal to award gas and nuclear a green investment label expired on Friday (21 January).

In a letter sent to Brussels on the same day, Berlin reiterated its opposition to nuclear and made new detailed requirements on gas.

“As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It is risky and expensive,” Vice-Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, both senior members of the Greens party.

But the letter also makes new requests to ease restrictions on fossil gas, calling on the European Commission to delete requirements aimed at promoting a shift to low-carbon gases such as biomethane or hydrogen in the transition to green energy.

Fossil gas used as “a fuel in ultra-modern and efficient gas-fired power plants forms a bridge for a limited transition period” to enable Germany’s “rapid phase-out of coal and thus achieve CO2 savings in the short term,” the letter reads.

And to achieve this transition, Berlin says it needs more time to switch to low-carbon and renewable gases than suggested in the Commission’s draft taxonomy proposal, circulated on 31 December.

“The intermediate targets called for in the fuel switch, with blending rates of decarbonised gases of 30% by 2026 and 55% by 2030, are not realistically achievable,” Berlin warns in the letter.

With clean hydrogen still in the the development phase, Habeck fears that promoting the green fuel in electricity generation will deprive German industry from a much-needed low-carbon energy source.

This is why Germany is asking Brussels to remove all intermediate targets for hydrogen, saying the fuel switch should “be enabled in a flexible manner after 2036.” And in any case, fuel-switching goals should be treated as guidelines rather than hard targets, “based on an assessment with a view to the available fuels,” the letter argues.

...

In its draft taxonomy text, the European Commission also promoted fuel-switching, by awarding a green investment label only to gas plants that replace more polluting coal power stations. To qualify for the green label, Brussels also requested that new installations must achieve a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to their predecessor.

But Germany says the requirement is too strict. “The commitment to a 55% greenhouse gas reduction is unrealistic here,” notes the letter by Habeck, which calls upon the Commission to “establish realistic values” instead.

...

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/01/24/germany-touts-gas-green-aid-feedback-eu/

No surprise they are anti nuclear. I don´t really know enough about switching gas types but it does come with extra costs. We stop pumping up dutch gas but we have to build a factory to add nitrogen to it.

Anyway they also asked the experts:

Experts vinden groen label van gas en kernenergie onterecht
https://www.nu.nl/economie/6180014/experts-vinden-groen-label-van-gas-en-kernenergie-onterecht.html

The experts concluded neither nuclear or gas are green energy sources. The EU asked their advice in figuring out what to label as green for investors.

They do have a point because what would be green in Germanies gas to coal switch? We have seen science that points out that emissions from gas are just as bad. It is mainly switching areas effected. So less coal mining in Germany means less local pollution but you have to add the methane the Russians vent back into the equation etc.

On another note it is a pity that a lot is about financial incentives. We also need to do basic things like train people who can upgrade houses efficiently.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2022, 12:23:27 AM »
Anyone who can petition to label gas as a "green" energy source is not serious about reducing CO2 emissions.

It is one of the reasons I'm violently opposed to the "green" label and want the "CO2 neutral" label instead.

It is possible to label Nuclear as CO2 neutral.  It is completely impossible to label natural gas consumption as CO2 neutral.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2022, 10:00:12 PM »
Rekenkamer: EU-landen hinderen klimaatbeleid met belonen fossiele energie
https://www.nu.nl/klimaat/6181347/rekenkamer-eu-landen-hinderen-klimaatbeleid-met-belonen-fossiele-energie.html

The EU member states are hindering the transition to renewable energy by subsidizing fossil fuels with billions (of euros). This keeps on continuing while the EC and member states already said they would end it.

The amount is 55 billions for the last years which is about the same as it was according to a report from the Audit Office.

Over half the countries subsidize fossil fuels more then renewable energy even though the goals is to phase them out in three years.

Energy which is bad for climate like coal is not taxed more then wind farms. Often it is taxed less.

All this does does not help the transition.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2022, 09:11:01 PM »
Climate change: EU moves to label nuclear and gas as sustainable despite internal row


Nuclear and natural gas energy plants could be counted as "green energy" under controversial EU plans just unveiled.

The European Commission says it has decided that both types of energy can classify as "sustainable investment" if they meet certain targets.

But the move has divided the EU, and been fiercely opposed by some members.

...

Commission officials point to the strict limits on what qualifies. For example, natural gas generation is under a strict CO2 emissions limit, and a requirement to switch to low-carbon gas by 2035. Nuclear power, meanwhile, must be in countries with clear plans and funding for dealing with nuclear waste.

Critics, however, have accused the EU of so-called "greenwashing" - precisely what it says its classification system is supposed to avoid.

But the decision to label both controversial industries as "green" is not yet final.

In addition to the threat of legal action from Austria and Luxembourg, the European Parliament and the council of heads of state have four months to consider the suggestion and object to it.

The bar is, however, relatively high. In order to block the commission's proposed plans, either a majority of parliament members or at least 20 of the 27 national leaders are needed.

...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60229199

Some more details:

To qualify as green the gas centres need to use the newest reduction technologies and they have to replace coal plants.

In 2035 gas is not green any more.
In 2045 nuclear is not green anymore.

They are not green per se but needed as a bridge to get rid of coal.

Minimum block is 15 states with 65% population, the EU parliament has to vote on it too.
Austria and Luxemburg already want to fight nuclear in court.

https://www.nu.nl/klimaat/6181677/gas-en-kerncentrales-krijgen-ondanks-protest-tijdelijk-groen-label-van-eu.html

Oh and all this is meant as a guidance to investors which is fair but...that is 13 years minus build for gas , 23 minus build for nuclear.

Instead of dreaming up all kind of subsidies so the market will fix it it would make more sense to just pay for some of the substitutions especially in problematic regions like Poland.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2022, 12:17:29 PM »
Germany needs the gas declaration, France needs the Nuclear declaration.

Together their GDP makes over 40% of EU GDP and even more of EU disposable funds.

The reality of the EU that most want to blind themselves from.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

interstitial

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2022, 08:06:43 PM »
Germany wants ....
France wants ....


NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2022, 11:13:35 PM »
Understanding the EU is useful when trying to work out why their climate policy is good, spot on or total BS.

If you apply the wrong understanding you get the wrong answer.

In the EU it is like the equivalent of the white house and the senate being appointed by the state legislature.  With the house of representatives being elected but having less power than the senate.

If you can visualise that, you can understand why things can be a little "off" from time to time in policy.  Especially when those who appoint demand decisions which make no sense so they can sell them at the state level.

It is not a direct analogy because the "states" retain far more sovereign power than the US states do and the EU only has a limited and vertical competency.  Making the ability of the EU to set independent policy even less.

The main power base in the EU is economic.  The larger the GDP, the bigger the clout.  With one exception.  The former second largest economy in the bloc.  Which finally got pissed enough to tell them to go do one.

That doesn't change the dynamic within the EU too much.  It just means that a disruptive force for change is gone.  The UK would never have put up with denominating fossil fuel gas as a "green" fuel.  But the voice of the UK on that one is gone.  So are the UK reductions in GHG emissions.

Now the EU is left with bold statements and ambitions and a bunch of member states who are not really aligned behind them.

Queue moves to "derail" them.

Naturally Covid didn't help.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2022, 12:30:03 PM »
Emission rights 96,45 euro per ton CO2.
One of the reasons for the price rice is more coal use due to high gas prices.

https://www.nu.nl/economie/6182337/europese-bedrijven-betalen-meer-dan-ooit-voor-hun-co2-uitstoot.html
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2022, 05:34:44 PM »
Under the new rules published earlier this month, gas power plants would be labelled green this decade if they met an emissions limit of 270g of CO2 equivalent per kWh, or have annual emissions below 550kg CO2e per kW over 20 years.

That could include gas plants with relatively high CO2 emissions today, provided they switch to low-carbon gas or reduce their running hours in later years.

Gas plants must also switch to run on low-carbon gases by 2035. Significantly, a requirement in a previous draft, for plants to start switching in 2026, was dropped.

New nuclear plants must receive construction permits before 2045 to receive a green investment label, and be located in a country with a plan and funds to safely dispose of radioactive waste by 2050.

https://emergingrisks.co.uk/is-gas-really-green/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2022, 05:07:23 PM »
Two shipping measures could interfere with EU’s ‘Fit for 55’ plans, report shows

A new report commissioned by Danish Shipping indicates that the FuelEU Maritime and EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) initiatives could interact poorly with each other and create obstacles in the road to a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of at least 55% in the EU by 2030.

The report, prepared by the research and consulting agency CE Delft, is based on real data from the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system, which provides an overview of emissions and fuel consumption from ships in EU ports.

It is said to provide a concrete picture of how a number of different ships operated by Danish Shipping’s members will be affected by the two initiatives as they are currently proposed under the EU’s green legislative package “Fit for 55”.

As described, in the coming years, FuelEU Maritime will require shipping companies to use more green fuel in their tanks and ETS will set a price on CO2 emissions to increase the use of green fuels.

According to the new report, the problem is that while FuelEU Maritime looks at all GHG and the entire fuel value chain, ETS only looks at the GHG CO2 and only at the emissions during actual combustion.

The first assesses the total climate footprint of extraction, refining, distribution and finally combustion, while the climate calculation for the latter is simpler.

Therefore, Danish Shipping specifically proposes that the ETS should simply apply to all greenhouse gases and take into account the entire fuel value chain.

“Both tools will reduce greenhouse gases, but if they are to function optimally and contribute to the most effective reduction, the two bills must be adjusted so that they fit better together”, noted Maria Skipper Schwenn, director of Climate, Environment and Security at Danish Shipping.

Danish Shipping is actively using the report to draw attention to the problem, and not least the relatively simple solution.

and more

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/two-shipping-measures-could-interfere-with-eus-fit-for-55-plans-report-shows/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2022, 12:09:32 AM »
I must admit I find the way the EU is treated in their policy commitments and delivery to be somewhat different to their actual performance.

I understand, fully, that trying to get 27 member states to follow the commitments can be difficult, but, then again, the commission do have strong tools to force them and power to withhold funds.

But when I looked at the climate action tracker for the UK

Compared to the one for the EU., I was a bit confused at the language.

The UK warrants "Almost sufficient" with domestic target and net zero as green.  The major blocker appears to be that they don't like the fact that the UK repurposed foreign aid for this.  It really seems to have become a major irritant to them.  The entire article is littered with suggestions that the UK may not make it.

The EU warrants "INSUFFICIENT" yet the entire article is littered with positive notes.

Now let us do a slight reality check.UK reductions in CO2 compared to 1990.  (direct emissions, not offshored).  48%.  EU reductions, 35%

UK target for 2030.  68%.  EU target for 2030.  55%.

The UK has the largest offshore wind capacity in the world and is going to expand it from 11gw to 40gw.  There are active projects in place to double that by 2030.  The UK has a very mature contracts market for renewables and the CFD are trending down towards wholesale energy prices for offshore renewables.

The UK has capacity, when things go well, to produce up to 40% of daily electricity by renewables and the grid internal interconnects to handle it all.

In the article I found this stunning piece of double speak.

Quote
The ongoing COVID-19 crisis has had a severe impact on the UK economy, and the government’s commitment to “build back greener” has so far seen only a relatively small fraction of its recovery funds allocated towards green efforts. As of October 2021, only 20% of the economic recovery funds had been allocated towards low-carbon green measures, compared to 30% of the EU’s latest 2021-2027 budget and associated recovery package, and behind the other large European economies such as Germany and France. In absolute terms, however, the UK has spent more than either country.

So I had a look at the page describing who ClimateActionTracker are.

Quote
The Climate Action Tracker is made possible due to generous support from foundations and governments, including the European Climate Foundation (aviation, shipping, Thailand, Iran, Nigeria, Colombia, Germany, UK, Vietnam, Kenya, governments reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and climate governance) and the German Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) via the International Climate Initiative (other elements).

Past consortium members have included the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (2009–2016) and Ecofys, a Navigant company (2009–2019).

Figures.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2022, 08:51:52 PM »
As the EU celebrates the 30th anniversary of Natura 2000, NGOs highlight EU countries’ lax implementation of EU nature laws and permissiveness towards widespread destructive fishing, resulting in the conservation status of threatened marine habitats and species remaining overall dire. NGOs call to quickly redress the balance and create an EU-wide ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas to really protect Europe’s most valuable and threatened ocean biodiversity and species.

EU countries have been in a race to designate new areas at the expense of putting in place proper management measures. Over the last 20 years, while the total marine protected area surface in Europe has multiplied by six, still 57% of Atlantic habitats and 75% and 40% of Baltic and Mediterranean species remain in bad conservation status 1. Destructive fishing is prevalent inside the Natura 2000 network 2, with several million hours recorded annually 3.

Vera Coelho, senior director of advocacy at Oceana in Europe, said: “As we celebrate 30 years of a pioneering piece of EU nature legislation, let’s not be misled by percentages but be honest about the reality: marine protection in Europe is mostly meaningless. Most marine Natura 2000 sites are merely lines on a map that still allow the most harmful fishing methods, like bottom trawling, to go on inside them. It is questionable as to why they’re called Marine Protected Areas given their lack of actual protection.”

Seas At Risk Marine Policy Officer Marc-Philip Buckhout said: “30 years after the establishment of the Natura 2000 network, bottom trawling still occurs in 86% of the area designated to protect bottom habitats, hampering conservation and recovery. Banning bottom trawling from marine protected areas, would help reverse biodiversity loss and contribute to climate change mitigation by the ocean, with net socio-economic benefits.”

more on:
https://www.eureporter.co/politics/maritime/oceana-maritime/2022/02/25/as-eu-celebrates-30-years-of-natura-2000-ngos-call-for-these-areas-to-be-actually-protected-and-for-an-eu-wide-trawl-ban-in-them/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2022, 03:41:29 PM »
Evidence at least someone cares about EUs climate policies:

Agribusiness giants tried to thwart EU deforestation plan after Cop26 pledge

Five of the world’s biggest agribusiness firms sought to weaken a draft EU law banning food imports linked to deforestation, eight days after pledging to accelerate their forest protection efforts at Cop26, documents seen by the Guardian show.

Forest protection hopes had been raised when the CEOs of 10 food companies with a combined revenue of nearly $500bn (£373bn) vowed to “accelerate sector-wide action” towards eliminating commodity-driven deforestation as the climate summit began on 2 November.

Agriculture is responsible for a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the companies promised a supply chain reform plan to peg global heating to 1.5C by November 2022.

But on 10 November, trade associations representing five of the firms – ADM, Bunge, Cargill, LDC and Viterra – warned the EU’s green deal chief, Frans Timmermans, of soaring prices and food shortages if the EU proceeded with its own blueprint.

details:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/04/agribusiness-giants-tried-to-thwart-eu-deforestation-plan-after-cop26-pledge

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2022, 05:28:07 PM »
"pledging to accelerate"

0% to 0.1% is acceleration.  So is 0% to 30%.  Words tell a fine tale, targets and auditing show action.

These companies have said the words and told the tale.  Now they want to stop the EU setting targets and auditing them.

Tells it's own story.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2022, 08:40:18 PM »
In a rush to replace Russian gas, the EU has damaged its own climate change strategy

The European Union’s recent proposals to end imports of Russian gas before 2030 in the wake of the Ukraine invasion are blighted by the bloc’s support for unnecessary and expensive technologies.

The race to replace Russian imports, which make up 40% of the EU’s gas supply, has focused the minds of EU leaders on climate solutions that favour replacement gases, such as hydrogen and biogas in heating. The more efficient solution would be to swap fossil fuel burning boilers for alternatives that run on electricity, such as heat pumps. These new proposals supplement the original 2030 climate target plan, published in September 2020.

The new proposals, which aim to end EU demand for Russian gas through securing new suppliers and fast-tracking the roll-out of “renewable gases” to phase out natural gas in space heating, have been highly praised. The New York Times said they will “speed up climate action”.

In fact, it is not clear that the new proposals will accelerate the clean energy transition. This is because incentivising farmers, multinational oil and gas companies and energy utilities to produce hydrogen and biogas is likely to increase consumer bills at a time when many people are already struggling with the soaring cost of heating and electricity. That, in turn, might reduce funding available for measures that can cut emissions more efficiently.

The dash for alternative gases
The pre-war 2030 climate target plan outlined how the EU could reduce greenhouse emissions 55% by 2030 through 70% cuts to coal use and by reducing oil and gas use 30% and 25% respectively. Increasing power generation from wind, solar and other sources would ensure renewables met 40% of all energy use by the end of the decade. Meanwhile, the rate at which buildings in the EU are being renovated with insulation and other measures to make them more energy efficient would need to “double and more” up to 2030. On its own, this plan would replace nearly two-thirds of gas from Russia by 2030.

Then, in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission announced a new strategy for phasing out the EU’s “dependence on fossil fuels from Russia … well before 2030”. This included an 80-gigawatt increase in wind and solar power generation by 2030 solely to make green hydrogen – a low-carbon fuel that is the product of splitting water molecules using renewable electricity. It also proposed ramping up the production of biogas – a fuel made from the anaerobic digestion of energy crops, such as maize, and farm waste, such as manure.

Altogether, the EU needs to replace 155 billion cubic metres of natural gas to end its reliance on Russian suppliers. This can be done without increasing the production of what the EU calls “renewable gases” like hydrogen and biogas. The pre-war climate plan indicated that 100 billion cubic metres of Russian gas could be substituted with new renewable energy and the new plan projects 70 billion cubic metres could come from new LNG supplies from Qatar and the US and pipeline gas from places like Norway, Algeria and Azerbaijan.

In effect, the post-war plan is promoting not just the replacement of all Russian gas before 2030, but producing extra biogas and hydrogen on top of that.

Producing an extra 25 to 50 billion cubic metres of hydrogen to replace natural gas by 2030 will require a massive build-up of equipment, pipelines and storage depots over several years, either for producing hydrogen fuel within the EU or importing it from overseas. Meeting the target of 18 billion cubic metres of biogas each year by 2030 will require paying farmers to expand energy crops. These crops will need fertiliser and other chemical inputs that emit greenhouse gases during production, potentially cancelling out the climate benefits of biogas.

Incentives that would otherwise pay for producing green hydrogen or biogas should be used to install extra millions of electric heat pumps and renovate buildings to ensure they waste less energy instead. Experts have argued that prioritising the replacement of natural gas with hydrogen in heating represents a big waste of renewable power compared with using that same electricity in heat pumps. According to one analysis, heat pumps use renewable electricity to produce warmth four times more efficiently and at much lower costs to the consumer compared to green hydrogen.

There are around 131 million buildings in the EU, yet under its latest plans, the EU projects that only 40 million will be fitted with heat pumps by 2030. The new proposals offer no clear commitment to increasing the building renovation rate.

and a bit more:
https://theconversation.com/in-a-rush-to-replace-russian-gas-the-eu-has-damaged-its-own-climate-change-strategy-178688

So policy wise this looks like an attempt to keep some gasses running and funnel some billions to FF companies.

Clearly the most people coming up with these ideas don´t weigh the climate change part enough. On the upper hand if they build the generation renewables and then rethink around 2025 that would work (there are actual uses and those will be the most prioritized, there is at least one village that is going to use hydrogen as proof of concept so that should give some early data.

We could gain so much on building improvement and it is such an obvious component that it is a big shame that not more is done. A whole lot of talk, some token subsidies and scrapping of token subsidies if they actually work so far or BAU.

What we actually need is a dedicated workforce and a plan.

There are lots of places where very similar types of structures have been build, similar houses or flats and once you work out an optimal plan for one of them you can do the lot in a relatively short time frame. A little bit of efficiency would not hurt.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

The Walrus

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 402
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2022, 02:54:59 AM »
Yes, the EU wants to implement climate action, until it becomes too painful. 

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2022, 04:55:26 PM »
Or they get an easy out...

Here is another:
Today, the European Commission postponed its highly anticipated proposal for an EU Nature Restoration Law without setting a new publication date.

Over the weekend, more than 13,000 EU citizens, 166 environmental NGOs, and a group of environmental ministers sent letters to the European Commission expressing their support of the law and asking for it not to be delayed, but their voices have been ignored.

Legally binding nature restoration targets are urgently needed to address the drastic decline of biodiversity in the EU, to help us mitigate the climate crisis and to build resilience in the face of climate change.

We call on the Commission to set a new date for the proposal to be launched within a month. This law has the opportunity to become a real game-changer against the climate and biodiversity crises, with tangible benefits for people and nature. It must be timely, ambitious and enforceable.

“We understand the extremely difficult context in which this proposal is being finalised – but not why the College of Commissioners was not even able to pencil in a new date. There is no reason to delay the law by months. This is jeopardising the EU’s response to the climate and biodiversity crises and puts the European Green Deal agenda into further question. It is unacceptable to leave people and nature in limbo.”

Sabien Leemans, Senior Biodiversity Policy Officer, WWF European Policy Office

...

https://www.birdlife.org/news/2022/03/23/press-release-eu-commission-delay-nature-restoration-law-again/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2022, 03:39:31 PM »
Resistance grows to EU nuclear and gas taxonomy

Resistance has been growing to an EU proposal to label gas and nuclear energy as sustainable investments, officials said this week.

The European Commission last month proposed including both in the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy, a system for labelling climate-friendly investments.

The proposal split opinion among the European Parliament and EU countries, which disagree on the fuels’ green credentials and could also still reject it.

Two groups of lawmakers – the Greens and the Socialists and Democrats – confirmed that they would file a motion to reject the rules.

German Green lawmaker Michael Bloss had confirmed the Greens’ objection earlier in the week.

“Nuclear power and fossil gas are not ‘sustainable’, far too dangerous and not a bridge technology,” he said in a tweet.

The move is the opening salvo in a months-long process of negotiations, which would culminate in Parliament voting by July on the potential motions to reject the gas and nuclear proposal.

At least half of Parliament’s 705 lawmakers would need to vote to reject the rules. The level of support in Parliament is unclear, since few lawmaker groups have a firm position and opinion is split among their members.

The rules could also be rejected by 20 of the EU’s 27 member countries, a threshold seen as unlikely to be reached.

Gas emits less CO2 than coal when burned, and some countries had lobbied hard for the taxonomy to incentivise gas investments to help them phase out coal.

continues:
https://emergingrisks.co.uk/resistance-grows-to-eu-nuclear-and-gas-taxonomy/

Of course gas is not quite as good as an alternative when you also account for all the leaks in production and transport. Plus we have a very limited window to bring down carbon use. Any new gas infrastructure is built for longer periods then that.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2022, 07:55:52 PM »
No, No, the Greens are right.  We should keep burning coal until we have the best solution possible.  It is not dangerous and it is already available at home....
 :-X :-X :-X :-X
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15261
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4713
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2022, 09:01:14 PM »
The increase in the use of coal means more methane emissions. Guardian article from 2019,,,,40 million tons per year and increasing.

Methane emissions from coalmines could stoke climate crisis – study
This article is more than 2 years old
Millions of tonnes belched into atmosphere as bad as shipping and aviation emissions combined, researchers find
Quote
The methane emissions leaking from the world’s coalmines could be stoking the global climate crisis at the same rate as the shipping and aviation industries combined.

Coalmines are belching millions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere unchecked, because policymakers have overlooked the rising climate threat, according to new research.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that the amount of methane seeping from new and disused coalmines may have reached just under 40m tonnes last year.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2022, 10:16:19 PM »
In case it was not obvious, that last comment was snarky and sarcastic.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2022, 10:57:23 PM »
We have to reduce all types of FF use ASAP.
If you build new gas that is for 15-30 years but we do not have that time. We still emit more then we did a few years ago while both the land carbon sinks are degrading. As we keep warming the oceans they will absorb less of the excess CO2 and as we warm the land it dries out more thus burns or dries more.

This vote is about which sectors get a shit ton of euros so that should not be anything FF related.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1652
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2022, 09:13:17 PM »
Kassy, I agree and am even more extreme. I believe that we need to reduce our global energy consumption because it is not possible to produce as much renewable energy as what you get in FF digging a hole at the right place. This also includes good consumption because they have embedded energy.
But when energy prices go up, instead of thinking that history is helping them, governments reduce taxes.
Another exam is what was said about flight shaming, it doesn't respect human freedom of choice...
Nature will be saved, no doubt about it. Just like the Ranger (Forster in German) Wohlleben said, when we talk about protecting nature, what we really talk about is protecting the environment we need in order to be able to live on earth, nature will find a way out alone.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2022, 07:23:15 PM »
Solar panels set to be mandatory on all new buildings under EU plan

Solar panels would be mandatory on all new buildings in the European Union under a new proposal aimed at ending its reliance on Russian fossil fuels by 2027 and supercharging its transition to green energy.

The “solar rooftop initiative” in the European Commission’s REPowerEU plan would introduce a phased-in legal obligation to install solar panels on new public and commercial buildings, as well as new residential buildings.

...

The REPowerEU plan published on Wednesday is the commission’s detailed proposal of how to do just that. The plan has three main pillars: energy savings, diversification of energy supplies, and accelerated roll-out of renewable energy.

The commission has said the plan will require an additional investment of €210bn (£178bn) between now and 2027 from the private and public sector across Europe, describing it as a “downpayment” on the bloc’s future independence and security. The proposal says cutting Russian fossil fuel imports can save the EU almost €100bn a year.

...

The proposed mandatory solar panel roll out is part of the ‘renewable energy’ pillar.

The commission is proposing to increase its current target for renewables to produce 40 per cent of the EU’s energy by 2030, raising it to 45 per cent.

...

In order for this to happen, the commission is proposing to double the rate of deployment of heat pumps, to produce 10 million tonnes of domestic renewable hydrogen by 2030, and to double wind and solar capacity.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/solar-panels-new-buildings-eu-mandatory-b2081732.html

And we wait with fear and trepidation for the wording. All buildings where it makes sense.

We also need a lot more people trained to upgrade the local grids because you cannot use the energy when they overload.

Also there is no overall efficient plan to take out the worst polluting sources first. That would take some EU wide planning and local replacement but it will be some EU laws that get adopted or not.   
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3332
  • "I" don't exist... Because "I" is ego... 🙏
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 836
  • Likes Given: 1112
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2022, 11:52:46 PM »
Solar panels set to be mandatory on all new buildings under EU plan

Solar panels would be mandatory on all new buildings in the European Union under a new proposal aimed at ending its reliance on Russian fossil fuels by 2027 and supercharging its transition to green energy.
Isn't it remarkable how they dare to admit that only war can change the world instead of a little girl holding up a sign?
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again...

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8637
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3301
  • Likes Given: 3398
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2022, 06:05:02 AM »
Indeed.
And change the world, but only from 2027.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2022, 04:10:08 PM »
Indeed.
And change the world, but only from 2027.

The EU political structure is an odd beast.  Executive appointed and higher chamber appointed.  Lower chamber has some veto rights on the appointed but in practise doesn't use it much.

This tends to generate an ivory tower approach to decision making and policy.

Even the Parliament (lower chamber), is elected by people who rarely know the EU wide alignment of the people they elect. They tend to elect them based on their state political affiliations.

To clarify, see the attached.

There are 8 groups in the European Parliament.  The first of those groups, the European People's Party, have over 40 member groups.  This is ignoring affiliates or observers.

[Had to modify the number due to duplications with local naming.]

Coming from a 2 party system, can you imagine if the house was constituted of 8 groups of parties representing the political aims of over 100 state based political parties?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2022, 04:18:57 PM by NeilT »
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #35 on: May 20, 2022, 11:08:11 AM »
Isn't it remarkable how they dare to admit that only war can change the world instead of a little girl holding up a sign?

Can is the wrong word maybe.

We could have taken so many turns for the better earlier on but at the top they mainly talk to  lobbyists so we got crap like the easy to fake car emissions test. Designing a proper test is not really hard but that was not what they were interested in.

Now the war has forced their hand.

But yes the data is still 2027 while we need reductions to kick in before 2025.
If this all had not happened and Nord Stream 2 had opened the Russian gas would have been used to substitute German coal. They still use quite an amount and it is worse further east. The time line on exiting that was way too long anyway.

And much of the damage is recent:

Can You Even Call Deadly Heat ‘Extreme’ Anymore?

May 18, 2022 at 10:00 am EDT By Taegan Goddard
Quote
David Wallace-Wells: “For a few years, I’ve startled people by pointing out that over half of all of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that have ever been produced in the history of humanity have been produced in the past 30 years — since Al Gore published his first book on warming; since the U.N. established its climate-change body, the I.P.C.C.; since the premiere of ‘Friends.’”

“But it is perhaps even more astonishing to consider just how fast the temperature is rising. As recently as 2015, the 10-year average of global temperatures showed, according to the I.P.C.C., warming of 0.87 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average. Just five years later, it had jumped to 1.09 — 25 percent higher in half a decade.”
:'(

So collectively we are ignoring climate change which puts us on a really iffy path although i suspect that weather extremes will remind us of the need to change faster.

We are all in this capitalist system which hides the damage involved in our cheap crap and no one wants less. So many things could be done differently but that means using a different system which is rather unlikely.

Nothing about climate change is new. One of the mantras for not doing anything is that it costs money to fight climate change which is not really true. In fact it will eat into GDP so at some point we cross a point where we are financing forward while there is no future growth to be gained.

 
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2022, 05:02:02 PM »
Continued drop in EU’s greenhouse gas emissions confirms achievement of 2020 target


The European Union continued to record substantial greenhouse gas emissions reductions in 2020, posting an 11% drop compared to 2019, according to the latest official data published today by the European Environment Agency. The data confirms a 30-year downward trend which led to the EU achieving its 2020 target to reduce emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels.

Collectively, the 2020 reduction was the largest in the EU since 1990 and total greenhouse gas emissions reached their lowest level since 1990, according to the official EU data which the EEA submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The overall reduction in 2020 greenhouse gas emissions was 34% compared to the 1990 base year, or 1.94 billion tonnes of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent).

The EU had already reduced its emissions by 26% in 2019 and had achieved its 20% target before the pandemic lockdowns started to impact emission levels.

Key drivers that led to emission reductions over the past three decades include the growing use of renewables, the use of less carbon intensive fossil fuels and improvements in energy efficiency, structural changes in the economy, lower demand for heating due to warmer winters in Europe. The effect of the 2020 economic recession triggered by the COVID-19 lockdowns also had a substantial impact on reducing emissions in 2020.

...

Almost all EU Member States reduced emissions compared to 1990 and contributed to the overall positive EU performance. The UK and Germany accounted for 47% of the total net reductions over the past 30 years.

...

https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/continued-drop-in-eus-greenhouse
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2022, 05:34:17 PM »
It won't look so good for 2021 onwards.  Because the UK is gone.

Setting a low target makes it more achievable.  More aggressive targets need a very different approach.

Quote
The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 were 51% below 1990 levels, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. This means the UK is now halfway to meeting its target of “net-zero” emissions by 2050

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-is-now-halfway-to-meeting-its-net-zero-emissions-target/

Quote
On 12 December 2020, the UK communicated its new Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The NDC commits the UK to reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-nationally-determined-contribution-communication-to-the-unfccc
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2022, 05:48:21 PM »
Yes it will interesting to see next years report card.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

interstitial

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2022, 08:55:41 PM »
While their numbers may not be out most everyone else has numbers. 2021 was nearly as high as 2019.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2022, 10:04:41 PM »
As high in emissions or reductions?

They have a goal of 55% reductions by 2030.  The UK had to shut down virtually every coal fired power station in order to get to 51%.

I wish them luck but I'll be looking to see if they make it.

Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2022, 07:48:42 PM »
EU faces legal challenge over plan to fast-track gas projects

An EU plan to fast-track funding and permits for 30 gas projects is facing a legal challenge from NGOs including ClientEarth and Friends of the Earth Europe.

The European Commission has been asked to review its backing for infrastructure projects such as the EastMed pipeline, a 1,180-mile (1,900km) gas pipeline to connect offshore gas fields in Israel and Cyprus to Italy.

The EU’s executive branch has up to 22 weeks to revise its initial decision or show that it does not violate environmental law, under a new way of challenging Brussels introduced last year.

Should the commission fail to offer a satisfactory legal justification, the case could be taken to the European court of justice, potentially holding up progress on €13bn (£11bn) worth of projects.

The two NGOs, along with Food & Water Action Europe and CEE Bankwatch Network, claim the priority list of projects was drawn up by Brussels without consideration of methane emissions, a gas that experts say has a global warming potential more than 85 times higher than that of CO2 over the next 20 years.

Guillermo Ramo, a lawyer for ClientEarth, said: “This list amounts to a VIP pass for fossil gas in Europe, when we should be talking about its phase-out. The commission did not consider the impact of methane emissions derived from gas infrastructure projects, in spite of evidence that these are substantial. That’s unlawful as it directly clashes with the EU’s own climate laws and its legal obligations under the Paris agreement.”

...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/07/eu-faces-legal-challenge-over-plan-to-fast-track-gas-projects
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

vox_mundi

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8040
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3288
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2022, 12:15:58 AM »
EU Lawmakers Endorse Ban On Combustion-Engine Cars In 2035
https://techxplore.com/news/2022-06-eu-lawmakers-endorse-combustion-engine-cars.html

The European Parliament on Wednesday threw its weight behind a proposed ban on selling new cars with combustion engines in 2035, seeking to step up the fight against climate change through the faster development of electric vehicles.

The European Union assembly voted in Strasbourg, France, to require automakers to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 100% by the middle of the next decade. The mandate would amount to a prohibition on the sale in the 27-nation bloc of new cars powered by gasoline or diesel.

EU lawmakers also endorsed a 55% reduction in CO2 from automobiles in 2030 compared with 2021. The move deepens an existing obligation on the car industry to lower CO2 discharges by 37.5% on average at the end of the decade compared to last year.

But Germany's auto industry lobby group VDA criticized the vote, saying it ignored the lack of charging infrastructure in Europe. The group also said the vote was "a decision against innovation and technology" a reference to demands from the industry that synthetic fuels be exempt from the ban, which European lawmakers rejected.

If approved by EU nations, the 2035 deadline will be particularly tough on German automakers, who have focused on powerful and expensive vehicles with combustion engines while falling behind foreign rivals when it comes to electric cars.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3332
  • "I" don't exist... Because "I" is ego... 🙏
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 836
  • Likes Given: 1112
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2022, 12:38:48 AM »
EU Lawmakers Endorse Ban On Combustion-Engine Cars In 2035
https://techxplore.com/news/2022-06-eu-lawmakers-endorse-combustion-engine-cars.html

The European Parliament on Wednesday threw its weight behind a proposed ban on selling new cars with combustion engines in 2035, seeking to step up the fight against climate change through the faster development of electric vehicles.

The European Union assembly voted in Strasbourg, France, to require automakers to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 100% by the middle of the next decade. The mandate would amount to a prohibition on the sale in the 27-nation bloc of new cars powered by gasoline or diesel.

EU lawmakers also endorsed a 55% reduction in CO2 from automobiles in 2030 compared with 2021. The move deepens an existing obligation on the car industry to lower CO2 discharges by 37.5% on average at the end of the decade compared to last year.

But Germany's auto industry lobby group VDA criticized the vote, saying it ignored the lack of charging infrastructure in Europe. The group also said the vote was "a decision against innovation and technology" a reference to demands from the industry that synthetic fuels be exempt from the ban, which European lawmakers rejected.

If approved by EU nations, the 2035 deadline will be particularly tough on German automakers, who have focused on powerful and expensive vehicles with combustion engines while falling behind foreign rivals when it comes to electric cars.
I wonder if that includes F1 and other racing cars...
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again...

vox_mundi

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8040
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3288
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2022, 12:52:41 AM »
Formula 1 Could Be All-Electric By 2035, Says Fomula E Team Boss
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2022/05/07/formula-1-could-be-all-electric-by-2035-says-fomula-e-boss/

According to Formula E Envision Racing Managing Director Sylvain Filippi, by 2035 Formula 1 could have a major decision to make: should it go all-electric, or become a specialized niche, akin to historic racing?

... It’s worth bearing in mind that Formula E cars already complete an entire 45-minute race using just a 52kWh battery, similar in size to the one found in a Renault Zoe, and smaller than a Tesla Model 3 Standard Range. The races are 49-55 miles in length, so efficiency isn’t great compared to driving your EV about town, but the Formula E car is travelling at up to 174mph. The Gen3 car raises the top speed to 200mph, while still maintaining the range capability, because it doesn’t just increase the power, it shaves 60kg off the weight as well – 760kg versus 820kg for Gen2. So it will be faster and more agile, making it even more suited for the street circuits used by the Formula E series. “The car will be very fast, very exciting to drive,” says Filippi.

With the Gen3 car, Formula E aims to make 40% of its energy usage during the race come from regeneration, which is an incredible result considering how much more efficient electric vehicles already are than fossil fuel-powered ones. “That's a glimpse of where the future of electric cars is heading,” he says. “They will still have brakes for a little bit of time. But maybe at some point we'll start to remove some brakes from consumer cars as well, once legislators have confidence that it's working.”

Apart from the range from a single “refueling” stop, consumer EVs are already surpassing fossil-fuel powered ones for performance. Formula E isn’t quite there yet for racing, however. The 200mph top speed is still a little way off the fastest race speed of a Formula 1 car of 231.4mph, set by Valteri Bottas at the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix. But it’s getting closer, and leads to the question – when will Formula E cars start to make Formula 1 cars look slow, as their road equivalents already do for consumer-grade fossil fuel cars?

... By 2035 you can start to envisage an electric car that will be easily as fast as a Formula 1 car. Then it’s about lap times.” ...
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3332
  • "I" don't exist... Because "I" is ego... 🙏
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 836
  • Likes Given: 1112
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2022, 02:18:26 AM »
... By 2035 you can start to envisage an electric car that will be easily as fast as a Formula 1 car. Then it’s about lap times.” ...
I agree, but I think F1 fans will hate it. They already hated the smaller engines in 2014 because they made less noise. Racing fans are true petrol heads, and F1 with electric cars just won't be the same. People go to F1 races because they want to hear the roaring engines. If they can't hear the engines, they will stop watching F1, and then the sport will die...

It'll also cause some people to resist climate action even more...

I know this is a controversial debate. F1 is the antithesis of climate action, although I strongly disagree with that. The research that goes into F1 is making road cars more fuel efficient. So F1 is actually good for the climate. But I realize that's a controversial view for many...

I would actually be in favor of using synfuels for F1 and other racing cars. We need synfuels for many reason, like aviation, shipping, and dealing with old cars. You're not gonna be able to get rid of oldtimers for a very long time. They will continue to need fuel long into the future, just like all those new gas fired power plants they are building now will need alternative fuels. They will also be around for another 30 to 50 years or so, so it would be smart to invest in alternative fuels for them...

Like I said, it's a difficult debate that we also had a little on the GH2 thread. But it's a usefull debate IMHO. We're not gonna get rid of all fossil fuels that easily if we can't find a replacement for some niche sectors of that industry...
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again...

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8637
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3301
  • Likes Given: 3398
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2022, 11:16:09 AM »
An electric car could be easily faster than a petrol car, and the noise can be added as an effect for those die hard fans.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2022, 12:56:44 PM »
Well the law is for road legal cars which F1 cars are not.

But F1 does not exist in a vacuum. The current turbo hybrids are very efficient but the technology is too expensive for road cars which limits the number of OEMs wanting to enter. So this will get simplified. They are long term banking on more eco friendly fuels but if the whole new car market pivots towards electric they will have to go that way too.

People are attached to their ways and that also goes for those German manufacturers so it´s good that they get some clear targets so they can waste less time.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

NeilT

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2022, 05:28:00 PM »
The research that goes into F1 is making road cars more fuel efficient.

Sorry have to disagree with that.  The first 1.5l, 510hp Turbocharged F1 car appeared in 1977 in the British Grand Prix.  That technology, applied to consumer cars with a much smaller engine, could have halved fuel consumption at the time.

F1 went backwards and back to naturally aspirated engines.  So, in effect, not contributing much of anything to road vehicles.

Whilst changes with piston shapes to make them more oval and to resist the much higher power density of the engines, required for better fuel efficiency on non turbo engines, plus teflon coatings to give the engine a very short term boost in power; these technologies don't have much place in a normal road vehicle which goes backwards and forwards to work or the shops.

In the 1980's Honda had a turbocharged 125cc motorcycle engine which produced more power than the standard family car of the time.

F1 has produced very little in the last decade which will help with efficiency.  Safety, sure, road efficiency?  The very turbo's they removed are now being brought back to significantly improve performance and fuel consumption on road vehicles.  Other changes like electric superchargers (not driven by the exhaust gasses), which are more precise and tune their air flow to the correct speed for the engine and even out the compression across all speeds, gives greater efficiency than traditional mechanical superchargers or turbochargers.  They are even better than the hybrid super/turbo charger my 1.6 diesel C3 has.  The problem always was that an ICE needed a certain amount of compression to run.  At low speeds this is high, but as the speed climbs, it drops due to the inability to suck in air fast enough.  A supercharger can boost the low end easily, but it takes a turbo to boost the upper end, driven by the hot exhaust gasses to exceed the linked engine rotations.  Turbo's have lag, mechanical superchargers have a fixed performance ceiling.  Enter the electric supercharger which balances the compression at all speeds.

None of this technology comes from F1.  I stopped watching F1 when they got rid of turbo's because they stopped pushing the bounds of engine technology and started playing games with rules to make the racing more "exciting".  Including allowing refuelling.  Something the fuel hog V8/10/12 engines needed but the Turbo engines did not.  i.e. more fuel efficient.

Apologies for the long aside, but it needs to be understood.  This technology is not being put on today's vehicles because F1 developed it and it is now "time to use it".  This technology is being put on vehicles because EU climate change and pollution regulations mandate that these engines have to be more efficient.  So they make them more efficient by putting in expensive and highly advanced performance technology which they have withheld and used as a money booster for more than 40 years.

That needs to be Extremely clear and also reiterated to the car companies every time they try to water down EU climate legislation so they can make another killing.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1859
  • Likes Given: 1851
Re: EU climate policies
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2022, 06:24:29 PM »
We helped fill a major climate change knowledge gap, thanks to 130,000-year-old sediment in Sydney lakes

The European Union is embarking on an experiment that will expand its climate policies to imports for the first time. It’s called a carbon border adjustment, and it aims to level the playing field for the EU’s domestic producers by taxing energy-intensive imports like steel and cement that are high in greenhouse gas emissions but aren’t already covered by climate policies in their home countries.

If the border adjustment works as planned, it could encourage the spread of climate policies around the world. But the EU plan, as well as most attempts to evaluate the impact of such policies, is missing an important source of cross-border carbon flows: trade in fossil fuels themselves.

As energy analysts, we decided to take a closer look at what including fossil fuels would mean.

In a newly released paper, we analyzed the impact and found that including fossil fuels in carbon border adjustments would significantly alter the balance of cross-border carbon flows.

For example, China is a major exporter of carbon-intensive manufactured goods, and its industries will face higher costs under the EU border adjustment if China doesn’t set sufficient climate policies for those industries. But when fossil fuels are considered, China becomes a net carbon importer, so setting its own comprehensive border adjustment could be to its energy producers’ benefit.

The U.S., on the other hand, could see harm to its domestic fuel producers if other countries imposed carbon border adjustments on fossil fuels. But the U.S. would still be a net carbon importer, and adding a border adjustment could help its domestic manufacturers.

What is a carbon border adjustment?
Carbon border adjustments are trade policies designed to avoid “carbon leakage” – the phenomenon in which manufacturers relocate their production to other countries to get around environmental regulations.

The idea is to impose a carbon “tax” on imports that is commensurate with the costs domestic companies face related to a country’s climate policy. The carbon border adjustment is imposed on imports from countries that do not have similar climate policies. In addition, countries can give rebates to exports to ensure domestic manufacturers remain competitive in the global market.

This is all still in the future. The EU plan phases in starting in 2023 but currently isn’t scheduled to fully go into effect until 2026. However, other countries are closely watching as they consider their own policies, including some members of the U.S. Congress who are considering carbon border adjustment legislation.

...

Capturing all cross-border carbon flows
One issue is that current discussions of carbon border taxes focus on “embodied” carbon – the carbon associated with the production of a good. For example, the EU proposal covers cement, aluminum, fertilizers, power generation, iron and steel.

But a comprehensive border adjustment, in theory, should seek to address all cross-border carbon flows. All the major analyses to date, however, leave out the carbon content of fossil fuels trade, which we refer to as “explicit” carbon.

In our analysis, we show that when only manufactured goods are considered, the U.S. and EU are portrayed as carbon importers because of their “embodied” carbon balance – they import a lot of high-carbon manufactured goods – while China is portrayed as a carbon exporter. That changes when fossil fuels are included.

More details on:
https://theconversation.com/what-if-carbon-border-taxes-applied-to-all-carbon-fossil-fuels-too-189759

The carbon input should always be counted.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.