Greenlash in Europe

[SunsetBengal]

Seems that not all in Europe are as on board with Green energy/Climate change policies as many might believe.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/factbox-resistance-to-green-policies-around-europe/ar-AA1hkSjZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=be83587c7c6c47cd8a036b4af8358073&ei=95

Quote:Reuters) - Europe faces growing pushback against policies to address climate change and protect the environment, causing its green agenda to start to fray. Here are some countries where the "greenlash" is greatest:

BRITAIN

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Sept. 20 he would delay a ban on sales of new petrol cars and targets for domestic heating until 2035 to maintain the consent of the British people in the switch to net zero, among other changes to climate strategy.

Sunak denied he was watering down Britain's climate targets, repeating earlier comments that Britain could afford to make slower progress because it was "so far ahead".

Britain's climate advisers said in June it was not doing enough to meet its mid-century net-zero target.

A government-commissioned review also found businesses complained of weaknesses in Britain's investment environment, including inconsistent commitment to the energy transition.

Progress in onshore and offshore wind has been hampered by rule changes, prompting some developers to warn they will find it hard to invest in Britain without better incentives.

GERMANY

Germany will indefinitely halt plans on more stringent building insulation standards, environment minister Robert Habeck said on Sept. 24, after industry complaints the measures are too costly and hurt the depressed construction sector.
Germany's lower house of parliament passed a bill in September on phasing out oil and gas heating systems, though the legislation was criticized by conservatives as too costly and by environmentalists as not strong enough.

Arguing over the law had brought the ruling coalition close to collapse until it agreed to water down the original bill.

The row has helped propel the far-right Alternative for Germany to second place in the polls. The party disputes that human activity is a cause of climate change.

Anger at moves to reduce the number of cars also hit support for the Greens in state elections this year, say pollsters.

Aviation industry representatives, including Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr, have also warned it won't be possible to reach the EU's new sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) targets with current production.

ITALY

Italy's right-wing government is pushing back on an array of European Union initiatives aimed at greening the economy, arguing that local business can ill-afford transition goals.

Italy has demanded that the EU water down a directive aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings, rewrite plans to phase out combustion engine cars and questioned a drive to slash industrial emissions.

Under current policies, Italy is behind schedule in hitting the decarbonisation goals for 2030.

At the same time, the government continues with other aspects of the green agenda. For example, it said in July it wanted to use EU money for an investment programme worth around 19 billion euros ($20.1 billion) to strengthen power and gas grids and make its economy greener.

NETHERLANDS

The BBB or BoerBurgerBeweging (Farmer-Citizen Movement) party, founded in 2019 in opposition to the government's plans to drastically cut nitrogen pollution on farms, has experienced a meteoric rise in polls.

Riding a wave of protests against the government's environmental policies, it unexpectedly beat the conservative VVD party in regional elections in March.

The BBB's rise was a major blow to the latest coalition government, which collapsed in July.

A poll by Ipsos ahead of a November parliamentary election put the BBB - which won a single lower house seat in 2021 - in fourth place at 9.5%, nearly 8 percentage points behind the VVD.

If the BBB makes large gains, it could set Dutch policy on nitrogen curbs on a collision course with the EU.

POLAND

Poland's government, long conservative on environmental policies at home and facing elections in October, has gone a step further by suing Brussels.

So far it says it has filed complaints with the Court of Justice on the EU's 2035 ban on combustion vehicles, the increase in the bloc's emissions reductions target, the reduction of free Co2 permits, and what it called interference in national forest management.

Facing pressure from mining unions, Poland has also deferred a plan to cut its reliance on coal by downgrading the status of its upcoming energy policy update to simply a "consultation".

[Arturo Bandini]

We have lobbies too.

Those people don't care about future generations, they don't care about other people, they just care about themselves and their bank account.

[Luvnit2]

(09-27-2023, 10:06 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: We have lobbies too.

Those people don't care about future generations, they don't care about other people, they just care about themselves and their bank account.

Do you care about future generations or even this generation? Do you agree with allowing almost 6 million illegal immigrants into our country since Biden took office? These illegal immigrants have no money, no job and we have no idea if they have all of the mandated US vaccinations? We don't know if they are friends or foe. We have no idea if they are criminals. You worry about 50 or 100 years from now while illegal immigration is a huge threat to our generation.

Also, look up what illegal immigration has done and is doing in Europe. They are overrun with illegal migrants also due to doing the same thing Biden did, open the border. Huge mistake for them and huge mistake by Democrats and Biden putting all of us at health risks and made our country a lot less safe now, now 50 years from now.

So please, stop the BS you care about future generations because you don't give a crap about our country in 2023 and the near future.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-27-2023, 10:06 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: We have lobbies too.

Those people don't care about future generations, they don't care about other people, they just care about themselves and their bank account.

Are you sure about that?  It seems to me that to date alternative energy sources are not only incapable of handling the load, but the cost of implementing, maintaining and using them is just exorbitant. 

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-27-2023, 10:30 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are you sure about that?  It seems to me that to date alternative energy sources are not only incapable of handling the load, but the cost of implementing, maintaining and using them is just exorbitant. 

They'll find anything. But whatever, you will always find someone who thinks like you on the Internet and so do I. 

But I have no doubt our parliament and the european one are full of crooked people who are defending their own interests way before those of the citizens. 

Might be green energy or anything else, it doesn't change much. 

When we were 'somehow' in danger with COVID, we invested the correct amount of money to deal with it. 

Not much is invested to find another energy. If we really wanted to, we would have find it a long time ago. 

[SunsetBengal]

Here's an interesting piece relative to the OP.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-hysteria-over-green-energy-delays-is-absurd-one-indian-village-shows-why/ar-AA1hkIlW?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b5278d05aa144ff79051ab99e1ef3370&ei=133

Quote:Last week, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak caused outrage by watering down British net zero commitments. This week his French counterpart, President Emmanuel Macron, has taken similar steps. The EU is considering back-pedalling on emissions rules for cars. European leaders are in part motivated by the economic impact of climate policies, whether that is on rural households struggling with looming boiler bans, or car-makers worried about their bottom line.

But politicians are also mindful of another inconvenient truth – no matter how hard Europe tries to cut emissions, global progress will be hampered by developing world powerhouses such as China and India with their ongoing commitment to coal and other dirty forms of fuel.

India has aspirations to wean itself off the black stuff, but as heatwaves drive summer electricity demand and create hydro-power shortages, power stations can hardly shovel coal in fast enough to keep precious air-conditioning on. And aircon is not a luxury when the mercury pushes 50 degrees Celsius. It’s a necessity.

Coal accounts for three quarters of India’s electricity generation, and India’s economy is set to grow, largely powered by coal. The country has significant coal reserves, although it is also a major importer. The Indian Government would like to see the share of gas used across the economy increase – while it is still a fossil fuel, gas is significantly less polluting and less carbon-intensive than coal. As a result, domestic gas production is growing, as are imports – last year India was the world’s sixth largest importer of liquified natural gas.

But coal still dominates in India, and is seen as reliable, in a country whose electricity system can be creaky. It can be especially creaky when renewables powered. Back in 2014, Greenpeace invested US$400,000 to set up 70 kW of photovoltaic cells on the rooftops of public buildings throughout the village of Dharnai, a community of about 3,200 people in the Indian province of Bihar. The scheme also included batteries to store solar power for use when the sun was not shining. The village had been without electricity for three decades, so this project was welcomed with some excitement.

However, problems emerged almost immediately, and when dignitaries arrived to inaugurate the grid, villagers protested that they wanted “real electricity, not fake electricity”! By this they meant power from the central grid, generated mostly using coal. From the outset, the solar-plus-batteries system could not cope with demand and villagers were asked not to use things like televisions, fridges and incandescent lightbulbs.

In the end, for Dharnai, the project was an indirect success – it highlighted the plight of the village, and the following year the village was connected up to the regional electricity grid. Participation in the solar scheme fell. Electricity from the grid was also cheaper than that from the solar scheme. After three years the batteries stopped working and were never repaired, so while much of the infrastructure remains intact, the solar power is largely unused, barring some running of irrigation pumps which is offered for free. The main project site is now used as a cattle shed.

India has ambitious plans for renewable generation, but it faces multiple challenges from aging grid infrastructure to problems with acquiring the land necessary for hosting large solar and wind farms. And the large amounts of steel and concrete needed to build windfarms will inevitably be produced in factories running on coal.

And despite the renewables plans, India’s love affair with coal is going nowhere. There are 27 gigawatts of coal-based power plants currently under construction and another 24 gigawatts in various pre-construction stages. Coal’s share of the country’s electricity mix may well decline, but is still likely to account for the majority of electricity generated as we move into the next decade, despite aspirations to build 500 gigawatts of renewable generation by 2030. It’s important to remember that renewable powerplant delivers a much lower proportion of its rated capacity over time than thermal plant does.

India is only the second largest user of coal globally. In first place is China, with by far the world’s largest amount of coal-fired electricity generating capacity: over one thousand gigawatts in 2022. Next was India with 233 gigawatts followed by the United States with 218 gigawatts. Germany had the most coal power in Europe at 38 gigawatts. Britain had a paltry four gigawatts, since halved to just two.

And China is racing to build more coal, with new coal plant permits reaching their highest level last year since 2015. The total amount of new coal power stations starting construction in China last year – 50 gigawatts - was six times that of the rest of the world combined, and 106 gigawatts of new coal power projects were permitted, the equivalent of two large coal power plants per week. In fact, there are concerns China may be building more coal power stations than it needs, creating economic challenges that might see coal used instead of available cleaner alternatives.

The harsh reality is that while we in the UK have drastically cut coal use in recent decades, it remains one of the main sources of energy worldwide, comprising 27 per cent of total world energy consumption in 2022. This is behind oil at 32 per cent, but ahead of natural gas at 24 per cent. Because it is particularly carbon-intensive, coal is responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than the other fossil fuels.

And despite the somewhat bizarre decision of Germany to close its zero carbon nuclear power stations in favour of using more coal, Europe is responsible for just over six percent of global coal consumption (with the UK’s share being a barely measurable 0.1 percent). More broadly, the UK is only responsible for 1 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector.

This is why it makes no sense to get worried about relatively small delays to the phase-out of gas or even oil for heating in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. These moves are insignificant. Making it harder and more expensive for Brits to heat their homes will make essentially no difference to global emissions or global climate change.

The future of the planet lies largely in Indian and Chinese hands.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I will never understand why the only policies advanced to tackle greenhouse gases are prophylactic. If you believe climate change is currently happening then any greenhouse gas emission is only going to exacerbate that. Target dates for lower emissions make zero sense when you're already past the point that the climate is affected. Why no calls for proactive measures? Why no plans to reverse what is already done rather than just slow the progress?

[hollodero]

(09-27-2023, 12:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will never understand why the only policies advanced to tackle greenhouse gases are prophylactic.  If you believe climate change is currently happening then any greenhouse gas emission is only going to exacerbate that.  Target dates for lower emissions make zero sense when you're already past the point that the climate is affected.  Why no calls for proactive measures?  Why no plans to reverse what is already done rather than just slow the progress?

I guess the main reason is that we do not have that many promising technologies aimed at filtering carbon dioxide out of the air. There are certain ideas, but to me they seem quite theoretical and hence not really suited to be a reliable solution. But maybe there is something of substance I am not aware of.

Reducing the emissions, however, is an approach where a lot of viable solutions can be achieved. From more public transportation to lower emission cars and filtering systems and green energy concepts and carbon taxes and so on, green new deal stuff basically. That's what I bleieve is the reason, that politics knows ways to reduce emissions, but does not know ways to reduce the damage already done.

Also, even if we could filter the air and bind some greenhouse gasses, reducing emisions would still probably be a good idea.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-27-2023, 06:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess the main reason is that we do not have that many promising technologies aimed at filtering carbon dioxide out of the air. There are certain ideas, but to me they seem quite theoretical and hence not really suited to be a reliable solution. But maybe there is something of substance I am not aware of.

Reducing the emissions, however, is an approach where a lot of viable solutions can be achieved. From more public transportation to lower emission cars and filtering systems and green energy concepts and carbon taxes and so on, green new deal stuff basically. That's what I bleieve is the reason, that politics knows ways to reduce emissions, but does not know ways to reduce the damage already done.

Also, even if we could filter the air and bind some greenhouse gasses, reducing emisions would still probably be a good idea.

As much as you pay attention to what goes on in America, I'm surprised that you haven't learned about this already.

https://www.sej.org/headlines/world-s-biggest-carbon-capture-plant-being-built-texas-will-it-work#:~:text=In%20June%2C%20ceremonial%20shovels%20were,once%20fully%20operational%20in%202025.

Like they say, everything's bigger in Texas..

Quote:World’s Biggest Carbon Capture Plant Being Built In Texas. Will It Work?

"The plant will inject 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the ground each year – but is it just greenwashing from big oil?"
"Rising out of the arid scrubland of western Texas is the world’s largest project yet to remove excess carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, a quest that has been lauded as essential to help avert climate catastrophe. The creators of the project have now been awarded funding from the Biden administration, even as critics attack the technology as a fossil fuel industry-backed distraction.
Proponents of setting up enormous fans to gulp in huge amounts of air and remove planet-heating carbon from it, a process called direct air capture (DAC), are basking in their greatest breakthroughs yet in the US. In June, ceremonial shovels were plunged into the dirt in Ector county, Texas, to mark the start of a $1bn project called Stratos, which aims to remove 500,000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere a year once fully operational in 2025.
The advent of the 65-acre (26-hectare) site, which will be marked by a vast network of pipes, buildings and fans to scrub CO2 from the air and then inject it into underground rock formations, was solemnly likened to the Apollo 13 moon mission by Lori Guetre, vice-president of Carbon Engineering, the Canadian-founded company spearheading Stratos, during the groundbreaking."
Oliver Milman reports for the Guardian September 12, 2023.

[hollodero]

(09-27-2023, 06:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As much as you pay attention to what goes on in America, I'm surprised that you haven't learned about this already.

Yeah that's mainly because I am a fraud. My knowledge is way more limited than it might appear, I just talk around that.

As for this idea, I heard about something like that some years back actually, but did not know this is already way beyond the planning stage. And sure, if that works, I am all for it.
Apparently, so is the Biden administration that now funds this project.

Overall, as stated, for me this is not an either/or. I approve of every reasonable measure that reduces greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

[Stewy]

(09-27-2023, 10:56 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: They'll find anything. But whatever, you will always find someone who thinks like you on the Internet and so do I. 

But I have no doubt our parliament and the european one are full of crooked people who are defending their own interests way before those of the citizens. 

Might be green energy or anything else, it doesn't change much. 

When we were 'somehow' in danger with COVID, we invested the correct amount of money to deal with it. 

Not much is invested to find another energy. If we really wanted to, we would have find it a long time ago. 

Billions leading to trillions are going to be invested in renewable energy over the next 20-30 years.  It is the big energy companies that will do the investing because they have the money.  EVERY one of the top 6 oil companies are the top investors in renewables.

The PROBLEM is that ignorant people think you can flip a switch and have it all NOW, and that is pure stupidity.  It is called a transition for a reason.  A transition takes time.  it isn;t flipping a switch.

Regardless of what you think there is no miracle answer.  There is no alternative source coming anytime soon.  The option are very limited.  Nuclear is a somewhat cleaner possibility but the PUBLIC says (NOT IN MY BACKYARD).  Near tem Fusion is a fallacy.  Anyone who tells you different is either ignorant, lying or trying to sell you something.  I've made an entire discussion thread on this topic in Klosch (because I didn't want it politicized).  While fusion has now been achieved two different ways, it is DECADES away from large scale commercial applicability.  And centuries away from small scale individual power generation.  Fallout is an alternate universe, not our near term future.  See the thread I mentioned as to why.

So what else is there?  Can you name some additional viable alternate energy sources that deserve research dollars but aren't getting funded?  Do you actually have knowledge or just hysteria?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2023, 06:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess the main reason is that we do not have that many promising technologies aimed at filtering carbon dioxide out of the air. There are certain ideas, but to me they seem quite theoretical and hence not really suited to be a reliable solution. But maybe there is something of substance I am not aware of.

Sunset posted one I was unaware of.  But let's say this was 100% true, why not making major moves in that direction?  Why the laser focus on just reduction of emissions?

Quote:Reducing the emissions, however, is an approach where a lot of viable solutions can be achieved. From more public transportation to lower emission cars and filtering systems and green energy concepts and carbon taxes and so on, green new deal stuff basically. That's what I bleieve is the reason, that politics knows ways to reduce emissions, but does not know ways to reduce the damage already done.

And I have zero issue with these when they are not implemented by force or in draconian fashion.  

Quote:Also, even if we could filter the air and bind some greenhouse gasses, reducing emisions would still probably be a good idea.

I agree with this as well.  As long as such efforts are not overly onerous, I have zero issue with this.  The problem is when you get ideas like, "you'll own nothing and be happy", or the "fifteen minute city".

[hollodero]

(09-28-2023, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sunset posted one I was unaware of.  But let's say this was 100% true, why not making major moves in that direction?  Why the laser focus on just reduction of emissions?

Well, I don't really have a better answer, but to me it's still the problem Stewy describes regardig fusion power. If I (as a society) spend a certain amount on say filters to reduce car emissions, I have the data, I know I can expect a clear and quantifyable effect. If I spend the same amount on researching fusion reactors, I might turn out empty-handed. It's just hard to focus on things that aren't clearly visible.

That being said, of course I for one appreciate all efforts, and that carbon capture plant might be promising, I am of course all for making moves in that direction. Which is actually happening, including federal funding, so it's not like your initial statement is 100% accurate.

(09-28-2023, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And I have zero issue with these when they are not implemented by force or in draconian fashion.  

Well. At a certain point, laws will play their parts in reducing emissions. And laws need some form of enforcement. Now regarding this specific law, this indeed seems to be quite an unnecessary and badly implemented policy. I'd rather support fairer and more reasonable measures.

(09-28-2023, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree with this as well.  As long as such efforts are not overly onerous, I have zero issue with this.  The problem is when you get ideas like, "you'll own nothing and be happy", or the "fifteen minute city".

OK, own nothing and be happy, as far as I know, is apparent twaddling; as for your link, I don't really know what to say about that. Reducing car traffic is not the worst of ideas, and that 15 minute city sounds comfy... I don't see the sinister side behind it really, as long as no one forces me to take the nearest grocery store instead of travelling through the whole town to pick one of my choosing. If I use my car for doing so, I find it acceptable to pay a certain price for that comfort.

I feel maybe that is because I am not really ambivalent on the climate change issue. I feel science tells us there's a asteroid coming, its impact will be devastating, and we rather argue that this is quite inconvenient really, hurts the economy, costs money, annoys, might restrict me in my lifestyle and my freedom to blow out how much greenhouse gas I please, and so hey maybe it won't be all that bad or there isn't even an asteroid in the first place, because science was wrong before. I'm not saying you are following that path, but there's a certain tendency to agree on some easy-going, cosmetic measures that aren't sufficient, declare it handled as much as was reasonably feasible and the asteroid won't care. Admittedly, for this analogy to make any sense it must be a really slow moving asteroid, but you get the point. In times of global crisis where wide-reaching devastation is the alternative, there's always - at some point that I do not declare reached - a need for drastic measures and restrictions and also enforcing, I can not logically deny that in theory.

[Millhouse]

Anyone ever hear of 'brake dust pollution'. Pretty interesting and quite disturbing on how little attention it receives it out there.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-29-2023, 04:28 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Anyone ever hear of 'brake dust pollution'. Pretty interesting and quite disturbing on how little attention it receives it out there.

If you live in the city, keep your windows up and use your climate control always and be sure to change your car's cabin air filter regularly.