An interesting little "gotcha" to this (unless I'm mistaken, please correct if so) is that imported energy is not taken into account. The UK recently ran 2 weeks "without using coal" [1], but this completely ignored any imported energy <i>which did</i> [2].<p>So, this is great - provided we don't simply pass the buck (like by sending all of our plastics to Asia).<p>Edit: Provide citations
[1] <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-mb1079/" rel="nofollow">https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-mb10...</a> (11.8% imported)
The problem with such long-term plans is of course that none of the politicians who decided this today will be around in 2050.<p>The most relevant question is: What are they going to do in the next 1-2 years to make the first steps? That's far more relevant than any long-term goal.
2050 is too late. Make it 2025 at the most otherwise no one in power now will have to deal with it, and it's right now that we need to start making big changes.
I don't know what is going on in the UK:<p>* On the one hand, supposedly one of the best users of clean energy (<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649</a>). Side question: where does it all come from? The UK doesn't have a lot of sunshine, nor do I see a lot of wind farms compared to other EU countries. Maybe north and around the coast? Wind seems likely given all the news about record wind output when speeds pick up. Wikipedia's number for zero-carbon production seem quite different than BBC's though.<p>* Government makes a vague declaration for the distant future, but Chancellor says we can't afford to do it.<p>* UK criticized for coal subsidies and lack of transparency (<a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-subsidises-coal-sector-with-356-million-a-year/" rel="nofollow">https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-s...</a>)
interestingly ecotricity (green) is cheaper than EDF(nuclear) for my home.
<a href="https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-electricity" rel="nofollow">https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-elec...</a>
Brits' environmental footprints are less than 3% of the global total—and declining. Three percent is the upper bound of how much the UK can reduce emissions itself. Reducing 90% of UK emissions by 2050 will cost roughly $5 trillion. But this barely makes a dent in the current global emissions trajectory.<p>Because of diminishing returns, it is very hard to imagine reducing UK emissions to zero. This would mean replacing every last lightbulb with LEDs powered by zero carbon energy and having everyone fly in electric planes. It is much easier to conceive of an UK scientists or engineers improving technology, say, carbon capture technology so that the diffuse benefits reduce global emissions by >3%.