EU leaders agree to cut emissions by at least 55% by end of decade

&gt; compared to 1990s emissions.<p>That&#x27;s a sequel to Europe&#x27;s 20-20-20, which effectively achieved the 20%+ reduction [1], so that&#x27;s ~30% more in a decade, which is bold.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtontimes.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2020&#x2F;nov&#x2F;30&#x2F;report-eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-down-24-since-1&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtontimes.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2020&#x2F;nov&#x2F;30&#x2F;report-eu-g...</a>

I hope they will build some of these suggested 50MW wind turbines in the next years not to far from my home such that I can have a look at them.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sumrwind.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sumrwind.com&#x2F;</a>

Increasingly, nations need to force the US and China to start cutting, not continue cutting their own emissions. Otherwise global will continue to rise and they&#x27;ll be wasting their time.

Is there a way to bet money on them wriggling out of it when the time comes for hard decisions as opposed to posturing and finger pointing?

I’ve said this before and it’s only getting less crazy sounding, but this is all a preamble to governments launching geo engineering schemes. They sound good, appeal to new voters, and will have the benefit of being just in time for “its too late for change, but not too late for &lt;cue fanfare&gt; Geo engineering!”<p>Govt spending follows, and politicians get to sell the idea that no change is needed.

As comparison, the UK target is a cut of 68% by 2030.

Anyone here from Poland or Germany and know what those governments are going to do about brown coal?

I&#x27;m really happy that Tesla&#x27;s price is so high. Decreasing price of batteries is the most important step in decreasing air pollution and CO2 emissions.<p>I wish EU would stop subsidizing hybrids, and focus on electric cars, as hybrid subsidies are misused extremely.

Any plan that is to be implemented by the <i>next</i> political leader to run your country is worthless. It has negative value, because the existence of the plan is used to prevent current action.<p>What are you going to do IN 2020 to reduce emissions? What are you going to do in JANUARY 2021 to reduce emissions? What are you going to do in FEBRUARY 2021 to reduce emissions? These are the only important questions. The answer to each is &quot;nothing&quot;.<p>&quot;The next political leader to be elected in my country will definitely reduce emissions&quot; has no meaning.

Bit of a nitpick but is end of the decade in 2029 or 2030?

That&#x27;s an aggressive goal for the next 20 days.

Wake me up when cargo ships are forced to cut emissions and can run on some kind of other, than fossil power (hint: probably the only thing that has enough capacity at the moment is nuclear)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;phys.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads-carbon.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;phys.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads...</a><p>Nothing is going to matter until this changes.

Unless the emissions from imports are counted, this is meaningless.<p>If you produce an dohicky in the EU and it casues 1000 tons of emissions, and by doing things like greening your grid, moving transport to electric, etc, you drop that to 450 tons, that&#x27;s great.<p>If you produce an dohicky in the EU and it casues 1000 tons of emissions, and you instead stop producing it, but instead import it from China, where it was produced with 1500 tons of emissions and used another 500 tons to transport it, that&#x27;s terrible.

That promise came one year too late.

emissions = economic activity.<p>britain got out at a good time. the eu just keeps getting more irrelevant

As the saying goes : &quot;Promises only bind those who believe in them.&quot;

Too bad EU population is a drop in a sea and it’s already in some parts quite environmentally conscious (if not to say “friendly”).

Alternative title: EU leaders agree to offshore &gt;50% of emissions to Asia by the end of the decade

EU leaders are big on virtual signaling so Let’s come back in 9 years and see if they deliver rather than giving them any credit for it now?

Just to put this into scale a bit. They are talking about cutting the energy consumption of ~446 million people by 55%, and energy is directly correlated to economic output; using energy to add value and&#x2F;or utility.<p>Let&#x27;s be clear about what that means; that equation can only be affected by a few means and I can assure you with a high degree of confidence that it will not be done by impacting the ruling classes. We are talking about a combination of things like reducing productivity, reducing mobility, reducing living standards, reducing heating and cooling (comfort), reducing amenities, reducing material possessions, reducing social events, etc.<p>There is no other way that you can cut emissions by <i></i>at least<i></i> 55% after decades of already cutting emissions around 20% over the last 25 years. Let alone while also importing people from around the world from low impact to high impact societies.<p>Let&#x27;s also realize that while the EU and people in the USA are pushing for these kinds of things, the Chinese and Indians and other countries are pumping out emissions at rates that are way beyond the worst the west has ever produced.<p>For some more perspective; the EU and US emissions are roughly the same as their share of the world&#x27;s GDP. By contrast, China produces twice as many emissions as the USA, but only 75% of the GDP; India has half the emissions of the USA, but only produces 10% of the GDP.