European Climate Protection Plan 2008: OK or KO?

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79118
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

European Climate Protection Plan 2008: OK or KO?




by Christophe » 17/12/08, 15:36

Here is what, in short, this climate action plan adopted yesterday in Strasbourg

- plan classified into 6 "sections"
- period 2013-2020 (thus post kyoto)
- concerns the countries of the EU but with exceptions (ah ah ah)
- it is a "taste" of a conference / world plan in a year (Copenhagen in December 2009)
- "3 times 20" plan: a) 20% CO2 compared to 1990 b) 20% the share of renewable energies in European consumption and c) reduce the primary energy bill by 20%.
- The 6 components concern: a) renewable energies, b) emissions trading system (the auction mechanism for the rights to pollute), c) state efforts, d) capture and storage of CO2, e) emission reduction of CO2 fuels f) reduction of pollution of cars

A hot note

The European plan aims, through binding measures for the Member States and their industry, to reduce in 2020 EU greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared to 1990. It also plans to increase the share of renewable energies in EU consumption to 20% and to achieve 20% energy savings.


About 3 * 20%: in the end we can therefore speak of a "20% squared" since - 20% of energy consumption (95% of energy is of fossil origin) and 20% of EnR it's a doubled ratio compared to current fossil fuel consumption.

So assuming that the current consumption of Europe in fossil fuels is 100 we would have an energy consumption in 2020 of: 100 / 0.95 (= total energy consumption) * 0.8 (= the share of renewable) * 0,8 (= the drop in consumption by 2020) = 67,4.

Either more than 30% less fossil energy consumption in 2020 in Europe?

This is an objective, in my opinion, more than very ambitious it exceeds by far the eco-optimistic estimates. Worse it surpasses the -20% of CO2 (since we talk about CO2, so from fossils and not carbon equivalent if?) ... Would not there be something that goes wrong ??? : Shock:

To confirm my doubts: these -30% are to put in relation on these curves 2. These are global curves but the European curves must have the same tendencies:

Evolution of "commercial" energy consumption in millions of tonnes of oil equivalent. Sources: Schilling & Al. 1977, IEA and Jean-Marc Jancovici Note: 1 toe = 11 kWh.

Image
cf. https://www.econologie.com/la-consommati ... -3282.html

Evolution of the rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (GtC). Source: World Energy Council. The evolution according to 5 scenarios more or less ecologists (A Strong growth, B current reference, Ecologist) A1, A2 and A3 indicate more or less substitution for fossil energies. (Source: World Energy Council).

Image

So I see that 2 possibilities:

a) we do not care about our mouths by launching completely unrealizable numbers ...

b) is there a real change of behavior that is being put in place ... towards a true society of econology?

c) apparent incompetence of policies and / or action of energy or ecological lobbies (the 2 being linked)

Personally I doubt the b) and you?

ps: let's end with a humorous note to confirm my fears ...

Image
Last edited by Christophe the 17 / 12 / 08, 17: 29, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 17/12/08, 16:37

Oh but ... I voted for the ecological law !!

That I drag my buttocks in Merco V12 and Boeing 757 between Paris and New York ... : Idea:

And what's more, I have solar Photovoltaic installed on the ground by tens of hectares instead of promoting concentrated solar power plants. :?

Ignorance of scientific realities or hypochrisis?

That is the question : Idea:
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79118
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 17/12/08, 16:49

Remundo wrote:Ignorance of scientific realities or hypochrisis?


Barely! I add a little c) when the final MCQ:

c) apparent incompetence of policies and / or action of energy or ecological lobbies (the 2 being linked)


Jancovici firmly says that all policies (except exception that confirms the rule as Allègre) are ignorant in the climate or energy field and I believe it more and more ...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 17/12/08, 18:09

Yes, good diagnosis Christophe, the winning duo:

1. it is the scientific incompetence (climate + energy) of the policies (all lawyers, doctors or lawyers), but RARELY of the ingests
2. and surely effective lobbying (nuclear, oil) infiltrating all the executive centers ...

As I said, we have not finished burning oil and fiddling with the atom ... :?

@+
0 x
Image

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 184 guests