iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

UK Pledges To Cut Carbon Emissions In Half By 2025

AP    
First Posted: 05/17/11 03:02 PM ET Updated: 07/17/11 06:12 AM ET

LONDON (AP) — The British government on Tuesday pledged to cut the country's carbon emissions in half by 2025 – an ambitious target which could be watered down unless other European countries cut their emissions accordingly.

Energy Secretary Chris Huhne told Parliament that Britain would reduce the emissions by about 50 percent from benchmark emission levels in 1990, part of its legally mandated commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050.

Huhne sought to cast the dramatic cuts as a massive boost to the country's green technology companies, telling parliamentarians he was putting Britain "at the leading edge of the global low-carbon revolution."

But Britain's energy-intensive industries, such as steel manufacturers, are warning that the country risks making itself uncompetitive unless other European countries follow its lead. They've pressured the government to put in an escape clause which allows for the target to be scrapped as soon as 2014 if Britain's European partners fail to implement their own carbon cuts.

David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, made the same point in separate comments to lawmakers Tuesday.

"It doesn't actually help climate change if you simply drive an energy intensive industry to locate in Poland rather than Britain," Cameron told lawmakers. "We believe that Europe should follow our lead and go for a 30 percent reduction."

But, the prime minister added, Europe has yet to make the same commitment "so there is a review clause in what is being announced in 2014 to make sure that if they are not on that pathway, then we shouldn't put ourselves on it too."

Carbon dioxide gas – spewed into the atmosphere by cars, planes, factories, and power plants – is a major driver of man-made climate change, which scientists say is already leading to global warming and melting ice caps.

Britain emitted nearly 800 million tons of greenhouse gases in 1990, but although the number has fallen significantly in the past two decades, environmental activists say more must be done and faster. Legislation passed in 2008 made the goal of implementing an 80 percent cut by 2050 legally binding.

Nevertheless there's lingering opposition to the reductions. Britain is still trying to emerge from a damaging recession, and many business leaders have argued for a reprieve. The issue split Cameron's cabinet, which is composed of lawmakers from the business-friendly Conservative Party and the traditionally green-conscious Liberal Democrats, of which Huhne is a senior member.

Cameron, who campaigned on the promise to make his administration the "greenest government ever," reportedly had to personally intervene to secure an agreement.

The announcement delighted environmental groups, as well as the British government's climate advisers, who had pushed for the reductions.

The European Union's Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in a statement that Britain's pledge was "an outstanding example of strong willingness to act despite difficult economic times."

RELATED:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

LONDON (AP) — The British government on Tuesday pledged to cut the country's carbon emissions in half by 2025 – an ambitious target which could be watered down unless other European countries cut ...
LONDON (AP) — The British government on Tuesday pledged to cut the country's carbon emissions in half by 2025 – an ambitious target which could be watered down unless other European countries cut ...
Filed by Travis Donovan  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 642
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
09:27 AM on 05/20/2011
Behold Asia's rise as the West imposes poverty and scarcity on itself.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
12:23 AM on 05/19/2011
We've got parking lots that can be used for solar power.

We've got roads and rooftops for the same.

We've got wind all over the country, and grid designs to allow us to store excess energy from any one part of the country, and use it in any other part of the country.

We've got the technology (as of this past month) to make windows that generate electricit­y from sunlight.

We can make ANY petroleum based product out of plant material.

We've got a dozen different ways of generating power from the wind, INCLUDING ones that don't even require a turbine.

We have holding tanks and flywheels to store energy withOUT lithium, and we've got lithium batteries (in testing) that can take a car over 300 miles on a 6 minute charge.

We HAVE what we need to do this. Why would you oppose doing it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
06:21 PM on 05/19/2011
To top that off, if we did it we'd make money. Hello, anybody noticed there's going to be a gigantic world market for renewables? But we'll end up buying ours from China or even frigging Denmark, and how stupid is that. I thought we fancied ourself some sort of world leader in technology? We seem to be keeping up with only the banana republics, doing close to nothing.

Normally when a capitalist sees a gigantic burgeoning new world market the capitalist would do something. Cigarettes are a great example. Cigarette companies are still making ungodly amounts of money because as the U.S. market became acquainted with that little problem with cancer and managed to curb back slightly, the industry just moved on and got the rest of the world on two packs a day. Imagine if we did that with technologies that would actually be desirable imports.

However, green technology is for whatever reason seen as a contradiction to capitalism. You can't say it's because of carbon credits and it's also not because of stricter regulations, because if the private sector would just stop screwing around and start acting like it's supposed to solve all the problems that the right wing claims it will, we wouldn't even need those.

That leaves me really rooting for Al Gore! I hope he does make billions like the right wing alleges he will. Because if only one American has a lick of sense, then only that one should live out the American dream!
09:41 AM on 05/20/2011
As with all big government central economic planning, big business jumps in and happily pockets billions of taxpayer-funded subisides. Look at GE last year. They made 12B in profit and didn't pay any corporate income tax, mainly because of all the goofball green subsidies their lobbyists wrote into law with Congress. The bottom line is that almost no one would choose to pay extra for green power\ethanol\ect so the government has chosen to distort the market by taking money from taxpayers and giving it to "green" companies. Big business benefits from these misguided policies at our expense.
photo
FTracy3
My micro-bio is as empty as the rest of my life.
06:28 PM on 05/18/2011
I'll bet you a thousand carbon credits they don't pull it off.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
04:37 PM on 05/18/2011
http://news.scotsman.com/news/39Green39-Scotland-relying-on-French.6672024.jp

Will the French be there to bail out the English as they had to bail out the Scotts?
12:50 PM on 05/18/2011
Can America go Green?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
blueshield
11:40 AM on 05/18/2011
The UK has had a very ambitious carbon reduction program underway for years. This is an extension and ramping up of some very substantial and far reaching efforts that are already producing very positive results.

Americans unfamiliar with just how far behind we've fallen should spend a moment and see how the rest of the world exercises technical and commercial leadership.

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Pages/Default.aspx
10:54 AM on 05/18/2011
The Huffpost will only upload articles supporting AGW and mocking the opposition. In this article you need to stop and read more closely what the UK is saying. Their participation is conditional and it is well known the #1 emitter of CO@ (China) has no intentions of following Kyoto. The UK is backing away from AGW.


http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/3027-conditional-climate-targets-are-a-step-back-from-blind-unilateralism.html
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
blueshield
11:37 AM on 05/18/2011
The UK is moving forward with an ambitious carbon reduction program because it regards AGW as a serious global threat. Nothing in your link suggests otherwise.

Your claim that the UK is "backing away" from AGW is a complete - and inexplicable - fabrication of the facts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
12:34 PM on 05/18/2011
China already spends more on renewables than any other nation. In fact, it was in the news within the past couple weeks that due to the problems with nuclear that were pretty evident in Japan recently, China is now going to be spending trillions on a green crash installation program. So don't do the old tired "India and China aren't doing it, so why should we?" There's only one nation that's a big problem, and that would be us.

Naturally, China will not be purchasing its renewable technology from the United States. Why would it? We barely have an industry. And how stupid are we going to look later when we buy ours from China.

Normally, a gigantic new global market would be a capitalist's dream. But in this case, not? There's something about green techology that inherently contradicts capitalism? Well, needless to say, that is not exactly a logical progression.

And that, of course, is the reason that Al Gore gets attacked so much--god forbid that anyone who believes in science should make money off it! But to look on the bright side, even if America doesn't get rich because it's too damn stupid, at least one American will. And that, of course, is the American dream.
photo
TYRANNASAURUS
UGH!....people taste like crap!
10:23 AM on 05/18/2011
U.K.'s Ambitious Plan To Curb Climate Change......GREAT...BUT MEANS NOTHING.

Unless every country in the world joins in...... it means nothing because everything in the world is already on automatic when it comes to collapsing....another story of too little too late..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
03:45 PM on 05/18/2011
It is a problem of accumulation. That means that every year we emit less CO2 as a species, we buy a little more time. They're going ahead and doing their part, rather than waiting for someone else to go first. It's the right thing to do, and it's the mature thing to do.

I keep feeling like I'm in a middle school playground when I hear Americans saying "Well China's not doing it, so why should we?"
10:20 AM on 05/18/2011
this little hasbeen country still thinks it is important
12:21 PM on 05/18/2011
I think the world centre of finance is probably a bit more important than you think, assuming you do think of course

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1061571/London-worlds-financial-capital-Eastern-rivals-gain.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deluk
disgusted.
12:35 PM on 05/18/2011
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389580-london-is-the-world-capital-of-the-21st-century-says-new-york.do

Ooooh lets see, the worlds sixth largest manufacturer, a permanent member of the UN security council, at the head of the commonwealth, home of the worlds preferred language, and a capital city which is the financial, sporting and cultural capital of the world, other "hasbeens" should be so lucky'

Oh and we own more of the USA than any other nation, assets not debts, we're behind China and Japan when it comes to holding your debts (you're in hock to us to the tune of a quarter of a trillion)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
12:38 PM on 05/18/2011
How amusing. I didn't know all that. I wonder if we could sell them Texas to reduce the debt.
10:19 AM on 05/18/2011
Hey UK!!!! Why don't you do what our american Retealibanbaggerican Party suggests.....do nothing
10:55 AM on 05/18/2011
They should and are because AGW is not occurring.
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
06:26 PM on 05/18/2011
Focus on the basics:
AGW must occur because carbon dioxide really does trap heat, and people really have put CO2 in the air.
In light of this, how is it even possible that there is no AGW?
06:45 PM on 05/18/2011
Did you learn this in conspiracy theory 101, while watching Kevin Costner in that JFK flick or did you used to sell used car? NO is just YES to another question.

I already shared with you the ratio relaionship between CO2 and the atmosphere. The amount produced by humans has no significant impact on temperature.

If Kyoto gained 100% compliance what would the net impact be on Global temp?

However, I can also play this game. Given a fire lights
10:11 AM on 05/18/2011
Too late. Too bad. So sad.
photo
TYRANNASAURUS
UGH!....people taste like crap!
10:25 AM on 05/18/2011
And people like to refer to themselves as intelligent......makes it extra sad.
10:56 AM on 05/18/2011
Are you included in "people" or are you some mutant, come to life T-rex? LOL!
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
09:26 AM on 05/18/2011
Fusion _has_ been developed successfully in non-toroidal form. This is a HUGE development, but Big Energy is doing everything they can to keep it down.

Here are some good links - NOTE the Google video (bottom link), sponsored BY Google...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606#
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
LI2USsomemore
my dog has midriff bULGe
10:39 AM on 05/18/2011
Thanks! Now that I've gotten my fusion fix, I think I'll go feed the horses. :-)
09:22 AM on 05/18/2011
it's a little known fact that, unlike germany, the UK no longer manufactures much of anything. It's economy is essentially that of manhattan. therefore this costs them little in terms of the affect on manufacturing, whereas carbon credit trading schemes will greatly benefit City Traders.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
10:26 AM on 05/18/2011
I am no fan of carbon credits, but that is hardly what this article is about. Reducing Britain's emissions 80% by 2050 is what it's about, and when you have a figure for an entire country it's not going to be a mere carbon trading shell game that gets that reduction. This is exactly the goal the U.S. needs to adopt immediately as well. That's actually what my moniker is about.

I am so infuriated at how the American public has been taught to reject science, and how it does that completely on political lines and with such overwhelming vitriol for anything scientific, that if I didn't have a kid I'd almost be tempted to think it would really serve us right to get ours. But as much as that would be some real poetic justice, there is that other little problem that we're not exactly the only nation on the planet, and the atmosphere is hardly ours alone to ruin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
12:12 PM on 05/18/2011
Your post about Lindzen hasn't appeared yet, but let's talk Lindzen since you're touting him as the lone scientist who knows what's happening, refuting 20 years of IPCC reports, which use thousands of scientists to evaluate peer-revie­wed and published research from thousands of other scientists. What's weird about that? Aw, I'll tell you.

Here's data from just one site, exxonsecre­ts.org: Lintzen's a contributi­ng "expert" to the Cato and George C. Marshall Institutes. He's a member of the Heartland Institute. To bring you up to speed, these are far-right-­wing think tanks that receive giganorous funding to dispute climate change. Further: "His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them. Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen 'charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,­' was underwritt­en by OPEC.' ('The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial,' Harper's magazine, December 1995.)"

Not all scientists are ethical, and Lindzen's place in history as an unethical and paid-for scientist is assured. Google him. Or don't. Whatever. I'll can do that for you: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=lindzen The 30 or so articles in the middle are all about Lindzen being a disgrace to science.
05:52 PM on 05/18/2011
can you read a scientific abstract? if so, read lindzen and choi's. if you cant then go away.

the problem is that your models are non-predictive. they have been proven wrong by the ensuing ten plus years of temperature data and by data off the erbe satellites that establish that the hypothesized feedback loops do not exist. when confronted with this type of refutation of their theory scientists go back and revisit their hypotheses and methodology. your politicized AGW alarmists merely try to discredit the data and the man. I'll rely on the actual data and dick lindzen of MIT. you can take all of your politicized grant grubbing geology majors and third-rate statisticians.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
09:20 AM on 05/18/2011
Loudable goal!

SURE hope they reach it.

Still, I know from my research, even that "ambitious" goal is too little too late to avoid serious climate change. However, it may help mankind not get wiped off the face of the earth.
photo
TYRANNASAURUS
UGH!....people taste like crap!
10:35 AM on 05/18/2011
Wrong........we should prepare to kiss our A - - es good-bye.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
10:37 AM on 05/18/2011
Have you read Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren?" It should take you about two hours as it's written for laymen. It's the science behind climate change and is excellent. Hansen's contention is that if we all immediately take aggressive action, we will still be able to stop the worst of the temperature rise, but that window of opportunity is almost closed. I'm just mentioning this because of what you said about too little, too late.

To other bloggers, this is an excellent book and Hansen is arguably the world's foremost climate expert. Best of all worlds: he's not a liberal! Doesn't use data from East Anglia! You don't even have to buy the book--get it from your local library. Hansen also discusses his role as a scientist in some detail, as in should a scientist stick only to scientific research, or when a scientist sees a disaster, should that scientist speak out? This is not a conversation most of us would ever have with ourselves. Hansen is a brilliant scientist and a humble man. My only criticism is that for solutions, Hansen really emphasized nuclear over renewables. However, Hansen has come out with at least one subsequent paper that addresses renewable solutions in some detail. That's some hair splitting, but Hansen's point is that regardless of the particular method, we need to immediately get other technologies operating--fast.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
02:09 PM on 05/18/2011
FYI: The "multidisciplinary" aspect of my work is on putting together all the various forms of science that together constitute "Global Climate Change Research."
09:20 AM on 05/18/2011
good luck with that