Posting the whole article since it's in Danish, and because Google translate sucks.
[QUOTE=Denmark done as the class' overachiever: 2025-plan puts an end to 25 years of CO2 reductions]
2025 Plan and the agricultural package will have emissions of greenhouse gases increasing sharply for the first time in decades. 'Optimally foolish timing', says the former conservative climate commissioner.
The Venstre government is engaged in a historic showdown with Danish climate policy, which would mean that CO2 emissions would rise significantly for the first time in decades.
The government and the Department of Energy's own figures show that the 2025 plan and the Agriculture package together increase the emission of greenhouse gases by more than four million tonnes in 2020. This corresponds to almost 10 per cent., an increase that has not been seen since 1990.
The government puts climate action in reverse, just as more than 50 countries have ratified last year's Paris climate agreement. Former Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, now chairman of the green think tank Concito, cals it an 'optimally foolish time' to change course:
"Right now, the rest of the world has finally found out that it is the way they, too, should go. So we must not stop, "she says, adding that it has taken both time and money to build the story of our green transition.
According to Connie Hedegaard, who was conservative climate and energy minister from 2004 to 2009, it shouldn't be possible to talk about what we need to live on until 2025, without climate integrated in the debate.
[B]An uptick[/B]
Actions taken by previous governments means that greenhouse gas emissions will be lower in 2020 than in 2015. But in the years preceding 2020 will be up and give an otherwise downward curve an uptick.
This impact of the 2025 plan stated in an answer to Alternativet's climate spokesman Christian Poll. He sees the increased emissions as a break with multiple successive government's climate policy:
"It does not surprise me that the 2025 plan have a climate effect, but I'm shocked that it is 9 percent. It is unacceptable in the midst of a climate crisis, "he said.
[IMG]https://ing.dk/sites/ing/files/co2-plan-graf-forside_764.png[/IMG]
[I]Historical and projected CO2 emissions (dotted being the new plan)[/I]
[B]The climate crisis is real[/B]
And the climate crisis is real, emphasizes Professor Katherine Richardson. She was chairman of the previous government's climate commission and sits in the current climate advice.
"We have seen horrific observations curing this year where the temperature has risen more and the ice melted faster than expected," she says, calling for a plan to reach the goal that Denmark must itself be fossil fuel free by 2050. A goal the government promises to maintain.
"But how can an increase in CO2 emissions being a responsible and cost-effective way to meet our obligations?" Asks the Professor of Climatology.
Climate Minister Lars Chr. Lilleholt (V) points out that the vast majority of the increase in emissions occurs in power plants and other companies that are obliged to buy extra CO2 allowances when they increase their emissions. Thereby keeping emissions neutral at a European level.
'The Quota trading system exists to ensure cost-effective reduction efforts across the EU, where it is most cost-effective. It is fully in line with the government's climate policy,' he writes in an e-mail to Ingeniøren.
[B]There are too many allowances[/B]
According to the chairman of the Climate Council, economics professor Peter Birch Sørensen from Copenhagen University, it will be in the very long run before the CO2 quotas take effect:
"There is unfortunately a very large surplus, so the total quantity of allowances is well above the CO2 emissions in the EU. Therefore, the system will for a long time not cap emissions. "
According to Lars Chr. Lilleholt there is 'no doubt that the quota system needs to be reformed'. He then lists the initiatives that look that direction.
But that does not change that there is a high risk that the surplus of allowances won't disappear on this side of 2030, says Peter Birch Sørensen:
"Therefore, an increase in CO2 emissions in Denmark does not entail a corresponding reduction elsewhere."
[B]Climate Council: Wrong calculation[/B]
Increased electricity consumption, which follows the removal of the PSO levy, is the main reason for the increased emissions. On top of that, the Climate Council estimates that the Government has made a miscalculation, resulting in emissions being twice the official figures.
The government's plan leads only to a very small increase in emissions from transport, agriculture and buildings. But here the EU requires that we reduce by a further 19 percentage points between 2020 and 2030, which the plans fails to include.
Lars Chr. Lilleholt points out that Denmark 'only just starting to negotiations with the other EU countries on the Commission's proposal' and that there 'is a need for deepening and further technical clarification of the proposals elements'.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]https://ing.dk/artikel/danmark-faerdig-klimaduks-2025-plan-stopper-25-ars-co2-nedgang-187163[/url]
Now stop taxing the shit out of Tesla cars and we can see some real results.
[QUOTE=Tools;51137027]Now stop taxing the shit out of Tesla cars and we can see some real results.[/QUOTE]
how about they stop taxing the shit out of everything
[QUOTE=normandie;51137206]how about they stop taxing the shit out of everything[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they would rather have their free healthcare, education, high quality of life and other benefits that come with their high taxation than have it americas way.
[QUOTE=normandie;51137206]how about they stop taxing the shit out of everything[/QUOTE]
Right now now the population favours better welfare compared to tax cuts to the tune of 70 to 30. Either way it's only tangentially related to this discussion, really.
Well Venstre is basically the Corporation jerk-off booth of danish politics, so it's no surprise that they want to piss on Danmark's reputation for a little bit of cash.
The cycle of shit
1) Feels good treaty is made and signed by majority of first world countries;
2) One of countries pull back, decide they don't have to cut CO2 emissions that much;
3) Everyone else starts backtracking on the treaty;
4) Ecologists start yelling at everyone for dooming our planet;
5) Repeat steps 1-4 until it's too late to stop/halt/reduce greenhouse effect;
6) Everything is [B][I][U]fucked[/U][/I][/B], millions die;
[QUOTE=Damjen;51137378]The cycle of shit
1) Feels good treaty is made and signed by majority of first world countries;
2) One of countries pull back, decide they don't have to cut CO2 emissions that much;
3) Everyone else starts backtracking on the treaty;
4) Ecologists start yelling at everyone for dooming our planet;
5) Repeat steps 1-4 until it's too late to stop/halt/reduce greenhouse effect;
6) Everything is [B][I][U]fucked[/U][/I][/B], millions die;[/QUOTE]
One of the most eye-opening articles I've read was theory-crafting on how to handle climate change in the future. The writer mentioned how Ethiopia has a program where people may work on civil projects in exchange for food. They put forth that as an idea of something the United States could do to build new cities and infrastructure to replace what's being lost. Now think about that, millions of American soon-to-be-refugees working to build a new city to replace the one they're fleeing from, and they're only given enough food to keep working as payment. That sounds bleak as fucking hell, but nobody cares because it's not happening yet and it won't happen to the rich.
People of the future are going to curse the people of the past for their selfishness and greed.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;51137363]Well Venstre is basically the Corporation jerk-off booth of danish politics, so it's no surprise that they want to piss on Danmark's reputation for a little bit of cash.[/QUOTE]
I think that's a bit harsh, they've been in government during large parts of the current climate policy. Liberal Alliance on the other hand honestly doesn't seem to care about climate change, and some of their current PMs have, to my knowledge, outright dismissed the fact that it's happening. Same with DF. I don't want to come across as apologetic, but I don't think Lars Løkke is just dancing to the corporations' tune.
As noted during Anarchaist conventions, many are advocating for a tolitarian regime to end the climate issue as its been shown that most ways don't work or have ornery negative ecological impacts.
We don't need new techs, we firstly need a fundamental shift away from planned obsolescence and consumerism as both, even with more efficient technologies does massive amounts of ecological damage to the world.
However, most corporations have coopted this idea and this we're heading for our dystopic cyberpunk hellhole everyone thinks is cool but isn't actually cool.
The above is meaningless guff
[editline]2nd October 2016[/editline]
I don't think anarchists give the good advice about much, but if there is something that they give the worst advice at, it is something that requires mass use of state power to resolve like climate change
[QUOTE=Swilly;51138631]As noted during Anarchaist conventions, many are advocating for a tolitarian regime to end the climate issue as its been shown that most ways don't work or have ornery negative ecological impacts.
We don't need new techs, we firstly need a fundamental shift away from planned obsolescence and consumerism as both, even with more efficient technologies does massive amounts of ecological damage to the world.
However, most corporations have coopted this idea and this we're heading for our dystopic cyberpunk hellhole everyone thinks is cool but isn't actually cool.[/QUOTE]
you realise that what you want would also take some kind of government force / legal action to implement? no vaguely anarchistic society is going to voluntarily dispose of consumerism and planned obsolescence. if anything it would make it far worse. what you're asking for is beyond dreamland, most communists or nazi white supremacists make more sense than you.
[QUOTE=Bobie;51138866]you realise that what you want would also take some kind of government force / legal action to implement? no vaguely anarchistic society is going to voluntarily dispose of consumerism and planned obsolescence. if anything it would make it far worse. what you're asking for is beyond dreamland, most communists or nazi white supremacists make more sense than you.[/QUOTE]
You completely ignored my point. The Anarchists are asking for a toltarian regime. They are advocating for the exact opposite of their own beliefs. We have fucked up.
Reading comprehension. Did you fail English?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
