Lack of commitment threatens EU climate targets
By Paul Homewood
From euronews:
With the European Commission expected to announce next month a radical new 2040 target for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, there are worrying signs that governments are struggling to meet existing commitments.
As the European Commission prepares a proposal for a 2040 climate target that could see member states pledge to cut net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to just 10% of 1990 levels, there are signs that governments are struggling to achieve more modest existing targets set for the end of this decade.
The groundbreaking European Climate Law commits the EU to a 55% cut by 2030 and full carbon neutrality by 2050, and requires the Commission to propose an intermediate target for 2040 in the coming months. The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, a body created by the same legislation, concluded last summer that achieving net-zero will be impossible unless a reduction of 90-95% is achieved by 2040.
Since then, the EU’s new climate action commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra, has committed to “defend” fixing a 90% target for 2040, going as far as promising MEPs during his confirmation hearing in October that the EU executive would “explore” the radical political option of suggesting “lifestyle changes including dietary changes” as a means of achieving it.
Putting a 90% target in perspective: annual net greenhouse gas output currently stands at around 32% below 1990 levels. Reaching the goal to which Hoekstra has committed would mean cutting the annual net emissions across the EU by a factor of almost seven between now and 2040.
.
Forget about the pie-in-the-sky 2040 target, because I cannot see any way at all that the EU will even achieve its 2030 target of a cut of 55% from 1990 levels. Currently GHG emissions stand at 32% below 1990, meaning that the EU must cut emissions by a third in the next seven years.
These targets, of course, count all GHGs, but if we focus on CO2, which account for the main part of GHGs, we can see how hopelessly unrealistic the 2030 target is. In 2022, for instance, CO2 emissions had only been cut by 28%, itself indicating that the EU has already managed the easy part of cutting other GHGs.
To bring CO2 emissions down to 45% of 1990 levels means a cut of 38% from current levels:
BP Energy Review
Fossil fuels currently account for 71% of total primary energy consumption, but less than a quarter of this is used for electricity generation:
Even if all fossil fuel power generation was eliminated, itself not remotely feasible by 2030, CO2 emissions would only be cut to about 55% of 1990 levels.
Potentially if coal was eliminated more quickly than oil and gas, the emission savings might be proportionally greater. However, given the market situation with natural gas and the reliance on coal of countries like Germany and Poland, the reverse is more likely to be the case; not least because Germany’s decision to shut nuclear plants will almost certainly increase coal power output in the near future.
As already noted, there is simply no way that the EU would be able to do away with all fossil fuel power and rely on renewables instead on this timescale. Even if they decided to use hydrogen as a replacement, it would take decades to build the infrastructure to power it – from building renewable capacity, electrolysers, hydrogen distribution and storage networks, and the power stations to burn it in.
And if the emission savings cannot be made in the power sector, then where else? Just as in the UK, Germans and others are up in arms about being forced to instal heat pumps and buy EVs.
As for European industry, it is already becoming uncompetitive thanks to high energy costs. Any further carbon mandates and taxes will simply drive yet more business abroad.
But at least that will cut a few emissions!!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Good. Nice to watch the political idiocy colliding with reality.
The totalitarians’ wet dream. Don’t just control people NOW, but FUTURE people, too.
‘With the European Commission expected to announce next month a radical new 2040 target for greenhouse gas emissions reduction’
Directing what people 16 years from now must do. Though UK with your CCA seem okay with that. You don’t have to do what 2008 told you you have to do; you can change it.
“…. it would take decades to build the infrastructure to power it ….” Using what energy source? Or shouldn’t I ask?
There is a lack of commitment globally not just the EU. CO2 emissions have risen since COP 1.
However, the UK is leading the way in ‘unilateral economic disarmament’ in cutting emissions, no sign in the climate in the UK changing though!
Why is the West being driven by the UN/WEF’s false story of CAGW with the economy destroying “solution” to transition from cheap, abundant, reliable, secure hydrocarbon fuels to expensive, low energy density, resource intensive, chaotically intermittent and insecue renewables whilst China is not?
Because China already has a Communist government.
Climate targets are unrealistic because so many processes necessary to the functioning of our society depend on continuous power. How much of the reduction in EU CO2 emmisions since 2008 is due to the decline in manufacturing over that period as more of that function is off-shored? As Paul has clearly shown and Matthew Boulton well understood, a source of reliable continuous power is essential to economic growth. Continuous power, be it mechanical or electrical, has been the driving force from the mid-18th century onwards. Technical progress has led to greatly enhanced productivity – beneficial to all. This has happened, in spite of, not because of, the two social belief structures which dominate political thinking: ‘market forces’ and ‘communism’. There has never been as successful ‘communist’ society in the history of the world; neither a true ‘capitalist’ example – both ‘fell amongst thieves’ of the most egregious kind as economic history clearly demonstrates. As the latest scandal of corporate behaviour demonstrates, the PO ‘Horizon’ affair, executives lack the ‘bottle’ to challenge the ruling concensus, even in the face of overwhelmimg evidence. The founders of the first industrial revolution, faced with the threat of unlimited liability for their actions and debtors prison, were of sterner stuff. Greta Thornberg’s childhood was not stolen by action but by the lazy, indifferent lack of it. ‘Yachts and Whores’ capitalism has failed to cut the mustard – it needs to be replaced by something as focused and effective as that described by Jenny Uglow in her book, ‘The Lunar Men’.
the EU executive would “explore” the radical political option of suggesting “lifestyle changes including dietary changes” as a means of achieving it
Suggesting things is radical? The EU is more into directives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_directives
Separating a German from his Wurst will certainly give you a Sauerkraut.
Interesting that you should spot that Oldbrew.
I was about to point out that ‘my’ deranged Pope is quoted in Breitbart London today, as telling us Catholics (and other ‘heathens’) we are planet destroyers, by eating too much. We are committing the sin of gluttony and causing global warming. I must forego dinner tonight and go to confession in the morning.
What with my sin of Emissions and now this – how can I ever hope to get to heaven?
I bet that his waist is bigger than yours.
How much of that CO2 emissions reduction is due to industry shutting down and output replaced by imports from outside the EU, and EU companies relocating elsewhere?
There are a couple of onshore wind farm arrays close to where I live in East Yorkshire. For a long time I have noticed that there is often the odd turbine that isn’t turning. I’ve often wondered if they shut them down individually for routine maintenance. Anyway, more recently there have been two or three of them not working for several days now. These arrays have been up for a fair old while now and I’m wondering if they are getting towards the end of their useful lives and hence becoming unreliable.
And note the apples and pears basis of this – agriculture gets a life cycle estimate of emissions but EVs just the emissions of use. So its all fraud. The only way to reduce emissions from current levels by say 50% is to ban ICE cars entirely and to stop people using gas for boilers and cooking. Otherwise it cannot be achieved.
How can they claim lack of commitment when the European fools have wrecked their economies to implement foolish power generation policies. The simple fact is that Europe has grossly over-committed to the altar of net zero: enormous costs and zero benefits!
No, a lack of climate science / energy competence by unelected globalists threatens EU living standards & humanity