London Drastic restrictions on almost every aspect of people’s lives, from the cars they drive, the way they heat their homes, to the fridges they buy — even the food stored in them. That is the reality of what awaits us in 2050 if a UK government pledge to cut greenhouse emissions to “net zero” is to be met. Empower women to avert climate crisis Net zero means the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere is no more than the amount taken out. By setting the target, the government is doing what it promised to do.
Under the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, the UK and almost 200 other countries pledged to work together to keep global warming in check. Read More The agreement seeks to keep temperatures to 1.5 degree or at the very least to “well below 2 degrees” above pre-industrial levels. That puts the UK at the more ambitious end of the range — and under pressure to deliver concrete policies very, very soon. Consumption of beef, lamb and dairy must be cut by 20% by 2050.
No houses built after 2025 will be connected to the gas grid. The owners of older buildings will need to switch their heating system to a low carbon one by around 2035. “They are quite high carbon sectors, they are rapidly growing, and the decarbonization pathway is more uncertain for them,” said Barny Evans, renewable energy expert at WSP, a sustainability consultancy. Trees take carbon out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis, so planting more of them is one way to do this.
But growing more trees is not always practical. Britain is a small island and space is limited, so the government wants the option of paying other countries to plant trees instead. Groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are sounding the alarm about that idea. They worry that being able to pay someone else to act could undermine UK’s domestic efforts.
Another way to offset emissions is by storing greenhouse gases underground or under the sea. But scientists are still figuring out how exactly to do that in a cost-effective and safe way. One vocal critic is Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, who called the net zero policy “pointless” because the UK is only responsible for around 1% of global emissions. He argues the cost of the plan will far exceed its benefits, and advocates for more investment into research and development instead.
But for Ward, and an overwhelming majority of climate scientists and climate economists, the numbers do add up. The investments required to get to net zero will be around 1% to 2% of GDP each year, according to the Climate Change Committee. There are also those who argue the UK and other countries should move much faster. Extinction Rebellion, which recently staged major protests in central London and pushed the UK parliament to declare a climate emergency, wants the net zero target to be set for 2025.
Swedish schoolgirl and climate activist Greta Thunberg has been striking outside the Swedish Parliament every Friday precisely because she believes the Swedes, with their target of net zero by 2045, should move faster. She is also questioning the way reductions are calculated. While the urgency is undeniable, the Climate Change Committee and other experts say a quicker action could hurt the economy — and the people. ” Because there will be people who will freeze to death,” he added.
” We need to make sure we all benefit,” Evans added. Experts mostly welcomed the plan announced by Theresa May. Especially when the country is struggling to meet even its existing target of 80% reduction by 2050. The trend was noticeable in recent European and local elections in which Green parties posted big gains.
Click here to read the full article