Europe’s climate goal: Revolution

Posted: August 29, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, government, ideology
Tags: ,


As usual, EU leaders are long on rhetoric but short on commonsense. All their expensive plans will have no effect worth mentioning on the climate, but a big and unwelcome effect on the economies of their countries.
– – –
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen likes to compare her Green Deal to “Europe’s man on the moon moment.” That’s almost certainly a galactic understatement, says Politico.eu.

Cutting the Continent’s emissions to “net zero” — meaning Europe would sequester at least as much greenhouse gases as it produces — by 2050 will require a radical overhaul of nearly every aspect of the modern economy.

Dramatic cuts in carbon will wipe out entire industries, transform others and force people to change the way they eat, work, live and travel.

“Man on the moon was a hobby,” said Vincenzo Balzani, an Italian chemist, emeritus professor at the University of Bologna and author of several books on the transition to a cleaner world. The EU’s ambition to decarbonize Europe, he said, is nothing less than “a proposal to remake civilization.”

This is not policymaking on a normal scale. French President Emmanuel Macron calls what follows “the next world.”

Polish Climate Minister Michał Kurtyka, president of the 2018 U.N. climate conference, calls it a “civilizational challenge” that will require a “Copernican revolution” to succeed.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    force people to change the way they eat

    Food police?

  2. pochas94 says:

    Too much female thinking. Short on reason, long on emotion.

  3. spetzer86 says:

    They won’t have to force people to do much of anything after they’ve eliminated the people problem…

  4. Gamecock says:

    ‘Cutting the Continent’s emissions to “net zero” — meaning Europe would sequester at least as much greenhouse gases as it produces — by 2050 will require a radical overhaul of nearly every aspect of the modern economy.’

    Uhhh . . . then you won’t have a modern economy.

    Britain’s Net Zero talk sounded great, with all your businesses moving to South Carolina. Now the EU is going to move everything over here. My concern is having enough labor. We want your factories, only some of your people. I assume you’ll be like the southern Californian refugees around here, looking down their noses at us, and telling us how we ought to be doing things like they did in California. Which they fled. (I don’t find Yankees so undesirable any more.)

    But a growing concern is markets. If you ship all your business over here and go neolithic, who can we sell stuff to?

    Leftard politicians have a static view of the world. It doesn’t even occur to them that ‘a radical overhaul of nearly every aspect of the modern economy’ is going to produce radical reaction is nearly every aspect of life.

    And more: a strong economy is necessary to be able to provide adequate defense. You can’t take Europe neolithic without others invading. Russia’s modest economy would be enough. Net Zero Europe naively depends on others leaving you alone as you go back to horse and buggy.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Decarbonizing Europe will require combined private and public investment of €230 billion each year from 2031 to 2050, according to the European Commission — for a total of €4.6 trillion over two decades. For scale, that’s roughly 18 times the cost of the Apollo program.

    For a total result of zilch, climate-wise.

  6. ivan says:

    Cutting the Continent’s emissions to “net zero” Is EU commission speak for shovelling vast quantises of euros into the offshore bank accounts of the commissioners and their hangers on. It is designed to provide the marxist overlords with slaves to keep them in the lifestyle they have become used to.

    Unfortunately the UK under BoJo is going the same way – that is unless the illegals take over first.

  7. Eric Johnson says:

    Gamec, We can’t go back to “horse and buggy” as horses require much land for THEIR energy source, not including mthane emissions. Since horsemeat is a good protein source, eliminate bovines and sheep. Might be doable, the solid horse emissions used for fertilizer…?

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Eric,
    A farm using horse power requires 1/3 to 1/2 of the land to ‘fuel’ the horses. That means you would have to cut the population to that of the 1600s or 1700s.

    AND re-introduce slavery. Only the introduction of mechanical power allowed the freeing of humans from slavery. Actually the FIRST Ag revolution was the revolution from human powered Ag to horse powered Ag and the invention of horse powered mechanical farming implements.

    I did a quicky calculation and with out carbon based energy or nuclear power to take its place, you are looking at not the 1800s but the seventeen hundreds!

    People forget that coal was very much in use in the 1800s and a lot of farm machinery pulled by horse, mule or oxen was factory made. (First Agricultural Revolution) Without coal you are back to charcoal as fuel for forges and metal implements will be very very rare. Solar panels and modern wind turbines can not be replaced using the power they generate so you are back to hydro (If the eco-nuts allow dam building) and old fashion cloth and wood wind mills. And those wind mills would soon be raided for the wood to burn.

    Worse the western high tech people of today do not have the foggiest idea of how to survive without factory made equipment. Even the Amish buy factory equipment and they are the most well adapted to an 1800s lifestyle.

    Several years ago I answered David The Appalling with this:

    The average for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. (Total population: 246,081,000)
    (wwwDOT)nuicc.info/?page_id=1467 or (wwwDOT)fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40187.pdf

    In 1949, U.S. energy use per person stood at 215 million Btu. epb(DOT)lbl.gov/homepages/Rick_Diamond/docs/lbnl55011-trends.pdf
     epb.lbl.gov

    The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. (Total population: 5,308,483) (wwwDOT)bu.edu/pardee/files/2010/11/12-PP-Nov2010.pdf

    If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 80% it equals 45.18 million Btu. per person, given the increase in technology and hydro power, lets use the 1800 consumption level of about 90 million Btu. per person.

    What does that mean?
    The site inventors(DOT)about.com/library/inventors/blfarm4.htm helps us figure that out.
    (Updated version -not as good)
    http://www.thoughtco(DOT)com/history-of-american-agriculture-farm-machinery-4074385

    Farmers made up about 90% of labor force  in 1790 and 69% of labor force in 1800. (2.6% in 1990)

    About 250-300 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail in 1830. (This is all by hand not animal power BTW) (1987 – 2-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels but that takes lots of oil.)

    1810-30 saw the transfer of “manufacturing” from the farm and home to the shop and factory. It wasn’t until the 1840′s that we saw factory made farm machinery, labor saving devices and chemical fertilizers became at all common. It was in the 1860′s that kerosene lamps became popular.

    Also up until the 1850′s dung and wood were the major source of energy. dieoff(DOT)org/page199_files/image002.gif

    In other words for the USA to use HALF the energy per person that was used in 1800 we must abandon ALL factories and 90% of the population must return to subsistence farming using animals if enough farm machinery can be produced.

    Remember in 1800 there was only 2% of the current population in the USA. Solar and Wind just are not going to produce enough power to keep us in anything but a few lights, a few wells and if we are lucky a refrigerator for the entire town. FACTORIES use a huge amount of power and that is why cotton mills and other primitive factories were built on rivers.

  9. Gail Combs says:

    I will add that CHINA will NOT be going carbon neutral so that means while Western Civilization, the EU, USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, commit collective suicide the Chinese are free to take over the world.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Gail Combs – Elon Musk wouldn’t like your analysis 😆

    Early years of factory work were sometimes akin to slavery, but we got over that in the end – not without a struggle.
    https://phm.org.uk/blogposts/cotton-strikers-picketers-peterloo/
    – – –
    “We do not have all the answers yet,” von der Leyen has admitted.

    No sh*t.
    – – –
    likes to compare her Green Deal to “Europe’s man on the moon moment.”

    Yes – horribly expensive with no useful end product.

  11. JB says:

    According to the Georgia Guide stones, with a world population of 500,000,000 people, that would take us back to the early 1600s. So my question became, “What is the minimum number of people required in the world to maintain our present technological capability?” Mining, Manufacturing, Merchanting, and Agricultural.

    The level of technology I would be comfortable with was around the 1970-80s, except for the lack of decent computers/storage. World population was about 3½ billion. My gut says the infrastructure required to produce all the latest technological feat cannot be sustained with a population of 3 billion. It isn’t just how many is required to make the stuff. Its how large the market(s) must be to make their production viable.

    “Zionism is an instrument for the renovation of a backward country and the transformation of shopkeepers and brain workers into farmers, laborers and soldiers.”–Eric Hoffer

  12. Phoenix44 says:

    Ignorant fools with no understanding of what they are doing. Much of the EU suffers from chronic unemployment already but that’s nothing compared with what they will do. They simply don’t comprehend that for every Green job they “create, 3-10 high-paid, skilled jobs will be lost. And that’s real jobs not the luxury jobs (academics, diversity managers, writers) that we will not be able to afford any more.

    I suspect that the reaction once the consequences become clear will be revolution.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    Phoenix44 wrote: “I suspect that the reaction once the consequences become clear will be revolution.”

    We can’t afford that.

  14. pochas94 says:

    The US is not going to reduce its energy consumption by 80 percent. It is going to increase it. To do that without adverse environmental impacts we will have to get wealthier. And I’m all for that. It means some will have to get off the dole and start contributing.

  15. oldbrew says:

    EU sounds alarm on critical raw materials shortages
    – 14 hours ago

    The EU estimates that to meet its climate neutrality goal, it will need up to 18 times more lithium and five times more cobalt in 2030. The forecasts rise to 60 times more lithium and 15 times more cobalt by 2050. 

    https://www.ft.com/content/8f153358-810e-42b3-a529-a5a6d0f2077f

    Good luck with that.

    ‘Climate neutrality’ 😂 – they have no clue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s