will the eu go for 30% emissions reduction? | ecology news at abelard.org
latest changes & additions at abelard.org link to short briefings documents link to document abstracts link to list of useful data tables quotations at abelard.org, with source document where relevant economics and money zone at abelard.org - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone socialism, sociology, supporting documents described France zone at abelard.org - another France Energy - beyond fossil fuels visit abelard's gallery about abelard and abelard.org

back to abelard's front page

site map
'Y

news and comment
ecology

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone topic archives: ecology

for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)

New translation, the Magna Carta

will the eu go for 30% emissions reduction?

Always keep in mind that the EUSSR is exporting much of their emissions to the Far East. That, of course, increases emissions greatly. [1]

“The existing target of a 20 per cent cut is already due to cost £48 billion. The Commission will argue that the lower target has become much easier to meet because of the recession, which resulted in the EU’s emissions falling more than 10 per cent last year as thousands of factories closed or cut production. Emissions last year were already 14 per cent below 1990 levels.”

“The plan also says that the higher target would reduce air pollution from fossil fuels and improve the health of millions of people, generating up to £8 billion a year in economic benefits from having a healthier population.”

related material
replacing fossil fuels: the scale of the problem
nuclear power - is nuclear power really really dangerous?
fossil fuel disasters
energy economics and fossil fuels—how long do we have?

end note

  1. Note: be cautious when reading the numbers and tables in the linked page. Such figures can often be unreliable or changeable, according to the assumptions made.

the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology122009.php#eu_emissions_250510





advertising
disclaimer


advertising
disclaimer


advertising
disclaimer




still more irresponsibility by filthy fossil fuel industry

Why no serious regulation of the filthy fossil fuel industry?

“Marfork Coal Co. has started work on the Bee Tree Surface Mine, and is blasting within 1,000 feet of the impoundment. The blasting threatens to decrease the stability of the Brushy Fork dam, which sits above a honeycomb of abandoned underground mines.”

“If the Brushy Fork impoundment breaks, a 38.49-foot wall of water will arrive in Sylvester, a town 4.8 miles downriver, within 36 minutes. By Massey Energy’s own estimates, the disaster would kill 998 people.” [Quoted from itsgettinghotinhere.org]

Marker at abelard.org

“Big rig oil spill on Highway 101 snarls traffic

“Southbound movement on Highway 101 will be a problem for motorists driving through South County for most of the day after a big rig overturned and spilled thousands of gallons of oil on the roadway.”

“All lanes of traffic were closed immediately after the wreck and traffic was diverted through city streets.One lane on each side of the highway reopened about 7:30 a.m. Officials believe that traffic will be limited through a single lane on each side of the highway for at least another 12 hours until the wreckage is cleared and the oil is removed.” [Quoted from montereyherald.com]

Ever heard of these incidents?

Meanwhile, traces of radioactivity were found at onsite at Vermont nuclear power site. So there are at least a thousand ‘news’ mentions so far, despite zero danger and nuclear power being the safest and cleanest mass energy system known.

related material
fossil fuel disasters