CO2 Emissions Rise For 3rd Year Straight In UK - Highest Since 1992

[hatrack]

Britain's carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise significantly in 2005 for the third year running and will reach the highest level since 1992, when the UK signed the Climate Change Convention at the Rio Earth Summit and pledged to combat global warming. Energy statistics released by the Department of Trade and Industry show that oil and coal burning have both risen in the first five months of this year compared with the same period in 2004. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise by more than 2% this year, when they should be falling by at least 1% a year to reach Labour's 20% reduction target.

This will be an embarrassment to Tony Blair, who made tackling climate change his priority for the presidency of G8 and the EU this year, describing it as a greater threat to the world than terrorism.
In May's election manifesto the government firmed up its pledge to cut carbon dioxide levels by 20% on 1990 levels by 2010, despite the fact that ministers had conceded that with current measures the UK was not going to reach its targets. A review of policies had already been put in place last December after two years of rising emissions had rung alarm bells around Whitehall.

The review was due to be published in June but Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, said it could not be ready in time and postponed publication. Yesterday her department said it was now expected to be published before the end of the year. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also expected to announce "before the end of the summer" new building regulations to cut emissions from both new and refurbished older property, but these have been delayed after reports that the improvements had been watered down as "unnecessary gold plating".

The government claims to be a world leader in tackling climate change and Britain has been one of the few countries to stay on target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to meet its legally binding targets under the Kyoto protocol. The UK is still on target to reach its 12.5% cuts under Kyoto, but not the much harder 20% carbon dioxide target the government set itself as an example to show the world that cuts could still be made despite the fact that the economy was growing.

EDIT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1540614,00.html?gusrc=rss

Exclusive - Poodle sniffs "Climate Leadership", takes dump, rolls in it at Master's command!

[phantom power]

1. bit of a postive feedback loop happening here.

The warmer summers are increasing the use of air conditioning, thus causing us to burn more fossil fuels.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. maybe not in the UK

There's less use of air conditioning here (it's rare in houses, and less widespread in cars than in the US, though increasing), and offices generally don't chill as much as the US. Against that, there may be savings in fuel in the winter.

[NNadir]

2. I don't see how the government can say it's "on target" to reduce...

...when in fact, emissions are rising.

One knows that poodle boy has been learning doublespeak from Cheney's puppet, but WTF?

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. There's a chance to hit the 12.5% reduction target

because that applies to a basket of greenhouse gases, and the ones other than CO2 (eg metahne) have apparently been more successfully reduced. The 2004 estimate was that the total (measured in the equivalent of tonnes of carbon) was 12.6% less than the 1990 amount (http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050331a.htm). It's been at around that figure since 1999 - but if the increase in carbon dioxide emissions continue, the decrease in others won't be able to make up for them, it's true. I don't think there any chance of hitting the 20% target now.

[rfkrfk]

5. any 'reduction', is debateable

this is my complaint.
1990 was chosen as the baseline year, for this carbon stuff.

any European reduction, is a combination of ...
closure of Soviet era industry in the east,
conversion to natural gas,
and a conversion to an 'amusement park' economic strategy.

Those things would have happened without carbon limits.
Those things are not available to countries that are
not amusement parks.

with that said, the EU is starting some kind of
carbon limits - carbon trading, for energy companies.

I don't know if it will work out.
My guess is, any one country won't like it when
it figures out that money is going out of the country
for 'carbon credits' ... they will, stall, cheat,
demand 99% kickbacks, etc.

[Oerdin]

6. Nuclear power is the only real answer.

Nuclear power is the only economically feasible option we have to produce the massive amounts of electricity on demand without producing green house gases. A lot of greens don't like that truth but no matter how much we push it wind and solar are going to remain 5%-15% of our total energy output, building more hydroelectric plants isn't politically feasible, tidal power is only suitable to a few coastal areas, and geothermal is only good in areas were we can get a lot of geothermal heat (Hawaii, parts of California, Yellowstone, etc). That means either we keep polluting the world with fossil fuel power plants or we move to relatively clean non green house gas producing energy source which is nuclear power.

As an added bonus we'd stop importing heating oil from the mid-east thus striping terrorist sponsoring nations of a huge source of income and we'd vastly improve our nation's balance of trade since oil is our single largest import. If we coordinated this with increased CAFE standards and new CO2 per mile driven standards (as is being done in California) then we could really decrease consumption without significantly changing our life style.