UK and Chinese governments issue ‘ground-breaking’ climate change pledge

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
UK and Chinese governments issue ‘ground-breaking’ climate change pledge

The UK and Chinese governments have agreed to co-operate to tackle the issues around climate change and energy security, further signalling that UN climate talks next year will be more successful than previous opportunities. The UK government described the statement as “ground-breaking”.

The governments have signed a civil nuclear agreement, which they argue will help diversify the energy mix of both countries while tackling climate change. Additionally, a joint £20m research programme, which will include studies on offshore renewables, low-carbon manufacturing processes and technologies and low-carbon cites, has been launched.

UK energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey said, “China and the UK stand united in our plans for more collaborative working that will help to achieve long lasting energy security in our own countries.

"Both governments recognise that tackling climate change is fundamental to our future and have committed to reduce emissions while enhancing energy security by investing in nuclear power.”

The statement adds that the announcements are part of a broader mission to reduce emissions and enhance energy security, central to which will be achieving a “global, legally binding, and ambitious climate change agreement in Paris in 2015”.

Anthony Hobley, CEO of the thinktank the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI), commented, “This announcement follows new that China could implement an absolute CO2 cap and a national carbon market in its next five-year plan – a clear indication of their assault on polluting industries and willingness to support a low carbon transition.

“However, as Carbon Tracker’s recent report – The great coal cap: China’s energy policies and the financial implications for thermal coal – shows, naturally this transition will incur stranded assets, particularly for China’s coal sector.”

The CTI report urges investors to assess the risks within their portfolio when peak demand scenarios are considered. It is expected that China’s demand for thermal coal will peak between 2015 and 2030 and is likely to have an impact on the competiveness of coal power.
Hobley added, “Policymakers need to be aware of these implications and take the necessary policy actions to ensure an orderly transition rather than accrue losses while tackling climate change.”

The China-UK agreement follows China, the world’s biggest polluter, announcing its intention to set legal limits on carbon dioxide emissions starting from 2016. The news came just a day after Barack Obama unveiled plans to cut pollution from US power plants.

Alastair Harper, the Green Alliance’s head of politics, commented, “It’s significant that the prime minister is working with the Chinese premier to achieve a global climate deal. It would seem that David Cameron has firmly rejected Tony Abbott’s recent invitation to join the naughty table on slowing climate action.

“Given that a deal is now clearly both the United States’ and China’s top diplomatic priority, we have chosen the right company for our economy and place in the world.”

UK and Chinese governments issue ‘ground-breaking’ climate change pledge - Blue and Green Tomorrow
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113

"We've got to get rid of all this green crap" - David Cameron
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,297
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
groundbreaking


Gord thing it wasn't earth shattering. That can be messy.

A pledge to build dangerous nuclear plants no less instead of clean and safe coal or NG.

As long as they buy Uranium from Canada, who cares? It's more jobs for FNs and bigger dividends for FNs.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
groundbreaking


Gord thing it wasn't earth shattering. That can be messy.



As long as they buy Uranium from Canada, who cares? It's more jobs for FNs and bigger dividends for FNs.

Good point.
What about containing the fallout to Britain where it won't do any damage?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,297
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
First it needs to go boom. In the meantime buy SK uranium holdings that will still be a liquid retirement asset that pays dividends and rake it in 5-10 years from now when stock is 400% higher and paying fantastic quarterly. Any industry that will be feeding to or from the Asia Pacific Gateway Corridor (a Liberal idea so no Harper blaming) will light up like a pinball machine and payout in silver dollars. The economy of Canada is gonna be sweeeeeeet.
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I've always supported nuclear.

It's a safe middle ground between fossil fuels and true renewables.

And bonus points: No socialist agenda required.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,297
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
Yes! A pledge! Starting from 2016.

Confuciius say; "procrastination is like masturbation. In the end you are only screwing yourself".

I've always supported nuclear.

It's a safe middle ground between fossil fuels and true renewables.

And bonus points: No socialist agenda required.
So I can expect your support for the proposed uranium mill in Northern SK?
Lots of C02 still produced and the mining scars are drastic and disposal of spent material is a nightmare left for the future generations

Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada - CanadianÂ*Nuclear SafetyÂ*Commission

A wicked investment mentalfloss. This is how it,s done. Buy in when a project pitched and ride out the regulation phase, development phase and recovery of Capital costs you'll be yelling BINGO 4 times a year or taking the blackout bingo by selling your stock.

Go for it.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Good article by the Briton, George Monbiot.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.

Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It's not just the onshore windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid connections (pylons and power lines). As the proportion of renewable electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on mountains: they aren't popular, either.

The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration – 50% or 70%, perhaps? – renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has smaller impacts than renewables.

Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.

But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week in which I argued that nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print.

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.

And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces and electric railways – not to mention advanced industrial processes? Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.

Some greens go even further: why waste renewable resources by turning them into electricity? Why not use them to provide energy directly? To answer this question, look at what happened in Britain before the industrial revolution.

The damming and weiring of British rivers for watermills was small-scale, renewable, picturesque and devastating. By blocking the rivers and silting up the spawning beds, they helped bring to an end the gigantic runs of migratory fish that were once among our great natural spectacles and which fed much of Britain – wiping out sturgeon, lampreys and shad, as well as most sea trout and salmon.

Traction was intimately linked with starvation. The more land that was set aside for feeding draft animals for industry and transport, the less was available for feeding humans. It was the 17th-century equivalent of today's biofuels crisis. The same applied to heating fuel. As EA Wrigley points out in his book Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, the 11m tonnes of coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much energy as 11m acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generated.

Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes: if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland, Wrigley shows, we could have made 1.25m tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown.

But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.

Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
A pledge to build dangerous nuclear plants no less instead of clean and safe coal or NG.


Dangerous nuclear plants? When was the last time anyone has ever been killed by a malfunctioning nuclear plant?

By the way, I agree with George Monbiot, and I never thought I'd ever say THAT.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Dangerous nuclear plants? When was the last time anyone has ever been killed by a malfunctioning nuclear plant?

By the way, I agree with George Monbiot, and I never thought I'd ever say THAT.

He's a greenie with a nuclear weenie.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I heard they are rebuilding the Fukushima plant with twin towers remains.