End use of fossil fuels in 20 years, UK warned

Source: The Guardian

Britain must abandon using almost all fossil fuels to produce power in 20 years' time, the government's climate change watchdog will warn today (Tuesday).

The independent Climate Change Committee will publish its advice to the government that the UK should set a 2050 target of cutting all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% - including the emissions from aviation and transport, which were previously excluded.

Because it is unlikely that emissions from aviation and shipping will be cut so dramatically, other sectors, particularly power generation, would have to reduce emissions by much more, with big increases in energy efficiency, wind and tide power, and probably new nuclear generators, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, the committee chairman, told the Guardian.

"We have to almost totally decarbonise the power sector by 2030, well before 2050," he said.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/07/carbon.emissions.targets

we all know that Americans put money before all else, but if the environment collapses, there won't be any "bailout" to fix it. We have one chance to save life on earth; it's now or never.

All the oil and coal and natural gas stored in the ground got there over millions of years, and it is (was?) a one-shot chance for some energy using species to make it to a higher level of development. Until 1850, no species had ever figured out how to use this stored up treasure on a large scale, but since then, humans have been profligate spenders of it. Even to the point of throwing it away if it wasn't in the right form (e.g. flaring of gas as a nuisance by-product).

I like to hear such statements as "we need to quit using fossil fuels by such-and-such a date". Right now, they fall on deaf ears, but if repeated often enough, they will eventually sink in and become wise before their time. There will come a day when fossil fuels will be too costly to extract from the earth, and they will be replace by solar, wind, biomass, and yes, nuclear. But the last one will have to be done right, from facilities that are built deep in the earth so that no nuclear waste ever leaves the plant. When it comes time to decommission the plant, it will be abandoned in place in its geological formation which will have been chosen for its isolation from possible human intrusion.

as much as the materials. Look around you. Everything is made from petro. Desk phone, ipod, computer, mouse, mousepad, finish on desk is petro based, stapler, ibuprofen bottle, fedex envelope, etc.(and that is just a cursory glance around me)

Cornstarch can replace styrofoam, new uses for soybeans are being discovered all the time, and the era of bio-plastics has just begun. Just because crude oil was once an abundant starting material doesn't mean it has to be the ONLY starting material.

start finishing your wood with soybean oil especially stuff that is used in food prep. You will see the folly of that quickly. Also, try to create a laptop out of bio-plastics. We are way over 20 years off from coming anywhere close to doing this.

I don't spend much time in the chem lab anymore, but I still keep up on some of the more noteworthy advances. As for refinishing wood, not soybean, but linseed oil is still highly regarded and it is a renewable natural product. Go ahead, step into the lab and find out what is happening.

measuring instruments, table tops, etc, are made of that are being used to research bio-plastics? Linseed oil has MANY downsides including that it is not as nearly moisture resistant as varnish and you really could not use it as a bar coat. It also actually molds very easily. I think McDonald's fries originally used linseed oil. I do hope you are right and I am wrong about the bio-plastics though.

And the results seen by that move, if any, will be seen in approximately 20 years. What a difference between ours and civilized countries.

While I would bet money that the UK will do it before us though... but who knows, we might surprise ourselves.

A lot of groups try to exaggerate the problem to get some action. I would place this 'warning' as one of those alarmist claims.

There is nothing in the science that suggests an 80% reduction is required.

Right?

Because the IEA has recently stated here: http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=271, that:

"29 September 2008 Berlin --- The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that nearly 50% of global electricity supplies will have to come from renewable energy sources if we want to halve CO2 emissions by 2050 in order to minimize significant and irreversible climate change impacts."

So, yes, there is plenty in the science to suggest that massive reductions in carbon emissions are required within a few decades to prevent serious global damage. In fact, the IEA may be CONSERVATIVE in their recommendations. We're already seeing widespread climate change effects, such as this: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html

"Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume

Despite cooler temperatures and ice-favoring conditions, long-term decline continues"

And this was supposed to be a "recovery year" :eyes:

There is NO substitute for a lump of coal.