PAUL HOMEWOOD
The UK is now officially committed to cutting emissions by 81% from 1990 levels by 2035
According to the Telegraph:
Ed Miliband has promised Britain will slash its climate emissions by more than 60pc by 2035 in a move that risks direct conflict with Rachel Reeves’s airport expansion plans.
The Energy Secretary has told the United Nations that the UK will cut its emissions, including from aviation, from 393m tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2023 to 155m tonnes in 2035 – a 61pc reduction.
The 2023 figure excludes emissions from international aviation. However, Mr Miliband made clear that the UK aviation industry must now join with other sectors in making sharp cuts in emissions.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/miliband-vows-halve-uk-emissions-060000697.html
The target, which is now officially part of the UK’s Paris Agreement NDC, is formally a cut of 81% from 1990 levels. These are the current emission statistics:
So what would a cut like this entail?
DESNZ updated its Emissions Projections a month ago, based on what they call the Reference Case. This takes account of any policies that, as of June 2024, have either been implemented or those that are planned where the level of funding has been agreed and the policy design is near final. They project a cut in all GHG emissions, incl shipping/aviation, from 431 MtCO2 in 2023 to 349 MTCO2 in 2035.
In other words, the new target is less than half those projections for 2035.
Most of the savings already projected are centred around electricity generation and transport – 39 and 41 MtCO2 respectively. These reflect the previous government’s 2035 Clean Power targets, (rather than Labour’s 2030 ones) and the various ZEV mandates already in force.
This raises the question of where an additional saving of 194 MtCO2 can come from. The chart below shows how the existing projection of 349 MtCO2 is made up:
There is little room for more savings in the power sector (Energy Supply), given that there will still be a need for gas back up. The projections already assume a doubling of renewable electricity generation.
Neither is there any more scope for transport savings, which the ZEV Mandate is already maximising.
Given the pathetically low number of heat pump installations – 60,000 last year – only an immediate ban on gas boiler sales would make a dent in residential emissions, currently 54 MtCO2 and projected to actually rise by 2035.
So where else can savings be made?
Neither industry or agriculture has the money to invest in energy transition, even if it wanted to or could do. Only shutdown of industry and farming would make any substantial cuts in emissions.
Gummer has already come and said that sustainable fuel will make little difference to aviation The Government recently announced a Sustainable Fuel Mandate obliging airlines to use 2pc SAF in 2025 rising to 22pc by 2040, but this will do little more than offset increased air travel.
The other sectors are to small to make any real difference.
The Government has committed the UK to this new target, without having the faintest idea of how to achieve it.
Via Not a Lot of People Know That
See Related Article Below
Judge Blocks Major North Sea Oil and Gas Projects Over Climate Change
WILL JONES
A judge has blocked Britain’s two biggest offshore oil and gas developments from producing any fossil fuels by quashing their production permits over climate change concerns. The Telegraph has more.
The judge, Lord Ericht, banned production at the Jackdaw gas and Rosebank oil projects in the North Sea, operated by Shell and Equinor respectively, after ruling that “the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers”.
The decision in the Scottish Court of Session marks a victory for environmental groups Greenpeace UK and Uplift, which are campaigning against any further development of North Sea oil and gas.
However, it is a major blow for Shell, whose Jackdaw gas field was set to produce 6-7% of the UK’s gas needs, and Equinor, whose Rosebank project would generate nearly £7 billion of investment and hundreds of millions of pounds in taxes.
The judicial review into Jackdaw and Rosebank followed a Supreme Court ruling in a separate case brought by the activist Sarah Finch, who said that the emissions generated by burning fossil fuels should always be considered when approving new drilling sites.
Equinor and Shell have both vowed to continue development work on the two projects, while also submitting applications for new permits that take account of future emissions by their customers.
However these would ultimately have to be approved by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who has made clear his opposition to new oil and gas projects.
The last Government issued permits for Jackdaw and Rosebank without considering future emissions.
Shell and Equinor both conceded these permits are unlawful in light of the Supreme Court decision, but argued that having started work in good faith and having spent £800 million on Jackdaw and £2 billion on Rosebank, they should be allowed to continue.
Judge Ericht’s ruling gives them part of what they wanted. It means they can carry on developing the two projects. However, they are banned from producing any oil or gas unless the Government approves a new application.
Separately, Mr Miliband has held a consultation on the impact of the Finch ruling and plans to issue new guidance for oil and gas firms seeking new permits to “deliver economic growth, and meet the Government’s climate obligations”.
Philip Evans, the senior campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said the ruling meant “the age of governments approving new drilling sites by ignoring their climate impacts is over … the courts have agreed with what climate campaigners have said all along: Rosebank and Jackdaw are unlawful, and their full climate impacts must now be properly considered.”
The Jackdaw gas field was approved more than two years ago and aimed to tap four new production wells linked to an unmanned platform 150 miles east of Aberdeen.
Shell has spent £800m on the project, which could potentially produce nearly 7m cubic metres of gas a day – enough for 1.4m homes.
The reservoir is one of the UK’s most challenging schemes because the gas is located under three miles of rock at extremely high temperatures of nearly 200C, at a pressure of 1,200 atmospheres.
Drilling is already advanced, meaning Shell cannot walk away – making the field safe would also have huge costs.
If it goes ahead the gas produced would be pumped to the Shearwater gas hub via a 20-mile pipeline. There, it will enter a much longer pipeline taking it ashore in St Fergus in Scotland, where it will enter the UK gas network.
Worth reading in full.
Featured image: aol.co.uk
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply