The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan plots out how the UK will meet the cut in emissions set out in the budget of 34% on 1990 levels by 2020. A 21% reduction has already been delivered – equivalent to cutting emissions entirely from four cities the size of London.
Transforming the country into a cleaner, greener and more prosperous place to live is at the heart of our economic plans for Building Britain’s Future and ensuring the UK is ready to take advantage of the opportunities ahead.
By 2020:
- More than 1.2 million people will be in green jobs
- 7 million homes will have benefited from whole house makeovers, and more than 1.5 million households will be supported to produce their own clean energy
- Around 40% of electricity will be from low carbon sources, from renewables, nuclear and clean coal
- We will be importing half the amount of gas that we otherwise would
- The average new car will emit 40% less carbon than now.
The Transition Plan is the most systematic response to climate change of any major developed economy, and sets the standard for others in the run up to crucial global climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
Read more here.
Ed Miliband is a hypocritical arsehole.
Here’s something about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/15/working-class-aviation-lobby
Worth reading the comments.
keith, other than this guy being a dick, I would be interested in hearing what you think of the plan itself? Do you think it has merit?
There are so many things wrong with it at the very lowest levels: apart from working towards a target that will still guarantee catastrophic climate change (80% reductions for industrial nations by 2050), and that the 21% emissions already reduced are now in an upward trajectory, the plan is predecated in continued economic growth, which can never be sustainable. This is a response I made to someone about the the US Clean Energy Bill, which applies just as well here:
> The Climate Bill is a difficult one for a couple of
> reasons: first, the climate bill in question will only make
> a tiny dent in the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the
> USA, and have almost no effect on the amount of these gases
> in the atmosphere — for that, a reduction of at least 50%
> by 2020, and at least 95% by 2030 is required, otherwise
> planetary heating will almost certainly exceed 2C by the end
> of the century. The slower the reductions, the larger the
> overall volume of persistent greenhouse gases (especially
> carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere, based
> on average carbon dioxide persistence times of 50-200 years.
> Slow and steady is disasterous!
>
> Second, whatever proposals the finalised bill comes up
> with, even if passed, they will be undercut by corporate
> lobbying, greenwash and “offsetting”. Remember, in the
> industrial world, profit is king, and *nothing* is allowed
> to affect this.
Half of the UK reductions are based on offsetting and trading (includes the far-off CCS), which have no precedent of success at all.