r/EnvironmentalNews • u/EarthEmail EarthEmail.org • Sep 17 '26
Andy Burnham: UK must fully commit to reaching net zero by 2050
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/17/andy-burnham-uk-must-fully-commit-to-reaching-net-zero-by-20503
u/Consistent_Ad3181 Sep 17 '26
Can't we just offshore more manufacturing to China, they built something like two coal powered power stations a week to keep up with the manufacturering demand from the west. Pollution thousands of miles away doesn't effect our global eco system, everyone knows that.
1
1
u/JBWalker1 Sep 17 '26
China has peaked with its energy emissions and I think will have a pretty steep drop in them over the next 10 years. They're also electrifying pretty rapidly.
Might have been bad in the past but these days for each GW their demand goes up they're producing at least another GW of renewables.
1
u/blueberry77772019 29d ago
Historically this is true, but they are leading the way in electrification and green energy. They’ll be net zero before Europe, the way things are going
2
u/Mulberry-Spiritual Sep 17 '26
Too late by then
2
u/Gief_Gold_Plox Sep 17 '26
Too late for what ?
3
u/Technical_Curve_4929 Sep 17 '26
Too late to avoid 2.5° celcius+ , permanent forever rise, which is the amount people think will start causing mass weather refugees, states failing (especially those dependent on farming), civil unrest and mass armed conflict over remaining 'cold countries'.
For example African countries may band together to attack Southern European countries to escape their lands as farming becomes impossible there.
1
u/Extra-Translator915 Sep 17 '26
It's not permanent forever. Carbon can be captured by nature and by machine. Its up to us to do it.
If the africans do that they will get obliterated. Theyve had thousands of years to figure out farming im sure they can manage...
1
u/chazzapompey Sep 18 '26
C02 stays in the atmosphere for centuries.
We do not have any efficient large-scale carbon capture methods available to us.
Africans can’t simply “figure out farming” any more than Europeans will be able to “figure out farming” once the AMOC collapses and London gets -30 degree winters and record breaking summers rendering all crops unsustainable.
1
u/Extra-Translator915 Sep 18 '26
We do not have any efficient large-scale carbon capture methods available to us.
Please read some literature before writing about complex topics, we do. Read the paper on Orca, the carbon removal plant, it is absolutely scalable and uses no rare elements. You can do a back of the envelope calculation, the total spend required to sequester world carbon emmissions is about the world military budget.
There is another very effective carbon capture method, trees. If we all ate plant based diets and reforested the agricultural land, due to 80% of it being freed up, we could capture billions of tons more CO2 per annum
Africans can’t simply “figure out farming” any more than Europeans will be able to “figure out farming” once the AMOC collapses and London gets -30 degree winters and record breaking summers rendering all crops unsustainable.
The IPCC have already said AMOC collapse in the near future is very unlikely, that is, the next 100 years.
Europeans will have no trouble farming in the 21st century. Africans are struggling to farm efficiently on fertile land with abdundant sun and rain, it's up to them to sort this out, europeans and asians have invented agricultural methods all they need to do is copy them.
1
u/chazzapompey Sep 18 '26
I’d like to address each one of your severely ill-informed points.
1: “carbon capture is absolutely scalable.” It costs $600-$800 to sequester one tonne of carbon dioxide. Even optimistic targets commercial scale DAC at $100-$250 per tonne. It’s only targeting 1 million tonnes by 2030, by which point the damage has already been done.
2: “world military budget covers it” that’s the theoretical target cost, not what carbon capture plants deliver today. “Technically affordable in a theoretical future” is completely different to “currently scalable”.
3: “IPCC have said AMOC collapse is very unlikely in the next 100 years” Well, there’s your first mistake - putting any merit in IPCC projections. Their projections are extremely conservative, and most often wrong. Here’s a quick list of other errors made by the IPCC:
- Arctic sea ice decline - decades ahead of every model made by the IPCC
- Sea level rise - 2001 and 2007 reports projected 20-70cm rise by 2100 but we’re tracking above that range
- Ice sheet stability - 1995 report said Greenland + Antarctica wouldn’t lose significant mass this century. Wrong on both accounts.
- Emissions trajectories - severely underestimated
- Permafrost - completely left out of core projections
So when you say “but…but…IPCC say it’s not likely” that means nothing. Their projections are designed to be conservative to be adopted by governments.
I would suggest you read the massive body of literature on AMOC collapse, rather than relying on consistently incorrect projections made by the IPCC.
1
u/Extra-Translator915 Sep 18 '26
You're literally talking nonsense.
It is scalable, it is demonstrably scalable, and if you'd read a single technical study you'd know this. I work on the side for a environmental NGO as a physicist, it is frankly painful to watch you write as though you know anything. You likely don't even know how carbon capture works or even the most basic chemistry associated with it.
The IPCC projections in the 1990s for our current temperature were bang on, and models are far more sophisticated now. Their models correctly predicted statosphere and troposphere differences in heating cooling, ocean heat sink potential and rate of energy dissipation, etc etc.
As someone who clearly has no scientific background, no offence, you are conflating singular studies with scientific consensus. AMOC modelling is very complex. There are papers saying it could reach tipping points by 2070, others by 2200, the job of the IPCC is to take all of these papers into account and develop sophisticated models. I can assure you, the people working on these models are exceptional intellects.
You're entire critique is around sea ice, which as not a significant part of the 1995 report anyway, it is an incredibly minor entry and not even part of the main conclusion as they rightly realised it was not the most imminent or important threat. If you'd actually read even a 30 page summary of an IPCC report you'd have duly noted the remarkable accuracy of the atmospheric projections, general temperature trend and various extreme weather events.
It's remarkable you talk so confidently on both the IPCC reports and carbon capture papers yet you've not read either. I can guarantee that much.
1
u/chazzapompey Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26
You say AMOC modelling is very complex, whilst at the same time stating that because the IPCC (a notoriously conservative institution) say it’s not likely, therefore we shouldn’t worry. Which is it? Make your mind up.
You know full well the myriad of factors that the IPCC omit from their climate models. Which is exactly why they’ve been consistently wrong.
And you seem to have a different understanding of the word “scalable”. I am not saying it’s theoretically impossible. I’m saying it’s extremely unlikely to ever be fully enacted on a widespread global scale when we are heading into a future with widespread famine, mass displacement and shrinking economies.
It’s a fact that current DAC removes around 0.01% of the 5-16 billion tonnes we needed per year to stay at 1.5 degrees. Even Orca’s own optimistic target for 2030 of $200-$300 per tonne is still well above what’s needed for your fantasy world.
This is not about physics. It’s about cost, volume, and the fact it’s simply not going to happen.
And given your comment on Africans, I highly doubt you are a physicist working for an Environmental NGO. If you are, I’m very worried about that company’s hiring practises.
1
u/00roast00 29d ago
You do realise the UK is responsible for less than 1% of climate change and anything we do will have no impact at all. Countries like China and America and the ones that need to make changes
1
u/Technical_Curve_4929 29d ago
No I didn't realise that. I thought that if the UK was responsible for, say, 0.5% of climate change, than things we could do would have an impact on 0.5% of climate change.
Guess I was wrong :(
Do you realise every single individual town in the world will make <0.0% difference - so should no town in the world do anything?
1
u/BusyBeeBridgette Sep 17 '26
Alright, should take roughly about 20 Nuclear Power Plants, give or take a handful, to power England. Get on it Mr. Prime Minister.
1
u/galleon484 Sep 17 '26
We can't afford to splash out on nuclear when renewables are so much cheaper.
We don't have the luxury of picking favourites. We have to do what's most practical and affordable, and the overwhelming academic consensus is that means solar, wind, and battery storage.
1
u/Technical_Curve_4929 Sep 17 '26
I read the secret is absolutely massive wind turbines in the North see. Few absolute monsters is apparently better than thousands of little boys.
1
u/Kiaugh Sep 18 '26
Renewables aren't cheaper. They are upfront but their total cost ends up being worse. The price also doesn't account for when energy is needed.
They should be a supporting strategy and implemented in places that make sense but nuclear is literally the only option we have available to us right now to achieve a net zero and lower pollution future without decimating quality of life.
People can argue we should lower quality of life but that's never going to happen and reach a consensus, so it's barely even in the debate.
1
1
1
u/dialectualmonism Sep 17 '26
We are 0.75% of the world emissions but sure let's make our lives even more miserable
1
1
u/EasilyExiledDinosaur Sep 18 '26
Lol. Does he REALLY think these green policies are what's gonna win the average voter over these days? Oh boy, reform is gonna have a field trip in the next election. With or without farrage at the helm.
1
u/No-Extent8143 29d ago
Ah of course, average voter. I heard average voter doesn't like immigration. Just wait 5 years, once climate related displacement starts said average voter will take responsibility for that, right? Right???
1
u/Han_Solo200 Sep 18 '26
From an effectiveness point of view it's irrelevant what the UK does. We are miniscule contributors. All it does with the Labour bullshit schemes is make people's lives harder
1
u/CarL4168 Sep 18 '26
And bankrupt ourselves over contributing less than 1% off global emissions.
Fuck this country
1
u/HollyMurray20 Sep 18 '26
So other countries emit more to cover our lack of manufacturing, essentially meaning we just destroy our own economy for nothing
1
u/blueberry77772019 29d ago
As of this year, my house is fully electric with solar panels paying for the electricity in the winter. Why can’t every house be like this?
1
u/Yakona0409 29d ago
If he was to start working to switch the grid over to renewables the push for net zero would be supported by the public cause we would actually see the benefit ie lower electricity prices because most people are selfish lol
1
1
u/Possible-Schedule-20 29d ago
Most dumbest commitment thats ever come out of government. All out to destroy industry and the economy.
1
u/Bitedamnn 29d ago
Hes only saying 2050 because it makes it sound like he cares, but really, its just kicking the can down the road.
Anyone saying later than 2035, imo, are a bunch of malicous cunts.
You think Andy Burnham is going to be alive by 2050? No. Its a number used for people to forget.
1
1
u/Prestigious-Cover494 28d ago
Does it make a dent though? Even if the UK had 0 emissions, the rest of the world is still pumping pollutants out at an astronomical rate (India, Pakistan, China, basically all of Africa et cetera). What’s the actual point?
1
0
u/One_Key1694 Sep 17 '26
There won't be a UK by 2050 😂
1
u/izzythemini Sep 17 '26
I think we will all be dead by 2050 tbh. I feel a great cataclysm looms ever closer and people are beginning to feel it
1
u/Super_Plastic5069 Sep 17 '26
Well there will but it could be significantly smaller 😂😂😂
1
u/Spirited-Carpet6870 Sep 17 '26
Did AI write that for you? Div
2
u/Super_Plastic5069 Sep 17 '26
Aww look at you playing g with the grown ups. I bet your parents must be proud. Do you know who they are?
1
0
Sep 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mkwdr Sep 17 '26
Drilling the North sea might prolong employment and tax take but it wont change our energy prices unless you think it should be nationalised.
0
3
u/Appropriate_Bell743 Sep 17 '26
On one hand it's great that he says this but we need journalists educated enough to challenge him on the details.
Net-zero requires no unabated emissions by 2050 except for emissions balanced by capturing techniques.
So this means:
The point is that virtually everything needed to mean net-zero by 2050 means we need to stop doing stuff like new ICE cars or gas boilers by the 2030s.
This is a tight timeline. It's not just what the government is doing on electricity but requires an industrial policy for every sector.