• @jsdz@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ending fossil fuel use by the year 2030 is as “right now” as it is possible to get. It would require big changes starting immediately. No more petrol cars being sold, as of right now. Massive investment in freight transport by electrified rail, start building as soon as possible. Huge transformation of agriculture, you’ve got to replace or adapt every single fossil-fuel powered thing. Aviation, you won’t have time to save much of it if the goal is 2030, so you’re going do a lot less flying. The military is going to need a complete overhaul. Commercial and recreational watercraft will all urgently need to find new ways to operate. France goes through something like 40 billion cubic metres of natural gas per year for a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial uses all of which will need to find new energy sources or be discontinued.

      Doing it in less than ten years starting from the very little that’s been done so far would be a world-changing accomplishment if they managed it.

      The aim, he added, was to reduce this dependence from 60% to 40% by 2030.

      Oh right, apparently they’re only looking to reduce its market share by a third, not “end” it. That is… somewhat less impressive.

      • @NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        Every climate action plan I’ve seen is always 10-20 years away. Climate change is clearly getting worse every year. This summer was the worst on record for heat waves all across the world, and we still aren’t getting the message. It’s honestly beyond idiotic that we aren’t taking it seriously.

        • @fr0g@feddit.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Yeah, it still seems a weird place to complain about it when this is actually a measure of moving the goalposts closer (2030 is certainly less than 10-20 years,) while other industrial nations like the UK and Germany are even backsliding.

          I think it’s totally fair to criticize that it isn’t enough, because it isn’t. I just don’t see how engaging in hyperbolic scenarios and defeatism is supposed to help anything. I think it’s also okay to acknowledge when something is at least moving in a slightly less shit direction and use that as a source of encouragment to turn things around further, instead of just saying “well, this is shit”.

          • @Sodis@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Germany is not backsliding. They won’t reach their climate goals, but they reduced the gap in reaching these goals significantly compared to the prior Merkel led government.

            • @fr0g@feddit.deOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              So what would you call the backpedalling on the laws on new heaters and energy efficiency of new buildings then? Or the abolishment if sector goals?

              • @Sodis@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Not backpedalling. The law on heating is still an improvement to prior regulation and the climate law, that enforces being carbon neutral in 2045, still stands. There will probably be another round of lawsuits soon forcing the government to sharpen their ambitions.

                • @fr0g@feddit.deOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  Yes, it’s an improvement to prior regulation and a step back from what they initially set out to do.

      • mathemachristian[he]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        It’s ok to not accept a liberal politicians half assed attempt at stopping climate change. It’s insufficient plain as day.