How did the UK double its greenhouse gas emissions reductions goal without an economic meltdown?

Question

According to a new UN report, UK greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be 23% below 1990 levels by 2010, far exceeding its official target of a 12.5% reduction in emissions.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2243565/confirms-uk-double-kyoto

Some people argue that such significant cuts can't be made without costing trillions of dollars. Yet the UK economy is doing just fine. The British Pound is worth $1.60.

So why do people think the US can't accomplish the same emissions cuts without hurting the economy? Are the Brits just smarter than us?

Answer 1

The British have actually grown their economy at a faster pace than the US over the years in question. In 2000, the British per capita GDP was 71% of the US per capita GDP.



http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1001530



By 2008 British per capita GDP was 101% of US per capita GDP



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7174372.stm



Perhaps the US has lagged in relative terms because it did not embrace Kyoto and improve its energy efficiency. I think the real reason for the UK's good performance is a sustained emphasis on investment in industrially relevant R&D. I was headhunted to work at Cambridge University nearly two decades ago. At the time Cambridge had more R&D than all of Canada combined and 25 Nobel Prize winners in Physics. It was a stimulating work environment for a new PhD and I am grateful to the British for the opportunity. When I returned to Canada I started a successful R&D company. Recently the British government contacted me with an invitation to relocate my company to Britain. I understand that the Germans are also actively recruiting green technology companies. The countries that attract the most businesses in the post-fossil economy will thrive and those that fail to invest will fall behind in relative terms. Under George Bush, the US fell behind. I think that the US has a better direction under Obama, but a multi-decade commitment is needed to reap the economic dividends. There are many factors in the changing GDP, but going green clearly has not hurt the UK economically.

Answer 2

Currency exchange does not mean anything, Japan is worlds second largest economy and its exchange rate is really bad.



UK knows that its future doesn't depend on manufacturing, their car companies are all sold out, they don't have any heavy manufacturing anymore, they are far behind most of the developing countries that can manufacture same items much cheaper.



Their economy is balanced currently because of the slow population growth, over all by 2025 most the large economies like UK would crumble because they will have very little exports. Only export they would have are intellectual property, this is what will keep a dying economy of UK up lifted for sometime.



This is nothing new, change happens but how you take the change and mold it to your favor is something else, this is why the whole hype of global warming is created so economic system and energy generation systems could be changed, where new systems will be installed and sold to developing countries.



Its something they can't help but they and even US will go with the flow because they just can't keep up anymore.

Answer 3

Its like politics..........if you can't be great, if you can't con everyone to think your great......bash the competition, the other party and your very own founding fathers to make yourself look great..... That was Bill Clinton's strategy....and it really didn't work.

Here we have industrious nations, and those same nations not only out-produce the rest of the world, but they green house gas produced vs productivity is basically on par with the lesser producting countries. But its the advanced industrious nations that are also developing tomorrow's technology, finding ways to cut energy for the same amout of productivity. So the whining nations that just can't compete decry this ruining the planet global warming BS to force a cap on industrious nations thereby lowering the productivity, thereby lowering the standard of living, lowering the economy and bringing them down to par with the less productive so that now there will be equal competition.

UK citizens are already pissed that they've bought into this whole "save the planet" BS , they've changed many things they do and ways they go about doing it, and it just isn't changing anything. The Global warming fools are still whining and applying the pressure. The globe supposedly is still in danger according to these eviro idiots, and they are trying to put even more pressure on other countries, even the lone hold out USA has had a little crumbling at the foundations...meanwhile the heaviest polluting places in the world like Inida, China, etc refuse to change thier ways. So just when does someone stand up and kick the enviro morons in the jimmy and tell them go piss off ? Its a bit overdue imho

Answer 4

Some of certain extreme political orientiation often make the claim that economic well-being is tied specifically to fossil fuel use. In reality, energy use (not necessarily from fossil fuels) has some correlation. However, switching energy sources from high carbon to low carbon doesn't detract from this. Conversely, energy efficiency improvements reduces energy usage AND improves economic well-being, contrary to the hypothesis. Lastly, countries that rely on heavy fossil fuel exports tend to end up with less freedoms and are more authoritarian, with wealth concentrated in the hands of few, which hurts the economic well-being of the citizens.



On a different note, another common claim is that EU emissions targets are only being met because the economy has contracted. This ignores the fact that Europe has had strong accumulated economic growth since the early 90's (including the recent GDP drop) yet are seeing noticeable emissions reductions.

Answer 5

The article itself fingers the reasons why the UK has managed to reduce its CO2 emissions. It is the availability of plentiful (for the moment) supplies of natural gas from the north sea which when used in power generation intrinsically produces less CO2. The generating plants which have been built are also new highly efficient combined cycle gas and steam turbine. Formally coal (higher carbon content than natural gas) was used in less efficient plant. Economics drove this move, not gov't action although the gov't likes to claim credit for it and also points to reduced usage by heavy industry which again is due to natural gas and the closure of much high energy consuming industry. The recession affecting the UK and other countries also has an effect on CO2 emitted. There has been some effect at the margins due to renewable power generation but the UK is behind many countries in this respect.



Gov't spin I am afraid and nothing particularly virtuous in the UK.

Answer 6

Changing the "goal" means nothing. Wait till the UK starts paying the bill for the increased energy cost. Actually, from a political perspective the UK would like to prepare its population for more nuclear, so this is just a political means to economic end. The UK needs to decouple from petroleum for economic reasons.

Answer 7

I think Gordan Brown is just as stupid as Bush or Obama. He wasted billions of sterling pounds, UK taxed dollars to bailout those not able to rejuvenate financial institutions as earned the unreal award of UK's financial super man for a short while. UK is predicted that the total UK debt will exceed the total GDP by 2012. The dumb Brown should have learned how to proceed the economic recovery of the former greatest US president, Roosevelt in Hall of Fame of defeated the great depression in the world history.

I think Brown might learn from the Hong Kong fascist chief executive, Donald Tsang Yum-kuen by lying to the public for how well he did for the Hong Kong environment, but actually do nothing at all. Why not? Hong Kong was still the British Colony before 1997.

Will you shock for visiting the following active website for the recording for the number of visits to public hospital for the treatment of air pollution related diseases. Hong Kong has recorded more than 6 million visits in 2007 in this total population of 7 millions.

http://147.8.71.207/pollution/home.php

Answer 8

For every media story saying how great these emmissions targets are, there is another story saying they're complete fiction as the emissions are really rising and are just being moved overseas.



Emissions accounting occurs in the country of manufacture, not the country of consumption. As the UK manufacturing industries are in decline, the UK can steadily increase their consumption while still claiming to be reducing their emissions. In effect emissions are increasing because they also include emissions due to transport.

Answer 9

So long as the reductions aren't made by using "clean" nuclear, lol, then all is well.

If the reductions are made by increasing efficiency and decreasing loss and waste, all is well.

Not so much smarter, perhaps there are some boundaries on their corrupting influences. Whereas US Americans have no boundaries at all.

Answer 10

Those who know do not argue, they know that the global warming hoax will cost a lot of money, jobs and people's careers and livelihoods and will set this country back decades. England is not a heavy industrial manufacturing country anymore and imports much of what it needs on heavy industrial goods. Its economy is in terrible shape and one below stated that its total debt will exceed its GNP by the year 2012. One must understand when the US sneezes, the rest of the world coughs and that is why trade is so important to keep this world in an economic shape. The alternative is chaos and war, starvation and poverty.



California passed a series of laws, one being AB32 in the near future, but the others already have chased out much of its manufacturing base and 12 businesses are leaving daily out of that state due to radical environmental laws proposed by Uncle Arnold and his leftist appointees to the Cal EPA and its division Air Recources Board. These laws have little to no environmental benefits and their entire purpose is to outdo the other guy in environmental laws so the other radicals around the world can point to California laws and the agencies that created them and the politicians who proposed them that they are changing the world. That is the leftist way. But when these laws have no benefit, but rather dis benefits, then we are on the road in dismantling this great nation.



Hitler came to power during the 1930's based on mass unemployment and poor economic conditions in Germany and history is full of these engagements started during the world's economic crisis.



Follow the Democrats and liberals and you will be part of dismantling this country. The democrats of the past, ie Bill Clinton, were very moderate compared to their counterparts today as the liberal sector of the Democratic regime has taken control and their stronghold is in a few sectors of the US proper including San Francisco liberals and much of California and the west coast and a few states in the upper NE. These states also have some of the highest unemployment currently in the country and in the case of California, the largest state, one of the worst educational systems in the country.



The US needs to go back to basics and the liberals need to leave business alone or this country is in dire straits. Liberals only like the businesses that they are involved in and will not touch them with regulations. They take care of their pocketbook, but to hell with yours. That is called social engineering.



The monetary system in the world is all down and now there is talk that Germany wants to pull away from the EU's Euro and go back to the Mark due to the recession and other issues in Europe. Dana above should stick to his Berkeley liberals on science and stay away from macro economics as it is clear he believes in the green industry propaganda. Dana, they print this stuff to promote their business.



Dana must understand that the core human industries of food, clothing and shelter are in severe decline due to this economy, but more so due to the extreme regulations being placed on them by an out of control government affixed to regulating everything. That means more jobs for the state and like California who has doubled the size of state government in only 8 years, puts them now into an economic crisis that they will not get out of and will have to declare bankruptcy.



Why do you think corporations move overseas? Well now you know and many of them are coming from the most liberal state in the Union, California. They cannot survive here with the huge taxes and regulations. Anyone wanting names of some of the companies that left and why please state so.



The global warming legislation will most certainly hurt the world and then listen to the liberals complain that industry is shipping their factories overseas and employing other countries workers instead of our own. They just do not get it. They are out of touch with reality and it is very scarey.



It is okay to have green industry, but do not legislate the other industries out of existence thinking that the green industry will replace it. It is a foregone conclusion that this will not happen as the ultimate decision maker on products is the consumer and the green products are mostly a fad, nothing else and will not replace the world's industrial base.

Answer 11

"the cuts delivered so far provided evidence that economies could continue to grow while delivering rapid cuts in carbon emissions".

Good thing this person is the global warming minister and not the finance minister.

Answer 12

Clearly you pay no attention to the economy. The UK is in an economic meltdown, they have been for some time.



The value of the currency isn't a good measure of an economy.

Answer 13

Now for the rest of the story...http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4449130.ece

Answer 14

Maybe you might want to read this:



"Britain has officially entered recession for the first time since 1991, after the economy shrank at the fastest pace for nearly 30 years in the fourth quarter."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/23/recession-uk-unemployment



"Britain is in the grip of its sharpest recession for three decades, grim official figures confirmed today, sending sterling tumbling to a 23-year low against the dollar."



http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5571973.ece



"Commenting on the figures, Stephen Gifford, Grant Thornton's chief economist, said: "The sheer fall in GDP is staggering. Financial meltdown has probably been averted but the economy has now entered a recession which is sure to be as bad as the early 80s."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4321675/UK-recession-its-official-but-will-it-be-the-worst.html



While the downturn has been globally, the downturn in Britain has been a lot more severe.

Answer 15

The UK economy is in the same straits that the US economy is in - - Liverpool FC is about to go bankrupt.



The currency rates are relative - compare all of them to gold.....



But how did they reduce their CO2 emissions?



Wait for it...... wait for it......



NUCLEAR POWER!!!!

Answer 16

The British Pound was worth over $2.00 not long ago and the dollar has been weakening. I guess that economy isn't doing as well as you thought.

Answer 17

Where have you been hibernating? We are in an economic meltdown.

Answer 18

They will. In several years you will all be crying to why you didnt follow us.