Finland Legally Commits To Carbon Negativity By 2040 (protocol.com) 64
Carbon dioxide removal will soon be written into Finnish law: In a historic Wednesday vote, the country's Parliament approved a new Climate Change Act that would commit the country to carbon neutrality by 2035, and carbon negativity 2040. From a report: Assuming it is signed by President Sauli Niinisto, the law would make Finland the first country in the world to make its carbon commitments legally binding. University of Eastern Finland international law professor Kati Kulovesi called the new targets "remarkable," particularly the carbon negativity commitment. The targets are based on a scientific analysis of the country's nationally determined contributions, which Kulovesi also commended.
"However, other details of the act could have been stronger," Kulovesi told Protocol. "There is an important gap between current measures and those required to reach the targets, and now there is a legal obligation to act." The new law also updates absolute emissions reduction targets, requiring at least a 60% reduction by 2030 and 80% by 2040, as compared with 1990 levels. Finland had previously committed to an 80% reduction by 2050, so this change catapults the country's progress forward by a full decade. Combining those reductions with the new legally mandated carbon negative goals in less than 20 years will require the country to rely on carbon dioxide removal in addition to simply lowering its overall emissions.
"However, other details of the act could have been stronger," Kulovesi told Protocol. "There is an important gap between current measures and those required to reach the targets, and now there is a legal obligation to act." The new law also updates absolute emissions reduction targets, requiring at least a 60% reduction by 2030 and 80% by 2040, as compared with 1990 levels. Finland had previously committed to an 80% reduction by 2050, so this change catapults the country's progress forward by a full decade. Combining those reductions with the new legally mandated carbon negative goals in less than 20 years will require the country to rely on carbon dioxide removal in addition to simply lowering its overall emissions.
A joke (Score:2)
What happens when they canâ(TM)t make the goal? Sue oneself? What are the real penalties?
It's like legislating the value of Pi (common) (Score:1, Insightful)
They've attempted to legislate a RESULT, rather than an action. That is ridiculous, of course, to legislate that the air must contain X amount of CO2. Are you going to sue the air for having too much CO2? It achieves absolutely nothing; it's just cynical political pandering.
Unfortunately, it's all too common that people try to legislate a result. It's just as ridiculous every time it's tried. It seems to be particularly common for a particular party that calls the other "cold-hearted", a party that tries t
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's kind of hard to reach a goal without at least articulating it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're asking whether you can reach a goal purely by setting that goal and a deadline in law, obviously the answer is no. You're going to have to do other things, and they're not going to be easy or universally popular.
But I don't think it's practical to expect any real change in an externalized cost [wikipedia.org] situation unless you start with measurable objectives and deadlines. Private companies can't survive if they do the right thing while their competitors are essentially getting a public subsidy for doing the
Re: (Score:2)
They've legislated a target. If they don't reach the target it doesn't mean Finland ceases to exist or the world ends, etc. It's no different from exceeding a national budget, which every country manages to do now and then. Or legislating pollution targets, which most countries do. What it is, is a statement of "we can't just wait until we passively become carbon neutral, we need to take an active step."
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, this is not legislating a fact, it is instead the setting a goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Feature,not a bug (Score:2)
What happens is that if you don't meet the goal, environmentalist groups sue and make money.
I can safely predict that they won't make their goals, and that environmentalist groups will get richer. Which will then make them create stricter legal sanctions, which they also won't meet, which will make those environmentalist groups richer again.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
environmentalist groups will get richer
How?
Also the environmental groups are not your enemy, despite what that millionaire frozen foods heir on Fox News keeps telling you.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmentalist groups sue, get money, hire more lawyers, then sue again.
It's a business model that has a profit motive.
And I get it, just because they're driven by profits doesn't mean that they're evil - but in most cases, environmentalists are rich white liberals who have the luxury of passing on their own external costs onto others. Wrapping yourself in a cloak of virtue, while practicing vice and punishing others, doesn't endear you to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly suing the government does not make you rich. You don't get damages, although you might get costs. So, if you win, the lawyers make a living.
In terms of passing on their own external costs, you would have to say that the fossil fuel industry is really the master of this, rather than the environmentalists. They are still profitting from the extraordinary quantities of carbon that someone else will pay for putting back into the ground.
Re: (Score:1)
The fossil fuel industry funds the environmentalists.
We all profit from higher levels of CO2. It's a benefit, not a cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's incredibly optimistic of you.
I also heard that Finland legally committed to immortality for all of its citizens by 2240.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't listen to Fox News, I am too busy breathlessly waiting to hear what all those folks in helicopters and private planes who flew to Davos to solve climate change will tell me to think.
Re: (Score:1)
It almost doesn't matter who the money goes to, the point is that if the government doesn't achieve those targets it loses money, which creates a strong incentive for current and future governments to achieve those targets. Whether the targets are realistic or well thought out is a different discussion but the principle is fine imo
As for the environmentalist groups, you'd expect them to use the money to spread their message and for internal expenses. If it turned out that someone used the money to buy a new
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So the government pays the penalty to all the citizens of Finland with money they took from all the citizens of Finland?
Ordering projects halted can't possibly be enough - they'll have to tear down things that already exist.
Re: A joke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll ignore the failure for a while. Simply refusing to talk about it.
Then, when finally forced to address it, they'll cook the books.
Actual benfits, or carbon credits? (Score:2)
Is it the kind of carbon negativity where they take taxpayer money and buy carbon credits from neighboring countries and private industry? Because that's all the rage in the US. It's a few steps short of a scam.
Re:Actual benfits, or carbon credits? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government of Finland do stuff the people don't like, they will lose their jobs and they know it.
Its how democracies work. You guys should try it.
Re: (Score:2)
>Its how democracies work. You guys should try it.
We started to in 2008 with Occupy Wall Street. The bankers shit their pants and shut it down hard. Now the only approved speech is anything that divides the populace.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait, no, I read that wrong.
One MONTH.
That's how you define shutting something down "hard"?
Re: (Score:1)
The difference here is that the government of Finland represents the people of Finland. The government of the United States represents the corporations that get the politicians elected.
If the government of Finland do stuff the people don't like, they will lose their jobs and they know it.
Its how democracies work. You guys should try it.
Finland is a representative republic, not a democracy.
Lobbying is legal and unregulated.
Corporations can donate to political campaigns.
Politicians lose their jobs when they lose elections
Yeah, it's completely different from the USA
Re: (Score:3)
A quick look at the Wikipedia entry for Sanna Marin, the Finnish Prime Minister shows that she took office "Following Antti Rinne's resignation in the wake of the postal strike controversy..."
A quick look at that shows how the actions of ordinary Finnish citizens bought down
Re: (Score:2)
It always amuses me whenever I post something that points out the lack of representation in the American political system someone often tries to explain how America is not a democracy "its a republic" as if that answer the criticism.
A quick look at the Wikipedia entry for Sanna Marin, the Finnish Prime Minister shows that she took office "Following Antti Rinne's resignation in the wake of the postal strike controversy..."
A quick look at that shows how the actions of ordinary Finnish citizens bought down an unpopular government (without anyone getting shot too!)
When was the last time that happened in the US? Ever?
Politicians lose their jobs when they lose elections
This Wikipedia article explains how few American politicians lose their seats at election time. [wikipedia.org]
This piece uses graphs to show how poorly you're represented. [opensecrets.org]
You have the worst possible electoral system, and that is by design.
The last time a president resigned was 1974. Every one since was voted out of office. Either way no shooting was required.
The USA is the "United STATES of America". Separate elections are held in each state where the citizens vote for their federal and state representatives. If they choose to vote for the same ones that is their prerogative. If my representative is doing a good job then why shouldn't I reelect him? Why does his reelection negatively affect my representation? If anything his seniority
Re: (Score:2)
Now explain to me how South Carolina votes roughly 54% Republican and republicans hold 6 out of 7 congressional seats. (For example).
You have the worst possible electoral system.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Ronald Reagan, George Bush II and Barak Obama all of whom sat out their two terms and could not stand again.
Now explain to me how South Carolina votes roughly 54% Republican and republicans hold 6 out of 7 congressional seats. (For example).
You have the worst possible electoral system.
Well, if they vote 54% republican I'm surprised they aren't 7 out of 7. Congressmen are elected within a congressional district to represent a congressional district.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is your next point that because cyclists get to vote motorists are disenfranchised?
That shouldn't be to hard (Score:2)
After all, it's Finland. Their "share" of the world's emissions is 0.14%. California is bigger than that. Half the country nobody goes to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Per capita emissions is what you should be looking at. For Finland is 8.8 metric tons [wikipedia.org]. This is about the same as California's 9.26 [worldatlas.com].
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't matter what Finland does, they're irrelevant for pollution or emissions.
What China and rest of asia does will be half or more of the story. That matters the most. The USA will continue to slide down in relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But that's wrongheaded thinking. Illogical and pointless. Per capita is irrelevant in a country that doesn't matter for global emissions. The earth doesn't care about per capita, only about absolute carbon emssisions.
Stop the nonsense, there is no reason or logic to it.
Re:That shouldn't be to hard (Score:4, Insightful)
That argument, of course, applies to every sub population in the world. If a country is not happy with its absolute carbon production, it can just say "well, if we consider the individual regions of our country, they are all less than other countries".
The point of a per capita measure, is it gives you some idea of the success or otherwise of climate change policies. Finland has quite high emissions currently, although for a sparse country in the frozen north, it could be a lot worse. Will, the change that Finland makes stop climate change? No, of course not. But, in shifting their economy to carbon negative it will may well give them a lot of expertize in the technology both that exists and that which they will invent in the future. That befits a small country which has a high skill/high earning/high tax economic model.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of what ifs, and maybe's especially in a 13 year time span to get carbon neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
the benefits would be from hugely populated places with strong central control over tech and energy production, like China or India, getting their per capita down. Even what the USA does becomes less and less relevant with each passing year, we won't be the problem
It's Finland's vow of poverty (Score:2)
2040 is a good choice. (Score:2)
Assuming most of the people in the decision-making seats on this one are silver-haired, or at least over 50, 2040 means they'll all be retired or dead before the failure materializes. Politicians have no problem promising on behalf of people over their horizon of personal opportunity.
Re:2040 is a good choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
Finland's PM is 36. The average age of Finnish MPs is 46. Only 5% of MPs are aged 65+. Not every country is a gerontocracy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The decision makers... not the politicians. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The Prime Minister is 36 however, and several other cabinet ministers are in their 30's as well.
Countries with sensible electoral systems tend to elect people who represent the communities they come from.
Undemocratic countries tend to wind up with old rich people in charge.
Uh oh (Score:2)
Now Putin's finally got the excuse to invade he's been waiting for!
Why don't they work on cooling the planet? (Score:2)
All this fuss about carbon and emissions is too little, too late, too inefficient, too expensive.
Talk about a wild goose chase! Reverse the warming! That is goal, not just emissions.
How does Finland plan to do that? (Score:3)
Have the politicians seen the numbers? Do they have a plan? Does that plan include nuclear fission power?
What has the lowest CO2 emissions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (Scroll down for the 2020 numbers.)
What has the lowest cost?
https://www.iea.org/reports/pr... [iea.org] (Scroll down to the nice LCOE chart, about 1/4 the way in.)
What takes the least land area? Or, just how much land will this take?
http://www.inference.org.uk/su... [inference.org.uk] (Nuclear fission is not on the chart, which produces 1000 watt per square meter.)
What about material costs? Safety? Waste disposal? Did we miss anything?
https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
http://www.withouthotair.com/C... [withouthotair.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi... [ted.com]
https://ourworldindata.org/saf... [ourworldindata.org]
Oh, right, energy return on investment?
https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org] (Look for Table 2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There's just piles of data showing how any nation in the world can lower CO2 emissions, while keeping energy costs low, and gaining energy independence. I can see from Wikipedia that they are on a good path so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Finland has plenty of wind, hydro, and nuclear, which is great. They don't have much in coal, oil, gas, or solar, which is also good. They import a lot of electricity, That's bad. By adding more nuclear they can add plenty of base load power. Perhaps with their ample hydro supply they can manage changing demand by changing how much power comes from hydro. Maybe they can add some pumped hydro storage to aid in the variations of supply to load. Perhaps they can experiment with molten salt thermal energy storage, an energy storage system that can be added to nuclear fission (or any heat source that gets hot enough but they won't want coal and solar might not work well for them). Molten salt thermal energy storage comes with the option to put in air breathing turbines that can turn a generator using heat from the salt, using a heat exchanger where a combustion chamber would normally be.
Then comes transportation fuels. Electric vehicles are a shitty solution to this problem. What is likely to be the inevitable solution, at least short term, is synthesized hydrocarbons. Getting hydrogen by electrolysis would work but is looking to be lacking in efficiency, and likely unnecessary. It sounds like people have found ways to use seawater and get it to react with come kind of catalyst and carbon (carbon in the form of coal or carbon monoxide) under a lot of heat and pressure to produce long chain hydr
Re: (Score:2)
Plan to do what? That's like promising your 5 year old that you'll buy them a Ferrari when they're 18, knowing that you'll head out for cigarettes and never return in no later than a week. You think any of the politicians making that promise are still going to be in office 18 years from now?
Re: (Score:1)
You think any of the politicians making that promise are still going to be in office 18 years from now?
That is the correct observation to make and I'm kicking myself for not pointing out the same problem. This is a promise the current legislators made that some other legislators would have to make good on.
If this was a serious plan to lower CO2 emissions then they'd set goals that were more like 2 years out, maybe 5 years out. This reminds me of Democrats running in the primary for POTUS that laid out 10 year plans for getting to carbon neutral. 10 years? That is a date out so far in which no POTUS could
Re: (Score:2)
A plan for 5 and 10, 15 20 could be started though.
The current administration has no coherent plan though, just forced fossil fuel back to plunge nation into skyrocketing inflation and shortages. Removal of an energy source and no realistic replacement being built up in volume needed.
As example they could have made federal land be used for paving desert with solar panels and storage and UHVDC lines to go up to 1500 miles away (the state of that art in other countries is astounding!), that's all doable tech
Re: (Score:2)
A plan for 5 and 10, 15 20 could be started though.
Indeed.
There's been people standing in line for 50 years to build nuclear power plants, all the government had to do is give them permission. (Well, they aren't literally standing in line, that would be silly.) The government doesn't flatly tell them they can't get a permit, they instead string them along looking for more studies, analysis, and so on. They just keep sending them along with more "homework", which of course costs them money, and that money ends up being part of the funds needed to get the
What does "legally binding" mean at this level? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal jurisdictions vary of course, but the point of these kind of laws is that they open up a government to judicial review. If a decision is made, you can challenge it on the basis of this kind of law. This will be binding on both the government that made it and any other subsequent government unless they explicitly repeal it; likewise, it will apply to all the branches of government and not just that one part that made it.
These laws do have teeth and they are used. It does not guarantee that the targets
Easy to do (Score:2)
"When do we have to fulfill that promise? 2040? That's 18 years from now, right? By then I'm no longer in office, but OF COURSE we'll do that! It's great for my PR and a problem for my successor, why should I care?"
What about 2037? (Score:2)
pgslot (Score:1)