In 2019 European Union leaders agreed to cut the bloc’s greenhouse-gas emissions to net-zero by 2050. Net zero refers to a state in which human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by removing an equivalent amount of carbon from the atmosphere. As part of the goal coal power plants and gas powered cars would be completely phased out of the economy. Economists estimate that the European Union will need 1.5 trillion euros of investments per year to meet the 2050 target. That would imply a huge divestment from areas like combustion engine cars, fossil fuel production and new airports, and a jump in investments into public transport, renovating buildings and expanding renewable energy, the researchers said.
@9ZVH9Y22mos2MO
Net zero by 2050 is INCREDIBLY insufficient. Net zero requirements should be much more urgent/drastic.
@9ZT3FBC2mos2MO
yes, but be realistic about timelines, progress and increase incentives and educate public on how to take part and do better.
@9ZRQCDHIndependent2mos2MO
This is a impossible target and shows how governments are living in a world of their own, it would cause hardship for the common man
They should cut greenhouse emissions to zero by 2030 rather than 2050, we're already behind the curve
@9ZH8PJLIndependent3mos3MO
NO. Causing hardship on those already struggling financially
@9ZDW5P93mos3MO
As long as they do it in a healthy way and don’t damage the earth any more then it is
@9ZD97DJPBB Solidarity3mos3MO
Yes, but it should be far sooner, by a date such as 2030
@9ZCJZ9B3mos3MO
We should try cut greenhouse emissions as much as possible by then!!
@9ZBQFST3mos3MO
yes but only if it does not effect the lifestyle of people. i.e cost of living increasing
@9Z9KLFZ3mos3MO
Yes, if it can be done without detrimentally affecting other sectors negatively.
@9Z9753W3mos3MO
Why bother if the rest of the world isn't. As a world stance then YES.
@9MBLRCN9mos9MO
Yes, as long as that does not affect the most vulnerable people
@9WMG5VY3mos3MO
Within reason to actual real life people ie cost of living
@9T57Q865mos5MO
Only if it doesn’t significantly harm the lifestyles of the people
@9SWMJY6Independent5mos5MO
Yes but also green energy is not the answer, the only way to do this is by introducing nuclear power in the interim to meet the demands of the grid without suffering brownouts while the sustainable solar/wind/tidal technology develops
@9RR498Y 6mos6MO
Yes. They would only be lying, but I think they should aim for it
@9NWX4CX8mos8MO
No, they should work to help give advice to cut energy consumption and emissions in countries like India etc who are.in the top 1% of the worlds countries for harmel emissions.
@9NJQB5N8mos8MO
I don't think it can be properly implemented in the time frame given.
@9MNQXPD8mos8MO
May be economically unviable do achieve it so soon but should definitely be the goal in the future
@9MLSNR6Independent9mos9MO
It’s a good goal, but not one that should take precedence over other, more important goals (eg economic growth, security, immigration control, etc)
@9MKQ2XD9mos9MO
Yes but only if viable and doesn't have a negative effect on lower income people
@9MH3GFZ9mos9MO
Emissions should be lowered but will never reach zero
Yes with adequate funding so every house be greener and carbon neutral at the expense of the energy suppliers
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
