Island looks likely to reach target for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
Thursday 1st March 2012, 5:00PM GMT.
GUERNSEY is on course to hit international greenhouse gas emissions targets.
Figures released yesterday also showed that they fell by 11.6% in 2010 compared to 2009.
The Kyoto protocol set a target of a reduction of 12.5%, based on the average figure achieved between 2008 and 2012, on 1990 levels. With two years of calculations to go, that figure now stands at a decrease of 19.5%.
The major contributor to the reduction since 1990 was linking up to France to take power through the cable link in 2001.
Without this, there is an upward trend in greenhouse gas emissions from power generation.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Tuesday 21 May
- Two rescued from fire
- 'Go Green'
- Your States - South East district
- Inside Politics
- Sport - GFC will host midweek home games
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Here all quoting % ‘s but the Co2 levels in tons should be quoted. Fact is these islands are still releasing too much greenhouse gas through fuel consumption whether it be cars, aviation or heating etc.
Report abuse
So, our decrease in greenhouse gases is mainly due to the connection to the nuclear power grid that leaves nuclear waste to be disposed of by sending it to other countries to bury underground and pollute the area it`s buried in or converted to make nuclear weapons.
That`s very ecological isn`t it? Not to mention the hazards of transporting this waste near, or even through, populated areas in fuel guzzling convoys or on shipping that navigate congested waters.
If another Chyrnobel or Fukishima happens and millions of square miles is made radioactive and unlivable how will that be justified by limiting carbon waste?
How much carbon waste per year does that take to equal the polution of that air space and land?
I think it`s about time that all these fanatical scientists and do gooders concentrated on something more relevant like the world`s population crisis and how the billions of people are to be fed, clothed and housed, in harmony with their neighbours, in the near future and I don`t mean by increasing the benefit system or relying on handouts.
I`m 65 and I won`t be around much longer so I don`t care about recycling or greenhouse gas pollution because it won`t affect me when I join the pollution by being burnt when I die. I will in fact become part of that pollution but at least I won`t be taking up valuable land space in some useless graveyard.
Live for today people because tomorrow is very uncertain and will not change for hundreds of years at the rate things are going.
Controversially, what is really needed is another conventional world wide war to cut the poulation of the world by half and then rebuild anew. Only the strong will survive which is how nature really works isn`t it?
Report abuse
You do not need to go back may centruries to see that population control did just that through natural diseases explosions (no need for wars). It is only recent years in terms of time that we now live through being sick and epedemics that is causing the population situation. Even just taking the UK it’s own population was effectively managed by disease epedemics right till very recently time wise.
Report abuse
Interesting comment. While I agree with you that our reduction in emissions is being created elsewhere I think your rather over critical of nuclear power. Would you rather that our link to nuclear power is shut down and we revert to generating our own energy, therefor creating even more emissions? Not to mention the increase in price that would go with it.
Strange that you care about nuclear waste but not carbon emissions considering that, as you say, you won’t be around to see the effect of either. That view in itself I see as very selfish. I assume you have no children or grandchildren that will be around when your gone? As long as you don’t have to deal with it then it’s fine right?
Sadly your view of the worlds population is true. Humans have always fought over resources, it’s already happening with oil. If the world population continues to increase as it has been then wars for food and land are bound to happen. Does anyone see a country of a billion plus people staying within their borders when the food supply beings to dry up…
Report abuse
Matt,
My comments on Nuclear power were just to point out that all the politicians and statisticians are doing is fiddling the books to make themselves look as if what they are doing is better than anyone else. If Guernsey looks good then somewhere else looks as if they aren`t “doing their bit”.
You are perfectly correct about being selfish and I don`t care if it`s Nuclear Power, Wood burning power, Coal power or water/wind power I still won`t be here when the world implodes/explodes. “I`m alright Jack” suits me down to the ground.
Can`t you, or anyone else with such moral obligations to your young, see that the way the world is today is unstoppable, there are too many people on too little a world and as I said it will need another world war that will halve the population to go anywhere near sorting the problem out no matter how much pontification there is on the subject by any loonies.
Billy Connelly had the right ideas:-
Introduce cannabalism,
One person eats another, population halved overnight.
Eat all the homeless, end of housing problems.
Eat all those out of work, end of benefits and job seeking allowances.
Eat old people over 60, End of pension schemes and old folk homes.(The old may have to be cooked longer to soften the sinews)
This of course will mean a lot more money circulating to those left so poverty eradicated and luxuries for all left.
Just think how great the world would be then.
Report abuse
Nuclear is the only sensible route for the worlds’ power demands.
Report abuse