The World Wildlife Fund Isn’t Really Paying Attention, Is It?

5
1496

A new report out insisting that British carbon emissions reductions aren’t all they seem. Because we import some of our emissions. So, we’re not doing as well as we say:

The UK’s efforts to cut greenhouse gases are being undermined by a failure to put in place climate policies that cover imported goods, research has found.

The government is committed to cutting the UK’s carbon output to net zero by 2050, and emissions have been falling for the past three decades. But that does not take into account the “invisible” side of Britain’s carbon footprint, which comes from international travel and the carbon produced overseas to make goods that are used here.

About half of Britain’s true carbon footprint is made up of these sources, according to a report from the conservation charity WWF.

Emissions associated with imports to the UK, including international travel, have risen from about 316m tonnes of carbon in 1990 to 360m tonnes in 2016 and 358m tonnes in 2017, the latest year for which data is available. These imported emissions can vary substantially from year to year, but have been broadly steady or rising, though they are down from a peak of 449m in 2007, before the financial crisis.

So, something down 25% is holding steady or increasing, is it? But that’s not the biggie here.

The complaint is that we’re not accounting for those foreign, then imported, emissions. Oh Aye?

While UK carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions peaked in 1972, once we consider imported emissions – such as when the UK imports products that are manufactured abroad – UK emissions peaked in 2007.

The Office for National Statistics actually reports on the issue. Keeps tabs on it. This means that we’re not measuring it?

We should, of course, run the world as the oh so perceptive folks at the WWF suggest then, eh?

Presumably Jolyon and Jocasta skipped the logic parts of their courses to do more grievance studies.

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
5 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Snarkusjohn77Vern CookeBarksPat Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pat
Guest
Pat

Perhaps another reason for boycotting China, given it’s ever increasing CO² emmissions?
Also a reason to put a ban on windfarms- too much CO² used in production.

Barks
Guest
Barks

Aren’t those entirely harmless emissions being accounted for by the countries of origin? Why double count? Or, is that the intent?

Vern Cooke
Guest
Vern Cooke

So according to the WWF, the emissions associated with the production of a product should be counted in the location of end-use, not manufacture, correct? If so, then the Canadian oil sands industry should be jumping for joy! The energy and emissions used to produce the steam to inject into a well to produce the oil to be shipped to a foreign country to be used there, should be counted in that foreign country, not Canada? Excellent news! Or are they going to use double-standards in their reasoning: emissions by a non-Western country producer should be counted in the Western… Read more »

john77
Guest
john77

So can we deduct the CO2 emissions linked to our exports?
Or is it “No, because reasons”.

Snarkus
Guest
Snarkus

Source doc page 26 shows a remarkable ignorance on population growth or lack of in future. By 2050 world population will decline on current trends. No action is needed. As as pointed out often enough, lifting people out of poverty reduces number of children born. None of that mentioned. Ironic that even China had second thoughts about One Child Policy.. Japan and Singapore are grappling with greenie desired birth rates and it is not a good long term look.