Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill (parliament.nz)
118 points by mikedilger 7 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 81 comments





> Ardern went on to say she absolutely believed climate change was the "biggest challenge of our time" and the "nuclear moment" for this generation.

I find it ironic the prime minister is using “nuclear” as a pejorative when it was the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels.

If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would have been in much better shape with respect to CO2 than we are in now.


Perhaps if the war hawks had allowed for the development of nuclear reactors with passive safety mechanisms- rather than exclusively funding R&D on those with weaponisable byproducts, we'd have globally usable nuclear energy technology today.

Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima).


> Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima).

Fear of nuclear is irrational. Chernobyl was the single worst nuclear accident in the history of the world and UNSCEAR projects a death toll of no more than 4,000 [3] from the original accident (which directly killed about 50) onward. A large amount of them are suicide by people who fear they were “contaminated” when the most likely cancer, thyroid (due to radioactive Iodine-131 released) has a 98% survival rate [4]. Better than some flu years. That's what they were taking iodine pills for -- to saturate the thyroid so it didn't take up any of the Iodine-131.

Three mile island killed nobody and Fukushima killed 2-12 (almost 600 died from the actual quake). We learned from all 3 incidents and incorporated substantial additional safety measures for future designs.

The worst hydro accident by comparison, the Bangqiao Dam failure killed 230,000 people instantly. [2]

Nuclear has an order of magnitude fewer deaths per TWh than solar (it’s 10X safer than solar panels, yes) and two to three orders fewer than hydro and coal. [1].

Nuclear is no question the safest and most environmentally friendly energy source in the world by all metrics, and especially carbon emissions.

Of course I’d love to see thorium cycle explored too but we'll never get the funding with negative sentiment towards nuclear. It should be respected, not feared.

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/d...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_dis...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_cancer


Those are some interesting facts. I've generally been on the side that nuclear is not safe because I don't trust governments to build things safely if nuclear ever became mainstream. I'd expect multiple bidders to show up, some corrupt under the table deal happens, politicians takes a massive cut for themselves, project runs under budget, over time, and the infrastructure built gets dumped onto an area close to areas with higher rates of poverty, and what's built constantly has leaks or contamination of the environment around it due to structural errors.

That said, my confirmation bias never led me to consider how the situation could play out similarly for any other form of energy. So thanks for articulating those facts so clearly.


Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency, which cuts both ways. That means very little nuclear gets built, and what does get built is super safe -- and very expensive.

> Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency

Ummm... I wish it were that straightforward but I can't be confident of that. Power doesn't balance out as much as we'd like it to. There are a lot of elected officials who are ok with doing as bad to their constituency and they get away with it fine. And by get away that might mean they don't get another term but they take their money and go live a life of leisure. No jail time, nothing of major consequence. And usually they'll keep playing the political corruption game using the connections built up. (Eg: bringing in "preferred investors" for a "commission")

Reality around political power is ugly af :(


I don't doubt there's a lot of FUD around the perils of nuclear power but as someone that had to take iodine pills in 1986 I have to ask if you accounted for the large number of people that were forcibly moved out of their home as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl power plant?

Have you normalized all those costs with the number of power plants of various types?

It may be that in absolute numbers nuclear power has been safer than anything else but it may also be that as a result of Chernobyl and other accidents they fell out of favor and didn't see as much use as other power generating methods which in absolute numbers have had a higher number of victims.


The death count is per terawatt hour of electricity generated, and nuclear currently provides 6% of all the power generation capacity in the world. Relocations were not accounted for, however if we're talking scale, slightly more people were relocated (300,000) around Chernobyl as died in Bangqiao.

But what about perceptions! People’s perception are what counts in a democracy, not the objective fact.

Your perceptions change when you receive new facts, shouldn't they?

I don't have the time at the moment to source both points I want to make, but I read them both recently while reading about nuclear power.

1 - to your point about nuclear being the most environmentally friendly, I don't see how this is true compared to wind and solar.

Nuclear power produces nuclear waste.

Nuclear power requires significant amounts of fresh water.

2 - one of the primary reasons to not build a nuclear power now is that wind and solar are actually cheaper per MWh compared to operating an existing nuclear power plant.

That being said in my opinion, highly influenced by the book Drawdown, is that we will need to build a lot of nuclear power plants in order to meet world electricity demands.


> To your point about nuclear being the most environmentally friendly, I don't see how this is true compared to wind and solar.

Pollution comes from e-waste as panels are replaced, mining/tailings and less-than-environmentally-friendly materials used to make PV panels. Most commercial PV panels are Cadmium Telluride. Cadmium is of course highly toxic and carcinogenic, and as panels get better, they're swapped out and that material has to go somewhere.

Wind, pollution comes from mining and refining rare-earth metals like neodymium that are required to make the magnets in the motors. While rare earths exist all over the world the majority are mined in China because China is willing do deal with the toxic war zone left behind [1]. E-waste is a problem in this industry too although I'd wager smaller.

> Nuclear power produces nuclear waste.

Very small amounts relative to the amount of power generated due to its sheer unparalleled energy density. A uranium fuel pellet (1/2 in. height and diameter) contains the energy equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, one ton of coal or 149 gallons of oil.

Yucca Mountain, had they opened it, would have solved this problem in perpetuity.

[1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic...


How do you safely and securely get the spent fuel to Yucca? Leaving aside accidents it seems securing the entire road or rail route would be a logistical nightmare. It would be quite a tempting target for bad actors. And a the kind of target against whom assymetric effort would yield “effective” results (for the bad actor)

Attacking any bridge or tunnel will easily create more casualties, with the added benefit(?) that they are essentially sitting ducks, unlike nuclear waste (which will move only once every few years or so, following some confidential route).

If you're aiming for maximum environmental damage, just attack an oil pipe or oil tanker at port.

I just don't see the terrorism angle for nuclear waste. There are far more juicier targets.


And far less protected ones. There's an entire department of the government dedicated to trucking this waste around, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Not to mention that stuxnet proved that we can quickly go from “look at all this desalinated water and zero carbon footprint!” to “crap, we just built tons of honeypots for state level hackers to hold our entire population hostage to the threat of nuclear meltdown triggered by sabotaged software”

That's not actually what a honeypot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)) is.

That's in computing. And it's close enough. We would probably HAVE honeypots to deter exactly this.

I agree with your frustration about the green movement's knee-jerk rejection of nuclear power, but in NZ anti-nuclear policy was a very galvanising touchpoint for the environmental and anti-war movements, so there's a bit more context there. Nuclear-free and the Springbok protests are referenced constantly as progressive wins.

"anti-nuclear" mean anti the weapons or anti the power?

both; nuclear-anything is banned in NZ

Untrue. The nuclear-free zone act specifically does not preclude nuclear power generation. The fact that it hasn’t happened is no different from most other places where it hasn’t happened. A combination of fear, nimby, cost, regulation and easier options.

Oops, looks like you're right. Wikipedia says "The nuclear-free zone Act does not prohibit nuclear power plants, nuclear research facilities, the use of radioactive isotopes, or other land-based nuclear activities."

The PET scanner next door and the cyclotron that fuels it beg to disagree.

The NZ anti-nuclear movement was mostly (but not completely) seen as a success against the US forcing their nuclear armed warships upon us (sailing into our harbours) during the cold war, and as a result making us a potential target.

In the end one of the right wing party's lawmakers voted with the left wing party, enough to pass a law, the right wing party used this as an excuse to dissolve parliament and call a national election which they resoundingly lost (the reasons this happened had more to do with the right wing party lying about the state of the economy and getting caught - but a mandate's a mandate) - we don't get nuclear weapons sailing into our country any more


I think your history is a bit off. NZ was declared nuclear-free by David Lange's government. Describing that government as "left wing" is misleading, since the nuclear-free zone was perhaps one of the few things the traditional "left" supported. His government is mostly remembered for the introduction of "Rogernomics", i.e., the introduction of neoliberalism to NZ.

No it's right on, Lange's govt was forced into "Rogernomics" noeliberalism because the previous right wing ("Muldoon") government had secretly borrowed lots of money overseas to prop up a wages and price freeze, and the country was unable to pay that money back when the rest of the world started to devalue our dollar (it went from US$1.25 to US$.50 almost overnight, and stayed that way for 20 years).

Muldoon as PM used the loss of the nuclear ships vote as an excuse to call an election, but was caught out when the chairman of the Reserve Bank came out publicly and explained what was happening to the economy, by then of course it was all too late. Nevertheless we were proud of our Nuclear Free state, even more so when the French terrorists sunk the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour (remember that the previous Labour govt had sailed NZ navy frigates into the French nuclear testing zone to protest atmospheric testing, this wasn't a new thing for Labour)


Alright, Marilyn Waring defected over a nuclear ships bill, but I don't think it passed under that government since Muldoon called an election instead. Muldoon ran the county practically as his personal socialist republic, Think Big, massive borrowing in foreign currencies, restrictions on foreign currency conversion, banking, wage and prices freezes, subsidies to farmers, generous welfare benefits, you name it. Lange's government was forced to float the dollar as their first act, since propping it up was no longer feasible. Their deregulation and privatisation had the (in hindsight) predictable effect of blowing up a bubble of leveraged property speculation, which came to a sudden end in the 1987 sharemarket crash. Good times!

Yes we agree - the Nuclear free moment led to an election, the actual law was finally passed by the new govt.

I headed off on my OE the day after Marilyn Waring crossed the floor, by the time I arrived in the US and had opened a bank account my (still in NZ) savings were worth less than half ... not a fan of the National Party 's economic savvy


> If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would have been in much better shape with respect to CO2 than we are in now.

How would New Zealand be better off with nuclear power? Keep in mind our environment. We have lots of water, plenty of sun and wind and some regions have earthquakes, including big ones in areas previously thought safe. Down here ‘we’ are doing just fine without it.


It doesn't matter what New Zealand does. There is not enough industrial production for their emissions rate and their climate is at the mercy of whatever happens in China.

I always like to refer to this chart [0] - but I also recall that nature only cares about absolute numbers.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...


While I don't really think NZ needs nucular, the solar and wind adoption here is appalling. Further, afaik water dams have pretty bad environment impact...

All human efforts have some eco footprint. Hydro dams have similar CO2 emission profiles to wind and solar, so for argument's sake, let's assume their ecological impact is lesser than that of coal or natural gas. The south island of New Zealand is almost exclusively hydro, the north island has just a little bit of coal and natgas (less than 1GW of generation in aggregate) to displace to go 100% zero carbon for electrical generation.

There is an interconnect (Cook Strait cable, 1200MW HVDC) between the islands, and the south island ships power to the north island (primarily hydro), so you can aggregate renewable generation between both islands fairly effectively and treat them together as a single system.

Electricitymap.org South island: https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=...

Electricitymap.org North island: https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=...


Nuclear power was never a practical option for NZ; the country is too small, has no fuel handy and has no nuclear expertise, and a huge chunk of power (not all of it tbf) comes from renewables already.

Fully agreed for many other countries (disappointingly Germany, most recently) but I don't think Ardern can be held to blame for them.


Another interesting paradox is Thatcher closing coal mines in the UK for not being profitable and left protesting and wanting the mines to continue saying there's always a need for it. "we want coal, not dole"

Unions? The United Auto Workers is totally supported by the left and yet they make gas guzzling cars and trucks for a living.

Do you have sources regarding the "left's irrational opposition to nuclear power"?

The left in New Zealand literally banned all forms of nuclear energy, going as far as prohibiting essentially all US Navy vessels from entering its waters just in case they had fissile material on board.

You may be unaware that this position was enshrined in legislation that has remained untouched in the last 3 decades including by conservative governments.

A couple of interesting facts: 1) the galvanising moment for this was the “Rainbow Warrior affair” in which French intelligence agents were caught after having sunk the Greenpeace vessel of the same name; 2) the nuclear-free zone act does not prohibit use of nuclear generation in NZ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone


I am aware of all these things. It is a law that will likely stay in place forever, as it is such a divisive and controversial issue, yet has barely any impact on anything in NZ, no politician will ever have a motive to take political risks required to change it. The only thing it’s ever achieved is straining the relationships NZ has with some of its closest allies.

Specifically it doesn’t prohibit all power generation, but it does prohibit nuclear propulsion. Which again has no impact outside of irritating allies, as NZ never has had and never will have a use case for commercial nuclear power production. It’s a very small country, and 80% of its electricity is already renewable.


You’re contradicting yourself. Your earlier post says “they banned all forms of nuclear energy” while now you claim to be aware that they didn’t. Given that this whole article is about energy policy (as opposed to the narrow scope regarding the existing NZ ban on nuclear armed vessels in their waters), what is your point? If 80% of its electricity is already renewable, why the drama over taking that from 80% to 100% over the next 30 years? Doesn’t sound like a huge stretch frankly.

This is a mainstream political position in NZ, not one of the "left".

It’s actually a very controversial position, implemented by a left wing government.

It's not a controversial stance within NZ these days, nor seen as particularly partisan there. Other countries (especially the US given what it meant for ANZUS) might find it more so.

It was controversial at the time, resulting in the US kicking NZ out of their security alliance (something that was of no detriment to the US), and continues to be controversial every time the topic of a US ship coming to NZ is brought up. The fact that the only outcome this policy has ever achieved is the prevention of allied navy visiting NZ is a very consistent source of controversy in NZ. To claim otherwise is simply rewriting history.

I thought it was more that NZ banned nuclear weapons and the US didn't want to confirm or deny the presence of such weapons on board any ships so they weren't able to visit.

I guess it's a manner of perspective.


The ban applies to nuclear propulsion too. Excluding a large amount of Navy vessels off the bat. The rest being excluded because Navies tend not to advertise which ships are nuclear armed. The great irony of that being that those same ships protect a lot of water that NZ exporters rely on for shipping.

> the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power

This is nonsense. In nations where opposition to nuclear power is strong (like mine, Aus), there is not a left-right divide amongst the general population. People just don't want it, end of story, irrational or not.

There is a huge divide regarding electricity supply in general here - ie. the right wants coal, the left renewables. But neither want nuclear. There have been some pro-nuclear political elite lobbies, and there is a slight rightward slant there for sure, but this is entirely ignored by the general populace, left & right alike, that just doesn't want nuclear.


As a leftist, I do concede anti-nuclear was a 60s new left thing that then went mainstream. It may not still be a leftist position today, but it was then.

Also, it does fall squarely on one side of the industrialist side of the industrialist-populist divide of the right.


Maybe I should have quoted more of the gp:

> .. that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels

My point isn't that 'leftists' (a decreasingly useful categorisation in any case) aren't anti-nuclear. It's that this anti-nuclear stance has been causally impotent in most of the nations that haven't chosen to build much nuclear capacity. Australia is a great case in point - even its 'leftist' party is very right-wing (pro-coal, pro-asylum-seeker torture, etc), yet the population, right and left alike, simply will not countenance nuclear power.

There's a great tendency for political pundits to confuse the positions and divisions of lobbyists, politicians and insiders with those of the population at large. Anyone attributing lack of nuclear capacity to 'leftists' is doing just that.


Any evidence you could link me to not that there existed "irrational opposition to nuclear" from people with left politics but that this opposition had any significant affect on the viability of nuclear power?

Nuclear Power yields some of the lowest power generation per investment of any generation type. It has basically never returned profit, costs money for thousands of years to deal with spent fuel. Not to mention the immense impact of reactor containment failure. Any argument for using Nuclear to reduce CO2 emissions is redundant when the economics, safety and alternatives (wind/solar) are taken into consideration.

France is a good examples of how nuclear power is more affordable than renewables.

Storage of waste is almost a non issue because they is just so little of it - the fuel itself is incredibly dense, so it’s really only the old concrete that takes space, and it isn’t very dangerous.


A lot of the commentary here is attacking the specifics of the bill as unrealistic posturing. This ignores what I think is the main point - that the NZ government has reached consensus acknowledging that climate change is an existential risk and they need to respond at a goverment level. The details of how they act will almost certainly be changed but it's a start. It also assists in putting pressure on Australia. This is important because Australia has a climate-change denial government and powerful coal mining lobbies, and with only 25M people generates more CO2 pollution than the UK, France, or South Korea [1][2].

[1] https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/P667%20High%20Car...

[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2...


Full digest of the bill - https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-digests...

Lots to read over, but this stuck out to me so far.

"gross emissions of biogenic methane in a calendar year are 10% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2030; and are at least 24% to 47% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2050 and for each subsequent calendar year"

"no remedy or relief is available for failure to meet the 2050 target or an emissions budget, and the 2050 target and emissions budgets are not enforceable in a court of law, except that if the 2050 target or an emissions budget is not met, a court may make a declaration to that effect, together with an award of costs"


Unless they plan to ban the consumption of meat, the biogenic methane cap seems like it would result in more emissions. If Kiwis don't grow their own beef, they will just have it shipped from abroad. Same consumption pattern, no global change in gross biogenic methane, but now there is the added emissions of shipping the beef across an ocean.

Also, I can scarcely think of a more Orwellian idea than that Kiwis may soon be required to hold a (scarce) methane permit in order to raise livestock on their own land. Your sow had a litter, ey? Hope your permits are in order!


There are other approaches to livestock methane reduction being actively investigated (and I’d suggest more promising than perennial unicorns such as carbon sequestration).

One example: https://blog.csiro.au/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-our-livestock-...


Even just feeding cows grass instead of corn improves the methane emissions.

I think corn feed is more of a US thing due to the over abundance of subsidised corn production (I’m amazed at how much of the human and animal food chain in the US is corn derived). In Australia and NZ, it’s mainly grass/hay.

There is a third option, which you have not considered - tariffs on non-conforming importers.

> Also, I can scarcely think of a more Orwellian idea than that Kiwis may soon be required to hold a (scarce) methane permit in order to raise livestock on their own land. Your sow had a litter, ey? Hope your permits are in order!

Canada operates this exact way with dairy licenses, and last time I dropped by, it wasn't an Orwellian nightmare. It's got a bit of a cronyism problem, but I've yet to see a country that doesn't.


Unfortunately it looks like just another bureaucracy with opportunity to appoint friends and supporters, but no real teeth or legal authority:

"-no remedy or relief is available for failure to meet the 2050 target or an emissions budget, and the 2050 target and emissions budgets are not enforceable in a court of law, except that if the 2050 target or an emissions budget is not met, a court may make a declaration to that effect, together with an award of costs

-a person or body may, but is not require to, take the 2050 target or an emissions budget into account in the exercise or performance of a public function, power, or duty"


It’s all about moving the dial on public sentiment which is a prerequisite for actual legislation with teeth. The last (Australian) Prime Minister to actually implement real legislation with real effects was promptly burned at the stake by the usual suspects in the media and energy lobby (thanks Rupert).

The great thing about a 31 year old target with no teeth means everyone can feel good today and no one responsible will be around if it fails.

+1. It's hard to imagine any level of success without at least specifying milestones over those 31 years.

NZ regularly tops out as one of the least corrupt nations in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

I don't know what happens in your country, but we don't appoint our friends to public sinecures


Hi Kiwi! It is par for the course here in USA :) Glad to hear its better there...now let me immigrate without million dollar investments, heh!

You're welcome, there's lots of ways to immigrate - check out the on-line points calculator - sure you can get points for investment, but you can also get points for education, specialised skills, having a job ready etc etc

We do have a socialised health system (high marginal income tax rates are still roughly 10% lower than California) - so we do tend to want you to buy into that - generally we want you healthy and younger so that statistically you'll pay into it for a bunch of years before you draw on it heavily


Several regional councils in New Zealand have also declared a "Climate Emergency" over the last year (e.g. https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113747732/c...). I appreciate the sentiment, but fear that this amounts to little more than posturing when what we need is action.

As I’ve said elsewhere, public sentiment has to be so strongly in side that it can withstand a media onslaught from the energy lobby and friends. Without the public strongly on side, any real actions will be short lived. Australian PM Gillard was the proof of that pudding.

I'd like to know how come cheapest $40k USD ($62.3k NZD) Tesla in US, cost $75.9k or about 18% more in NZ?

And come the only "incentive" is "you don't pay road tax thru fuel" (while you still pay quite a bit thru yearly registration)?

How come there are 0 electric buses or heavy equipment in Auckland or whole NZ?

How come solar panels for your boat or lithium batteries for your bike (or electric bikes themselves) cost something like 4x than outside world?

And also where are the bike paths? Or even pedestrian paths in some places? If you live in North Shore and wanna get into city using your electric motorbike (that costs 2-4x per year to keep registered when compared to a car)? Tough look.

Ah yes scooters, nearly destroyed by likes of NZHerald with fear mongering articles...

Lastly this one is more to criticise business and I actually find them vile and atrocious - but where are all the Impossible Burgers?


Yes, also keep in mind that incentive won't last long (ref: https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-modal/climatechange/elec...). Once EV's make up > 2% of NZ's vehicle fleet they plan to start charging.

Given the suitability of NZ for EV's it would be nice if there was more government support for their uptake.


While I agree that we should be incentivising EVs in NZ, I will point out that NZ is also probably one of the least suitable countries for EVs.

Most of NZ is very sparsely populated; your transport choices are basically fly or drive yourself. There isn't much of a rail network and buses take forever. There are basically no motorways. The South Island especially has a lot of mountains, and many roads that cover over high passes.

My wife and I are looking at an EV for our second car, but my primary vehicle will be an ICE for the foreseeable future. It's just hard to go camping, skiing, or even travel between the larger towns in an EV.


Utter nonsense. The longest stretch without a gas station in NZ is something like 1-2 hours. 30 minutes between a house or a farm where you'd be able to get help in an emergency.

Plus 90% of people never leave cities anyway. Finally EVs will soon have longer range than ICE's.

I am not sure what roads do you travel, but I find it's actually quite difficult to hide on NZ roads - if you wanna do something cheeky or sleep - you'll be driving long way to find something that's not private property or fenced farm. Nature is absolutely gorgeous but it's already divided and feels almost artificial (even my father joking they've put speakers in bush to make fake bird sounds).


I've been disappointed with all of that too. The only EV in any quantity here is the Nissan Leaf, used from Japan with reduced battery capacity/life.

Where I live I can't ride my bicycle to work without taking a risk higher than I'm willing to take, riding on a road without shoulders alongside milk trucks.

I looked into converting one hectare into native forest to get $4000 from the government. The cost is $20,000, and requires supervision by council and a "management plan". I became disheartened and decided to just shove poplar and willow branches in the ground and let it go wild. Government pays me $0 for taking that farmland off the market.

There are a lot of basic practical things that are holding people back who want to lower their carbon footprint, things that don't need any new innovations but just need to get done.


Oh don't get me started on how councils and Fletcher are manipulating entire NZ's real estate market.

> • Reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases except biogenic methane, to net zero by 2050

Lol more self important politicians making symbolic statements that will never be implemented. It didn't say how they do this. Go Nuclear? I guess the current politicians wont be there in 2050 so it doesn't really matter.

Good thing they import all their manufactured goods from China, so at least they dont count.


This bill seems completely aspirational and doesn’t actually change anything. It seems to codify some kind of goal but there is no way to make this goal actually happen. Am I missing something? In Westminster Democracy if you want to reduce emissions by X you need to actually introduce laws that will change people’s behaviour. This bill doesn’t do that.

Does the USA have a similar website or API that allows you to see the progress of legislature as it is passing?



This is great. Now larger countries like USA and India and China should wait for a decade or so to see how this translated to the smaller countries over a decade.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: