How Would You Cut The Nation's Carbon Emissions?

Ever wondered what it would take to reduce your country's CO2 footprint? Well, the Guardian newspaper came up with this interactive calculator to give you a chance to find out. It's based on the UK's economy but, obviously, the same principles should apply anywhere, just with a different mix.

Of course, once you've come up with the new targets, you've got to figure out how you'd achieve them, and what the consequences of your actions would be. For example, in cutting 23% from our footprint, I decided to close down 8 coal fired power stations, whilst increasing wind, solar, wave and tidal power substantially. The closure of coal stations would mean job losses in the power-stations and mines but be partly offset by jobs from the renewable energy.

There's no doubt reducing emissions would cause pain but it would be good for us all in the long term. As Stern Review said in 2006, cutting carbon emissions will be painful and expensive, but not nearly as painful and expensive as just letting global warming go unchecked.

It won't all be pain though. Renewables would improve a nation's fuel security, so they wouldn't be hostage to supplier nations (such as we've had from the oil and gas producing countries), and would be insulated to a degree from fuel price fluctuations (which will be an increasing problem in the next few years).

Renewables also offer the potential for many thousands of new jobs in those countries that invest in their renewables industry.

So, instead of seeing carbon cuts as as a threat, we should see them as an opportunity.