The Monthly Energy Review for August 2009 has been published by the US Energy Information Administration and it has some interesting CO2 production data which you can see here in tabular form.
I’ve graphed the data of interest in two separate graphs. First we have the annual plot of “Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Fossil Fuel Consumption by Source” with data to the end of 2008 for the USA:
Note that in 2008 a significant drop was seen in total CO2 produced. Corresponding to the drop is a drop in CO2 produced by petroleum, which seems to indicate that high gasoline prices last year which contributed to less miles driven, may have been the dominant factor.
The Department of Transportation notes in U.S. Traffic Volume Trends:
Cumulative Travel for 2008 changed by -3.6% (-107.9 billion vehicle miles). The Cumulative estimate for the year is 2,921.9 billion vehicle miles of travel.
Gas prices receded though in late 2008 and into 2009. But our economy continued its slide with layoffs, store closings, and less demand for durable goods during that same period.
The graph above compares USA CO2 output by source for the first 5 months of 2008 and 2009. As you’d expect, there is a seasonal drop in coal and natural gas related to less heating requirements, but there remains significant offsets compared to the same months in 2009 for petroleum and coal use. With the severe winter and cool spring seen in much of the US eastern areas with the heaviest population, one might expect increased demand for heating. In fact, this EIA report shows that average heating degree days from 2008 to 2009 tripled, with significant jumps in the east, Midwest, Great Lakes, and New England.
With heating demand actually went up in the first 5 months of 2009, one explanation for this 2008 to 2009 drop in CO2 production could be our sagging economy. With less demands for durable goods, manufacturing and transport are reduced. This affects coal due to lowered electricity demands and petroleum is less for for lowered goods transport. Unemployment may also figure in lowering petroeum usage due to less daily commuting.
I found it interesting that despite all the eco-pronouncements of reducing fossil fuel use, the one thing that appears to have made a significant difference is our sagging economy.
The EIA web page with additional reports is available here
Hm…. the US CO2 emission per capita still exceeds that of Japan by a factor of more than 2, but there’s no need at all to worry about this benign gaseous compound.
There is clearly a direct correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and the performance of the economy. The same can not be said of CO2 and the perceived global temperature.
Second plot extends through May 2009. Since then, natural gas use for power generation is down, due to cold summer temperatures and reduced air conditioniing, especially in the East.
This is a fearless “prediction” based on rock bottom natural gas prices and high storage volumes.
In Japan, the amount of emitted CO2 has been perfectly proportional to GDP for the period 1987-2006, where national energy efficiency has invariably been improved and innumerable energy efficient commodities have been put in the market. This unambiguously shows that Japan has been “saturated” to allow no energy saving measures to contribute to CO2 curbing.
As usual I have to be skeptical. This is a nifty estimate, produced by a pro-AGW theory administration especially for the AGW army looking at Copenhagen.
Personally I wonder why gasoline consumption only recently started dropping. My travel tourism related businesses started falling in half in 2004 about the time of Katrina, as gas prices were speculated skyward. When prices hit $4.30 a gallon for the second summer in a row, business was at 25% of 2003. There was permanent demand erosion as people changed driving habits, eliminated non-essential travel, and bought high gas mileage cars. This might be anecdata, but I have books to back it up at least regionally.
Likewise, where is the erosion in coal use? Our industrial base is (was) a huge user of electricity. As they have shipped jobs to China et al, electric consumption is off significantly. It takes a lot less power for a guy to sit at home collecting unemployment watching Days of our Lives than when he was running a CNC welder at work in a big factory. I mean Michigan, IL, IN, and WI used to have huge car industries. Now we have huge unemployment, and about 2/3 of our power is from coal.
Between that and the near impossibility of licensing a coal fired power plant in the last 5 years and green meanies forcing existing plants to convert to gas, there should be permanent and significant erosion in the coal line, followed by a big drop for the last year of the chart (2008) when unemployment really took off. Next year coal should plummet as our 9-25% unemployment rate drops industrial power usage significantly.
It also does not show up in the current readings from Mauna Loa. Yes the industrialized nations overseas figure in, but there should still be a drop if the basis of this graph verified, the depression/recession that they highlight is indeed global. Mauna Loa CO2 continues to rise unabated. Something is fishy here, I think that I smell a hockey stick.
Call me a NASA trained skeptic, but I have to question the graph after all of the other government sponsored Blue Sky that we have been issued in the name of AGW. Maybe it is getting a little Pavlovian automatically questioning everything, but I have my doubts about this estimate.
CO2 emissions level since 2004 and down the last year or two! Does this mean that atmospheric CO2 has leveled off or is going down?
If not, why not?
This may be a great test of reducing CO2 output & its effect on atmospheric CO2.
Thanks
JK
Qatar leads the world in CO2 production per capita. Followed by other oil and gas producing states. The USA has the highest per capita CO2 production* amoungst developed countries although closely followed by Australia and then Canada next with a somewhat lower emissions rate.
Which probably proves large countries use more energy.
Canada has the highest per capita energy consumption of the developed countries due to its cold climate, but gets a large proportion of its energy from hydro and nuclear So its CO2 emissions are below the USA and Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Of course these figures aren’t net CO2 emissions which would show an entirely different picture. They exclude things like biomass changes in countries.
* Tiny Luxembourg in fact has the highest per capita CO2 emissions amoungst developed countries due to the fact they are also world’s largest steel producer on a per capita basis
Energy consumption per dollar of GDP has declined steadily over a number of decades at at about 0.6% per annum. This is true of all developed economies.
There is no evidence that Kyoto, Carbon Trading, etc has had any effect on this rate of decline in energy consumption per unit of GDP, except to the extent these measures have pushed energy intensive industries, such as steel, out of developed countries into developing countries where incidentally substantially more energy is used to produce the same amount of steel because of inferior technology.
Overall the only real effect of Kyoto and Carbon Trading is to move energy consumption from developed countries to developing countries and likely increasing overall CO2 emissions in the process.
Am I correct in assumeing that plot 1 is consumption with the vertical scale changed to reflect CO2? I can see how conversion of coal would be close to a constant as it is mostly burned. Petroleum is, however, used for many purposes. An explaination of how this plot was created would be helpful.
Are you suggesting CO2 caused the recession?
If so, I smell a grant….
Cape Cod helps with C02 reduction…or something.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/30/boston-globe-now-teds-out-way-hurry-cape-cod-wind-farm
“The approval could make Massachusetts the trailblazer of a power source that is an essential part of the country’s strategy to address global warming and to achieve energy security”
Great to read the comments posted there:
“Once again the Boston Globe leaves out the facts. Hopefully, the Obama’s now know the ugly truth about this project that the Globe is afraid to print. First, according to the MMS, it will double electric rates. This is after over $70,000,000 a year in federal and state subsidies.”
JimB
“Fuel duty to rise from midnight”
The British government seems hell bent on worsening the UKs economic woes in the name of saving the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8230185.stm
For those accross the pond, this will give you an idea of how much we pay.
http://www.petrolprices.com/blog/budget-will-fuel-tax-go-up-again-116.html
“A driver spending £25 a week on fuel spends around £1,300 a year at the pumps – £882.93 of which is tax. Another 2p rise would bring the average driver’s total spend on fuel tax to £911.76 a year.”
1,300.00 British pounds sterling = 2,115.54 US dollars
Exchange rate: 1.627339
Rate valid as of: 31/8/2009
Exchange rate from Expedia.co.uk. Tax equivalent to 1,436.83 US dollars.
We had better be careful as the powers that be might decide that destroying the economy is the desirable thing to do to prevent “Global Warming”… But wait…..
Thank you Tokyoboy for that clarification. The real secret revealed for getting rid of all those pesky CO2 molecules: destroy the economy – problem solved. Now that’s simple science!
Now if atmospheric CO2 concentrations keep rising while human emissions are demonstrably falling, then that would be the clinching argument.
We will have to wait this one out.
And in ppms?
Here is the Mauna Loa graph
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
merrily rising with the same slope.
One more proof that the A in AGW is miniscule. And they want to cut even more of this miniscule contribution .
Self immolation of the West.
Well, I suppose that proves the AGW point that if we trash the global economy, and standard of living, we can save the planet from that nasty old CO2, and thereby live in happy communion and harmony with all the forest critters.
It seems clear from the correlation that if we want the economy to improve we to need to produce more CO2, but many can’t afford to turn up the heat or drive a few extra miles every day, so we need some low cost options.
Since I cut my own wood, I can start my wood stove earlier than usual (as long as I open the doors and windows.)
We all could start burning our non-toxic trash in the backyard. (The local fire departments will gladly grant permits as a trade off of fire risk versus national and global economic benefits.)
Now we know where the recent global cooling comes from!
Tokyoboy,
“… innumerable energy efficient commodities …” How about you name just 5 major energy efficiencies will pay for themselves, cradle to grave, cheaper than traditional large scale fossil/nuclear.
There is a general problem with CO2 emissions taxes. The collected taxes will be given to people who will immediatly want to spend them on more electricity/gas/petrol. It is very hard to spend windfall money without increasing CO2 emissions to the air. I think you are agreeing with me in a roundabout way.
tokyoboy
Japan has a more moderate climate, thus less energy consumption for heating/cooling. Japan is much smaller, thus less energy consumption for transportation. US per capita GDP is higher, thus more energy consumption to produce the extra goods and services.
Japanese homes/cars are much smaller – very cramp indeed – thus yet less energy consumption.
Of course Americans could scale back their standard of living to that of Japan, where everybody is cramped in small spaces or stuffed into subways like sardines.
It really does get down to standard of living.
Personally I think USA ought to open its borders to allow millions of japanese to come to the USA. This would alleviate Japanese overcrowding and at the same time increase the supply of highly skilled and disciplined workers.
Demographics also play a role in energy consumption. Old folks consume less energy.
The data clearly show that recessions cause lower CO2 emissions.
Soon we may have data (thanks to cap & tax) to show that lower CO2 emissions cause recessions. 🙂
So if the production of CO2 has gone down, what have the measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere done? Have they gone down also or are they still on the rise?
The strategy works!
If we wreck the economy, CO2 levels go down.
This is a huge success.
Let’s continue.