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
So this is a measurement (however conducted) of US production of C02.
It would really be interesting to see if this has any effect on atmospheric concentration, and what the time lag is between the two.
And if reduced economic activity can be seen in declining production of C02, will a forced decline in energy use prove similarly to reduce economic activity? I suspect it will.
tokyoboy (01:50:23) :
“where national energy efficiency has invariably been improved and innumerable energy efficient commodities have been put in the market.”
Japan has much more motivation for this since they have to import almost all their energy (in comparison to the US which has relatively abundant resources).
If someone was motivated, you could probably put together some sort of model for the effect of cap n trade on the economy, given target levels of CO2, using the data above as a real world guideline. I am sure the results would be ugly.
Both Japan’s energy consumption and its economy is chaotic. In fact, viewed through the energy lens, the Japanese economy looks like it’s self-destructing.
US oil consumption is down about 10% from peak, and most of this was accomplished in less than a year. It demostrates that such energy savings through conservation are possible in a year–at the expense of 6 million jobs.
For those interested in trade-offs between economy and climate in oil policy, I might recommend an article I have written: “Oil: What Price can America Afford?” Find it, for example, here: http://www.dw-1.com/…/438-06-09_-_Research_Note_-_Oil_-_What_Price_can_America_Afford_-_DWL_website_version.pdf
Moderate weather seems to be a big factor in emisisons as well. A warmer winter means less fossil fuels burned for heating. A cooler summer means less fossil fuels burned for a/c.
tokyoboy,
Rather than saying the market has been ‘saturated’ and is allowing no new energy saving measures, I think it shows what many have speculated all along…
Mans efforts to control his overall emissions of CO2 are pathetically small despite any news stories that would make you think otherwise. Incredible amounts of fossil fuels are consumed annually and extremely small reductions have been achieved on a global basis. Despite all the money spent so far on Energy Star appliances, cap and trade schemes, PV panels installed and windmills erected. All that effort, all those dollars spent, don’t amount to the proverbial ‘hill of beans’ outcome. A quarter million new souls are added to this planet daily. Each of them needs food, shelter and warmth/cooling.
Its a good thing that excess CO2 abounds right now to increase the crop yield necessary to feed them all. Its also a good thing that the excess CO2 is most likely highly benign in its effects on the climate despite what the news may have you convinced otherwise.
It appears only something as huge as a global recession is able to dent emissions, and then only by ~5% percent this last year… Can you imagine what it would take to reduce growth to less than zero and return it to pre-industrial levels? Total economic destruction for 7 billion people, maybe?
On the other hand, maybe the reduction is due to less air conditioning demand as the world has turned cooler for the last decade. Maybe the cooler oceans have begun absorbing some additional CO2 this last decade, as well. I remain convinced it is too early to confirm anything, yet.
J2
Reductions:
– less air traffic
– less car miles
– less transport
– less shipping
– less industrial emissions
– less air conditioning due to cold summer
– less electricity generation
It’s so Anti American
And the CO2 absorption capacity (bio, etc..) is 1,000X that of Japan, for we enjoy millions of square miles of habitat, whereas Japan is how big?
I have a tough time with these kinds of graphs and estimates. All guesses…
If we have a cooler than average winter, no doubt the alarmists will claim that reduction in CO2 caused it and thus the need for stringent rules and higher taxes. Maybe recessions are good for us?
Something about if you do or don’t?
These are calculated amounts. Can the reduction in CO2 be seen in world CO2 atmospheric levels? What would the lag time of that be?
How to continue the current “success”?
What about a 200 dollar per barrel price for oil in 2010!
http://masterresource.org/?p=4410
And by Creating Catastrophe:
http://ihatealgore.com/?p=886
Putting wacko’s in charge also helps:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamas-green-jobs-czar-enviro-wacko-and.html
The global cooling must have more to do than the slump of the economy.
I am curious about how much of a reduction, % wise, this represents of our “reduction goals based on XXXX year?” and how much of a global CO2 drop there was because of this dip in US output.
My point is to see if the reduced CO2 showed up on the annual increase as a smaller increase or even a decrease. If there is a reduction in the annual increase, then perhaps there is a cause and effect relationship with human activity and CO2 emissions. If there is no reduction, or only a minor one, then the causal relationship is not significant enough to warrant disruption of our global economy.
My assumption is that this won’t even show up at all, which will absolutely debunk the notion that reductions in Americas and for that matter, global CO2 output will in any way affect the atmospheric CO2 concentrations and by extension of the AGW theory, have any affect(sp) on climate change.
Matt
Other related madness:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/08/klaus-buy-lots-of-light-bulbs-on-monday.html
This is an empirical test of the hypothesis that to reduce CO2 output means reducing wealth.
The recession certainly has something to do with reduced CO2, but there is another major point. Much less CO2 is emitted due to fuel substitution due to very low natural gas prices, which are below $3 per million Btu in current dollars. Inflation adjusted, this is very low indeed. Adam Smith-type stuff. Far more supply than demand will do that.
CNG and LNG instead of gasoline or diesel; natural gas instead of coal. And of course, wind-power instead of natural gas, for example, Texas producing approximately 3 percent of its power via wind on average. That’s a lot of power in a very big state.
OPEC is desperately trying to maintain the price of oil above $70 per barrel. But today China decreased gasoline and diesel prices, causing oil to drop around the world. The only thing helping OPEC in their price struggle is Obama’s inflationary policies. One must wonder how much longer OPEC will accept ever-more worthless dollars for their oil.
Ah, the Grand Game. Place your bets, folks, there’s fortunes to be made here. And it is not by betting that oil will skyrocket due to some peaking issue brought about by a shortage of oil.
Isn’t this number (CO² emmission) calculated directly from the amount of fuel sold? I do not believe that it is yet (and could ever be so) the amount of CO² measured in the atmosphere above the US.
If so then it would have to be a direct measure of economic performance. I use that word guardedly.
It is unproper just to mention these figures, as these would something to do with climate. BTW there are lacking more curves: How much CO2 you americans have exhaled, how much CH4 cattle have expelled from their back ends…and, last but not least, the prophet´s profits curve.
Anna V. gave the Answer with her Mauna Loa graph.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
CO2 levels, worldwide, continued upwards, unphased.
Looks like good propaganda. That is of course unless co2 follows temperature
Gasoline consumption in 2008 was down near 4% vs 2007, probably due to high prices. 2009 is down another 3%, probably due mainly to the economy. Diesel use is down 10% or so ytd 2009 vs 2008, and that is almost certainly the economy – a lot less trucking being done. Electrical consumption is also down a few % in 2009, which would account for the drop in coal use. In Q1 and Q2 the drop in electricity was probably the economy. Since then cooling degree days has also been down modestly, while nuke capacity has remained high. There has surely been some switch from coal to NG, but that is a smaller contribution. Murray
Mauna Loa tells a different story, I go for Mauna Loa.
Thanks Anna V.
Anthony, with this article I understand that Temperature follows CO2 and that man-made global warming is indeed happening.
You can’t really say that CO2 follows temperature because from previous articles you’ve showed us a 800years lap difference.
The Economy had nothing to do with CO2 levels going down, haven’t you also told us in here how much more CO2 China produces every year?
REPLY: You are confused. These aren’t air samples of CO2, they are based on calculations of combustion output from volume usage of the materials, and only for the USA, not for China, not for the wrold. – Anthony
I am reminded of Patrick Michaels’ fun and useful statistic developed here in which he calculates that we would need to remove/reduce CO2 emissions by 1,767,250 mmt to lessen warming by 1 deg. C–if the IPCC models are correct.
Elimination of all US emissions (assuming a new average of 450 mmt/ month) would save a bit over 0.00025 deg C warming per month. If we Americans deny ourselves all fossil fuels for the next 20 years, we could prevent almost 0.06 degrees of AGW. Economic, cultural and political devastation would be a small price to pay to provide 6 one-hundredths of a degree relief to Mother Earth.