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
Really, how could you tell? Here’s the M-L growth figures for the last few years:
year ann inc unc
2000 1.74 0.11
2001 1.59 0.11
2002 2.56 0.11
2003 2.29 0.11
2004 1.56 0.11
2005 2.55 0.11
2006 1.69 0.11
2007 2.17 0.11
2008 1.66 0.11
At 3:11:20 I stated “An explanation of how this plot was created would be helpful”. Since there has been no answer my assumption apparently stands: this is a plot of consumption with the vertical axis multiplied by a constant to reflect CO2. I believe Mauna Loa data is a direct measurement, this data appears to be a calculation. I attach no significance to this. As an engineer I like to know what I am looking at when I compare data.
The cool summer and expected early frost in the Midwest http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/ is also delaying major harvests by 2 weeks or so, which means less energy (and therefore C02) is being used by farmers. Of course, it could also mean less food (and animal feed ) and higher prices thereby leading to mass starvation which in turn would lead to even less energy use. Yep, the plan is working alrighty!
From Rasmussen:
On climate change:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/climate_change_bill_gets_mixed_reviews
“…47% now blame it on long-term planetary trends while 36% say human activity is the cause…voters have been trending away from blaming human activity since January.”
Ron de Haan
I live in Germany, and I’ve stocked up big time on the incandescent light bulbs. The 100-watt ones are sold out here.
I think next year they are going to ban the 75 and 60 watt bulbs. I’m going to stock up on those too. These bloody nanny nags aren’t going to dictate my frigging lights! No way!
With the damn communists winning big in the local elections here yesterday, we’re headed back to the old Stasi days I sometimes fear.
Tokyoboy: The US population is 307 MM while Japan’s is 127.5 MM, 2.41 time more. The claim that our CO2 emissions double those from Japan proves that good old American ingenuity rules. The Japanese should be copying us.
Paddy:
Not taking sides in this, but get your usage of facts straight. US emissions are double those of Japan per capita, not total.
If the premise is true, then the Waman-Malarky Cap-and-Trade bill will surely work because it’s most important result is a downturn in the American economy.
Not to be critical, but I just wanted quickly to point out a grammatical error in the original post:
“But our economy continued it’s slide with layoffs…”
Should be “its,” not “it’s.” The pronoun “it” does not take the apostrophe in the possessive case. “It’s” is a contraction of “it is.”
Great blog though. It’s still #3 on my blogroll. 😉
[Reply: Fixed, thanx. ~dbstealey, moderator]
If this itty-bitty decline in CO2 emissions arose because of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, I hate to imagine what a greater reduction would portend.
anna v (04:10:58) :
And in ppms? Here is the Mauna Loa graph
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
merrily rising with the same slope.
I know this has been discussed at length before – the CO2 following temp. I had a good demonstration of this on a project in Tanzania where the only water we could take to the worksite was soda water. The first bottle virtually emptied itself in a swoosh when I took the cap off to quickly. The Mauna Loa graph would suggest that the warming we have experienced is evolving CO2 from the oceans. By the way, it is not only the US that reduced energy consumption because of the financial crisis. Europe and Japan were similarly hit and the Chinese and Indian economies did slow a few percent. If that Mauna Loa graph doesn’t at least level off soon, we might be coerced into thinking the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is also largely natural.
LOL! Has anyone noticed how much CO2 emmissions rose while Gore was VP?
More than when Bush Sr or Bush Jr. were presidents!
Look at the chart!
The perfect way to test the AGW hypothesis:
Restrict all banks from lending money for 15 years, then see if temps stops increasing. 🙂
Okay, does CO2 ppm in the atmosphere follow Industrial Output, or Temperature? From Mauna Loa:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
July, 1997 – 364.10 ppm
July, 1998 – 367.59
July, 1999 – 369.10
July, 2000 – 369.69
So, from July 97′ to July of the El Nino year 98′ we get an increase of 3.49 ppm increase.
From July of 98′ to July of the La Nina year 99′ we get an increase of only 1.51 ppm.
And, as we get “really cold” going from July 99′ to July 2000 we get a whopping 0.59 ppm increase.
And, if I remember, correctly, the economy “peaked” in late 99′, early 2000, not 1997.
I think this quote from a recent MSN Money article explains the petroleum line in the graph:
“The [U.S.] government said vehicle miles traveled in 2008 fell by about 3.6%, to 2.92 trillion miles, indicating many people adjusted their driving habits as gas prices fluctuated and the economy tumbled. The number of miles driven by motorists had risen steadily over the past three decades.”
(Source: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/how-the-recession-is-saving-lives.aspx)
Ah, Wait a minute. It just occurred to me that I cut that analysis just “a little bit green.”
In late 2000, and 2001 we were falling into recession. But, Temps were going up. So, I wonder what was affecting CO2 concentration the most? Any guesses.
July 2001 – 371.51 ppm. An Increase of 1.82 ppm
July 2002 – 373.91 ppm. An Increase of 2.40 ppm
So, to recap: July 97′ to July 2000 the economy was Expanding, Temps were Cooling, and The Increase in CO2 concentrations was Falling.
From July 2000 to July 2002 the economy was Shrinking, Temps were Rising, and the Increase in CO2 levels was Growing.
For what it’s worth.
After studying the government’s economic data and its temperature data, why would anyone trust its CO2 data? Practically every number to come out of the murky government boiler rooms these days shows evidence of having been statistically “cooked” in favor of one agenda or another.
Wait until you see what the boys and girls in Washington have in mind for the upcoming census! No more of that primitive “count every head” foolishness this time around!
CH
One interesting things is that after gasoline prices really started to rise after 2004, fuel economy declined. Despite basically flat total volume for driving and improvement in the overall fleet fuel economy rating (the EPA rating is pretty stable and improved over the prior 10 years considered a typical life for a car). After 2005 truck and SUV sales dropped off and the rating of vehicles sold improved. The vehicles sold since then should have had higher ratings than the vehicles scrapped/donated/exported during the same period.
I think the decline in efficiency has a lot to do with the Slow is Efficient Myth. It was probably exacerbated by cellphone use, aging population, and falling testosterone levels.
Engines actually operate more efficiently at higher loads and moderately high RPM (around 3 or 4 thousand RPM for gasoline vehicles and 1500-2000 for diesel). Like any vehicle, acceleration will be most efficient with a high payload or with quick acceleration to create a load. A truck’s acceleration efficiency will be good with a high load and slow/moderate acceleration. If the load is light, efficiency is best with faster acceleration to create a load. (Less fuel per mile will be used with ligher loads during cruising. What’s economical depends entirly on the value of the load. Vehicle weight is probably a waste, cargo and passangers not.)
Same with cars.
Fast acceleration is actually more efficient. Fast acceleration means better fuel efficiency during acceleration and less time spent accelerating, greater throughput at intersections and other bottlenecks, and higher average speeds and lower top speeds.
In addition, depending on how frequent stops are, higher cruising speeds are generally more efficient up until about 55-60mph (for and average vehicle, see EPA).
It’s not making use of the power we buy that is ineffecient, not the actual desire for more power (though increasing vehicle weight to get more power could lead to lower efficiency if most time is spent cruising).
Here are some more insights into what happened in 2008.
Wonderful news. James Lovelock will be delighted.
Did anyone inform Greenpeace yet ?
Bring on the recession.
@Ron de Haan: peak oil is here, limits to growth were predicted in 1973 for ….
right about now.
CO2, the gas of life.
This link provides visual evidence of the beneficial effects of CO2 in plant growth, a key property to feed the world and an interesting report about our climate:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-skeptical-paper-from-germany-big.html
In short: Lower CO2 levels = BAD, Higher CO2 levels is GOOD
The same general trend continues in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Let’s use March, since we know there’s a bit of a lag time at Mauna Loa.
Mar, 2007 – 384.42 ppm concentration
Mar, 2008 – 385.96 ppm
Mar, 2009 – 388.77 ppm
So, as we fell off the El Nino and started to cool, amid stable economic conditions in 2007, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased by 1.54 ppm, YOY.
Then, in the later months of 2008, as the economy deteriorated, and Temps started to rise, CO2 concentrations shot up by 2.81 ppm, YOY.
It’s looking like it’s “Temps,” to me.
Pierre Gosselin (09:56:27) :
Ron de Haan
I live in Germany, and I’ve stocked up big time on the incandescent light bulbs. The 100-watt ones are sold out here.
I think next year they are going to ban the 75 and 60 watt bulbs. I’m going to stock up on those too. These bloody nanny nags aren’t going to dictate my frigging lights! No way!
With the damn communists winning big in the local elections here yesterday, we’re headed back to the old Stasi days I sometimes fear.
Pierre Gosselin (09:56:27) :
Ron de Haan
“I live in Germany, and I’ve stocked up big time on the incandescent light bulbs. The 100-watt ones are sold out here.
I think next year they are going to ban the 75 and 60 watt bulbs. I’m going to stock up on those too. These bloody nanny nags aren’t going to dictate my frigging lights! No way!
With the damn communists winning big in the local elections here yesterday, we’re headed back to the old Stasi days I sometimes fear”.
Pierre,
You are correct.
Germany is lost (again) and it won’t take long before they hit rock bottom.
We know what happens then.
So if there is any chance to leave the country (and that goes for the whole of Europe)
just do it and take your chances somewhere else.
There are still countries in this world where you live the good life and make some money.
If you want to know more, send me an e-mail: rondehaan (at) safesteel.eu
Carbon dioxide isn’t the culprit in global warming. It’s actually the fault of the Post Office: click
The take home message from this – rising CO2 = a healthy economy, reduce it and we slip back into a recession, then depression and possibly another world war, like what happened at the end of the last depression.
The countries that have reduced their CO2 emmissions the most? Those paradises on Earth, where everyone wants to emigrate to – Burundi, Afghanistan and Somalia
Regarding Kum Dollision “So, as we fell off the El Nino and started to cool, amid stable economic conditions in 2007, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased by 1.54 ppm, YOY.
Then, in the later months of 2008, as the economy deteriorated, and Temps started to rise, CO2 concentrations shot up by 2.81 ppm, YOY.”
So that would be Sea Surface temps correct? I find your observations very interesting. What else can you think of that would explain the observations?
Is it clear that SSTs leads the atmosphere? Is more study of this worthy?
Actually, David, I was using the UAH numbers for atmospheric temperatures. From here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
You know, you bring up an interesting point. There’s about a three month lag (IIRC) between atmospheric temps, and CO2 concentrations rising more quickly/slowly.
If atmospherica temps follow Sea Surface Temps that presents a bit of a question, doesn’t it?