From vancouverobserver.com.
Every year the International Energy Agency (IEA) calculates humanity’s CO2 pollution from burning fossil fuels. And once again, the overall story line is one of ever-increasing emissions:
“Global carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011.”
The world has yet to figure out how to stop the relentless increase in climate pollution. But mixed in with all the bad news there was one shining ray of hope. One of the biggest obstacles to climate action may be shifting. As the IEA highlighted:
“US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector … and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector.”
The graph:
How big is a cut of 430 million tonnes of CO2? It’s equal to all CO2 from all Canadians outside Alberta. From a US perspective, it’s equal to eliminating the combined emissions of ten western states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada.
==============================================================
From the IEA, the USA is clearly not the problem:
India’s emissions rose by 140 Mt, or 8.7%, moving it ahead of Russia to become the fourth largest emitter behind China, the United States, and the European Union. Despite these increases, per-capita CO2 emissions in China and India still remain just 63% and 15% of the OECD average respectively.
CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 Mt, or 1.7%, primarily due to ongoing switching from coal to natural gas in power generation and an exceptionally mild winter, which reduced the demand for space heating. US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector (linked to efficiency improvements, higher oil prices and the economic downturn which has cut vehicle miles travelled) and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector. CO2 emissions in the EU in 2011 were lower by 69 Mt, or 1.9%, as sluggish economic growth cut industrial production and a relatively warm winter reduced heating needs. By contrast, Japan’s emissions increased by 28 Mt, or 2.4%, as a result of a substantial increase in the use of fossil fuels in power generation post-Fukushima.
===============================================================
The USA unintentionally achieved Copenhagen style reductions through a combination of economic factors, a change to natural gas, and some dumb luck. It has nothing to do with listening to the shrill whining of people like Bill McKibben and Joe Romm, and the politicians who repeat that shrillness.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Take home message:
CO2 emissions reductions in the “Western World” – Europe, USA, Australia, Canada, etc. – will not play a significant role in worldwide CO2 emissions reductions, let alone contribute to achieving a reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This message needs to be repeated loud and clear.
People need to get used to a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm and higher. And get on with trying to solve real problems.
Kurt in Switzerland
yes: as a great and worshiped commentator on alll things polluting and economic i hereby decree that the best way to reduce all global warming is DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
buncha f@ur momisugly#$%n morons.
C
Unintentionally? I think the transfer of jobs and wealth to China was intentional.
Hansen/EPA: Kill Coal
China: Welcome to China millions of manufacturing jobs.
Hopefully with a change in Administration this November we can reverse this decrease. Cutting EPA regulations and a more friendly business climate may start up the American economy.
The Scientists at Princeton University at the beginniing of the 21st Century established by measurement that North America is a NET CARBON SINK, bio-sequestering more CO2 then Man and Nature emit combined, in North America. This is also true to a much lesser extent in South America too.
The EPA’s one sided estimates of Man’s 3% or so of CO2 emmisions never include any bio-sequestration figures. Not all of it is Natural forest and grassland bio-sequestration either. America’s farmers plant crops which bio-sequestrate as they grow. So do the managed, replanted forests and woodlots of the forest products and paper making companies.
Only the greens who go out of their way to not include this data in a purposely misinformative campaign, do not know that,while lying to themselves. America, the Exceptional Nation, showed that its advanced industrial civilization can coexist with out polluting the environment as its Air grows increasingly cleaner, its Waters are now essentially clean, and its GHGs emissions are more than completely handled.
The USA unintentionally achieved Copenhagen style reductions through a combination of economic factors, a change to natural gas, and some dumb luck. It has nothing to do with listening to the shrill whining of people like Bill McKibben and Joe Romm, and the politicians who repeat that shrillness.
I was under the impression, Anthony, that you did not believe that the burning of fossil fuels, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere, was even a concern at all. Reading this post by you drives me to ponder this question: In your opinion, is burning fossil fuels, and thereby increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (ceteris paribus), a good thing, a bad thing, or doesn’t matter?
I have a good idea how Bill McKibben and Joe Romm would answer that, but after this I don’t know how you would.
Yep, when people don’t have the money to go anywhere they stay home. Duh.
I wonder why I don’t see any ‘green’ technology mentioned as a factor in achieving lower emissions…
And mild winter being a substantial factor? I guess we need more global warming to help us reduce emissions, then…
jayhd says:
June 5, 2012 at 11:09 am
Hopefully with a change in Administration this November we can reverse this decrease. Cutting EPA regulations and a more friendly business climate may start up the American economy.
__________________________________
Make that killing US bureaucracies and burying them instead of burying CO2. Much better for the USA, the world and plants too.
Look at the dip in 2009. The CRASH drove that!
Energy use = economic activity
economic activity = jobs
Lower energy use = less economic activity
less economic activity = fewer jobs
When enough people are out of jobs, that’s when “civil unrest” starts. That’s when countries start eying each other’s resources with a view to taking them by force. That’s when people can’t feed their kids. That’s when everything bad about human history starts to take root, and kills in numbers that climate change alarmists cannot seem to fathom. Dropping energy consumption is a bad thing. A very, Very, VERY bad thing.
“And mild winter being a substantial factor”
Ironically, it was an extremely harsh winter in the USA that year, and yet the USA did better than Europe. I think they are just making stuff up as they go along, half the time.
Hmm….. dumb luck? Dumb, certainly. Luck? The mild winter probably didn’t have anything to do with carbon emission decreases. Recall the mild winter also accelerated the spring highering and working. You know, that fabulous 1.9% increase in the GDP we saw last winter.
It’s simply reflective of the horrible economic experience we’re having, and will continue to have until people realize we need wealth creation. We don’t need to fiddle with our tax code up or down. That just moves money around. We don’t have any money to move around.
Yea! Large scale unemployment is the answer!!
Just put 25% of employable teenagers on the street corner instead of working, force lots of baby boomers to retire early because they can’t find a job after being laid off, make the job market so tight that millions simply give up looking for work and stay home living on unemployment or their still working spouse, and keep about 8+% of the employable adult population out of work so they sit at home instead of buying fuel to get to work. Then jack fuel prices so folks plan on staying home instead of driving or flying someplace for vacation and you dramatically cut fuel use for transportation.
Oh wait that is not a good idea.
/sarc
Larry
Map this against unemployment brought on by democrats elected in 2006
Every month I get a publication from LLNL called Science & Technology Review…it came today, and you know what the cover story is? “Investigating the Mysteries of Climate Change, Computer models provide insights to Earth’s climate future.”
I’m afraid to read it.
Stas Peterson says:
The Scientists at Princeton University at the beginniing of the 21st Century established by measurement that North America is a NET CARBON SINK, bio-sequestering more CO2 then Man and Nature emit combined, in North America.
Measuring is rather different from estimating or calculating. There dosn’t appear to be any mention of measurement in the IEA article.
Gail, I stand corrected.
Stas Peterson says:
June 5, 2012 at 11:13 am:
Sirrah, i hate to say it, but some parts of the country have pretty dirty water in the rivers, streams and estuaries.
a friend of mine was preparing the battle ship iowa for tow at the mothball fleet anchorage and they tried to sound the water around the ship. once the tape measure with a plumbob got a couple of feet below the surface of the water they couldn’t see it for the gunk in the water. mind you this is in the area where the nitwits and politicians are in full cry about saving the critters, ugly looking fish and various miscreants from the “bitter clingers” who pose a terrible threat to their way of life and entitlement payments.
C
In regards to the question by Phil C: Is burning fossil fuels a good thing, a bad thing or irrelevant? It is obviously an extremely wonderful thing. Perhaps you meant to ask if the c o 2 emitted from burning fossil fuels was good bad or irrelevant. in my opinion, increasing c o 2 is a good thing right now. the climate change from CO 2 is likely too small to measure and plant fertilization is obviously good.
I do not believe that Anthony was expressing an opinion about the u s meeting some arbatrary goals. I think he was just trying to head off Joe Romm from taking credit for it
Exceptionally mild winter? Winter 2010-2011 was another cold one in the USA. Spring was late, cold and wet with farmers planting very, very late. Winter 2011-2012 admittedly was very mild in the USA compared to the previous three. But I wouldn’t necessarily expect a comparable repeat of this recent mild winter until after the next solar minimum ends.
Phil C said (June 5, 2012 at 11:15 am)
“…In your opinion, is burning fossil fuels, and thereby increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (with other things the same), a good thing, a bad thing, or doesn’t matter?…”
First, thank you for forcing me to look up ceteris paribus (and I edited your reply to add the definition).
By adding that clarifier you add a whole new depth to your question.
You now imply that there are other items that can have an effect on the climate, and ask about CO2, with all other factors being equal or held constant.
What you should be asking is: “If the U.S. continues their decrease of CO2 emissions while China and India increase theirs, (and thereby increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere), is that a good thing, a bad thing, or doesn’t matter?”
People have been saying that the U.S. should “take the lead” in reducing their emissions.
Looks like they have. Question is, will the rest of the world follow suit?
Jayhd: Don’t count on Romney to change anything. My betting is that he will make the EPA even worse.
EPA is VERY GOOD for big corporations and the financial sector. It’s murderous to small business and actual humans.
Now this is an article about oil. US per capita oil consumption is down 16% since 2005, essentially due to a flat oil supply and surging Chinese demand. The Chinese (and other emerging economies) are simply bidding our oil consumption away. In early 2008, I forecast this trend at a 1.5% annual reduction in US oil consumption, and we are right on trend.
This decline shoiuld not be construed as a virtue. It depresses activity, with 1 car in 7 and 1 airline departure in 3 missing compared to trend. I would argue that it is the primary reason the US and European economies continue to struggle.
sunshinehours1 says:
June 5, 2012 at 11:03 am
Unintentionally? I think the transfer of jobs and wealth to China was intentional.
Hansen/EPA: Kill Coal
China: Welcome to China millions of manufacturing jobs.
Coal is far from dead. In fact it is an important US export to places like China. There are more coal-related US jobs presently than there have been in some time. The real killer of coal jobs in the US has been the gradual shift to natural gas for power generation (more recently) and to petroleum including gasoline and diesel from about the end of the 19th century onward. Also, there has been much lower steel production since we now use a majority of recycled steel where steel is needed. That has put a huge crimp in iron mining, and steel refining which relies on coal for coke and consequently reduced domestic demand for coal in that sector as well. Manufacturing jobs are a completely different story.
The US Copenhagen Pledge stated that the US would reduce CO2 emissions by 17% by 2020 **IF** Congress passed legislation requiring it. Since Congress has not and will not pass such legislation there is, in fact, no pledge. The pledge is no more the cause of the drop in emission than CO2 is the cause of CAGW.