I graphed the EIA data, shown below. What is most interesting is that this is market driven, not mandate driven.
Amazing Shale: US CO2 Emissions Plummet Towards 1990 Levels
by John Hanger (via The GWPF)
America’s carbon emissions may drop back close to 1990 levels this year. That result would have been thought impossible, even at the end of 2011. But the shale gas revolution makes a reality of many things recently thought impossible. Shale gas production has slashed carbon emissions and saved consumers more than $100 billion per year. Truly astonishing!
For US energy-related carbon emissions, fuel switching to gas is back to the future. After the first quarter, the USA’s 2012 emissions are falling sharply again and may drop to 1990 levels, or just slightly above that important milestone, according to data in EIA’s latest Monthy Energy Review.
America’s energy related carbon emissions fell about 7.5%, during the first three months of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011. And first quarter 2012 emissions are approximately 8.5% lower than emissions in the first quarter of 2010.
Total energy carbon emissions were 5,473 million tons in 2011 and last year fell below the 1996 mark of 5,501 million tons.
The first quarter 2012 reduction of 7.5% makes it possible that this year emissions will fall back essentially to the 1990 level of 5,039 million tons. That is shockingly good news.
The 1990 level of carbon emissions is an important measuring stick, as it is often used as a critical data point for judging progress in reducing a nation’s carbon emissions.
Why are US carbon emissions plummeting back to 1990 levels?
First and foremost are sharp reductions from electric power production, as a result of fuel switching from coal to gas, rising renewable energy production, and increasing efficiency. Yet, the shale gas revolution, and the low-priced gas that it has made a reality, is the key driver of falling carbon emissions, especially in the last 12 months.
As of April, gas tied coal at 32% of the electric power generation market, nearly ending coal’s 100 year reign on top of electricity markets. Let’s remember the speed and extent of gas’s rise and coal’s drop: coal had 52% of the market in 2000 and 48% in 2008.
Apart from power production, reductions of carbon emissions from the transportation sector since 2007 are pushing down US Carbon emissions. First quarter 2012 transportation emissions declined by about 0.6%, compared to the same period in 2011. Rising fuel efficiency and some switching to lower carbon fuels are the main causes of falling transportation emissions.
The bottom line is that America’s carbon emissions may drop back close to 1990 levels this year. That result would have been thought impossible, even at the end of 2011.
But the shale gas revolution makes a reality many things recently thought impossible. It was thought impossible to slash carbon US carbon emissions back to 1990 levels by 2012. It was thought impossible to massively, quickly cut carbon emissions and, at the same time, have lower energy bills.
Shale gas production has slashed carbon emissions and saved consumers more than $100 billion per year. Truly astonishing!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How can you say the drop is market driven when it’s mainly in transportation? Doesn’t that make EPA’s deadly CAFE requirements responsible? (And mean it probably wasn’t worth it!)
I’ll reiterate; Russell nails it.
“how much of the decline since 2008 is due to our failing economy? Less energy is being consumed as the economy is continuing to slide down hill. Is that slide contributing to the decline in CO2 emissions?”
It’s the elephant in the room that no one can see, apparently. We are watching the biggest transfer of wealth in history, the only thing you might notice is decreased CO2 output. Do not notice that millions are losing their homes and jobs, # of people getting foodstamps has doubled in the last few years, etc, etc. A few bankers are allowed to create trillions of dollars out of thin air, loan it out all over the world, driving up the price of everything and then foreclose on the whole world as the ponzi collapses.
The elephant in the room that you can’t see is going to run over you. It’s hilarious to me.
CO2 = PLANT FOOD
Learn It
…Love It
…..Release It!
Even if the methane had 100% of the global warming equivalency as the CO2 it reduces it is still a vast improvement.
Its reckoned to have 25 times the GHW effect of CO2.
We do have direct evidence of CH4 (methane) greenhouse gas warming from satellite measurements. Those same measurements show no significant CO2 GHW.
George Bush, one of the few politicians who understood the science, introduced the Methane to Markets program, which paid methane emitters worldwide to capture (and sell) methane. The introduction of the program coincided with methane emissions plateauing and a few years later temperatures plateauing.
Interestingly, when Obama partly shutdown the program, methane levels started to rise again.
A good case can be made that GW Bush’s program has been the only political action that has had a measurable effect on the climate.
Great News.
… Still, there’s some way to go:
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Per-Capita-CO2-1024×696.png
But given the recent upholding of the EPA’s Greenhouse gas rules, we be seeing the start to a slow chipping away of these emissions.
Wombat, when you make the comparison that way, you’re using CO2 as a proxy for GDP, and nothing else. (Unless what you want to study is how effectively EPA carbon controls have been at sending us back to the stone age. 😉 )
You should CO2 emissions per dollar GDP (“CO2 intensity”) if you want an “apples to apples” comparison. It’s of course not surprising that nations with the highest GDP per capita also have higher CO2 per capita.
Wombat says:
July 2, 2012 at 10:36 pm
… Still, there’s some way to go:http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Per-Capita-CO2-1024×696.png
==========
The above graph shows “dirt poor” versus CO2. Correlates a lot better than temperature versus CO2.
This is not good news for the savannah in Africa.
You can achieve those CO2 levels – all you have to do is crush an economy…..
Even more amazing considering the massive population growth. In 1990 population was at 248.7 millions, now it is 312.8 millions, an increase of 64 million or 26% !
Lady Life suggests: “America continues to starve the world’s hungry.”
Nonsense.
The US provides more food to more non-US ‘world’ people than any other country.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W_jW6Edss-8/T-qptx6E71I/AAAAAAAAQYk/wUywYLsvy6Q/s1600/EIA%2BTotals%2B2012-06.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-A34ohxyAfrg/T-qqrzarAWI/AAAAAAAAQY8/oN18xYcP8hk/s1600/EIA%2BGasoline%2B2012-06.png
are other economic indicators needed to be posted?
we should be seeing the BEA calling another recession in the next few months, probably early 2013 backdated to late 2012 as they always call it after the fact
although it really isn’t a new recession, just part of the ongoing depression and economic unwinding of the housing and credit bubble imploding
the demand destruction and credit disappearing along with wealth of the middle class has been extraordinary, people w/o money don’t consume
Russell Steele says:
July 2, 2012 at 8:59 pm
My question, is how much of the decline since 2008 is due to our failing economy?
Here are some figures to clarify the discussion.
In 2008, 48.8% of the production of electricity was supplied by coal and peat. The total electricity production in that year was 4,369,099 GWh.
In 2009, 45.2% of the production of electricity was supplied by coal and peat. The total electricity production in that year was 4,188,214 GWh.
Conclusion:
– The share of coal has reduced with 3.6%. The part of gas has increased with 1.8%, the part of nuclear energy with 0.6% and the part of hydropower also with 0.6%. The part of wind energy increased with 0.5%
– Meanwhile, the electricity production has fallen with 4.1%.
The dramatic decrease of coal in the energy production has two major causes: the failing economy but tied with it, the reducing part of coal in the energy production.
Source: http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=US (consultations made in 2011 and recently).
Oh ya, while we are rejoicing over shale gas LOL, migth wanna take a look at the collapse of shale gas production which is coming shortly cause economically it is failing leaving lots of bankrupt companies in its wake. In order to sustain it natural gas prices have to climb back up to the $7 to $8 range. The oil production from shale isn’t turning out so well either. Production per well absolutely stinks versus conventional oil. This has been entirely predictable and explained ad nauseum on this site before.
See. All the models were correct. CO2 has been reduced to 1990 levels and so has the temperature. Better yet, so has the economy. Pretty soon we can all live like a third world country. Or as America will soon call them, the First World.
That was exactly my point – the reason I used “equivalency” … even if the net GHG effect of the methane emitted was equal to the net GHG effect of the CO2 it replaced, it would STILL be a huge benefit, as residence time of methane is a decade or so in the atmosphere, while CO2’s is a century of more.
Jeeeeez, the only way this would be good news is if Governments decided they didn’t need to exercise such draconian control after all and can leave things to the free (“ho-ho!”) markets. But of course we know they won’t. Like EPA-lover ‘Wombat’ (July 2, 2012 at 10:36 pm) and other alarmist zombies, they’ll continue to state that this is just the beginning, it doesn’t go far enough, there is still some way to go, it’s actually worse than we thought, etc, etc, and nothing will change. So pardon me if I don’t get excited.
And to the zombies who believe this is good for the climate and that with the EPA regulations we’ll solve this “crisis” – do please tell us: just exactly what effect do you calculate any of this will have on world temperatures? And over what time span? Something like [b]0.0000001C over the next hundred years[/b], or something? Come on zombies, tell us. What, no figures? Thought so.
Jeeeeez, the only way this would be good news is if Governments decided they didn’t need to exercise such draconian control after all and can leave things to the free (“ho-ho!”) markets. But of course we know they won’t. Like EPA-lover ‘Wombat’ (July 2, 2012 at 10:36 pm) and other alarmist zombies, they’ll continue to state that this is just the beginning, it doesn’t go far enough, there is still some way to go, it’s actually worse than we thought, etc, etc, and nothing will change. So pardon me if I don’t get excited.
And to the zombies who believe this is good for the climate and that with the EPA regulations we’ll solve this “crisis” – do please tell us: just exactly what effect do you calculate any of this will have on world temperatures? And over what time span? Something like 0.0000001C over the next hundred years, or something? Come on zombies, tell us. What, no figures? Thought so.
Due respect to Mr. Hanger, but his numbers don’t entirely add up. Total US energy consumption has fallen by 3% since 2005 (from 100.16 to 97.21 quads), with most of the decline occurring since 2008, coinciding not with any amazing technological revolution but rather with the recession. We know that the recession is driving the drop in consumption because the largest declines have been in fuels used principally for electrical generation and transportation. Yes, coal consumption has declined by 14.4% since 2005 – but nuclear generation has also declined by 7%. This represents lower demand, plain and simple.
It’s also incorrect to attribute any of this decline to an increase in “renewables”. In 2005 the total renewable energy consumption portfolio amounted to 11.11 quads (of which 3/4 was hyrdo power); in 2011, it amounted to 12.9 quads. In other words, over the past 7 years, the renewable share of America’s energy consumption profile increased by 1.79 quads, while natural gas consumption increased by 2.3 quads (total 4 quads). This does not come close to “replacing” the amount by which the coal, petroleum and nuclear share decreased, i.e., 14.5 quads.
America’s aggregate energy consumption has declined markedly since 2008. The only times in the past 50 years that this has happened (again, see eia.gov for statistics) were during the combined impact of 9/11 and the collapse of the dot-com bubble (1999-2001); during the early 1980s recession (1980-84); and in the wake of the oil shock (1973-75). None of these declines coincided with any revolution in technology. Massive, prolonged declines in energy consumption only ever occur as a direct result of economic catastrophe.
Don’t get me wrong; natural gas is definitely the way to go. But its virtues have nothing to do with price or “carbon footprint” (for the record, there is no empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis; carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant except as a bugbear for the political left). NGs single most important virtue is that America owns it, and owns a hell of a lot of it. The way out of the current crisis and decline (which, according to energy consumption statistics, is unquestionably the longest and deepest of the past half-century and more) is to reinvigorate America’s industrial profile at a profit. This means paying as little as possible for the raw materials used to create value – including energy. This in turn means exploiting America’s vast, untapped energy resources. It also means allowing niche, developmental energy technologies to succeed or fail according to the market instead of sustaining them via subsidies and ramming them down the throats of the populace via regulation.
And for those who like to bleat that petroleum enjoys subsidies – the only “subsidy” that has ever mattered is consumer choice. Or to put it another way: how many electric cars are running in Washington, D.C. this week? And how many people are operating their a/c off of solar panels?
And yet it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever on global atmospheric CO2:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png
A. Scott says:
July 3, 2012 at 12:33 am
A molecule of methane in the atmosphere is oxidized to one molecule of CO2 and two of H2O.
Why is that good news? The planet could do with some more co2 greening fertilization. Heck, greenhouse growers pump the stuff in so why don’t we.
The recession helps reduce the transport emissions and power production emissions. Stay in recession and the US could achieve their goal in emissions reduction. Keep Obama in power and that will certainly happen. Continued recession I meant!!
Surely the main reason for the drop is Americas rapid decline in industry over the last 20 years as it it exports its jobs and manufacturing to China amongst other places? In turn those other places will have shown a commensurate increase in emissions.
Not sure its a case of rejoicing as the Western world exports its jobs then creates a huge deficit by importing the very goods it once made and exported.
tonyb
It’s too bad Julian Simon didn’t live to see this perfect vindication of his basic idea.