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!
This was acheived by Captialism.
Not Obama’s Green Grass Grifters.
Nor all the Blowin’ In The Wind’ers.
Nor the Massive Bio-Mass’ers.
Nor the Revolting Redistribtors.
Now if we could only get Lady Life Grows @ur momisugly July 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm to become active and help develop those thorium reactors we could drop into Africa rather than making purely political statements, we might actually see the third world with enough power to end their cycle of hoping for fresh water. Energy is life. Cheap energy is propserity.
Donald A. Neill’s analysis is better than the author’s. EIA’s real generation data (not projected) are through April. The April decrease was attributed to milder temperatures. If you recall, we had a warmer winter and the demand for electricity would be down. The “lower CO2” because we are using more natural gas just doesn’t hold as a theory. The permit-to-operate large natural gas generation facilities is well over 2 years. These plants are in the PSD emissions rates for criteria pollutants and will be PSD for CO2. Application start to permit issue is 1.5 to 2 years if there is no public opposition. Then you can build the plant. So how many natural gas generation facilities cam on line and how many coal facilities went off line in the first 4 months of 2012?
Gas may be the future preferred fuel for electric generation, but this magic drop is recession plus milder winters.
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?
According to the US EIA 2011 Electricity consumption was about the same as 2006 electricity consumption.
The most recent rolling 12 months put 2012 electricity consumption on par with 2006.
Total US electricity consumption is off from the ‘peak year’ of 2007 by about 2.5%.
It’s too early to tell how much impact out ‘BBQ Summer’ will have on the numbers, but fuel switching is definitely happening in a BIG way.
Here is what we predicted a decade ago, in 2002:
Our eight-point Summary* includes a number of predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then wise enough to ignore it.
With regard to the current decline in US energy consumption, please see points 4, 5, 6 and 8 below.
Even though the USA did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it subsequently adopted policies that were similarly foolish and destructive to its manufacturing sector.
None of this CO2 reduction nonsense was scientifically justified – see point 1 below. There has been no net global warming in a decade or more.
It appears that some of the USA’s CO2-reduction is due to coal-to-gas switching, and some is due to its declining economy.
What is the solution to the economic woes of the USA? Use the cheapest energy costs on Earth to revitalize your manufacturing sector, and hope that cheap energy lasts.
Put the entire green movement on IGNORE – they have contributed nothing to society for decades except to damage the economy and cause a huge misallocation of scarce global resources on foolish “green-energy” schemes that were grossly uneconomic and actually harmful to the environment. Furthermore, the enviros clearly-stated intentions are anti-human – see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/#comment-1023313
Summary*
Full article at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.
1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.
3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.
5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.
7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.
8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
What? The manufacturing report came out yesterday. It’s bad news. Manufacturing has nearly ground to a halt, and the economy is in shambles. Isn’t THAT more of a reason of why we are “emitting less carbon?” No mention of this in the article?
Notice the graph, the drop started in 2008, right after the market crash. I would think a large porton of this CO2 drop is indicative in the decline of the US economy, something the warmists must be very happy about.
Well considering many here were predicting that lower carbon dioxide emissions could only be accomplished by destroying civilization as we know it, it’s amusing to see many were so wrong.
Maybe it’s time to consider you were wrong about a whole lot of other stuff as well.
I’m not claiming its gonna be easy. There are some real headaches to be solved. But when I see a problem I don’t assume it can’t be solved. Neither do I ridicule others who are trying to solve a problem? even if I think their solution is crazy. There are worthwhile lessons to be learnt even from the failures.
Uhmm, as was probably noted already, the transition from coal to nat gas doesn’t nor can it account for that much reduction in CO2 emissions. Our economy is in the tank.
America feeds the world. But perhaps you’re talking about how much food, energy and land we waste growing crops for biofuels instead of for growing food? Even the UN says that our disastrous biofuels programs have raised the price of basic food staples worldwide and contributed to hunger.
BTW: Please explain how we can feed more of the world’s hungry by using less shale. I don’t understand the correlation.
Oh bad timing! Now the AGW crowd will be chirping that CO2 reduction saved the planet just in time. Well, no. Don’t foreget that CO2 is hundreds of years in the atmosphere and it takes centuries before the present day effect takes place. Meanwhile, China and India are shovelling on more coal. US coal must be attractive to these countries. Imagine having to thank China and India for saving us from the new world order. They aren’t going to take any crap from the European UN of Socialist Republics.
The recession has been over for years!
Employment, GDP and capacity utilization/industrial production have been increasing since Q3 2009.
Whereas the economy is being destroyed by mandate and whereas there is no free market in this country and whereas CO2 is not an issue of real significance – what, exactly, is the point of this article except to damage the credibility of the author?
LazyTeenager says:
“Well considering many here were predicting that lower carbon dioxide emissions could only be accomplished by destroying civilization as we know it, it’s amusing to see many were so wrong.”
Let’s turn your argument around so it makes sense: since it has now been proven that government regulation is not necessary to lower [harmless, beneficial] CO2, then instead of hobbling economies by government interference, the government should get out of the nanny business, forget Cap&Tax, and let the free market provide the immense wealth that it normally does when the government isn’t meddling.
Does that ‘amuse’ you? Or are you starting to grow up?
If you look at the carbon footprint of the country from a consumption point of view vs the productive capacity within the country, state, city, or individually the drop off in might not look quit as good. Many of the emissions formally ascribed to the state of CA and then to the USofA have migrated out of the state as noted here:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/03/20/when-emissions-are-outsourced/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308151041.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/14/outsourced-emissions
The leakage problem is exasperating the economic recovery out here in sunny CA. On the bright side of things at least it’s been a bit cooler this year then a normal (AVG) summer, hence I haven’t needed too much energy from any source for HVAC. The late rains have even allowed me to reduce my irrigation events, which is kind of nice as it is getting a tad expensive to pump water up from my well to keep all my vegetation thriving.
You’re backasswards on this one. The emissions are going down without taking drastic measures that would [further] destroy our economy.
This proves it can be done without taking the measures the alarmists claim are necessary.
What is does not prove is CO2 emissions are a problem.
@LazyTeenager so you haven’t noticed that civilization is on a downwards path towards a new dark age? If not, I suggest that you take a look around you and start to prepare.
Something to think about: The Broken Window Fallacy. By closing down coal plants early or otherwise retiring them earlier then we used to in the past, we have done this very thing. I am not knocking shale or NG at all, I think its a wonderful thing that the prices have gone down as they have, but check out the US energy bills and how they are increasing in a world of decreasing demand. Of course, wind power and other nonsense forms of energy have a little to do with this, but by far NG has to take up the slack of decreasing coal and nuclear power generation.
The largest reason energy prices are going up is that we are building brand spanking new NG power plants to replace coal plants that could otherwise last a little longer, but due to regulations that “bankrupt companies that burn coal” the Government has picked the winners and losers again in a process that just makes it more expensive for the US’s poorest people. (and middle class of course.)
Who profits? Well look at the obvious. Who builds NG plants: GE. Who is cozy with the president?
So no matter what the energy policy does, we lose, and companies such as GE win. The big utility companies still make a profit because they must stay in business. In the end, its all a crapshoot where the consumer loses because the Government decides what the consumer must buy. This should sound familiar.
And because coal is being shut down due to excessive regulations, we lose that as an option all in the end due to the nonsense science of global warming. It should make someone realize that those in Government are deciding what is good for us and what they decide often means profit goes to big green as in Obama’s case.
Just follow the money everytime. Cronys and such have infested this Government and every policy decision is not based on science or anything else, but about picking the winner and losers so that the supporters of the Government get their rewards for their excessive campaign contributions. We are living in a gilded age today.
To GlynnMhor (July 2 at 11:52 pm) and more soylent green (July 3, 2012 at 5:56 am):
I do not know Lady Life Grows (July 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm), but I recognize subtle sarcasm when I read it. Lady Life is PRO-CO2 and understands that more CO2 released into the atmosphere is a good thing for this CO2-starved planet.
But please understand that I also completely concur with both of your (serious) comments.
If you all want to see the “elephant in the room”, make a chart showing China’s and India’s total CO2 emissions compared to the US’s over that same period of time.
If “climate scientists” are stating that its GLOBAL Warming, then they need to focus on the worlds biggest emitters. Let’s see if China and India are concerned getting back down to THEIR 1990 levels.
Lady Life Grows says:
July 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Is this supposed to be god news?
America continues to starve the world’s hungry….
______________________________
DO NOT BLAME the US citizens for what the World Bank/IMF is doing with their Structural Adjustment Policies The Bretton Woods Agreement, resulted in the establishment of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The principle Architects of the Agreement were Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White later identified by the FBI as a Soviet spy whose code name was Jurist, and Fabian John Maynard Keynes lecturer at the London School of Economics started by the Webbs. (another two links, one and two )
More recently you can point fingers at Goldman Sachs followed by Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Pimco, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers as the cause of the 2008 food crisis, as well as the privately held international grain trader Cargill whose VP, Dan Amstuz, wrote the World Trade Agreement on Agriculture and the farm bill later called “Freedom to Fail” that bankrupted US farmers and wiped out the US grain reserves by 2008. The international grain traders even started a medal in tribute to Amstuz …this tribute is intended to provide an opportunity to express thoughts in a memorial to Dan’s contribution to our industry
The following quotes show the international grain traders the level of concern for other humans.
This is an ominous sign for our economy.
@aaron chmielewski: But according to O’bumble, the private sector is doing just fine.
Wombat says:
July 2, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Great News.
… Still, there’s some way to go:
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Per-Capita-CO2-1024×696.png
For a little perspective on that graph consider this
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/06/americas-economic-success-vs-europe.html
How About Europe Learning from Mississippi?
“1.The European Union as a group ($32,700 GDP (PPP) per capita in 2010) ranks below America’s poorest state, Mississippi ($32,764).
2. Even relatively wealthy (by European standards) Switzerland would rank #32 as a U.S. state, behind Georgia. The countries of Belgium and Germany would rank even lower at #46 and #47, and the U.K., Finland, and France would be close to the bottom of American states, below #48 South Carolina.
3. Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal all rank below America’s poorest state (Mississippi) for GDP per capita. ”
Peruse the full table at the bottom of the post to get a real feel for the relative magnitudes and note that it also includes Canada, which would be 41st as a U.S. state, and Japan, which would also slot in below SC. These data are from 2010 and despite our own fairly dismal results fresher data would likely make for a worse showing for the EU entities, although Canada may have moved up a bit.
BTW, Canada’s placement is interesting considering the details in this story
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aN60ck4Sz4iE
Australia Overtakes U.S. in Per Capita CO2 Emissions (Correct)
By Jeremy van Loon and Alex Morales – September 10, 2009 04:26 EDT
” (Corrects Canadian emissions to 18.81 tons from 19.81 tons in second paragraph of story published yesterday.)
Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — Australia has overtaken the U.S. as the biggest emitter per person of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, according to a British risk analysis firm.
The average Australian contributes 20.58 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year to cool homes, drive cars and generate electricity with coal, the U.K.-based risk assessment company Maplecroft said today. The U.S. fell to second at 19.78 tons per inhabitant a year while Canada was third at 18.81 tons.”
I would also note that everyone who puts out these emissions data has widely varying numbers so I wouldn’t place much stock in any of them, except as relative values, and even those can be manipulated significantly.
I strongly suspect that if we’ve not already experienced peak anthropogenic environmental impact we shortly will. This may be counterintuitive given a projection of peak global population some time between now and 2050. However, one must look at how that population dynamic is distributed. The advanced nations have either already peaked or shortly will in terms of population. Furthermore, those advanced countries in embracing environmentally benign or minimally impactful technologies may find that their own impacts have led their population peaks and therefore have long passed. Bottom line is, those nations with the most significant impacts are zero to negative growth and the remaining nations have much lower impacts. Net net we are not likely to see increasing environmental impact world wide.
@Dave Wendt says:
“1.The European Union as a group ($32,700 GDP (PPP) per capita in 2010) ranks below America’s poorest state, Mississippi ($32,764).
And what was your nations debt again? Let’s put the debts into the calculation and see who is where on the scale.