New EIA data shows USA inadvertently meets 1997 Kyoto protocol CO2 emission reductions without ever signing on thanks to a stagnant economy. Lowest level of CO2 emissions since 1994.
In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.
WUWT readers may recall that Kyoto was an international agreement proposed in December 1997 requiring nations (according to the U.N. press release then) to reduce CO2 emissions by 5.2% by 2012. It became international law when ratified by Russia in November 2004. The United States never ratified Kyoto and is not legally bound by it, even though then vice president Al Gore signed it much to the annoyance of many.
It expired on December 31st, 2012, with no replacement agreement to follow it.
Well, it seems like killing the economy went hand in hand with CO2 reductions, imagine that. The graph below is from EIA with my annotations.
From the EIA report:
Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2012 were the lowest in the United States since 1994, at 5.3 billion metric tons of CO2 (see figure above). With the exception of 2010, emissions have declined every year since 2007.
The largest drop in emissions in 2012 came from coal, which is used almost exclusively for electricity generation (see figure below). During 2012, particularly in the spring and early summer, low natural gas prices led to competition between natural gas- and coal-fired electric power generators. Lower natural gas prices resulted in reduced levels of coal generation, and increased natural gas generation—a less carbon-intensive fuel for power generation, which shifted power generation from the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel (coal) to the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel (natural gas).
Other factors contributing to the lower emissions include decreased demand for transportation fuels and mild winter temperatures that reduced demand for heating. The warm winter months during 2012 (particularly in the first quarter) more than offset a slight increase in cooling degree days during the summer months. EIA recently published preliminary data for January-December 2012 in the March 2013 edition of the Monthly Energy Review, which includes statistics covering all aspects of energy. EIA will publish a full analysis of 2012 energy-related CO2 emissions later this year.
Source: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10691
CSV data available here: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/chartdata/US_annual_carbon_emissions.csv
==============================================================
AZLeader (who provided this tip) writes:
Kyoto is the bedrock of international law that serves as the legal foundation used by all nations for their individual actions taken to reduce global CO2 emissions. The United States, the lone non-signatory, is now the only major polluter to have met the standard.
Today the EIA simply reports that U.S. CO2 emissions in 2012 were the lowest since 1994. Though amazing in itself, it is not headline news. Meeting the Kyoto Protocol standard should be front page news.
U.S. Meets Kyoto Protocol Standard
The downloaded data shows that U.S. total CO2 emissions for coal, oil and natural gas were 5,584 (million) metric tons in 1997.
It also shows that U.S. CO2 emissions rose to 6,023 (million) metric tons of CO2 in 2007 before they began to fall.
In 2012, U.S. CO2 emissions fell to 5,293 (million) metric tons. That is 291 (million) metric tons less than they were in 1997 and 730 (million) metric tons less than their 2007 peak.
Drum roll please…
291 (million) metric tons below 1997 levels is a 5.2% reduction in CO2 emissions. It EXACTLY meets the Kyoto requirement!
Meanwhile, world CO2 emissions haven’t slowed, clearly the USA isn’t the problem.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Well, it seems like killing the economy went hand in hand with CO2 reductions, imagine that.”
priceless
And all they had to do was completely destroy their economy…
Thanks Barry, you saved the world again!
This doesn’t make sense unless the coal plants spend more time idling than gas generation stations. Is that the case, or, are this yet another bad computer model?
Wonder how much press this will get (my guess is none)
Anthony,
I think we were supposed to reduce our emissions by 7% below 1990 levels.
-Chip
REPLY: Yes, that is one aspect, but see this U.N. press release:
Kyoto, 11 December 1997 – After 10 days of tough negotiations, ministers and other high-level officials from 160 countries reached agreement this morning on a legally binding Protocol under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2%.
http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm
-Anthony
yea….and yet somehow I don’t feel like celebrating
The downloaded data shows that U.S. total CO2 emissions for coal, oil and natural gas were 5,584 metric tons in 1997.
Basic scientific literacy is needed here. The number is off by a factor of a million.
REPLY: Just a typo, fixed.
Note also EIA in their spreadsheet makes the same labeling error
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/chartdata/US_annual_carbon_emissions.csv
– Anthony
Can’t you see that the energy-related carbon dioxide emissions graph follows the global temperature graph well?? You fools… 😉
Mission Accomplished
A low carbon economy is a third world economy.
I thought the treaty required emissions below 1990, not 1997. Did this get changed?
REPLY: Note the press release where they headline 5.2% – Anthony
It was the fracking fracking that did it! Tony, you made your contribution with your fotovoltaic things on your roof (same incentive – money) Clever move!
The next thing the Warmistas will moan about is that it is a global problem. Let’s just say that it is the Chinese’s fault – everyone will beleive that.
http://www.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/afbeeldingen/pbl-2012-global-co2-emissions-per-region-1990-2011.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2012/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2012-report&h=313&w=435&sz=69&tbnid=YznYptLn4yGLWM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=129&zoom=1&usg=__mMVIa2PLpua52MY4nmnGA-bjl0w=&docid=rmyQkDN0k2Wf7M&hl=da&sa=X&ei=lTdfUdnrM7PR4QTDr4HQCQ&ved=0CEwQ9QEwAw&dur=1602
JDN says:
This doesn’t make sense unless the coal plants spend more time idling than gas generation stations. Is that the case, or, are this yet another bad computer model?
————————————————————————————————-
Coal-fired electric plants are being replaced by natural gas fired ones… that is how it works.
lsvalgaard says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Basic scientific literacy is needed here. The number is off by a factor of a million.
=========================================================
Whoops! You are right… missed that little “billion” reference… correction to be made.
What is being a tiny, little 6 orders of magnitude off among friends? LOL!!!!
Wait just a minute…
If one of the major industrialized nations in the world met the Kyoto protocol, why isn’t that Mauna Loa CO2 graph still climbing? It should be starting to decline…
Something’s just not right….
This trend has been going on for years. Not only do we get no credit for the reductions, but we never seem to hear a peep about countries like China:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115721895d5970b-pi
Some good graphs here.
Personally, I think that is fracking fantastic. 🙂
Yes, Poverty = less CO2
So if we keep in world wide recession we can save the world? Can’t say I like the sound of that.
You gotta read beyond the headline.
First: 5.2% was a weighted average collective target for all participating developed nations. The US target was 7%.
“The 5.2% reduction in total developed country emissions will be realized through national reductions of 8% by Switzerland, many Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will achieve its target by distributing differing reduction rates to its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%.”
Second, while the treaty was signed in 1997, the base year for reduction calculations was 1990 (or 1995 for certain GHGs).
“The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) – will be measured against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline. If compared to expected emissions levels for the year 2000, the total reductions required by the Protocol will actually be about 10%; this is because many industrialized countries have not succeeded in meeting their earlier non-binding aim of returning their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and their emissions have in fact risen since 1990. Compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without emissions-control measures, the Protocol target represents a 30% cut. The Protocol should therefore send a powerful signal to business that it needs to accelerate the delivery of climate-friendly products and services.”
So, if I’m going to nitpick details… 7% below 1990 level is a bigger target than 5.2% below 1997 levels.
But that doesn’t take away from the main point that the US has indeed reduced emissions substantially in the last 5 years, thanks to a shale gas boom and an economic bust.
Meanwhile, CO2 emission increases by China and India have exceeded our reduction several times over.
So just what did Kyoto achieve?
Actually, does anyone know exactly how EIA arrives at a figure for CO2 emissions? They certainly aren’t measuring it, so I assume they just take fuel produced + fuel imported – fuel exported and assume that much is burned?
JDN says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm
“This doesn’t make sense unless the coal plants spend more time idling than gas generation stations.”
Natural gas gets energy out of its hydrogen content and carbon; coal only carbon.
So when do you guys go after the rest of the world and demand your compensation for the CO2 pollution that is still rising! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
All those hard-won reductions from a depressed economy and I can’t even see the slightest dent in that Mauna Loa graph of CO2 emissions. Could it be that Mother Nature is still in charge?
So, how are US temperatures reacting to this reduction in CO2 emissions?
Leif and Anthony…
I quoted numbers off the EIA spreadsheet.. that is where the typo originated…. sorry about that!
I should have noticed that the EIA graphics were labeled correctly. The numbers seemed low but I just went with the spreadsheet.
lsvalgaard says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:40 pm
The downloaded data shows that U.S. total CO2 emissions for coal, oil and natural gas were 5,584 metric tons in 1997.
Basic scientific literacy is needed here. The number is off by a factor of a million.
REPLY: Just a typo, fixed.
Note also EIA in their spreadsheet makes the same labeling error
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/chartdata/US_annual_carbon_emissions.csv
– Anthony