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.
To elmer:
Do not be foolish. Chinese CO2 emissions have skyrocketed; virtually all Kyoto
signatories missed their reduction targets. Atmospheric CO2 continued to climb,
see the Mauna Loa graph above. The reason global warming has stopped is
that the sensitivity of the global climate to atmospheric CO2 was far less than
the climate modellers assumed when they built their computer models.
Meanwhile in China where most of the things which US citizens consume are now manufactured…
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.
REPLY: Just a typo, fixed.
Note also EIA in their spreadsheet makes the same labeling error
That is not the issue. The issue is that a number off by a factor of a million should ring a LOUD bell and never be allowed to slip by. Would you have noticed a factor of a million the other way: “the production has been 214 oz”
Baa Humbug says:
April 5, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Meanwhile, Mother Gaia, who is NOT a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has emitted 90,000 metric tons (sic) of CO2 into the atmosphere without a care in the world.
p.s. Leif will fix my basic scientific illiteracy
I think this would be a lost cause as you also are off by a factor of a million…
“…are this yet another bad computer model?”
Fair question.
John Parsons AKA atarsinc
Bob Diaz says:
April 5, 2013 at 5:44 pm
“Not that world CO2 output matters much…”
Doesn’t matter? Read Dr. Dyson’s opinion. According to his thesis, if we are going to reap the great benefits of CO2, we need to INCREASE our burning of fossil fuels. I’d be interested to know if he, or others here, know if there is a point of diminishing returns. Wouldn’t it be best to burn as much Carbon as we can? Shouldn’t we stop encouraging the use of Natural Gas and move to the more carbon intensive burning of coal? JP
The green scams are working as expected. The extreme AGW paradigm is a means to an end. (i.e. The NGO fanatics belief system is anti-industry. Industry is evil. Remove industry and people to create their ideal world. The path they propose lead off a cliff.) If your friends jumped off a cliff would you? Socialism is a great job creator until one runs out of money to spend. Government deficit spending is an effective means to create jobs for leaches.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/02/eurozone-unemployment-record-high
Eurozone unemployment hits record high of 12% Unemployment across the 17 eurozone countries rises to 12% for the first time since the single currency was launched in 1999. … guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 April 2013 12.48 BST
The Clean Development Mechanism delivers the greatest green scam of all
Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment … …“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University … …. “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace” “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC enemy to unite…
….Maurice Strong, senior advisor to Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General who chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “U.N. Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 , who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse…isn’t it our job to bring that about”
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention…and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or…one invented for the purpose.” Quote by the Club of Rome.
The Clean Energy Scam
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
Biofuel production ‘a crime against humanity’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8713093/The-BBC-steadfastly-avoids-the-facts-about-the-wind-farm-scam.html
Helm did not tell us that this £140 billion equates to £5,600 for every household in the country. But he did admit that the plan was “staggeringly expensive”, and that, given the current extent of “fuel poverty” and the state of our economy, he doubted “if it can in fact be afforded”.
Even shorter on hard facts, however, was Shukman’s report on a monster new wind farm off the coast of Cumbria, where a Swedish firm, Vattenfall, has spent £500 million on building 30 five megawatt turbines with a total “capacity” of 150MW. What Shukman did not tell us, because the BBC never does, is that, thanks to the vagaries of the wind, these machines will only produce a fraction of their capacity (30 per cent was the offshore average in the past two years). So their actual output is only likely to average 45MW, or £11 million per MW.
… Thus the wind farm is 22 times more expensive, and could only be built because its owners will receive a 200 per cent subsidy: £40 million a year, on top of the £20 million they will get for the electricity itself. This we will all have to pay for through our electricity bills, whereas the unsubsidized cost of power from the gas plant, even including the price of the gas, will be a third as much.
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/chart-the-death-spiral-of-solar-bankruptcies-counting/
The solar death spiral has been long and ugly. Over the past year, there have been over a dozen stalwarts and startups that have headed to bankruptcy court.
Two companies even filed for bankruptcies in this week alone: manufacturer Q-Cells, which was the worlds largest solar cell maker in 2008 and power plant developer Solar Trust of America, which just a year ago was on its way to build a few gigawatts of solar projects in the American Southwest…. …Solar Millennium tried to sell Solar Trust to a fellow German company, Solarhybrid, only to see Solarhybird, too, file for bankruptcy last month.
Who is Tony? If you’re referring to Anthony, he doesn’t go by “Tony”.
atarsinc says (April 5, 2013 at 7:49 pm): “Wouldn’t it be best to burn as much Carbon as we can? Shouldn’t we stop encouraging the use of Natural Gas and move to the more carbon intensive burning of coal? JP”
If the goal is producing useful energy, we should use the cheapest energy source.
@JohnC & Others:
Does anyone have an actual calculation based on heats of formation & energy efficiency of the power generation normalized to carbon? I was thinking that the cheaper to extract & transport (coal) and higher efficiency generation (coal) would make up for the extra energy from hydrogen in natural gas. I admit, I’m a little biased based on cost of electricity from coal, but, I would like to question whether it’s true that natural gas emits less CO2 based on real-world measurements, not textbook chemistry. Anyone on WUWT know for sure?
Unemployed people don’t do much driving to work, going shopping, and buying gas.
People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-05/people-not-labor-force-soar-663000-90-million-labor-force-participation-rate-1979-le
@ur momisugly Magus, the spin has already started and I bet Obama will not blame this one on Bush!
@ur momisugly Andres Valencia, yes poverty is less CO2, sadly enough because poverty kills.
@ur momisugly Fergall , it used to be that your comments were free to make , but as the guy in NJ found out today the minute his 10 year old said something about BB guns in school the police showed up and removed all his legally acquired guns from his home , so we all sadly enough have to watch our language even used in sarcasm, humor or even as teaching moments.
You’d think the greenies would be cheering and dancing in the streets that the planet has been saved. But I hear no one cheering, I hear nothing but the same ol’ whining and complaining, the world is approaching the mythical tipping point after which the world will burn up in a global fever.
This simply demonstrates that climate alarmism is a faith or a political movement, it has never really been about saving the planet. I do not recognize modern day environmentalism, I am not an environmentalist anymore. One day it will return to its roots and only then will I rejoin them.
atarsinc says:
April 5, 2013 at 4:28 pm
“John Parsons AKA atarsinc
Jimbo says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm
“A low carbon economy is a third world economy.”
Top Three Greenest countries
1 Switzerland 95.5
2 Sweden 93.1
3 Norway 93.1”
What do those numbers at the end of each line mean? Guessing that is the percentage of power derived from renewables. If so, what percentage of that is hydro, and what percentage wind/solar?
atarsinc says:
April 5, 2013 at 4:28 pm
“Top Three Greenest countries
1 Switzerland 95.5
2 Sweden 93.1
3 Norway 93.1
”
The numbers are obviously arbitrary inventions by some green blog or NGO characterizing greenness in percent.
Norway earns its huge standard of living by selling fossil fuels to the rest of the world.
The other two countries don’t.
Does this mean that the arbitrary numbers don’t care about fossil fuel production?
Maybe the unknown NGO or green blog behind these fabricated numbers just doesn’t care about CO2 all that much.
Why is this an example of “kill the economy”? The press release you quote is about fuel switching, not decline in demand. Whatever the economic level, satisfying the need to generate electricity with coal instead of natural gas would have generated more carbon. Look at China.
I just have to say, this is one of Anthony’s funnier lines: “Well, it seems like killing the economy went hand in hand with CO2 reductions, imagine that.”
Obozo meets kyoto by stealth. Just cause industrial recession by diverse & less obvious means.
It is not only fracking and the economic slowdown. What is also happening is the increase in efficiency through the application of technology. For example, GDP per unit of energy expended continues to increase. Or, for a more concrete example, from 1980 to 2010 freight rail industry moved twice as much freight with half as much fuel for a four-fold improvement. Recently, Warren Buffet’s BNSF railway said it may convert its diesel locomotives to LNG for an 88% reduction in fuel cost. These massive efficiency gains cascade across the economy, and rarely are acknowledged for the tremendous positive impact on our standard of living (or CO2 reduction, if that matters).
Given the source of the data I remain skeptical. However, it’s plausible that BAU (Business as Usual, free markets and (small d) democratic process unguided by transnational expertise) has delivered.the goods. BAU does not require a majority to swing into action. If a market for a goal exists, BAU reacts. BAU does not require overwhelming force. If a few resources can be diverted from one goal to another, then there will be progress.
It does not surprise me that Hansen’s attacks on BAU failed, or that BAU did not fail Hansen’s (declared, although perhaps not his covert) goals.
Three cheers for BAU!
Your CO2 graph starts at 310 and ends at 400. That is a blatant distortion when over 3/4 of the graph is hidden just so you can make it appear to be rising faster.
William Astley says:
April 5, 2013 at 7:52 pm
“The green scams are working as expected.” ….(the quotes by Maurice Strong, green socialists, etc. concerning that it doesn’t matter if the CO2 scare is wrong – it’s good for the world to kill off capitalism).
How can anyone be happy to be living under a big lie. We have already seen “unprecedented” moral degradation over the last 20-30 years in any area where trust used to be considered essential. Even if we could shrug off THIS big lie, lying and scamming would become a tool in all areas of human endeavor going forward. Moreover, the insidious quiet battle began before the green scams and made the green scams effective. It was the corrosion of education, the popularly known “dumbing down” and social propaganda accomplished by schools and universities around the world. The majority of climate scientists are already publishing things they know are lies. Going forward science at large would become more and more subjective, secret and agenda driven and would cease to serve advancement of humankind. Politics (believe it or not) could get much worse – at least now they have to try hard to make it look sincere. Saving the planet and humankind is not the fun kumbaya stuff of the so-called greens. It is the desperate, unsung muddy trench warfare of those opposing this deceit (conceit?).
The US reduced carbon dioxide emissions by exporting industry to China and india. But China and India put out twice the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of production, as the US ever did.
Thus embracing Kyoto, whether by design or be default, has INCREASED world carbon dioxide emissions. It that a hit or a miss, Jerry?
.
This reminds me of the alarmist protestations about mercury
emissions from US coal fired power plants. In a letter to the Wall
Street Journal on January 5, 2012, Charles Battig wrote that US
plants put out 41-48 tons per year, forest fires 40 tons, Chinese
power plants 400 tons, and geological events 9,000-10,000 tons
per year. There is even a great song called, “When It’s Grey in LA”
I like it that way cause there’s way too much blue sky round here.
Go out and smell the fresh air.
The baseline is 1990, not 1997. This is from a different source:
“The general target that the developed countries have to meet is to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by about 5% below their 1990 levels in the timeframe addressed by the Kyoto Protocol, namely 2008-2012. The individual targets the Protocol assigns for the countries vary from 7% for the United States…”
As mentioned above (Douglas 2, 3:18 PM) one criticism US critics had was that we hade been gamed; the 1990 baseline made the US target a recession year (see the flat line in US CO2 for 1988-1990). Meanwhile, by 1997 Britain had demonstarted their ability to switch from coal to gas, but got the coal baseline anyway. And Germany had, by 1997, shuttered East German manufacturing but got their 1990 effort in their baseline.
scarletmacaw says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:56 pm
“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”
Also, Scarletmacaw, note that 1997 follows 1990.