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.
Russ R. says:
April 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm
“So, if I’m going to nitpick details… 7% below 1990 level is a bigger target than 5.2% below 1997 levels.”
Why would you nitpick details about a treaty that the US did not sign? I think Anthony just wanted a little fun with this post.
Did the northeast regional climate initiative help with this at all? How about improvements in appliance or automotive efficiency? I expect that it couldn’t be 100% economy, even if mostly.
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
Fail. JP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Norway is only 32nd on the Per Capita list, worse then most of the rest of Europe. Switzerland and Sweden are 72 and 74 respectivly. And the list goes over 200.
Fail indeed
What else is new? In 1996, Mikhail Gorbachev had been reduced to thr status of “greeter of visiting politicians” I had the opportunity to ask him about industrial pollution (not CO2 emissions) in Russia. He told me, poker-faced, that there had been a large decrease because industrial production was down by 50%.
Anthony: “Well, it seems like killing the economy went hand in hand with CO2 reductions, imagine that.”
Yeah, and now look at it the other way around: CO2 reduction is only possible by killing the economy.
@archonix April 5, 2013 at 1:19 pm: “And all they had to do was completely destroy their economy…”
Any of us that thinks that wasn’t their goal in the first place, raise your hand: You’re admitting to being an idiot.
Literally, the very first thing I EVER read about CAGW and the IPCC my reaction was, “WTF!??? The only way to do that is to kill the economy and probably kill LOTS of people, too!” [and having most of us live in trailer parks and company towns]
Since I found out about Thorium (LFTR) reactors, I no longer think that it is the ONLY way – but until those come on line, CO2 reduction can can only be done by killing the economy.
Steve Garcia
Anthony: Chip is right. The U.S. obligation under the Kyoto Protocol would have been (had we ratified it) a 7% reduction in GHG emissions from a 1990 baseline. The fact that the Protocol was signed in 1997—and didn’t enter into force until years later—doesn’t change the fact that the treaty’s base year was 1990. (Though it’s more complicated than that: Some Annex I countries were allowed to use a base year other than 1990 and all Annex I countries were allowed to use a 1995 base year for HFCs, PFCs, and SF6.)
In 2012, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions were 5% above the 1990 level. Moreover, total U.S. GHG emission figures reported to the UNFCCC show that in 2010, the most recent year of data available, U.S. emissions were 10% higher than the 1990 level. So no, the U.S. has not come anywhere close to meeting the Kyoto target no matter how you measure it.
Further, it’s not correct to suggest that the Protocol “expired on December 31, 2012, with no replacement agreement to follow it.” A second commitment period was agreed to in Doha with a much smaller set of countries making commitments. I agree that as a practical matter that the Protocol is a dead letter because it really doesn’t commit any country to doing anything it wasn’t doing anyway. But it’s still inaccurate to say the Protocol has expired—only the first commitment period has.
Saint
Saints,
Despite all the verbiage, the situation is shown here.
CO2 is completely harmless at current and projected concentrations. It is beneficial to the biosphere; more CO2 is better. Kyoto was a stupid, unnecessary restriction intended to hobble Western industry, and it was right and proper that the U.S. rejected it.
The UN is a cutthroat gang of anti-American hyenas, intent on destroying us after robbing us blind. Is there any doubt? Don’t listen to their smarmy words, just look at their actions. The best thing we as a country could do for our citizens is to promptly withdraw our UN membership, evict the UN from our shores, and deal one-on-one with other countries.
As it stands, the UN’s purpose is to move toward a system of majority rule, wherein the UN’s 196 countries will vote on who pays for what. And you know they will vote all possible American assets and savings into their theiving pockets. Only the most naive and credulous believe otherwise.
Dbstealey:
I don’t disagree with much of what you say. I’m very familiar with the chart you’ve linked to, though it only covers 2000 to 2006. More recent data tell a different story. Still, it’s true that U.S. emissions are dropping faster than emissions in some countries with Kyoto obligations. There are many reasons for this, primarily the deep recession and more recently fuel switching from coal to natural gas in the power sector. The U.S. has not, however, met the target it would have been assigned had it acceded to the Kyoto Protocol.
And that was the whole point of post. Indeed, it’s headlined, “USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it,” and its main point is that the U.S. succeeded in meeting Kyoto’s 7% reduction target without joining up. But that is demonstrably not true. If I were Anthony, I would update this post because it doesn’t measure up to the quality one comes to expect from WUWT. If I want to see someone disregard the facts, I’ll visit Joe Romm’s site.