U.S. overall energy related emissions are 12% below 2005 levels, and electricity generated related emissions are that of 1993.
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
EIA data and analysis shows that U.S. CO2 emissions peaked in the years 2005 and 2007 at about 6 billion metric tons per year and have steadily declined since then with 2015 CO2 emissions being 12% below ((http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26152&src=email#)) emission levels of 2005.
EIA identifies that the increased use of natural gas for U.S. electricity generation has resulted in 2015 CO2 emissions for the electric power sector being the lowest since 1993 (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26232).
Furthermore EIA data shows that in 2016 lower CO2 emissions natural gas fuel use will surpass coal fuel use for the first time in the generation of U.S. electricity (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25392) with further CO2 emissions reductions occurring in the future.
Additionally EIA has just released its latest International Energy Outlook report for 2016 (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/) which provides global energy and emissions most recent results and forecast data through the year 2040.
The report shows global CO2 emissions climbing steadily from 2012 levels of about 32 billion metric tons per year to more than 43 billion metric tons per year in 2040 (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/ieotab_10.pdf) while U.S. CO2 emissions remain flat at about 5.5 billion metric tons per year through out this period which is about 1/2 billion metrics tons per year below its peak emissions years of 2005 and 2007.
This latest EIA data shows that virtually all future growth in global CO2 emissions comes from the worlds developing nations (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26252) while the developed nations including the U.S., Europe, and parts of Asia and other regions have largely flat future CO2 emission levels.
EIA forecasts future global energy use to climb by 48% by 2040 (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26212) with more than 78% of global energy provided then by fossil fuels, 8% from hydro, 6% from nuclear, 5% from wind and solar and 3% from geothermal and biomass.
These latest EIA reports data and analysis clearly shows that the U.S. is not a contributor to increasing future global CO2 emission levels, has taken advantage of energy market price driven lower cost natural gas to replace use of coal fuel thus reducing both energy costs and lowering CO2 emissions and that despite worldwide government mandated massive renewable energy subsidizes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2015/12/02/energy-subsidies-2-real-numbers/#718355df7067) fossil fuels will remain the primary driver of global energy production for many decades
The U.S. does not need to pursue Obama’s ill-conceived government war on coal schemes which will needlessly cost our citizens hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/11160-sky-high-electric-bills-courtesy-of-obama-epa’s-war-on-coal). The U.S. already reduced CO2 emissions since the peak levels of 2005 and 2007 and has future CO2 emissions growth stabilized at lower levels because of the extraordinary benefits brought about by natural gas fracking which has increased gas production and lowered natural gas costs thereby allowing for the economically beneficial replacement of coal fuel with the additional benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
Why is this remarkable success story not being presented to the public by the media? Is this just another example of climate alarmist media bias?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What carbon dioxide does is actually irrelevant to climate because demonstrably it has never caused any warming as long as observations exist.
The simplest way to convince yourself of this is to juxtapose the global temperature curve by NOAA and the Keeling curve (including its extensions). What you will see is a smooth increase of CO2 with time, unmatched by any temperature history.
The temperature curve that parallels it goes up and down willy-nilly and even stands still at times. One particularly prominent warming period goes from 1910 to 1940, without any corresponding upturn of the Keeling curve.
If you wonder what this has to do with warning, remember that according to the global warming theory which gave us Copenhagen and Paris imbecilities, this is needed to turn on the the greenhouse effect that supposedly caused the warming. Physics tells us that if it exists the temperature increase is proportional to the amount CO2 gas added to the atmosphere. Since none was added when the warming started it cannot possibly be greenhouse warming.
Another important observation is the fact that this warming stops abruptly and is followed by a severe temperature drop that ushered in the Second World War. If it really was greenhouse warming such an abrupt stoppage is quite impossible. That is because in order to stop greenhouse warming you must remove every single absorbing CO2 molecule from the air which is an impossibility.
This applies of course to all other claimed greenhouse occurrences too. These two factors together make it absolutely certain that it is quite impossible for this early century warming to be greenhouse warming.
With that, the claim that global warming started with the beginning of the industrial era dies. I note that IPCC now claims that the human influence on climate becomes first observable in the fifties and sixties in an apparent withdrawal from previous claims. It does not help to explain away total absence of the early century greenhouse effect.
They try to wiggle out of this by illegal and unethical means which I exposed in a comment to PATRICK J. MICHAELS and David E. Wojick artickle in May 19th WUWT entitled “Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling – Billions of research dollars are being spent in this single minded process.” It complements the current view.
[See how easy it is to add paragraph breaks? -mod]
Current CO2 balance sheet for the US might be sort of interesting. We may be a net CO2 fixer rather than emitter.
Yes you do need to keep reducing your emmissions because the USA is still putting out 4 times the per capita CO2 emmissions than the average global citizen. Further americans cumulatively have contribute so much to the CO2 above the ground already if you had any conscience at all you would not put one gram of fossil fuel out of the ground ever again. The author is a disgrace.
I suggest Al that you focus your efforts on addressing the global counties that will increase world emissions by over 11 billion metric tons per year, more than twice the total U.S. present emissions level, of additional CO2 by 2040. None of that will come from the U.S.
More importantly I suggest you that you spend some time learning that global CO2 emissions do not drive global temperatures as proven by the colossal failure of climate models which have demonstrated that they grossly exaggerate and overstate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures, that natural climate drivers particularly El Nino’s have played a major role in driving increasing global temperatures and temperature trends in the last several decades and that despite three decades of climate alarmists claiming that coastal sea level rise is accelerating the latest NOAA tide gauge data shows no coastal sea level rise accelerating anywhere around the U.S.
Additionally the use of fracking for natural gas has increased production, lowered the price of gas and allowed the cost effective replacement of coal fuel with reduced CO2 emissions. These events driven by free energy market drivers have overtaken and illiminated the need for President Obama’s costly and heavy handed government mandates for a war on coal.
I really don’t think these assessments represent a “disgrace”. I think they represent an objective assessment of the significant events that are important to understand regarding global climate issues.