US CO2 emissions fall under Trump, while the world increases #MAGA

Mike Bastasch at the Daily Caller writes:

Greenhouse gas emissions continued to plummet during President Donald Trump’s first year in office, according to new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

  • U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.7 percent from 2016 levels, according to the EPA.
  • Emissions on a per-capita basis hit a 67-year low last year, federal data shows, and supporters are touting EPA’s data as proof Trump’s agenda is working.
  • EPA’s new data comes on news that, globally, greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise to historic highs by the end of the year, despite nearly 200 countries signing the Paris climate accord.

Based on data from more than 8,000 large facilities, EPA found greenhouse gas emissions, mostly carbon dioxide, fell 2.7 percent from 2016 to 2017. Emissions from large power plants fell 4.5 percent from 2016 levels, according to EPA.

“Thanks to President Trump’s regulatory reform agenda, the economy is booming, energy production is surging, and we are reducing greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial sources,” EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement.

Earlier this year, the Energy Information Administration reported that per-capita greenhouse gas emissions hit a 67-year low during Trump’s first year in office.

EPA’s new data follows news that, globally, greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise to historic highs by the end of the year, despite nearly 200 countries signing the Paris climate accord. Global greenhouse gas emissions also rose in 2017.

China is the main culprit behind rising emissions, but India and other developing countries contribute. However, recent reports have detailed how European countries aren’t on track to meet their own emissions reduction goals.

A recent report from the Climate Action Network Europe found that emissions cuts among most European Union members were “nowhere close enough” to meet the goals of the Paris accord. Trump pledged to withdraw from the Paris accord at the earliest possibility, in 2020.

On the flip side, the U.S. led the world in emissions cuts for the ninth time this century, according to the oil giant BP’s annual energy statistics. BP reported that European Union “emissions were also up (1.5%) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase.

German and French emissions increased 0.1 and 2 percent, respectively, last year, BP reported, while the “UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history.”

Long held up as a poster child for fighting global warming, Germany is on track to miss its 2020 emissions targets. The government will likely instead push its goal of cutting CO2 emissions back to 2030.

A major reason the U.S. has been able to cut emissions is the availability of low-priced natural gas. In the last decade, drillers have been able to use hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to unlock vast shale gas reserves.

Low-priced natural gas has replaced much U.S. coal-fired capacity in recent years, which has in turn lowered emissions. Additions of wind and solar energy have also played a smaller role in reducing emissions.

“The Trump Administration has proven that federal regulations are not necessary to drive CO2 reductions,” Wheeler said. “While many around the world are talking about reducing greenhouse gases, the U.S. continues to deliver, and today’s report is further evidence of our action-oriented approach.”

Full story here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 17, 2018 2:23 pm

Fracking to the rescue and no thanks to NY health department excuses, or any official in NY actually.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 17, 2018 2:34 pm

You have told the whole story. Fracked natural gas has reduced America’s CO2 emissions. The greenies haven’t succeeded in preventing that from happening. That seems to be an issue in Britain. link

Reply to  commieBob
October 17, 2018 3:05 pm

The UK government is overturning some decisions.

Fracking just started at one site in Lancashire.

Most of the MSM, especially the BBC, is effectively trying to mobilize protesters to stop it.

The courts just let 3 protesters out of jail after a few weeks, saying the sentences were too harsh, which will only encourage more – the 3 said they were heading straight back to the site.

It’s difficult to see how the industry can continue under this sort of pressure and active disruption by what amounts to a tiny minority of nut-jobs who believe Russian trolls, and are happy to be useful idiots.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
October 18, 2018 8:19 am

The greens can’t stand fracking.
It produces cheap clean energy, lowering CO2 emissions.

As a result of the transition to gas, USA CO2 emissions are dropping per capita and per unit of economic output, while the signatories of the Paris accord keep increasing their CO2 (India and China).

They must crush gas and nuclear to force de-industrialization and socialist wealth redistribution schemes.

Reply to  commieBob
October 17, 2018 6:25 pm

No CommieBob, the ‘whole story’ is that China and India’s CO2 combined emissions are greater than the US and will continue to grow for decades because they need to build heaps of new, cheap, coal fired power stations to catch up with the West and improve the welfare of their citizens. The developed countries on the other hand already have most of the power generation capacity that they need to support their high standard of living and therefore their CO2 emissions need not and will not rise.
Therefore total global CO2 emissions will continue to rise for decades despite anything that the developed countries do, so the whole Paris agreement is a con. How come the IPCC and the MSM never say this? Because one graph that everyone can understand would destroy their whole alarmist narrative. THAT is the whole story.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
October 18, 2018 4:04 am

Trump pledged to withdraw from the Paris accord at the earliest possibility, in 2020.

That WAS the earliest possibility in 2016. However, since Trump has done nothing to fulfill this campaign pledge, the earliest opportunity is now 2022, nearing 2023.

When is he going to step up to the plate and actually DO IT ?

Phil R
Reply to  Greg
October 18, 2018 10:33 am

I’m not an expert on the Paris agreement and I’m not going to go research it now, but if I remember correctly the agreement allows countries to withdraw after giving a one-year notice. I think Trump gave the notice that the US would be withdrawing from the agreement, so that should have triggered (love that word), and we should be in, the one-year waiting period.

Please feel free to clarify or correct if I have this wrong.

Phil R
Reply to  Greg
October 18, 2018 12:01 pm

Ok, I did the research. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is addressed in Article 23 of the agreement.

Article 23

1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.

2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.

Apparently, you have to wait three years before you can give your notice to withdraw. Then you have a one-year waiting period. So it looks like it would be four years from when Obama (or whoever) entered into the agreement.

That’s if you want to follow the provisions of the agreement. Since it’s not a formal treaty, I guess Trump could just tell them to stuff it.

John Endicott
Reply to  Greg
October 18, 2018 12:37 pm

1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.

The US never entered into agreement as a party. For that to happen, it would have to be a treaty and the US congress would have to ratify it. Barack Obama entered into agreement, thus only Barack Obama is a party to it.

Phil R
Reply to  Greg
October 18, 2018 5:00 pm

John Endicott,

I believe you are 100% correct. However, 1) if we’re not giving any money, then we’ve effectively withdrawn. If we’ve effectively withdrawn, then whether we officially leave now or a year or two from now, it doesn’t matter, and keeps the ball in their court.

Linda Goodman
October 17, 2018 2:30 pm

Emissions: substances discharged into the air (as by a smokestack or an automobile engine) -Merriam Webster

Less C02 is bad; less pollution is good. The two aren’t the same.

This a ‘Nanananabooboo’ to alarmists actually reinforces the big lie that C02 is pollution. Score another one for the psychopaths.

Reply to  Linda Goodman
October 17, 2018 7:08 pm

Hence the carefully crafted word: ‘Carbon’ to confuse the issue.

October 17, 2018 3:02 pm

IMHO, any company asked to declare their amount of emissions, would have no idea how to measure them and would just give some kind of guesstimate that won’t raise flags at the EPA.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 17, 2018 8:57 pm

Actually quite easy to calculate CO2 emissions. All fuels have a calculable amount of carbon content, and based on the amount of fuel used you can easily calculate the amount of carbon dioxide produced.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 17, 2018 8:59 pm

Easy to calculate. The carbon content of fuel is easy to calculate, then based on the amount of fuel used, you can calculate the amount of carbon dioxide made.

Chris Hanley
October 17, 2018 3:07 pm

“China is the main culprit …”.
Culprit: a person who is responsible for a crime or other misdeed, the cause of a problem or defect.
That’s alarmists’ language.
CO2 phobia will never be cured as long as CC™ realists keep unwittingly endorsing it.

Ellis Greenwood
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 18, 2018 3:25 am

Agreed, they should use contributor instead IMO.

October 17, 2018 3:15 pm

Help us bring President Trumps promise of Clean Coal back. We have been trying so hard to bring our Carbon Capture Utilization System in front of the President.
Coal power plant can be operating and emitting into the atmosphere less CO2 than a natural gas power plant.
Then there are those who will say, “But there is more bad stuff in combusted coal exhaust”. We say ~
Waste is not waste if it has a purpose, and Sidel has given a purpose to combusted coal exhaust. The lead and the mercury and the sulfur and the chromium and the nickel and the coal ash all can be removed and sold or transformed into other useable-saleable products.
America can Really be reducing their CO2 emissions, compared to the above graph, showing the world that President Trump does not need the Paris Climate Accord to better the environment. He is taking the CO2 to better the economy. He can then tell these countries that America will sell this technology to them, so they can start to catch up.

Reply to  Sid Abma
October 17, 2018 4:48 pm

Nonsense is still nonsense, no matter how many people you show it to.

Coal is already clean. There is no need or desire to remove CO2 as well.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2018 12:07 am

Good coal combustion principally produces carbon dioxide and water vapour – both transparent almost inert gases. It also produces a small amount of other inherent emissions which are all useful if collected. If one defines inert, transparent gases as “dirty” one can create any narrative one wants about pollution. But that does not make any narrative true. It becomes a “Just so story.”

“Just so stories” are for children.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 18, 2018 5:19 am

CO2 is pretty inert, at the end of its oxidation chain. Water, in any form, not so much. Water is one of the most pesky pollutants there is due to its aggressive dissolving and corrosion properties.

Try making any silicon chip work with any water around.

Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2018 3:10 pm

Ditto. Mark. Or +1000.

James Anderson
October 17, 2018 4:20 pm

Well this is a good trend but has little to do with President Trump. There are state programs to reduce climate change and there is widespread adoption of LED and Solar Panel technology which is amazingly affordable compared to just six years ago.

Patrick MJD
October 17, 2018 4:32 pm
October 17, 2018 4:58 pm

No direct link to EPA data is given here, or at Daily Caller. The basis seems to be here. They give a 2.6% reduction in 2017. That just beats a 2.1% reduction in CO2 in 2016, but 2015 reduction was 4.6%. It doesn’t sound like Trump turned things around in his first year.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 17, 2018 5:27 pm

Trump ?, of course he didn’t.
I don’t think anyone believes he holds some kind of switch, or do they ?

Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 17, 2018 9:47 pm

Well, the headlines says “emissions fall under Trump …MAGA”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 18, 2018 6:06 am

It’s climate science you only need a rough correlation and it’s the cause and you claim it, that is how this field works.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 18, 2018 12:14 pm

Did emissions fall under Trump? Yes or no. Really quite simple, you’re the one applying additional qualifiers to the statement.

The point you’re ignoring is that so many bemoaned the US pulling out of the Paris accord, and assuming it meant our emissions would increase and things would be bad. But that’s not happened. We pulled out of Paris and emissions continue down. The world did not end.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 18, 2018 3:14 pm

And it is true that emissions continue to fall under Trump.

Or do you mean to say that a reduction under Obama means more than a reduction under Trump, even if the numbers are the same?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 17, 2018 7:39 pm

Gee, I wonder why you stopped looking-back when you got to 2015…

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 17, 2018 9:48 pm

You might wonder why the Daily Caller didn’t even mention 2016 (or give a link).

Javert Chip
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 17, 2018 8:25 pm


So you claim ‘…2.6% reduction in 2017. That just beats a 2.1% reduction in CO2 in 2016…”.

Admittedly, 2.1% to 2.6% is 0.5 basis points, but non the less, that’s a 24% increase YOY, and you say “just beats”?

People get all tied up in their knickers over 400 parts per million of CO2 (0.04%).

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Javert Chip
October 18, 2018 1:37 am

“People get all tied up in their knickers over 400 parts per million of CO2 (0.04%).”

And here people untwist any knickers they may be wearing because that 400 ppm is greening the planet.
Amazing that (0.04%) of CO2 is so selective in it’s effects.
It’s all good (sarc)

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 18, 2018 8:37 am

Life consumes CO2

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 18, 2018 2:46 am

Nick do you have a direct link showing, proving with evidence man’s CO2 production is will send us down a blazing trail?

October 17, 2018 5:51 pm

Of course that had to stick this in there…..with no explanation of how

“However, critics of the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda say actions today will cause emissions to increase in the future.”

..and of course again no qualifier of how much of an increase

Percy Jackson
October 17, 2018 5:59 pm

This would appear to make a mockery of all of Trump’s claims about why he pulled the USA out of the
Paris climate accords. It would appear that the USA is capable of meeting its commitments to reduce CO2
while growing the economy so clearly abiding by the Paris accords would not have damaged the US in any way.

John Dilks
Reply to  Percy Jackson
October 17, 2018 7:04 pm

You forgot about the money. We aren’t giving our money away needlessly.

Reply to  John Dilks
October 17, 2018 7:36 pm

Yep. Paris is ONLY about the money. They don’t care one whit what the US’s “carbon” emissions are.

T Port
Reply to  John Dilks
October 17, 2018 10:18 pm

And don’t forget the legal liability! As I understand, the U.S. energy companies could be sued if we failed to meet some arbitrary emissions target. Also, if the treaty were ratified there might be civil liability in U.S. courts to private parties around the world for various adverse climatic outcomes. I would like to see a careful analysis of all the legal aspects of the treaty before we again consider moving ahead with it, if we ever do, but I don’t think we will get one from the major media.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  T Port
October 17, 2018 11:17 pm

Mr Port,
The agreement is voluntary with no penalties for not meeting the targets. And you
get to choose whatever targets you like. So any country can stay in the Paris accord
and set a target of increased emissions as some countries have done since they are
prioritising growth to alleviate poverty. So there is no legal liability.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Percy Jackson
October 17, 2018 11:44 pm

No penalties, are you sure about that? Because Germany failed to meet its targets and will pay a fine.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
October 18, 2018 12:55 am

Patrick, that is an EU matter, not a Paris consequence. Paris is entirely voluntary and not a legally binding agreement with sanctions.

Craig from Oz
October 17, 2018 7:05 pm

USA quits Paris.

USA’s emissions drop.

Non USA countries stick with Paris.

Non USA countries fail to show emission reductions.

Clear Conclusion – Paris causes emissions!

Science is Settled. Now where’s my grant? 😀

Reply to  Craig from Oz
October 18, 2018 12:15 pm

Nope. No grant for you UNTIL you build a model saying that Paris causes emissions!

October 17, 2018 7:41 pm

One of the world’s top REAL scientists just got unfairly hounded out of his job by SJW feminists and he needs our help.

Back story here:

White House Petition here: https://petitions.whitehous

Science Censored Petition here:

Alan Tomalty
October 17, 2018 10:30 pm

For all those who think the world is running out of oil we just have to look at West Texas to prove them wrong. Some estimates say that there could be up to 2 trillion barrels of oil in West Texas.

October 18, 2018 1:52 am

” … could be up to 2 trillion barrels of oil in West Texas. … ”

Ignoring the “could be” part a moment, if we say each barrel fetches a nominal $70 per at market (ignoring costs for now) that would be, like:

$70 x 2,000,000,000,000 = that’s like $140 Trillion dollars or sumpthin?

That’s a lot of cheesy-poofs!

Maybe the US could afford a wee hydrocarbon export industry … from like … Saturn’s moon Titan.

Reply to  WXcycles
October 18, 2018 2:35 am

We just need to build a fleet of spacefaring LNG tankers.

Bloke down the pub
Reply to  David Middleton
October 18, 2018 6:06 am

Well Elon Musk is designing tanker versions of his BFR to carry methane.

Reply to  David Middleton
October 18, 2018 12:25 pm

“Space force” it is already in the works.

Steve O
October 18, 2018 4:44 am

So, the thing that is responsible for the US reducing emissions, hydraulic fracturing, is actively opposed by the same activist crowd that claims CO2 emissions represent an existential threat to life on earth. Huh.

Bloke down the pub
October 18, 2018 6:09 am

What is most impressive about these figures is that it has been done whilst trying to re-shore production in the US. Any country can reduce its CO2 emissions by off-shoring their heavy industry.

John S
October 18, 2018 10:11 am

The text of the post says that per capita emissions are falling, but the graph is emissions per dollar of GDP. that chart doesn’t show much because if GDP rises by 3% per year, the per dollar emissions will decline as long as emissions are rising at less than 3%.
What I would like to see is absolute emissions over time, to see if today’s emissions are at the level of 2010, 2000, 1990 or whatever

Alan Tomalty
October 18, 2018 10:50 am

Everyday, I love looking at the Guardian countdown clock of world CO2 emissions. A steady 1000 tons per second. Go China Go. The world needs more CO2 in the atmosphere NOT less. The clock says mankind has now reached 75% of CO2 emissions (total carbon budget is 2.9 trillion tons to limit warming to 2C above 1850 level) before Armageddon. When Armageddon comes in 18 years and 78 days I will throw a big party. Notice that the IPCC says 12 years. We know that the alarmists won’t debate skeptics but the alarmists won’t even debate other alarmists as to their differences. Interesting.

John Endicott
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 18, 2018 10:59 am

18 years or 12 years makes no difference. By the time the date arrives, they’ll have since slipped the date another dozen or so years into the future. Armageddon is always “x years away”.

October 20, 2018 7:31 pm

Anyone with half a brain knows that the equipment used in transportation and generation of electricity has a life span measured in decades. The reduction in CO2 emissions observed in 2017 are almost certainly the result of policies implemented by the Obama administration (Clean Power Plan, mileage mandates, etc), the increased supply of natural gas attributable to fracking, state incentives and mandates for renewable power, and other long-term factors – plus modest short-term changes caused by weather and the economy. (The same principle applies everywhere in the world – CO2 emissions respond very slowly to changes in policy.)

It is shear idiocy to attribute any of this to Trump. If the change has anything to do with what “Makes American Great”, I’d say it’s due to American ingenuity and enterprise (fracking).

FWIW, IMO efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are likely to prove ineffective and cost far more than any benefit (which is difficult to calculate) derived from less warming (which is difficult to project).

October 20, 2018 7:53 pm

For the US and many regions of the world, total energy use per capita has been relatively flat for several decades.
It is the growth of living standards (largely in developing countries) and population increase that has produced overall energy growth.
Which does the world wish to give up?

Verified by MonsterInsights