Climate change action proponents regularly tell us we have to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to prevent “climate change”, even to the point of curtailing industry, travel, and food consumption. Fortunately, a real-world test of just those very things happened in 2020 due to the COVID-19 related lockdowns.
In a report released April 12th by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) the Monthly Energy Review, they report that energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 11% in the United States in 2020 primarily because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions.
Furthermore, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell in every end-use (consumer) sector for the first time since 2012. The EIA notes:
“CO2 emissions associated with energy use fell by 12% in the commercial sector in 2020. Part of this drop in emissions was due to pandemic restrictions. Because electricity is a large source of energy for the commercial sector, the declining carbon intensity of electric power also contributed to declining CO2 emissions from commercial activity. Emissions from commercial electricity use fell by 13%. Commercial petroleum and natural gas emissions fell by 13% and 11%, respectively.”
“Within the U.S. power sector, emissions from coal declined the most, by almost a fifth, at 19%. Natural gas-related CO2 emissions rose by 3%. Also of note in 2020; fossil fuel generation declined, while power generation from renewables from wind and solar continued to grow.”
These graphs below, provided by EIA, show the downward trends in CO2 emissions by sector:
The EIA also provided data that shows in the middle of all that reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, electricity generation from solar energy (and to a minor extent, wind) increased by 17% in 2020.
But here’s the rub.
This big CO2 emission reduction experiment from traditional fossil fuel energy sources so often demanded from climate change alarmists resulted from the global economy being essentially crippled for months, and yet did not matter at all in the grand scheme of global carbon dioxide concentrations, said to be the “control knob” for climate change. Even with that reduction, combined with a 17% upwards shift towards wind and solar, the Earth’s atmosphere didn’t notice – global atmospheric CO2 concentrations continued upwards, unabated in 2020.
As seen in the graph above, CO2 in the atmosphere increased during 2020 during the economy crippling lockdowns at the same rate it has been for decades. There isn’t even a blip.
This lack of any reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration clearly demonstrates that no matter how much the U.S. reduces CO2 emissions, no one living today will, at any point in life, see a measurable change in climate attributable to the reduction. This is especially true since other countries, such as China, who only give lip-service to the CO2 emissions reduction demanded by the 2015 Paris Climate Accord.
It is a fools errand to think we in the U.S. can change the climate by reducing CO2 emissions, especially when other countries aren’t even bothering to try. We can only mitigate any future changes in the climate, something mankind has been successfully doing for centuries.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony, you know better than this. You know concentration relates to cumulative emissions, not yearly emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country=~USA~China
Looking at the cumulative you also know this can’t go on for decades to come. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
So there is no point in mitigation? It will take centuries?
Also why do the seasonal emissions from the oceans get re-absorbed on an annual basis but not the AGW emissions. The sinks are large enough to cope with year to year variation that exceeds mankind’s annual emissions.
It’s not about how long it takes. (what will take centuries btw?)
It’s about limiting the warming. +1.5 C is probably better that +2. +2 is probably better than +3. We can’t keep on doubling the concentration every 30 years, and Europe and the US have caused most of the elevated concentration. The call is on us.
The rest of your comment is just nonsense. The biosphere will of course cope with the natural fluctuations because it’s the biosphere causing it. But the primary production does not increase 2% from one year to the next just because co2 increased 2%. There are several limiting factors.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 has taken centuries.
So cuts in emissions must also take centuries…? Is that that what you are trying to suggest?
The incredible global pause in fossil fuel consumption of 2020 had no discernible effect. So trying to stop consuming fossil fuels is pointless? Right?
You (yes, You) made the case that it’s cumulative emissions that matter. one year doesn’t matter. Lockdown will work eventually. So centuries of Lockdown is your policy.
No question now. That’s what you’ve said!
I question why you think even centuries of lockdown would make difference. We have not done that trial.
And the rest is not nonsense. Reality shows that atmospheric CO2 responds to emissions within a year, not centuries as you wish to believe, or self-deceive.
I’m not talking lockdown, rather the opposite. Improved technology, new technology, bringing back production from Asia, new jobs.
The US can choose to take part in the transition, or you can choose to give this business too to Europe and Asia.
I made the case? Since you don’t want to understand what I’m writing, try R. W. Spencer. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/
In short, if we cut the emissions to half, the concentration will stabilize. Then we can evaluate whether that is sufficient or not.
Ah, you mean magic.
I thought you were talking about what was proven. But you were talking about science fiction.
Yes. If we develop cold fusion or cheap batteries with long-life or teleportation then you are right. But no intervention would be required. Those technologies would be adopted anyway.
At the moment the cheapest energy sources we have are fossil fuels. The best portable storage means for energy are fossil fuels. That’s why they dominate. That’s why everything else needs huge subsidies.
So cutting emissions to half will stabilise the concentration? Maybe.
But the cost is astronomical. 2020 showed how little we can cut. Replacing with intermittent renewables and backup systems… It’s unreal.
You are wishing for magic to be invented.
The magic is happening right now.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper-than-thought-admits-uk-government
Then there is no climate crisis. The cheaper technologies will be adopted. No intervention required.
But unfortunately, you are wrong.
Wish you were right.
Reread what Roy Spencer wrote about detection limits of fossil fuel emissions in the mauna loa record.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/06/covid-19-global-economic-downturn-not-affecting-co2-rise-may-2020-update/
I repeat my comment that OCO-2 data mapping shows a distinct correlation between areas of heavy vegetation and higher CO2 levels. Is the increase in vegetation caused by global warming the principal cause of the increase in the global CO2 level?
Bill Everett:
The increase in vegetation is because of higher CO2 levels.
CO2 has ZERO warming effect.
Why then does the OCO-2 mapping show increased levels of CO2 where there are increased levels of vegetation? Why should there be increased levels of CO2 at those locations if it is not originating there?
Your analysis did not really test what you were saying it tested. You need to actual global emissions to actual global levels and see if the change depends on them or not. If you are trying to state that CO2 emissions are not responsible for the CO2 increase observed in the atmosphere you actually have to prove it, and good luck with that.
True.
But Covid was international.
All the flights stopped. Ad the rest, remember?
Try and make a policy that governs the whole world more than Covid enforced.
It’s irrelevant Time-Wasting.
So how are CO2 emissions for a country measured? I assume it’s models using all kinds of assumptions and lots of not necessarily very accurate economic data that is self reported at one level or another. Is that correct? And, my usual question, what are the appropriate error margins? How are they calculated?
During past warm spells between ice ages, CO2 levels have typically been around 290 ppm, as they also were during much of this several thousand year warm spell. They were significantly lower during the ice ages. CO2 levels are currently over 410 ppm, as reported from the Mauna Loa station in Hawaii, an increase of about 40%, yet temperatures are no higher than during the Medieval Warm Period around the year 1,000, when the Norse were raising oats, barley and rye on over 200 farms on Greenland. With all of this in mind, what is the problem?
Back in the 1970’s a book was published predicting that by now there would be mass starvation due to our inability to raise enough food, and mathematical proof was provided in the book. I wonder what happened to that prediction, and why?
Let’s talk about oxygen. It’s necessary for all of animal life, including us. Oxygen is at 21% of the atmosphere and is decreasing. Only plants with photosynthesis can make oxygen and they have only .004% of the atmosphere to work with. We need more CO2 to ensure that enough oxygen can be produced to prevent all of us being asphyxiated. Otherwise we are doomed.
These are the posts that the rent-seeking, enviro-fascist shills never seem to comment on, because there is nothing they can say. Covid was the greatest experiment ever to determine CO2 emissions’ impact on atmospheric CO2, and the results were exactly what most of us expected. However, we are in a post-fact, post-math, post-logic world…it sadly just doesn’t matter anymore what the reality is. There are too many people drunk on power and profits to walk away now.
Another claim from arm chair wizards calculating the alleged emissions reduction…
EIA should move their desks and chairs outside, demolish the building and then they can actually track their own CO₂ reductions from shutting down their place of employment.
Mankind reducing its emissions of CO2 makes no difference to the increase-rate of CO2 as it simply makes room for an increase in CO2 boiling out of the Oceans and coming from other sources of Nature like trees and volcanoes, of which there is no shortage.
Well yeah! We (world wide) produce 4% of all the CO2 released in to the atmosphere. If we some how stopped all production and magically reduced our CO2 emissions to zero without killing every single person on this planet in the process, CO2 would still release naturally. 96% of current levels would still be released.
How are we going to stop that? And should we? It’s natural.
Maybe a warming planet causes higher CO2 levels in higher altitude because the heavier gas is expanding. Maybe global warming has more to deal with air pressure and not CO2. So I believe that co2has little to none of “global warming “. If a warmer planet causes CO2 levels higher concentration at higher altitude then we are looking at causation issue.
Daniel Ambrose (and others)
With respect to our climate, It does not matter what happens to CO2 levels in our atmosphere–CO2 has NO climatic effect.
See my earlier Apr. 16, 11:45 post, above.
But… in 1929-1931, WORLD CO2 emission by humans declined by 30% and global CO2 continued its languid rise to 1941, when temp declined till 1970, through WWII and post war reconstruction, with little change in CO2. When will we wake up and look at data?
Climate change is not a problem, it is a given. CO2 mitigation is not a solution, it is a problem.
I think the counter argument will be that it’s not just the US, but all other countries that have to cut back on emissions.
However, I’, assuming here that every country more or less followed suit during 2020 and saw a decrease in CO2 emissions. If that assumption is true, why didn’t atmospheric CO2 drop? Is there a lag time between when we emit CO2 until it shows up at the measuring stations we use to collect the atmospheric CO2 data? Does CO2 linger in the atmosphere for years so we wouldn’t expect a real time drop?
Or are there natural sources of CO2 that are emitting more?