Banner
    It Worked! US Energy Emissions Back At 1992 Levels
    By Hank Campbell | August 1st 2012 03:19 PM | 2 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    See? America did not need any stinking Kyoto agreement, we just needed for three areas to work in tandem to get greenhouse gas emissions back close to the magic number picked by the Germans and French a decade and a half ago.(1)

    The Department of Energy released carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of the energy sector  for Q1 of 2012 and they were the lowest since 1992. American energy is positively green again, just like people wanted. We can thank right-wing energy companies for that, because it has primarily happened due to natural gas.

    What's the catch?  Activists have now turned their guns on natural gas too, blaming it for everything from headaches to breast cancer (summon the lich of science vampire Rachel Carson). Basically, energy companies can't win unless they require billions in subsidies from the government, i.e., they don't produce any energy. Like wind. And solar.


    Source: Department of Energy EIA Monthly Energy Review

    Obviously, the Obama administration gets some of the credit, so they should not let energy companies steal the glory for emissions reductions during an election year.  They can point to their fiscal policies and how that has reduced the need for people to drive to work, which reduced public demand for gasoline too.  With four more years, the economy and emissions could be back at 1988 levels. Global warming gets some credit also, spurred on by huge increases in Chinese emissions, because that has meant a milder winter so less energy was needed to heat homes.

    Basically, it took a lot of different groups working together. Coal, meanwhile, may soon need subsidies of its own.  It is approaching 1983 levels of usage (and therefore employment) due to increased restrictions and therefore higher cost.  We may soon be outsourcing those coal-mining jobs to Australia.  They have 700 years of coal left.

    H/T/ David Biello

    (1) Why that 1990 target?  No one knows, but it sure looked strange, since that date meant the Germans basically had to close some Soviet-era factories in East Germany left over from World War II that they acquired and the French had just switched over to mostly nuclear power,

    Comments

    Ashwani Kumar
    Congratulations America. CNG ( Compressed Natural Gas ) buses are now plying in Delhi and one can see Delhi is free from dirty black smoke coming out from old buses and three wheelers and mini buses which was the case just 10 years ago.  Delhi is now clean and free from smoke. ( Leave aside population pressure causing catastrophe to its  environment) Metro train service has also helped in reduction of pollution. 
    I went back to the Waxman-Markey proposal and saw that their target for CO2 emissions reduction was a 17% reduction in annual emissions of 6Gt from 2005 by th year 2020. This equates to an annual goal of 4.98Gt/yr. emissions by 2020. We are closing an additional 50+ coal based power plants in 2012 with 106 more scheculed to shut down by 2016 so it is highly likely that CO2 emissions will continue to decline. It looks like the USA may hit the Waxman-Markey 2020 target of 5Gt of CO2 emissions in 2012.

    The sad news is that China is increasing its CO2 emission by 1.4Gt/yr. This means for example that England's 2020 reduction target will be replaced by the Chinese in just 17 days worth of Chines increase. The USA's 2020 target of 1Gt will take 261 days for the Chinese to replace. In fact if the USA were to go to 0 emissions today the Chinese would replace those emissions in just 3.6 years.