Do you think it is possible for the U. S. to reduce its carbon emissions from energy production to the levels it produced in 1990? Why, yes it is and it may well happen this year:
For US energy-related carbon emissions, fuel switching to gas is back to the future. After the first quarter, the USA’s 2012 emissions are falling sharply again and may drop to 1990 levels, or just slightly above that important milestone, according to data in EIA’s latest Monthy Energy Review.
eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf.America’s energy related carbon emissions fell about 7.5%, during the first three months of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011. And first quarter 2012 emissions are approximately 8.5% lower than emissions in the first quarter of 2010.
Total energy carbon emissions were 5,473 million tons in 2011 and last year fell below the 1996 mark of 5,501 million tons.
The first quarter 2012 reduction of 7.5% makes it possible that this year emissions will fall back essentially to the 1990 level of 5,039 million tons. That is shockingly good news.
The 1990 level of carbon emissions is an important measuring stick, as it is often used as a critical data point for judging progress in reducing a nation’s carbon emissions.
And that’s with a population that’s 25% larger than ours was in 1990.
If reducing carbon emissions is of concern to you, you should be rejoicing at this news. The big hurdle is, as it has always been, transportation.
Hat tip: Mark Perry
I’m very happy, although cautious. Prices for natural gas are so low right now that it’s killing off the expansion of new production of it.
Hey now, did we adopt the “Pickens Plan” when nobody was looking?
A mild winter had something to do with this.
Could be. I think that the slow economy has something to do with it, too.
And high gas prices cutting into most people’s desire to drive.
Long term I imagine the offshoring of a lot of manufacturing has also had a major effect. We’ve exported our pollution to China.
I’ve been working my way through the report. Having inspected the total energy carbon emissions table, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the situation seems pretty clear to me.
Despite obvious local issues like warm winter (soon to be undone by warm summer) and gas prices, I rank the causes as follows:
1. Since the table cuts it into three- coal, nat gas and liquids dominated by gasoline, and all three turned down markedly at the start of the recession, that’s the dominant variable.
2. The rotation of electricity production from coal to gas is obvious. One also has to take into account BTU per unit of carbon emission. Gas is a clear winner. It should surprise then no one that I’ve been pounding my fist on the table at the Administrations folly at pursuing solar and electric cars like religious nuts while not putting their full weight and force behind gas.
3. I think ice pick was tangentially correct in the off shoring argument. I haven’t been able to find the graphic yet in the current report but previously the EIA attributed something like 97% of emission reductions not to technology and efficiencies, but to the increasing service to manufacturing ratio of GDP. Haircutters use less energy than welders.
I should point out, I have no inherent bias against the notion of solar energy production, or electric cars. It’s just that they simply are not technologically or economically viabl right now. And I tend not to have stars in my eyes. A better carbon footprint for electricity needed to charge those electric cars provided by gas could move the needle, but I’m thinking 15-20 years. I’m in my rocking chair by then…..