The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are at their lowest level for the January-March period since 1992. However, the agency would attribute the decline to three factors, including: a mild winter that reduced household heating demand and therefore energy use; a decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to historically low natural gas prices; and reduced gasoline demand.
The New York Times reports this week, however, that experts are unclear whether this marks the continuation of a trend or an anomaly.
“U.S. CO2 emissions from energy consumption totaled 1,340 million metric tons during the first quarter of 2012, down nearly 8% from a year earlier and the lowest for the January-March period since 1992,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s June Monthly Energy Review.
The report found that CO2 emissions from coal were down 18% to 387 million metric tons in the January-March 2012 period. That was the lowest first quarter CO2 emissions from coal since 1983 and the lowest for any quarter since April-June 1986.
They attribute that decline to “utilities using less coal for electricity generation as they burned more low-priced natural gas.”
The report notes, “About 90% of the energy-related CO2 emissions from coal came from the electric power sector. Coal has the highest carbon intensity among major fossil fuels, resulting in coal-fired plants having the highest output rate of CO2 per kilowatthour.”
Meanwhile, natural gas emissions were also down compared to a year ago, though such emissions fell less than the coal emissions drops.
They report, “While generators used more natural gas for electricity generation, overall CO2 emissions from natural gas were down because of lower gas heating demand this winter when temperatures were significantly above the historical average for the season.”
The report notes, “The electric power sector accounted for about 27% of the CO2 emissions from natural gas, while 26% came from the residential sector. The industrial sector was the biggest producer of CO2 emissions from natural gas at 28% for the January-March 2012 period, but those emissions were up only 2 million metric tons from a year earlier.”
“Natural gas is the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel, producing the lowest CO2 emissions. Power plants that burn natural gas are also usually more efficient at converting fuel into electricity (i.e., they have a lower heat rate) than coal-fired power plants. The average operating heat rate for gas-fired power plants is about 21% lower than coal-fired electric generation facilities, creating less CO2 emissions,” the report adds.
Finally, with regard to petroleum, the report found, “Petroleum CO2 emissions fell 2.7% during the first quarter of 2012 compared to the same period for 2011, to 559 million metric tons, due to reduced gasoline and heating oil consumption. Petroleum CO2 emissions were at the lowest level for any quarter since April-June 1996.”
The NY Times notes that Michael Mann, “a climate scientist who directs the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, emphasized Friday that, in addition to carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas wells contribute to other ills. When shale gas is taken from the earth, researchers suggest ‘fugitive methane’ – a far potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – can escape into the atmospheres through fissures in the ground.”
“We may be reducing our CO2 emissions, but it is possible that we’re actually increasing the greenhouse gas problem with methane emissions,” he said.
Berkeley Physicist Richard Muller stunned many when, in the New York Times, he abandoned years of skepticism over studies linking global warming to human activity, proclaiming in a New York Times op-ed, “Call me a converted skeptic.”
In an interview with NPR, he said, “Well, if you had asked me a year ago, I might have said I didn’t know whether there was global warming at all. But we had begun a major study, scientific reinvestigation. We were addressing what I consider to be legitimate criticisms of many of the skeptics.”
He continued, “But about nine months ago, we reached a conclusion that global warming was indeed taking place, that all of the effects that the skeptics raised could be addressed, and to my surprise, actually, the global warming was approximately what people had previously said.”
One of the key findings that changed Professor Muller’s mind is correlations between levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures.
He wrote, “We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”
As he told NPR, “To my surprise, the clear signature that really matched the rise in the data was human carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It just matched so much better than anything else. I was just stunned.”
Dr. Apt, the New York Times reports, “is among those who believes that government intervention would be needed to cut emissions to acceptable levels.”
“If we see more and more variability in the climate, not just droughts but also more storms, there may very well emerge a consensus that we need to finally do something to stop this very dangerous unprecedented experiment that we’re doing on the planet,” he said.
“My fear is that if the U.S. is so laggard in greenhouse gas regulation that we will be buying technologies from abroad rather than selling them, as we did with clean air and water,” he said.
Local communities have aimed policies at reducing their carbon footprint to 1990 standards, but federal policy is lagging behind what communities like San Francisco and even Davis has done.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are at their lowest level for the January-March period since 1992. [/quote]
Yet we are having a record heat wave/drought… 😉
That’s right ERM, it contradicts what the climate alarmists are trying to push.
ERM, I wonder if that could be labeled “An Inconvenient Truth”.
Elaine: The political-scientific consortium has all of it covered:
1. Heating = Anthropogenic Global Warming
2. Cooling = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
3. Drought = Anthropogenic Global Warming
4. Flooding = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
5. Hurricanes and Tornados = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
Pretty neato huh? They never have to admit they were wrong when the weather does something different than their dire predictions. They can leverage any and all weather-related predicaments to push a scientific and political agenda.
Interesting that we can have so many agree on something so enigmatic; but we can’t do the same concerning our government spending. How about putting as much effort into the theory of “Global Fiscal Collapse”? After all , if a tree dies in the forest and we aren’t around to experience the tree… who cares?
ERM: [i]Yet we are having a record heat wave/drought… ;-)[/i]
The factor in play is global accumulated CO2. What the article is saying is that the U.S. reduced the amount of CO2 that it added to the atmosphere. A one year reduction in overall emissions will not do anything to change warming climate trends, in this framework. What the article doesn’t account for is the contribution of other countries, particularly China and India. If you care about CO2 levels, then this is a start. But it’s only an extremely modest beginning if the goal is to reduce CO2 levels.
JB: [i]Interesting that we can have so many agree on something so enigmatic; but we can’t do the same concerning our government spending.[/i]
…and there’s always enough money to rescue the banking industry.
In our fair City, we will strive for a “Mickey Mouse” sized carbon footprint and volunteer for a “Goofy” sized electronic footprint (witness the passivity of the majority of our citizens as Crown Castle recently backed in 27 cell phone antennae within City limits).
Davis, we will know you for your hypocricy by your limping!
Here’s the trend line of direct measures of global CO2 levels. Note that the trend remains positive, meaning that that a reduction in U.S. emissions has not changed the trend in any significant way. It would take bigger efforts to do that.
[img]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png[/img]
[i]…and there’s always enough money to rescue the banking industry.[/i]
wdf1, I don’t know many conservatives that support bailing out any big business/industry. Related to the theory of Global Warming, bail outs to Global Fiscal Collapse theory is analogous to using nuclear weapons to destroy coal mines to reduce coal emissions.
wdf1 wrote:
>…and there’s always enough money to rescue the banking industry.
The “Banking Industry” like the “Defense Industry” has learned that if you give money to both Republicans and Democrats you will always get Government money.
A family friend who is a retired Defense Industry exec. told me that his firm (and many other defense firms) would donate 49% to the Dems, 49% to the GOP and 1% to the President year after year after year…
As the Save the Environment/Ban Standard Light bulb & Plastic Bag industry matures they will learn that go get really large chunks of government money that you need to bribe (also known as making perfectly legal campaign contributions)elected officials on both sided of the aisle.
JB: [i] I don’t know many conservatives that support bailing out any big business/industry.[/i]
The rate at which Wall Street is contributing to Republican campaigns & causes this year makes me think that conservatives would find a way to change their thinking if it were needed.
wdf1: Wall Street supported Obama, and there have been several studies that disproves your premise that Wall Street is significantly biased toward Republicans. You do know about the Goldman Sachs connection with the Obama admin, right?
You do all know that the topic of this thread is climate change?
JB: Why Has Wall Street Abandoned President Obama for Mitt Romney? ([url]http://www.wnyc.org/shows/moneytalking/2012/aug/17/[/url])
[quote]What the article doesn’t account for is the contribution of other countries, particularly China and India. If you care about CO2 levels, then this is a start. But it’s only an extremely modest beginning if the goal is to reduce CO2 levels.[/quote]
I brought this very issue up in a previous column and was roundly criticized… LOL
[quote]Elaine: The political-scientific consortium has all of it covered:
1. Heating = Anthropogenic Global Warming
2. Cooling = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
3. Drought = Anthropogenic Global Warming
4. Flooding = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
5. Hurricanes and Tornados = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change [/quote]
I couldn’t stop laughing at this one 😉
[quote]Interesting that we can have so many agree on something so enigmatic; but we can’t do the same concerning our government spending. How about putting as much effort into the theory of “Global Fiscal Collapse”? After all , if a tree dies in the forest and we aren’t around to experience the tree… who cares?[/quote]
Spot on.
[quote]The rate at which Wall Street is contributing to Republican campaigns & causes this year makes me think that conservatives would find a way to change their thinking if it were needed.[/quote]
Are you really trying to argue both parties aren’t up to their eyeballs/in thick w the banking industry?
wdf1, What is your point? Wall Street is not ideologically biased based on the fact that they supported Dems in prior elections, and support the GOP candidates now. From my perspective it looks Wall Street supports the candidate that they think will be best for the economy in general. Boy, did they learn their lesson with Obama!
Getting back to climate change. A robust economy provides government with more resources to invest in the next Solyndra.
So are we to ruin our economy, what’s left of it anyway, to further reduce our CO2 levels while China and India thrive while polluting and counteracting any reduction that we are acheiving all over a yet unproven science?
ERM: [i]I brought this very issue up in a previous column and was roundly criticized… LOL[/i]
I don’t recall criticizing you on that issue. I usually respond when comments mis-characterize the science, as your original comment did today.
“I couldn’t stop laughing at this one ;-)”
Watch it now, I thought you weren’t allowed to laugh.
[i]”1. Heating = Anthropogenic Global Warming
2. Cooling = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
3. Drought = Anthropogenic Global Warming
4. Flooding = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
5. Hurricanes and Tornados = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change”[/i]
Yes. Increased global temperatures will very likely lead to more extreme weather conditions of all kinds. I could give examples of all of 1 – 4, with reasonable explanations as to why they are occurring. Or, of course, you could find them by doing a very small amount of online searching yourselves.
#5 is more tenuous, and was one of the claims in Inconvenient Truth that was criticized as being unproven.
JB: [i]What is your point?[/i]
That politicians are likely to be most responsive to whatever cause has the most money behind it. If there were more money going to James Inhofe from groups interested in a legislative response to trends indicated in current science of global warming than from oil companies, then he would change his position.
[quote]I don’t recall criticizing you on that issue. I usually respond when comments mis-characterize the science, as your original comment did today.[/quote]
Didn’t mean to imply you personally criticized me – I don’t think you did either. But many global warming theorists went to great lengths to discredit my observation, which I find highly amusing. But I don’t think my original comment today mis-characterizes the science at all – it provides “an inconvenient truth” as one commenter pointed out…
[quote]That politicians are likely to be most responsive to whatever cause has the most money behind it. If there were more money going to James Inhofe from groups interested in a legislative response to trends indicated in current science of global warming than from oil companies, then he would change his position.[/quote]
There is no question the oil industry is controlling the energy discussion…
[quote]1. Heating = Anthropogenic Global Warming
2. Cooling = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
3. Drought = Anthropogenic Global Warming
4. Flooding = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
5. Hurricanes and Tornados = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change”
Yes. Increased global temperatures will very likely lead to more extreme weather conditions of all kinds. I could give examples of all of 1 – 4, with reasonable explanations as to why they are occurring. Or, of course, you could find them by doing a very small amount of online searching yourselves.
#5 is more tenuous, and was one of the claims in Inconvenient Truth that was criticized as being unproven.[/quote]
Or all of this could be a normal cyclical change that occurs over hundreds of years…
“I brought this very issue up in a previous column and was roundly criticized…”
What was your comment and what were the responses…
As I have said many times before, the theory of global warming is not nearly important to me as addressing the following two issues, which to my mind are the real heart of the debate:
1) How much do we expend/what types of methods/policies do we employ to reduce air pollution?
2) How do we become energy independent from foreign oil?
Is the US oil industry controlling the energy discussion? Maybe. But the Obama administration is sure controlling energy policy.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/science/earth/epa-sets-greenhouse-emission-limits-on-new-power-plants.html[/url]
Note that these EPA rules and many that proceeded are having a chilling job-killing effect.
Add this to Obamacare and the constant threat of higher taxation, and it is clear to understand where the thoughts of ideological conspiracy come from. Is Obama a socialist? Certainly having a greater population of people unable or unwilling to take care of themselves contributes to a populist movement to demand more entitlements and politicians that best serve that demand.
Said another way, it appears that Obama and the Dems actually like having so many unemployed. Their actions supporting the economy do not support their rhetoric.
Jeff:
“Add this to Obamacare and the constant threat of higher taxation, and it is clear to understand where the thoughts of ideological conspiracy come from. Is Obama a socialist? Certainly having a greater population of people unable or unwilling to take care of themselves contributes to a populist movement to demand more entitlements and politicians that best serve that demand.”
Jeff, if you haven’t already, go see the movie 2016 Obama’s America. It confronts much of what you said here with standing ovations at the end happening all across the country.
[i]As I have said many times before, the theory of global warming is not nearly important to me as addressing the following two issues, which to my mind are the real heart of the debate:
1) How much do we expend/what types of methods/policies do we employ to reduce air pollution?
2) How do we become energy independent from foreign oil?[/i]
Agree 100% Elaine as long as we include…
3) How do we get more Americans working in the private-sector and climbing the properity ladder?
ERM: [i]Didn’t mean to imply you personally criticized me – I don’t think you did either. But many global warming theorists went to great lengths to discredit my observation, which I find highly amusing. But I don’t think my original comment today mis-characterizes the science at all – it provides “an inconvenient truth” as one commenter pointed out…[/i]
To put “Yet we are having a record heat wave/drought” next to the comment the comment, “The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are at their lowest level for the January-March period since 1992”, suggests you think there should be a cause and effect when there isn’t. You would have to REDUCE total CO2 in the atmosphere to get that. All the article says is that the U.S. alone reduced the amount of CO2 it ADDED to the atmosphere. There’s nothing inconvenient about it, in the sense the you mean.
Rusty, Related to 2016 Obama’s America… I may need to wait for the DVD since I will likely be shouting obscenities at the screen!
It is fascinating and a bit sad though… that people need a movie to understand reality. All they have to do is start watching and reading sources of news that accurately and honestly report the REAL news. Alas, they develop their understanding from the stream of sound bites delivered by the Dem-controlled mainstream liberal media. And it is not just the ignorant and uneducated that are brainwashed by this stuff… I have had to detoxify several of my very intelligent and highly-educated friends.
Maybe movies are the way to do this going forward. Waiting for Superman and now 2016 Obama’s America appear to have worked to awaken and educate many that would otherwise believe what ABC, CBS, NBC and their liberal-biased newspaper tells them.
Don: Future references that are off topic, please move them to the bulletin board. That includes references to “Obama” that are not directly related to US policies on global warming.
ERM: [i]As I have said many times before, the theory of global warming is not nearly important to me as addressing the following two issues, which to my mind are the real heart of the debate:
1) How much do we expend/what types of methods/policies do we employ to reduce air pollution?
2) How do we become energy independent from foreign oil?[/i]
Laudable goals, but solving those doesn’t necessarily mean that the global warming issue is solved. There has been debate about whether the EPA can regulate CO2 as a pollutant, for instance. Becoming energy independent doesn’t necessarily mean that CO2 emissions are reduced, globally. If we see connected environmental changes that become radical enough (including rising sea level), then it would be important to understand why.
wdf1 wrote:
> Laudable goals, but solving those doesn’t necessarily
> mean that the global warming issue is solved.
Can anything we (as Americans) do “solve” the global warming issue (other than killing everyone that is not cutting carbon emissions)?
I think that we will all agree that if 70 kids are standing in a four foot deep above ground backyard pool and all 70 of them pee in the pool at the same time that the water will get warmer.
If we pick the kids by race and have them represent the population of the world we will have about 40 Asian kids, 10 African kids 7 European kids, 7 South American kids and only 3 American kids.
Does anyone really think that having the three American kids pee “less” that the “global” pool temp. will change by much (especially since the Asian kids from China are peeing even more than ever)…
I try and cut my gasoline and electricity usage as low as I can, but I don’t think that the (expensive) LED light bulbs I bought for my outside lights that stay on all night with change the “global” temp. any time soon…
The problem with your pee analogy is not every kid is peeing equal amounts.
So the US and Europe with much smaller populations still produce more CO2 than India and China put together.
SouthofDavis: [i]Can anything we (as Americans) do “solve” the global warming issue (other than killing everyone that is not cutting carbon emissions)?[/i]
Give incentives for U.S. industries to create technologies to reduce GHG emissions. We lost the chance to do that in the late 90’s and 2000’s. Honda and Toyota (both Japanese) invested in developing the Prius and hybrid technology. Detroit companies depended on SUV’s and Hummers for profits and mostly ignored that line of R & D. When the Great Recession hit and gas prices seemed high for American consumers, Detroit’s strategy didn’t seem so smart.
U.S. industries are capable of coming up with solutions, but if we’re still arguing about whether global warming is a legitimate concern, then it doesn’t create an atmosphere of confidence for U.S. companies to pursue them. What is clear is that if we assumed global warming was a legitimate worry, the solutions would tend to lead to solving the the very goals that Elaine likes to highlight — reduced pollution and greater energy independence. We would also be in a position to sell the products of that technology to the rest of the world. As it is, it seems likelier that we’ll be importing those products from other countries that took the issue more seriously.
[i]”The problem with your pee analogy is not every kid is peeing equal amounts.”[/i]
True, but the 3 American kids invented the pool and the entire pool industry and provide the bulk of military defense to allow all the other kids to pee freely. The American kids frankly showed all the other kids how to pee so they could live more comfortably. And what do we get in return for all that good stuff… shame, guilt and punishment that we have to pee to maintain our comfort.