Forums

World CO2 emissions stable, falling in U.S.

World CO2 emissions stable, falling in U.S.

Details from the IEA here:

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-fla...

"The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%."

Mike83 | 18 mars 2017

Check out some data and it isn't pretty. BTW its CO2 ppm in the troposphere that increases the greenhouse effect which the fossil fuel companies keep trying to obfuscate so they can pocket profits without paying for their pollution. . https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bl...

RedShift | 18 mars 2017

they will go back up once the coal jobs start coming back to make us great again. :-)

SCCRENDO | 18 mars 2017

@Dramsey. I guess we need to ask where the IEA gets their data from because i guess we could accuse them of having fossil fuel interests.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency

Their CO2 data certainly seems incorrect as regards the data we see but I would suggest that even if their data is correct their CO2 levels are flat not decreasing. That would suggest that some of our measures are working but we have a long way to go. And a few years of Trump could certainly send the emissions soaring again.

Dramsey | 18 mars 2017

"I guess" we could accuse any agency whose reports we don't agree with of having any unsavory connections to entities that we don't like. The IEA seems pretty open to me and has lots of info on their web site, although the details admittedly are locked up in very expensive reports. Still, 768 pages on world energy production and usage ought to be fun reading for those seriously concerned about it.

johndoeeyed | 18 mars 2017

The CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at record rates.
http://celebrating200years.noaa DOT gov/datasets/mauna/image3_full.jpg

The report, even if correct, only applies to the energy sector, and would simply indicate that other CO2 emissions must be increasing faster than the energy sector is decreasing, or that the carbon sinks are reducing. Either way, this is not good at all.

Al1 | 18 mars 2017

Barely any reason for optimism. Coal consumption dropped by 11% and carbon dioxide emissions by 3%. We certainly need much more.

The economy grew by 1.6%. What economy? Lawyers, brokers and consultants increased their fees? They don't produce emissions. How did energy intensive sector change?

IEA is energy sector lobbying group. Something like Russia Today from oil industry. One of a type oil companies like Shell and Exxon has been paying for decades for spreading out some reports, while holding others for themselves.

Their forecasts for renewable energy growth is a good example. Somehow IEA has consistently managed to underestimate its growth. Yes they produce thousands of pages of very expensive reports, but open up for public only "what public needs to know".

Dramsey | 18 mars 2017

Note to self: don't post any more "good news" on any sort of perceived energy/CO2 progress. Remember that it's _always_ getting worse (much worse!), we're all doomed, etc., and that anyone who thinks otherwise is either a fool or a stooge for Big Fossil.

Al1 | 18 mars 2017

Well, thanks for posting the news.

SCCRENDO | 18 mars 2017

@dramsey. Love good news. But prefer honest news. Forgive me but if I saw something like this coming out of the Whitehouse I would also inquire as to the credibilty. A fossil fuel site is unlikely to show a balanced picture on the environment. But like you I am open minded and if we could see where they got the data from and understood the context and the news was truly good then I might be more impressed.

johndoeeyed | 18 mars 2017

@Dramsey
Look at the graph I supplied.
Read my post.
Absorb what I wrote.
Then try and marry that to your post.

johndoeeyed | 19 mars 2017

The money quote:
"To be extra clear on this all: If carbon dioxide emissions have truly remained flat the last few years, then why are atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rising at ever faster rates every year? Positive feedback loops (permafrost methane emissions, higher rates of forest fires, soil carbon loss, etc.) have already kicked in more than supposed and/or official emissions figures are having less and less to do with actual emissions levels every year."
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/19/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-r...

Dofpic | 21 mars 2017

@Dramsey unfortunately your note to self is true. The doomsday scenario that has been repeated thousands of times, yet has not come to fruition for them. All anyone needs to do is look at pictures from the 1900's or 1950's or 70's and it shows we have come a very long way and the amount of air pollution created per GDP continues to decline because of the amazing innovation around the world. Our quality of life continues to improve at an amazing speed when you look at the history of mankind.

RedShift | 21 mars 2017

@dofpic

Are you sure you've looked at all the places in the world? Pollution levels as well as CO2 is rising overall. Why do you make claims as if everything is just fine and dandy? Is it a conservative culture to just dismiss anything you might not like?

Why this resistance? I'm asking honestly. Where live, in SF Bay Area things are fine (thanks to strict regulations, note) but I'm well aware of pollution elsewhere having visited many countries like India, and China. Ever been to Tianjin? Shanghai? Bangalore?

Dofpic | 21 mars 2017

@redshift I just commented on good news on US emissions going down even with expanding growth. That is very good news. We should applaud this. It is because of innovative companies like tesla(I will get my second one next week)100D. I said it was unfortunate that his "note to self" was true because it is. There is good news out there on pollution air quality etc yet a lot of people keep telling us the world is about to end because of C02 emissions. What produces the largest amount of C02? The Ocean. Do we abolish that? Don't trees and plants love this stuff? I am all for a clean environment, I just don't but into the hysteria.

SCCRENDO | 21 mars 2017

@Dofpic. Guess the BBC doesn't agree with your optimism
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39329304

rxlawdude | 21 mars 2017

@dofpic, whether the ocean is the biggest emitter is irrelevant. It is the ADDITIONAL GGs spewed by humans using hydrocarbons that push things towards the tipping point.

johndoeeyed | 21 mars 2017

@Dofpic
Please do some research. Reduction in pollution is due to regulation. The EPA was founded (by Republicans) because the public got sick of the extreme pollution. Technology, on it's own, does not solve pollution issues. It requires regulation. Without regulation, industry uses the cheapest form of manufacture which pretty much is always the most polluting.
https://en.wikipedia DOT org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency
PS:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

RedShift | 21 mars 2017

@dofpic

While I understand that we should feel optimistic about what's been done in the USA, there is no need to whine about those who point out the bigger picture, which is worsening. It's not about glass half full. This is about pointing out how much more still needs to be done to stop and hopefully reverse this phenomenon.

Regarding your other points regarding he ocean - it's laughable that you think it's in any form relevant. Others have already pointed out why.

RedShift | 21 mars 2017

@dofpic

While I understand that we should feel optimistic about what's been done in the USA, there is no need to whine about those who point out the bigger picture, which is worsening. It's not about glass half full. This is about pointing out how much more still needs to be done to stop and hopefully reverse this phenomenon.

Regarding your other points regarding he ocean - it's laughable that you think it's in any form relevant. Others have already pointed out why.

RedShift | 21 mars 2017

Don't know why I double posted. Apologies.

james | 23 mars 2017

This patent for a more powerful and lower cost solar power was just issued 3 days ago. they are achieving 50% more power output than today's solar panels at 50% lower cost.

http://www.solartecticllc.com/news/ another great step toward eliminating all highly toxic nuclear power plants.

johndoeeyed | 23 mars 2017

@james
Perovskite cells have been in development for a few years but, as far as I am aware, none are in production. Although they are now efficient, and cheap, they have longevity issues which need to be solved first.