Bam: Trend of CO2 emissions falling toward 1991 levels
posted at 6:01 pm on July 3, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
This is ten different kinds of glorious.
Greenies are always lamenting that we need big government to force humanity to treat the planet with their idea of respect, and bemoaning the toll that prosperity ostensibly takes on the environment. It’s a darn shame that they’re stuck on one speed in that line of argument, because in reality, a thriving economy and environmental quality are not mutually exclusive forces: rather, economic growth often means increasing environmental quality. Case in point:
John Hanger points out on his energy blog that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have fallen so sharply in the first three months of 2012 according to new data from the EIA, that total CO2 emissions this year are on track to drop to the lowest level since 1991, see chart above.
The key driver for the “shockingly good news” that CO2 emissions will probably fall this year to a two-decade low according to John is “the shale gas revolution, and the low-priced gas that it has made a reality, especially in the last 12 months. As of April, gas tied coal at 32% of the electric power generation market, nearly ending coal’s 100 year reign on top of electricity markets (see related CD post on this energy milestone). Let’s remember the speed and extent of gas’s rise and coal’s drop: coal had 52% of the market in 2000 and 48% in 2008.” …
There are obviously a lot of factors in play here — population, productivity, etcetera — which can account for a lot of the increase of the past couple of decades. But what’s up with the sudden dropoff? I’ll tell ya’ what: As time goes on, never-ceasing innovation and increasing technological efficiency mean that we’re continuously getting more bang for our buck when it comes to our natural resources. Recent technologies have given us the ability to take better advantage of our abundant domestic natural gas supplies, which in turn provides jobs and economic growth and diversifies our energy portfolio, all at the same time.
Natural gas, by the way, burns more cleanly than traditional coal. Take note, environmentalists: The free market provided a viable, affordable, practical substitute for coal, just by pursuing a profit! Who’da thunk it?
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Ha! That looks like the divergence of the dendrochronological record from the actual temperature record before those claiming to be climate scientists decided to “hide the decline.”
blink on July 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM
I wonder how uneconomical this drop was and if CO2 output will return after the economy fully rebounds, more of Obama’s “green” energy companies run out of cash, and the federal government stops wasting taxpayer money subsidizing the revenues of silly “green tech” companies.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Ask the coal miners how they feel about EPA’s unscientific war on coal.
The government’s efforts in this regard is partially retarding economic growth. I sure hope they think this is worth it – especially since this has probably been more than offset by China’s and India’s CO2 output.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Don’t worry, CAGW alarmists. US levels of CO2 output will likely resume after Obama’s war on hydraulic fracturing is complete.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Give me YOUR definition of CAGW.
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM
That may be what it looks like to you, but not to those who used millions of bits of data, compiled by the best available technology.
So, why the divergence?
Why didn’t it work out the way the strong skeptics and denialsts insisted that it would?
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM
You can use the standard definition of CAGW. Are you actually going to admit that you know what is meant by CAGW?
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Fixed it for you.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:09 AM
oakland, why do you hate science?
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Where the heck did they get that temperature graph? It is completely missing the drop in temperature that happened in the early 2000s.
Count to 10 on July 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM
oakland, why are you only able to assert argumentum ad verecundiam assūmere instead of at least trying to discuss the actual science? Do you really hate science that much?
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM
and what are those “biased assumptions”?
and what are the REAL data?
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM
What “drop in temperatures in the early 2000s”?
The reference for the graph appears under the graph.
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Yes. Real science bad, scientific dogma good!
Dunedainn on July 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM
No, I actually love science (three degrees).
Show me the science.
What about the graph? Why the difference between what the denialists were screaming at me all through the 90s and what actually happened?
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Nobody knows. Climate “scientists” won’t share the REAL data despite Freedom-Of-Information requests and/or they claim that it’s been lost. How do you not know this?
Seriously? These are well know in the few cases in which climate “scientists” have finally shared their algorithms. How do you not know this?
Trust me, oakland. You’re on the wrong side of this debate. You’re going to continue to look more and more foolish as more and more REAL scientists stop deferring to this discipline and start actually scrutinizing the spurious conclusions and claims.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Sorry Blink, but you haven’t answered any or my questions, and have provided no data or information from expert sources.
Once again, why the divergence between what I was told by the strong skeptics and what actually happened?
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM
From link:
From Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland’s
Our Work link:
Yay science.
rogerb on July 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM
BA’s and MA’s don’t count.
Let’s discuss positive feedback. Please explain you claim that it exists. Are you finally going to admit that you know what is meant by CAGW?
>>the denialists were screaming at me<<
First, your use of the term denialist is telling.
Second, only certain skeptics were pushing the solar output cause-and-effect. Real scientists knew that the correlation wasn't thoroughly vetted. In other words, they knew what we didn't know.
Third, your chart uses GISS. Explain why GISS is diverging from HadCrut.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:29 AM
That’s ironic coming from you. You never answer ANY of my questions. In fact, you continue to refuse to admit that you know what is meant by CAGW.
This is probably because it’s too convenient for you to attempt to confuse the issue of GW with the issue of AGW with the issue of CAGW.
Regardless, are you seriously clinging to this divergent graph while REFUSING to admit that the Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked? Thick, thick irony….
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM
The caption to the graph on the link:
Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).
So, tell me, do the guys at NASA just have it all wrong? If so, then who has it right?
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Yes, Blink, I do refuse to admit… Because you haven’t educated me as to the meaning of the term.
Why won’t you? I suspect because you don’t know either.
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Correct. But my two BSs and one MS do.
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM
What’s HadCrut? Provide a reference. The data have been processed by NASA.
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Erika Johnsen:
Did it ever occur to you in preparing this article that the MOST OBVIOUS explanation of the CO2 level decline is that the “prevailing theory” linking CO2 to human activity is TOTALLY WRONG????
The greenies and their apologists keep skipping by the inconvenient “validation” which true science requires. They keep trying to substitute “concensus” (aka “politics”) for “science” (aka “search for TRUTH”)!!! As a result, we can expect more and more of their increasingly dire and loony predictions to become exposed as FRAUD.
While it may be satisfying to claim “private sector” credit for a result which greenies say can only be obtained by “big government,” this assertion really begs the bigger question: “was human activity of any kind ever a significant causal factor in climate?”
I see the long-term scientific evidence as responding with a resounding NO: the climate is caused by cosmic forces infinitely larger than anything man can produce or control, and puny life species can either adapt to the climate or die.
Our ability to survive depends upon our ability to adapt: NOT our use of hair spray or SUV’s. There is absolutely no need to concede the greenies’ false premise in order to refute them.
landlines on July 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM
First, let’s make one thing clear. In this context, NASA merely means the department which was created for climate activist Jim Hansen and is run out of his office above Seinfeld’s diner in New York City.
Second, nobody knows if Hansen’s department has it wrong or not. He refused to release his raw data.
Let’s start by having Hansen release the raw GISS data, and we’ll take the discussion from there.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM
You need ME to educate you about what is meant by CAGW? Wow, there’s this thing called the internet. Try to get access to it and learn for yourself. CAGW isn’t a complicated concept.
Because your willful ignorance about it is AWESOME!
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Oh, this is why you claiming that you have three science degrees – it’s simply because you have the word “Science” in your degrees.
Your constant resistance to discuss the actual science makes it obvious.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Good grief. You’re the world’s worst debater. I almost feel bad making you look so stupid all the time.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Hey oakland, as long as you’re going to help us get data released, can you help us get Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York (SUNY)-Albany to disclose that supposed temperature stations he used in his UHI study?
Please tell me that you need ME to explain what is meant by UHI.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Blink,
You’re not about citing science, and only about exchanging insults.
If this is about who can insult the most, I declare you the winner.
Oakland out.
oakland on July 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM
This is exactly what oakland is always doing on here.
What’s funny is that the “consensus” is in freefall!
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Don’t sell yourself short, you’re full of BS.
That said, Bachelors degrees (especially more than one) don’t mean much of anything and in any hard science, Masters are generally given out as consolation prizes for those who don’t (or can’t) finish PhDs. A Masters degree in a hard science is nothing to be overly proud of.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Tell me what science you want to discuss, and we’ll discuss it. I’m thirsty for it!
It’s difficult to discuss science with someone that refuses to admit widely known, germane aspects of the scientific debate.
I’ve been asking you to discuss positive feedback with me for over a year, and renewed this request in this thread.
As you probably don’t want to admit, leading skeptics don’t take much issue with the concept of GW or even AGW. They take issue with CAGW. Why can’t we start the science discussion here? Is it because your BS and MS degrees are in psychology or education or something? Because, even if they are, you can still educate yourself about the science on the internet – unless you hate real science that much.
blink on July 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM
But of course no one really cares about CO2 emissions, CO2 does NOT drive temperature as all the good science has clearly shown.
The Cap & Tax schemes aren’t about reducing CO2, they are about robbing you blind with ever increasing taxes for a HOAX problem. So the powers that be, will not be convinced by this data because their objective is to get your money.
If we don’t put the man-made Global Warming HOAX into the proper context, we will never beat it. Step #1, should be to cut ALL public funding for so called Global Warming research. Only then will the Global Warming fraud be defeated.
If you don’t believe man-made Global Warming is a HOAX, then watch these.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#
———————–
Axion on July 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Science!
rogerb on July 4, 2012 at 7:33 PM
Holy cow! That’s what’s causing our Great Midwestern Heat Wave. No co2 emissions to keep the heat out! AlGore!…..Calling ALGore!
Herb on July 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2