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:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Thank you President Obamma.

the new aesthetic on July 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Sorry to ruin the fun, but couldn’t the reduced emissions be largely due to the slowdown in the economy — leading to decreased productivity — hence less carbon output?

MadisonConservative on July 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Part of that is because of the recession. We’re curbing emissions through technology, but I’m not convinced that’s a good thing, especially with the exceptionally low solar minimum. I guess we can hope that it is, but I’ve seen too much of the environazis’ chronic mendacity and alarmism to think any longer that they are onto something. There was a time when I was close to agnostic about their beliefs. Now I think they are comprehensively wrong, and that we’d be better off if we were still emitting as much carbon as we did in 2000.

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM

No no no… we must ban fossil fuel vehicles from Mordor on the Potomac… It’s our only chance of survival…

SWalker on July 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

But, but, this the hottest summer ever!

Charlemagne on July 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

The Baby Boomer Generation is getting older and retiring as well. No more long commutes to work.

Also, when I was actually employed doing what I studied to do before the Obamaconomy, I was commuting 160 miles per day. Now, with my underemployed job, I commute only 20 miles per day.

I am sure the depression has an impact on it all.

the new aesthetic on July 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

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.

Nonsense.
No way in hell are we miraculously cleaner due to increased market efficiencies.
Just look at the years on that graph and match it to a plot of the unemployment and GDP stats.
Guttering economy and 40% loss of private net worth and 18% U6 unemployment. Consumer economy moribund. GDP nearly flat. Aviation industry gutted by nazi security measures and lack of disposable income. Trucking industry flatlining. Shipping industry moribund. Rail industry barely above water. 3yrs of recession / incipient depression. Legions of affordable (and often higher polluting) used cars deliberately destroyed by a coercive nanny-state.

rayra on July 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

But, but Eugene Robinson said….

d1carter on July 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

President Romney needs to make you the Inspector General of the EPA, Erika. Someone needs to crack down on their sh!t.

gsherin on July 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

MadisonConservative on July 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

You would have to rain on the parade with a question like. I would say both are contributing to the decrease.

chemman on July 3, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Thank you, Chevy Volt!

McNinja on July 3, 2012 at 6:16 PM

“The skies will clear and the waters will begin to recede…”

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Aren’t coal plants shutting down being forced to close, as well? I’m not sure the downturn in the economy translates to all that big a drop in energy production; the equal share between gas and coal would seem to be an interesting statistic regardless of how much energy were produced, though it may be a function of where it’s being produced as well.

TexasDan on July 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

And yet global atmospheric CO2 is completely unchanged. All the reductions we could possibly make will not make any measurable impact on global CO2 emissions.

And that supposes there is any reason for reducing CO2 in the first place.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

crosspatch on July 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

The world is adding emissions at the rate of adding a Brazil each hear. Reducing US emissions by a few percent will not even be measurable in the atmosphere. It won’t make any difference.

The US is completely swamped by annual increases by China and India.

crosspatch on July 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Buuuuussssssssshhhhhhh

I mean they want to blame him for everything right?

PappyD61 on July 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

If emissions are falling WHY the heat wave all the greenies are crowing about? THIS IS THE FUTURE! they scream.

Of course they don’t mention the hard, unending winter of just a couple of years ago.

And just where are all those Katrina hurricanes that would come with MORE AND MORE frequency?

AGW….er….ah…..”Climate Change”, ain’t nothing it can’t do!

GarandFan on July 3, 2012 at 6:32 PM

they do mention the winters, but they’re also because of Global Warming

Slade73 on July 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Who’da thunk it?

John Galt

kirkill on July 3, 2012 at 6:37 PM

we must ban fossil fuel vehicles from Mordor on the Potomac… It’s our only chance of survival…

Meh, all powered personal vehicles should be banned from use by CONgress in DC. Let ‘em walk, bike or use public transportation.

hawkeye54 on July 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

You See. All the climate models were correct. CO2 has been reduced to 1990 levels and so has the temperature. Better yet, so has the economy. Pretty soon we can all live like a third world country. Or as America will soon call them, the First World.

pat on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Everyone was holding his breath for the SCOTUS Obamacare decision.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

And, of course, it’s important that we note, in addition, that it is credibly argued that CO2 doesn’t do squat as far as the climate is concerned: there is no empirical evidence that CO2 affects climate scale temperatures. Remember, the ipcc founded the AGW theory on a false claim that there is a causal correlation between CO2 & temperature. The ipcc claim has since been debunked! But maybe 98% of the public doesn’t know this about CO2 (they just see the Venus propaganda…), so that’s why it’s important that we spread the word about this must see 3 minute video that exposes Al Gore for repeating the ipcc deception on CO2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

anotherJoe on July 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Economic slow down aside, this only seems to justify the Greenies desire to shut down coal plants.

Hill60 on July 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

The US is completely swamped by annual increases by China and India.

In more ways than one. From what I understand, the west coast feels the effect of Chinese air pollution which crosses the Pacific in prevailing winds.

hawkeye54 on July 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Or as America will soon call them, the First World.

With so many third worlders continually ending up here, we ARE the world.

hawkeye54 on July 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Someone wake me when we get this result from shifting to nuclear fusion power.

nobar on July 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Free enterprise, I heart you.

I would have gone with this.

Free enterprise, I ♥ you.

Bmore on July 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM

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?

As much as this is a rebuke to liberals who think that — minus government action — the world is going to melt in the near future (though, one graph doesn’t make the case, as pleased as everyone should be to see it) it is a rebuke to conservatives who thought the economy was going to collapse if modest steps to reduce CO2 emissions were to be taken.

Environmental improvements have often been far cheaper than expected — think SO2 cap-and-trade or the emissions regs that gave us the catalytic converter — for the resons mentioned here: the ability of American industry to innovate and create. Hysterical opposition to CO2 cap-and-trade was rooted in the idea that Americans were too dumb to find new ways to do business and hence deeply pessimistic and un-American, as well as scientifically misguided.

Bonus: Does this mean that we can stop whining about Obama trying to speed the transition fron hideously dirty and environmentally dmaging coal fired plants to new gas ones? Or is consistency across issues too much to ask?

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

I’m betting it’s more recession than innovation.

They have us back to those wonderful 1860′s soon.

trigon on July 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

it is a rebuke to conservatives who thought the economy was going to collapse if modest steps to reduce CO2 emissions were to be taken.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

As mentioned above the economy has imploded since 2008.

sharrukin on July 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

it is a rebuke to conservatives who thought the economy was going to collapse if modest steps to reduce CO2 emissions were to be taken.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

When you start riding a donkey to work, get back to us…

trigon on July 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

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?

This statement is so monumentally stupid. Market chooses the cheapest option, not the one best for environment. If it so happens that the two are sometimes the same, doesn’t mean free market cares for anything but the most profitable route.

Are you really this ignorant?!!

If we find an energy source with 10 times the emissions but 1/10th the cost what do you believe the free market will choose in absence of regulation?!

lester on July 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Environmental improvements have often been far cheaper than expected
urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

the converter has been around since the early 70′s. So how about you prove that statement for the here and now.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Has anyone ever done a study to see how much emissions there will be from the soylent factories which will be created under ObamaCare?

Bishop on July 3, 2012 at 7:02 PM

lester on July 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

since the EPA is pretty much in play with anything that has to do with energy, emissions and such.. the price (even for the market) isn’t going to make a hill of beans if the EPA with the feds backing them say no.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM

it is a rebuke to conservatives who thought the economy was going to collapse if modest steps to reduce CO2 emissions were to be taken.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Can you honestly not read a simple chart?

Chuck Schick on July 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM

lester on July 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Speaking of ignant, it’s the ecofreaks who piss and moan that accessing natural gas is going to break apart the planet, so we aren’t allowed to actually get it.

You is ignant.

Bishop on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

As mentioned above the economy has imploded since 2008.

sharrukin on July 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

The GDP is back to 2007 levels, but CO2 remains down approximatley 18%.

When you start riding a donkey to work, get back to us…

trigon on July 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I ride a subway to work. It’s more environmentally friendly than a donkey.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Can you honestly not read a simple chart?

Chuck Schick on July 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM

See my post above — it’s you that cannot read a chart. Also note that, whatever you think of the pace of recovery, the economy has been growing modestly for the last two years while CO2 emissions continued to fall sharply.

Honestly, sometimes the level of sheer idiocy — or unwillingness to look twice at any nugget of information that seems to support one’s position — in this place astounds me.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

it is a rebuke to conservatives who thought the economy was going to collapse if modest steps to reduce CO2 emissions were to be taken.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

And look what happened. The economy collapsed, you astonishing simpleton.

MadisonConservative on July 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

I ride a subway to work. It’s more environmentally friendly than a donkey.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

wait, a subway is more environmentally friendly?

Dude, do you even know WTF your electric comes from?

You must live in either California or On the East Coast, becuase no one is this stupid anywhere else.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Folks please, I mean, really? The same readings can be found as part of the cycle by checking the ice cores.

Co2 levels go up and Co2 levels go down. ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY!

Climate Fraud Artists talk about the Co2 levels from 1850 to now… that leaves 4 billion years of Co2 levels rising higher than they are now and lower then they were in 1850.

Feel free to use your calculator:

One(1) atmosphere x(times) 4%(total Greenhouse Gases) x(times) 4%(Co2 is approx 4% of total Greenhouse Gases) x (times)3%(100% of MAN MADE Co2)=

Simplified: 1×4%x4%x3%= Answer(100% of MAN MADE Co2)

When you eliminate 100% of MAN MADE Co2, you make no discernible(and this includes if we stop breathing) difference!Zero, Zip, Nada, Nuttn honey!

God Bless America!

paratisi on July 3, 2012 at 7:15 PM

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Electricity comes from a wall outlet, everyone knows that.

Bishop on July 3, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Honestly, sometimes the level of sheer idiocy — or unwillingness to look twice at any nugget of information that seems to support one’s position — in this place astounds me.
urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

The chart just so happens to dip downward during the last 3 recessions, the steepest of which plummets starting in 2008. Remind us what happened that year across the planet. A cookie if you can do it without Google.

Chuck Schick on July 3, 2012 at 7:16 PM

The GDP is back to 2007 levels, but CO2 remains down approximatley 18%.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

The US government disagrees.

2007 $13206.4 billion

2012 12723.4 billion

2005 dollars for both

That is with a population of 300 million in 2007 and 314 million in 2012

sharrukin on July 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Electricity comes from a wall outlet, everyone knows that.

Bishop on July 3, 2012 at 7:16 PM

well paint me yellow and call me a flower.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Bam: Trend of CO2 emissions falling toward 1991 levels

So what? CO2 doesn’t cause problems, anyway. If anything, it enhances plant growth. What we need are not falling CO2 emissions but falling emissions of the idiots who rail against “carbon pollution”, the friggin idiots.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam. What we need is to jail those who have cost us TRILLIONS in dollars and tons of advancements with their criminal use of pseudo-science. They’ve hurt science and they’ve hurt civilization. They are slime, which is what the Earth would be reduced to if they had their way.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 7:18 PM

…it is a rebuke to conservatives who thought the economy was going to collapse if modest steps to reduce CO2 emissions were to be taken.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

It is? What does reducing C02 as a by-product of the free market have to do with seizing wealth and forcing people to reduce c02 as a primary goal, without any concern for the economy at all? Other than C02, not a damn thing.

RadClown on July 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM

2007 $13206.4 billion

2012 12723.4 billion

2005 dollars for both

That is with a population of 300 million in 2007 and 314 million in 2012

sharrukin on July 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

The 2011 figure is $13315.1 billion, or above the 2007 figure. The 2012 estimate on that chart calls for a GDP decline, the Fed’s most recent prediction is growth betweem 1.9-2.4% so I’m not buying the decline.(I looked at the same chart you did before I posted– it’s not a government website, btw).

The population growth is irrelevant, as the ratio we’re concerned with is absolute CO2 vs. absolute GDP.

Nice try, though.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

I ride a subway to work. It’s more environmentally friendly than a donkey.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

And how much electricity does that environmentally-friendly subway use every day, you dumb f**k?

MadisonConservative on July 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM

The population growth is irrelevant, as the ratio we’re concerned with is absolute CO2 vs. absolute GDP.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

wow, we have an individual who doesn’t believe one supports the other. I call them: young college students.

Stupid, irrelevant, and certainly can’t weasel their way out of a wet paper bag… these new species of college student are actually more irrelevant than that of a high school student.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM

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.

Ahhh, so this is what’s causing the global-warming-like swelter that’s melting us all this summer.

stukinIL4now on July 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM

And how much electricity does that environmentally-friendly subway use every day, you dumb f**k?

MadisonConservative on July 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM

And how much chemical intensive feed needs to be grown, harvested and shipped to support a half-million donkeys carrying commuters to work every day? And how much donkey-s*** rots in the street and washes into the drinking water and Chesapeak Bay? For a Wisconsinite, you’re pretty damn ignorant about animals.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

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.” …

If coal dropped from 52% of the electric power market in 2000 to 32% in 2012, did natural gas rise from 12% to 32%, or was the slack taken up by nuclear, hydro, or some other energy source?

This is great news, if true. But in April 2011, Obama’s EPA did an end-run around Congress, and imposed a “rule” such that any power plant emitting more than 250,000 tons/year of CO2 had to employ “best available control technology” to capture CO2 emissions.

Natural gas is mostly methane, and the burn rate of methane that would produce this amount of CO2 would produce about 131 megawatts (MW) of heat. Since no power plant is 100% efficient, a gas-fired turbine producing this amount of CO2 would produce about 80 MW of power.

Most commercial gas-fired turbines are rated for about 250 MW, and most gas-fired power plants have several such turbines in parallel. This means that, for any new gas-fired power plants to be permitted (or renew their permits), they will have to install expensive CO2 capture equipment, thanks to Obama (unless Romney is elected and his new EPA director rescinds the rule).

If, due to fracking technology, natural gas is suddenly cheap and abundant, we should be building lots of gas-fired power plants to replace coal plants, and lower CO2 emissions to boot. But we’re NOT building them, because of Obama’s stupid rules, which never passed Congress!

One more reason to get rid of Obama…

Oh, by the way, Obama also wants to crack down on fracking, which is giving us all this cheap gas!

When will Obama get the frack out of the way?

Steve Z on July 3, 2012 at 7:37 PM

And how much chemical intensive feed needs to be grown, harvested and shipped to support a half-million donkeys carrying commuters to work every day? And how much donkey-s*** rots in the street and washes into the drinking water and Chesapeak Bay? For a Wisconsinite, you’re pretty damn ignorant about animals.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Chesapeak is spelled Chesapeake

And you mentioned one donkey vs a subway. Ummmm really, should you go there? Yes, let us:

I ride a subway to work. It’s more environmentally friendly than a donkey.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Jesus, how about you close your mouth… moron.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM

wow, we have an individual who doesn’t believe one supports the other. I call them: young college students.

Stupid, irrelevant, and certainly can’t weasel their way out of a wet paper bag… these new species of college student are actually more irrelevant than that of a high school student.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Yes, obviously, if we’re arguing economic performance by looking at GDP per capita, it’s relevant. If we’re looking at CO2 emissions vs. economic productivity, it is the absolute level of GDP that is important. The subject of this thread is the latter comparison.

I’m not even sure why you’re arguing this. The fall of CO2 is certainly not bad news, regardless of your political point of view.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM

It could be argued that the “CO2 is a pollutant” group are losing the battle. Be careful with that, though, because with the monumental funding advantage they have, and the across the board support from the lib MSM that the fear-mongers enjoy, they could rise to the top again quickly.
But, if we stipulate that they are losing, I see the main reasons are this: * Climategate and Hide the Decline, * temps have stalled or declined, * the hockey stick graph has been debunked, * conservatives, though briefly duped, never really liked the de facto de-industrialization ‘solution’ or the leftists that proposed it, and so this opposition bloc has risen suddenly and with virtual unanimity (notwithstanding Drudge and Huntsman), and perhaps most importantly, * this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

anotherJoe on July 3, 2012 at 7:43 PM

And you mentioned one donkey vs a subway. Ummmm really, should you go there? Yes, let us:

I ride a subway to work. It’s more environmentally friendly than a donkey.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Jesus, how about you close your mouth… moron.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Admittedly, a glib response to a glib post.. But if you want to get all anal-retentive (and, being an A*****e, I’m sure you do) the comparison is between my share of the subway’s electricy consumption versus the carbon footprint an urban donkey would leave. The former is relatively small. The latter, larger than you’d think.

And look what happened. The economy collapsed, you astonishing simpleton.

MadisonConservative on July 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Since no steps whatsoever have been actually taken to reduce carbon emissions, they pretty clearly had nothing to do with the recent economic collapse.

You’re pretty when you’re stupid.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I have some…

CO2 emissions

for the Greenies to suck on!

KOOLAID2 on July 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM

unlike the crap that comes out of your mouth.. at least donkey crap can be reused.

Have a wonderful day, mental moron.

upinak on July 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

One of Norm’s concerns is that we haven’t seen action on greenhouse gas controls, but as I pointed out in a blog post here, the United States leads the world in greenhouse gas emission reduction: partly due to the recession, but also due to our increasing dash to natural gas based on market forces. I might also point out that the U.S. is not the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter (that would be China), and the U.S. is largely powerless to alter the trajectory of either atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations or the temperature of the global atmosphere.

visions on July 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM

i can’t wait for our fast talking climate gurus to explain the constant upward growth in co2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html#mlo_full

i’m sure it will be something like china, emerging markets…or something.

but it is the constancy of the growth rate of co2 that’s the problem. for all you climate gurus out there the global economy hasn’t done too well for the last several years…yet that co2 goes up and up and up

an old timey scientist would call that a paradox

r keller on July 3, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Since no steps whatsoever have been actually taken to reduce carbon emissions, they pretty clearly had nothing to do with the recent economic collapse.
You’re pretty when you’re stupid.
urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM

You might want to start proofreading your posts. The above was delicious.

Chuck Schick on July 3, 2012 at 8:11 PM

And how much electricity does that environmentally-friendly subway use every day, you dumb f**k?

MadisonConservative on July 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Why do you have to resort to this MC? Is it necessary to be classless with your rebuttals? Have you learned nothing?

Rovin on July 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

The 2011 figure is $13315.1 billion, or above the 2007 figure [$13206.4 billion].

Wow. And the feral government only deficit spent over $4 trillion (along with more than $4 trillion in Fed printing/twisting/zero percentaging) in order to have 2011 GDP around the same as 2007!! You guys are geniuses!! What’s that money multiplier, again?

Frriggin retards.

The 2012 estimate on that chart calls for a GDP decline,

sharrukin was listing it in 2005 dollars, Einstein. And for constant dollars GDP has been on a sh!tstorm of failure. Thanks to you and your folks, along with the global warming misanthropic slime. You idiots aren’t single-celled organisms, but your brains are single-celled organs.

the Fed’s most recent prediction is growth betweem 1.9-2.4% so I’m not buying the decline.(I looked at the same chart you did before I posted–

At the low, low cost of over 8% of GDP deficit spent!! I’ll take three!

it’s not a government website, btw).

Which means that it didn’t cost $18 million for a few sh!tty pages full of lies. I’ll call Crazy Joe BiteMe and get him on it, though. There might be a few billion of porkulus money still not spent. They can throw together a web site in no time … a year or two.

The population growth is irrelevant, as the ratio we’re concerned with is absolute CO2 vs. absolute GDP.

Nice try, though.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Absolute GDP has been absolute sh!t, thanks to you and yours. Didn’t your buddy just call this a depression? LOL. We’d have to grow to achieve the level of a depression. But … another 8% in deficit spending this year to get your rousing 2% (yeah … right) in growth. What a deal! You guys are friggin brilliant. Why don’t we borrow and waste 16% of GDP so that you can crow about a rousing 3.5% growth!! Come on, idiot. Investment, man. Government investment. Those windmills don’t build themselves (and no one with a brain is going to use his money to build them).

I’m sure you’ll work it out eventually that you’ll kill off all CO2. Not only will you kill Man but you’ll take out plant life too. Earth … perfect and pristine. Nothing left but slime. Leftist utopia.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Rovin on July 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

So now you’re whining about profanity directed at lefty trolls?

Good grief. Lighten the hell up.

MadisonConservative on July 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Tell it like it is!!!!

Barred on July 3, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Human emissions are flea farts in the wind and CO2 is NOT pollution. It IS essential. Since CO2 levels have historically lagged temperature and since nothing but alarmism suggests that is different today, we will see global cooling for a decade before we see a measurable drop in CO2. Instead of inventing a boogeymen to pick winners and losers and using the EPA to artificially cap coal, let’s really let the free market choose. Sure it’s great that natural gas is doing well but let’s not pretend it’s not in part due to statist intervention in the markets no matter if that wasn’t what they intended. I think it would still outperform coal but they should get to have a fair fight and free from political hacks and the discredited religion of AGW.

MechanicalBill on July 3, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Kudos to Ericka for the smackdown at the end:

Take note, environmentalists: The free market provided a viable, affordable, practical substitute for coal, just by pursuing a profit! Who’da thunk it?

THIS is HotAir!

Who is John Galt on July 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM

OR…the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere reached critical mass and the Earth did what it does best: fixed itself. It has been proven that the planet deals with this on it’s own. The sheer arrogance of people thinking that we somehow fixed this ourselves it as ridiculous as thinking we created it. I would suspect it is related to last year’s and this year’s seasonal weather extremes.

tommytom02 on July 3, 2012 at 8:39 PM

And how much chemical intensive feed needs to be grown, harvested and shipped to support a half-million donkeys carrying commuters to work every day? And how much donkey-s*** rots in the street and washes into the drinking water and Chesapeak Bay? For a Wisconsinite, you’re pretty damn ignorant about animals.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

You could have a crew of thousands hired with stimulus money clean the streets of donkey apples every day with street sweepers and tanks of potable water, and it wouldn’t even come close to the amount of water expended in mining the steel for just the subway rails.

Not to mention the amount of cooling water used in generating the electricity for the subway.

You want to be as self righteous as you think you are, it’s time to start walking everywhere you go and eat grass and insects.

There are significant tradeoffs in every decision, even “green” ones, they are not remotely morally or economically superior.

Smug is comfortable, but it isn’t smart by definition.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on July 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM

K, I detest greenies as much as the next guy, but… the economy hasn’t exactly been going gangbusters in the last few years – you may have noticed.

At some level, that chart kinda supports the greenie view (crap, did I just say that out loud?). *If* there’s a correlation between CO2 and the economic engine, wouldn’t that chart look… well, like it does?

Midas on July 3, 2012 at 8:49 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

*leaps to his feet, applauding wildly*

Midas on July 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Why do you have to resort to this MC? Is it necessary to be classless with your rebuttals? Have you learned nothing?

Rovin on July 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

I’m not going to grief MC about it; I’ve fairly well decided that this is about the only way you can communicate with the sub-human intellectual capacity of a liberal anyway.

And pleasant language doesn’t have the capacity to fully convey how utterly moronic and contemptible they truly are.

Midas on July 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM

it is a rebuke to conservatives who thought the economy was going to collapse if modest steps to reduce CO2 emissions were to be taken.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

You aren’t paying attention, are you?

98ZJUSMC on July 3, 2012 at 9:13 PM

And how much chemical intensive feed …
urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

 
and it wouldn’t even come close to the amount of water expended in mining the steel…
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on July 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM

 
I’d be surprised if it was even possible to calculate the cradle-to-grave inclusive CO2 “costs” of operating a subway like the Washington Metro. Imagine taking into account the emissions building it at the (then-modern) groundbreaking or, as you’d mentioned, the water costs and what the equipment for mining/moving/welding/riveting that steel belched out. Then there are the not-always-modern electrical requirements for the subway itself, and it has to include a percentage of production and maintenance costs at the power plant (including trucks, lines, air-conditioning for control systems, etc.).
 
Even just the ancillary transportation alone must create (and created) massive emission outputs. Trucks to carry workers with welders, oil and grease, etc., trucks to stock vending machines, trucks to pick up broken down vending machine trucks… All had to be made from scratch, all of that production involved CO2 emissions, and all use oil and circuit boards, and all help maintain the subway. It’s part of the cost.
 
Not to mention that some of the workers are driving in (both riders and subway employees) since they opened so long ago, and the environmental impact of the production of each of their vehicles plus tires, gas, oil, freon, circuit boards, etc. must be added to the mix since they “support” the subway.
 
I’d truly love to read a real number but I doubt it exists.

standard on July 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Horrible news. We need to up CO2 emissions to avoid the next Ice Age. Winter is coming!

JollyRoger on July 3, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Midas on July 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I did not say it was completely un-necessary, I said his method was classless.

Rovin on July 3, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Horrible news. We need to up CO2 emissions to avoid the next Ice Age. Winter is coming!

JollyRoger on July 3, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Chances of a new ice age are pretty good actually, better than any catastrophic manmade global warming for damn sure.

We can turn up the AC a bit, we can’t deal with a mile of ice over our heads.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Chances of a new ice age are pretty good actually, better than any catastrophic manmade global warming for damn sure.

We can turn up the AC a bit, we can’t deal with a mile of ice over our heads.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Yep. That was always the most pathetic part of the leftist anti-human global warming BS. They LOOOOVED the Vostok ice core data (though they were blinded by just the CO2 data and didn’t bother to notice that it lagged temperature) and the most glaring thing about the Vostok data is that it indicates very clearly that we are at the peak of a long climate period, as high as it gets and with extreme volatility, and are about to fall off of that peak into a pit of 10 centigrade. That’s what Vostok shows. And the idiot liberals kept parading it around as alleged proof of their escape-velocity global warming cr@p – along with their laughable excuses for climate models.

All anyone needs to do is look at the Vostok Ice Core data and they’ll see very clearly that we had better learn to heat the place up damn quickly (which pumping out CO2, unfortunately, just won’t do). On the other side, if things heat up the lefties claim that a few hundred well placed nukes will cool us down in a matter of days and keep a nuclear winter over the Earth (which is, itself, laughable … but that’s their argument, too).

What really gets me about lefties is that they won’t even pick just one side of the argument to lose. They have to lose both sides – at the same time. They’re just so unbelievably selfish in their stupidity.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 10:29 PM

*If* there’s a correlation between CO2 and the economic engine, wouldn’t that chart look… well, like it does?

Productivity requires energy so yes. Although that is a chart of our output. Combined with natural production of CO2 it would look very flat because it’s nothing by comparison. We humans (and especially ‘greens’) suffer from delusions of grandeur.

I remember hearing a comparison Rush Limbaugh made that I thought was very good. He compared our energy production and success to Michael Phelps. Michael Phelps must eat a whole lot to maintain enough energy to be competitive. More than probably the fattest of us could think about. 3800 to 4500 calories a day or enough for 3-4 average people. But that put him at the top of the game. You can stay on top without fueling your energy needs. We can be ‘green’ and poor but will just be replaced by the likes of China who doesn’t even care about real and tangible pollution.

MechanicalBill on July 3, 2012 at 10:36 PM

You can stay on top without fueling your energy needs.

I meant “Can not”

MechanicalBill on July 3, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Wha…? Egad, wherefore hast mine all and sundry departed? Verily, thou canst desert me naught to shoulder this battle in thy stead! Traitorous cowards, I accurse thee all.

CO2 Producer on July 4, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Wha…? Egad, wherefore hast mine all and sundry departed? Verily, thou canst desert me naught to shoulder this battle in thy stead! Traitorous cowards, I accurse thee all.

CO2 Producer on July 4, 2012 at 12:19 AM

…what the heck! THIS WAS YOUR THREAD! …where the heck were you?

KOOLAID2 on July 4, 2012 at 12:23 AM

I ride a subway to work. It’s more environmentally friendly than a donkey.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I was just on the Metro in DC last week. There was nothing friendly about it, environmentally or otherwise. I was happy to get back to the country.

Donkeys are real friendly. Especially if you have an apple in your pocket.

trigon on July 4, 2012 at 12:41 AM

where the heck were you?

KOOLAID2 on July 4, 2012 at 12:23 AM

I solicit thy pardon, for I have not tread upon this land in, lo, many a fortnight. Tho ere I be wont to tarry o’er in neighboring realms as of late, tis I who err in depriving ye of such delirious prattling. A lesson hath been learn-ed to ne’er abandon the domain from whence I affiliate.

(I should have just said I was preoccupied with the task of spewing life-sustaining pollutants.)

CO2 Producer on July 4, 2012 at 2:18 AM

Did they only start testing since 1973?

Well, how scientifically flawed.

LoganSix on July 4, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Part of that is because of the recession. We’re curbing emissions through technology, but I’m not convinced that’s a good thing, especially with the exceptionally low solar minimum. I guess we can hope that it is, but I’ve seen too much of the environazis’ chronic mendacity and alarmism to think any longer that they are onto something. There was a time when I was close to agnostic about their beliefs. Now I think they are comprehensively wrong, and that we’d be better off if we were still emitting as much carbon as we did in 2000.

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Last solar activity chart I saw had the level back up to it’s peek from the late 90′s, so we could be looking at maintained high temperatures.

Count to 10 on July 4, 2012 at 8:01 AM

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.

Why is the average temperature of the earth suddenly out of synchrony with the solar output?

Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Denialists were blue-in-the-face insisting in the 90s that, when the sun enters (entered) its next minimum phase, the temperatures would follow the downward trend.

Hasn’t happend.

oakland on July 4, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Last solar activity chart I saw had the level back up to it’s peek from the late 90′s, so we could be looking at maintained high temperatures.

Count to 10 on July 4, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Yes, and superimpose the solar effect with that of enhanced warming by greenhouse gases and you get an unhappy recipe.

oakland on July 4, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Yes, and superimpose the solar effect with that of enhanced warming by greenhouse gases and you get an unhappy recipe.

oakland on July 4, 2012 at 8:43 AM

There is no evidence that the variation in greenhouse gasses has contributed significantly to temperature variation over the last couple of centuries.

Count to 10 on July 4, 2012 at 8:51 AM

oakland on July 4, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Nice broken link. Care to try again?

Count to 10 on July 4, 2012 at 8:54 AM

What will the nitwit left say to this news? Ah: it was too little, too late, and CO2 has ruined the earth…or something. 102 in Chicago today.

Jaibones on July 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM

There is no evidence that the variation in greenhouse gasses has contributed significantly to temperature variation over the last couple of centuries.

Count to 10 on July 4, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Are you quoting a scientific study, or are you quoting yourself as if you were an expert?

oakland on July 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Nice broken link. Care to try again?

Count to 10 on July 4, 2012 at 8:54 AM

left off the suffix;sorry for the inconvenience

oakland on July 4, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Comment pages: 1 2