CO2 emissions in U.S. drop to 20-year low.

" ... because natural gas is replacing coal fired power ..."

Seth Borenstein is such a climate change hack.

You see, the problem is there have been very few coal plants actually closed. Most coal fired power plants are still going strong in addition to those new gas fired power plants. There's still more cars on the roads and people exhaling than there were 15 years ago, so the drop in atmospheric CO2 obviously is coming from something else ......

Since 1998 the Earth has experienced a cooling trend (despite efforts by the global warming nazis to deny this trend). Most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last half century came from the oceans (warming temps lead to increased CO2 ..... duh!), and when temps cool the oceans will re-absorb this carbon.

So what do you know! The carbon cycle actually works as they taught us in grade school!!

Wow, that was impressively wrong. The article is very very clear about the fact that carbon EMISSIONS from the US are at a 20 year low. Unless there's some secret underwater factories I'm not aware of, the oceans have nothing to do with this.

Did you read the article, engage in any critical thinking at all?

Ho Hum wrote:

Wow, that was impressively wrong. The article is very very clear about the fact that carbon EMISSIONS from the US are at a 20 year low. Unless there's some secret underwater factories I'm not aware of, the oceans have nothing to do with this.

Did you read the article, engage in any critical thinking at all?

You have made yourself look foolish, you should educate yourself about the entire debate before you comment.

One of the major debates of AGW is a chicken vs. egg type argument. The question; has the planet warmed due to natural cycles, forcing CO2 into the atmosphere from the oceans (a known phenomenon.) This being the case, the question is what % of the increase was due to natural causes rather than human contribution.

Now, I'm not saying that this theory is necessarily true, but your sarcastic reply only illuminates your lack of broad based knowledge on the subject.

Manufacturing in the U.S has been declining since the 80's.

People are driving slightly less. Also existing CO2 emissions are becoming less and less dirty. Appliances, Homes, Businesses are releasing less CO2.

This trend should continue, and probably as energy gets even more expensive result in a continued decline in C02 output despite anemic growth in the economy and population.

Ho Hum wrote:

Did you read the article, engage in any critical thinking at all?

No, no he doesn't.

SomeCoach wrote:

You have made yourself look foolish, you should educate yourself about the entire debate before you comment.

One of the major debates of AGW is a chicken vs. egg type argument. The question; has the planet warmed due to natural cycles, forcing CO2 into the atmosphere from the oceans (a known phenomenon.) This being the case, the question is what % of the increase was due to natural causes rather than human contribution.

Somewhat ironic that this post began with "you have made yourself look foolish". About 9 Gton of carbon annually enters the atmosphere due to human activities. About 4 Gton of this is compensated by increased carbon uptake, mainly by the oceans (thus acidifying them by creation of carbonic acid). The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to humans is about 5Gton/year. None of this is the least bit vague. we can measure the emissions, and we can measure the increase in atmospheric CO2.

The OP is correct that CO2 emissions in the US declined recently, primarily because of the rapid increase in the use of CBM (rather than coal) for generation of electricity. Coal generates more CO2 per unit energy than CBM. So although CBM can be an environmental disaster locally (mainly via groundwater contamination and loss of habitat), it certainly did contribute (along with the recession) to the recent reduction in CO2 emissions. There is also a big unresolved issue of the amount of methane directly released by CBM fields. Molecule by molecule, methane is a much stronger GHG than CO2. So, although US Co2 emissions declined, that may be offset by methane emissions. And of course, India and China are off the charts with respect to increasing CO2 emissions, so GLOBALLY CO2 emissions were higher than ever in history last year.

Running on Empathy wrote:

Since 1998 the Earth has experienced a cooling trend (despite efforts by the global warming nazis to deny this trend). Most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last half century came from the oceans (warming temps lead to increased CO2 ..... duh!), and when temps cool the oceans will re-absorb this carbon.

So what do you know! The carbon cycle actually works as they taught us in grade school!!

"Since 1998 the earth has experience a cooling trend".

Yes! And people are getting skinnier. And kids are actually WAY better at math and science (you, for example).

It doesn't matter what's causing climate change.

Less CO2 is good for the environment and it's for our health.

:D *Ching

We should have ourselves a hoedown.

The market will certainly do what governments haven't been able to. Solar energy will likely end the use of fossil fuels much sooner than many people think (at least in relatively sunny places). In 5 years, solar energy will cost about the same as natural gas (or whatever is cheapest then). In 10 years, it will be half as expensive. The technology is developing about as quickly as computers. Think of what the world would be like with cheap, clean, ubiquitous energy.

TCB wrote:

The market will certainly do what governments haven't been able to. Solar energy will likely end the use of fossil fuels much sooner than many people think (at least in relatively sunny places). In 5 years, solar energy will cost about the same as natural gas (or whatever is cheapest then). In 10 years, it will be half as expensive. The technology is developing about as quickly as computers. Think of what the world would be like with cheap, clean, ubiquitous energy.

By then a whole bunch of terrorists will be threatening to nuke the sun ...

Ho Hum wrote:

Wow, that was impressively wrong. The article is very very clear about the fact that carbon EMISSIONS from the US are at a 20 year low. Unless there's some secret underwater factories I'm not aware of, the oceans have nothing to do with this.

Did you read the article, engage in any critical thinking at all?

Are you even aware of who Seth Borenstein is? An absolute climate hack. No attempt at fostering debate or presenting basic facts of the climate cycle. Just regurgitating the whole "man is causing climate change" BS.

Yes I read the article. I heard this new take from an energy website a few days ago. You see, the energy industry is just as culpable as the AGW hacks. Industry is using this ASSUMED reduction in CO2 emissions as proof that hydrofracking is the way to go to save the planet blah blah blah.

The problem is one of historic context. In every instance of atmospheric CO2 variation over millions of years, it is proven that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag increases in global temps, while decreases in atmospheric CO2 lag decreases in global temps. The relative variation in atmospheric CO2 is a RESULT of global temperature variations, not a cause of global temperature variations.

As I stated before, there have been very few coal fired plants closed down. There are hundreds that probably WILL close down, but for now to claim an assumed reduction in CO2 emissions due to the reasons cited by the author is simply untrue. Man's emission-based CO2 contributions are simply too small to affect total CO2 levels in any significant faction, aka it is well within natural variability.

TCB wrote:

The market will certainly do what governments haven't been able to. Solar energy will likely end the use of fossil fuels much sooner than many people think (at least in relatively sunny places). In 5 years, solar energy will cost about the same as natural gas (or whatever is cheapest then). In 10 years, it will be half as expensive. The technology is developing about as quickly as computers. Think of what the world would be like with cheap, clean, ubiquitous energy.

Wow, your perspective is so out of whack it is hard to know where to start.

For beginners, the market is pretty good at determining winners and losers among technology options at least regarding basic laws of supply and demand - including consumer preferences. The market does not favor one technology over another because it is cute, politically correct, currently in fashion or your personal favorite. There is absolutely no reason to think that "the market" will magically favor low or no carbon energy options and certainly not solar in particular.

This notion that solar will be the least cost option in 5 years has been spouted since at least the early eighties (I know, I was there hearing the same nonsense then). That's thirty years of "within 5 years". It reminds me of fusion energy, the energy of the future (and always will be). "Cheap, clean, ubiquitous energy"? Did you steal that from an old nuclear power ad?

The technology is most decidedly NOT developing about as quickly as computers. Where do you get this stuff?

Your entire post is basically wishful thinking on a bizarre scale.

Oh, you're one of those people. Never mind.

For all you professional Climatologists and Atmospheric Scientist wanna-be's: check out Icecap.us for the real truth on this.

They use NOAA own climatic data to refute the global warming (AGW) and carbon impact arguement.

I should know, I do this for a living.

So what do the AGW folks have to say about reduced CO2 levels? ...not enough...data is incomplete.

Maybe you missed it, but the article linked a press release from the EIA that in turn links a table from the monthly report showing the quantity of various fuels consumed.

You don't have to shut down the coal fired plants to reduce coal consumption you simply use other plants preferentially and keep the coal plant to cover peak demand. As you say this isn't because the power companies are altruistic, it's because natural gas is currently cheaper than coal.

This study begs to differ -

Running on Empathy wrote:

...Man's emission-based CO2 contributions are simply too small to affect total CO2 levels in any significant faction, aka it is well within natural variability.

Really? Somehow that seems at odds with the facts - see wikipedia article on co2 in the earth's atmosphere (among thousands of other sources).

In case educating yourself by reading (gasp!) an entire article seems too daunting a task for you let me make it a bit easier.

1) Atmospheric CO2 levels are now more than 40% higher than in pre-industrial times

2) "While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent drastic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be entirely due to human activity. Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling scientists to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration."

Well, at any rate, enjoy that funny little world you live in.

Wow! So they can now tell the difference between carbon released from my wood burning stove and that which is released by a wild fire? And here I thought they just made up facts to fit their agenda.

Moms basement wrote:

Wow! So they can now tell the difference between carbon released from my wood burning stove and that which is released by a wild fire? And here I thought they just made up facts to fit their agenda.

Actually it's the difference between fossil fuels and stuff that is or was recently alive and growing.

What the heck wrote:

Where do you get this stuff?

Your entire post is basically wishful thinking on a bizarre scale.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I did make a mistake. As it turns out, solar energy is already competitive with traditional sources (gas, coal, wind, and nuclear) in many parts of the world.

"Suntech Power’s ebullient Chief Executive Officer Shi Zhengrong got plenty of press at Davos for his proclamation that solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015. Shi said that solar is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain."

"The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of the year, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable. For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common. In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, the cost at which it is competitive with coal or gas-fired generation."

"Only a few years ago it cost more than twice as much to produce electricity with solar panels than through conventional sources such as coal-fired power plants. Dramatic improvements in technology coupled with plummeting prices for polysilicon, a key ingredient, and big increases in solar panel manufacturing capacity have pushed down prices. Bloomberg says that silicon-based panel prices fell about half last year as silicon makers doubled their output and demand fell in a weakened Eurozone."