U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions increased 1.6 percent in 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration. Factors at fault, according to the EIA: wacky weather that increased the need for heating and cooling, and "a higher carbon intensity of electricity supply." (Our electricity supply is carbon-intensive? Who knew?) The agency was quick to point out that GDP grew 2.7 percent in 2007, so "greenhouse-gas intensity" -- the unimportant measure by which U.S. officials like to pretend they're making progress -- actually dropped. CO2 emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas have grown 19.4 percent in the U.S. since 1990. Thank goodness there haven't been any discernible side effects.
source: Agence France-Presse
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:57 am
20 May 2008
Utility emissions increased 3%, even with the increase in renewables. But again, with even more renewables online this year, and utility rates goin' up and more people conserving, that'll hopefully go down.
Industrial emissions actually dropped .1%, so that should continue in 2008 and even accelerate, given that refineries are producing less than they were in 2007 (due to drop in oil and gas demand) and the shutdown of several large manufacturing facilities (most notably, several automobile plants)
Emissions from construction industry (not sure which category that fell under) should also taper off or go down, 'specially with the housing slump and dramatic rise in construction materials such as steel and asphalt (asphalt goin' up with oil prices), tapering demand.
I imagine the failure of several small airlines, reductions in the number of flights in large airlines, in addition to several strategic fuel-saving measures (weight reduction, slower flight speeds, improved aircraft) along with reductions in general small-craft avation (due to gas prices) will cut down emissions from airline travel.
The same also applies to both large shipping fleets and smaller recreational boat fleets.
The big one is buildings. More than 4% increases from both residential and commercial sectors.
The biggest hikes in terms of percentage (though not total amount of emissions). The only way I could see to make a sizable dent would be if the housing slump and higher energy costs start to make an impact and people improve their conservation.
There also seems to be a slight decline in the demand for meat and several agricultural crops reliant on oil-based fertilizers and pesticides, which could slightly reduce emissions from agriculture...but that might be offset by increased ethanol production.
...However, the housing slump and oil price surge were already prevalent last year as well (though not as dramatic), so it might not have as much of an impact as I would hope.
Still, when the (slight) 1% overall reduction we had from 2005 to 2006 is factored in, the net increase isn't as much as I'd expect it to be.
Permalink
enki Posted 10:04 am
20 May 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:33 am
20 May 2008
Must be all those energy inefficient mansions in Waxman's district.
What's their energy usage per person?
Doesn't Grist have DiCaprio's cell?
Permalink
BlackBear Posted 1:48 am
21 May 2008
Consider: Agriculture is the second largest producer of greenhouse gases after electricity production. If rising fuel prices hit agribizz (as the rising prices of meat, milk, eggs, and bread suggests) then will this perhaps cause a downturn in our consumption of those products and reduce the emissions from the agriculture sector as well?
Wouldn't this have a bigger impact on our atmosphere since we're talking about a bigger chunk of the total? If we can't 'reason' folks into consuming fewer animal products to protect their environment, perhaps we can price it out of them.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:27 am
21 May 2008
Home of the Oregon Petition.
32,000 thousand seasoned scientists...all Deniers!
Yet Grist Ecologists turn a blind eye!
How could they?!?
32,000 deniers
That's the number of scientists who are outraged by the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archiv ...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:53 am
21 May 2008
What, exactly, do they consider a "scientist"?
I couldn't help but notice that there was a category listing where they listed their field of expertise.
Just how many put down "climatology" or "biologist" or "earth sciences" in that little spot?
'Cause really, 32,000 gynecologists, engineers at automobile manufacturers, geologists at oil companies, and some lumberjacks with forestry degrees may claim themselves to be scientists, but that don't mean they hold a candle to people who actually do research in the contested field of study.
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 7:55 am
31 May 2008
There's about 32,000 rednecks in the backwoods of Oregon. Coincidence? I think not.
Permalink