A recent news article about the Stern Report contained the following gem from a Bush administration spokeswoman:
The statement from spokeswoman Kristen Hellmer said the United States is "well on track to meet the president's goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity of our economy 18 percent by 2012."
This statement makes it sound like the Bush administration is taking on the problem of climate change head-on, with an aggressive program to reduce emissions.
But it ain't so.
The statement is about greenhouse gas intensity rather than greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gas intensity is the emissions per unit economic output. Multiply this quantity by the size of the economy and you get total greenhouse gas emissions.
Historically, U.S. greenhouse gas intensity has declined all by itself as our economy has evolved from manufacturing (which takes a lot of energy) to services (which take less), and as equipment has naturally become more efficient. Over the past few decades, greenhouse gas intensity has declined somewhere between 1% and 2% per year.
At the same time, the economy has grown more rapidly than this, so total greenhouse gas emissions have increased.
Several years ago, the Bush administration committed itself to an 18% decrease in greenhouse gas intensity over a decade -- corresponding to a decrease of about 1.8% per year. This represents negligible if any increase in the natural rate of decline.
In other words, they basically committed the U.S. to maintaining the status quo.
Importantly, it is virtually certain that the economy will grow faster than this during the decade, so even if the target is met, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. Considering that we need to reduce emissions by about 80% from today's levels to stabilize atmospheric CO2, achieving the administration's intensity target does nothing to stop global warming.
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
Comments
View as Flat
jjwfmme Posted 5:26 am
31 Oct 2006
"You know, those humans were releasing all this CO2, and so I was going to heat up. But then I saw that the humans were like, so intense. Their lawyers, policy wonks and number-crunchers were working really hard. So I gave them a break and suspended the laws of physics."
Permalink
wacki Posted 11:15 am
31 Oct 2006
I didn't realize our greenhouse gas emissions were projected to decline at that rate. Given the amount of coal fire power stations we are building I would have expected an increase. Anyone have any more info on the yearly anthropogenic CO2 emissions and projections?
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:40 pm
31 Oct 2006
Our emissions are NOT going down. The emissions intensity is going down. Our economy is growing fast enough that total emissions are still growing rapidly.
Regards.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 5:30 pm
31 Oct 2006
But maybe it is best we don't know we are already doomed.
Good luck guys, see you in " another time, another place, with another face"(Van Morrison)
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 10:47 pm
31 Oct 2006
"Intensity" is such a contrivance of a word that I wouldn't use it without scare quotes. Just using it as if it were legitimate buys into the spin...
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:55 pm
31 Oct 2006
OPEC Says British Climate Change Report "Unfounded"
http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsi...
Permalink
wedjr Posted 11:30 pm
31 Oct 2006
Permalink
Lab Lemming Posted 7:20 pm
05 Nov 2006
-Lab LEmming
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Posted 10:38 pm
10 Sep 2007
No amount of mathematical jiggery-pokery will deceive mother nature, even though we humans deceive ourselves!
Science trumps everything - religion, politics!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:29 am
11 Sep 2007
Not a good result.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:09 am
17 Sep 2007
A smart fuel cell "island" grid design? Very good! and it runs on biogas or natural gas. That's distributed generation and storage.
This is the way to really reduce GHG. Fuel cell/turbines put out half the ghg per unit of energy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink