Finally, Good News on Climate! US Carbon Emissions Drop

One rare piece of good news on climate has gone little noticed among all the alarming new science and bizarre weather: US CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels have been on a steep decline. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that 2009 emissions will be almost 9% lower than in 2005, their highest year on record.

The largest single reason for the decline is (obviously) the recession, but growing investments in renewables and energy efficiency, and a switch from dirty coal to clean(ish) natural gas generation are also responsible. The price paid by electricity utilities for natural gas has halved over the past year -- while that for coal increased by 7%. New exploration and drilling technologies mean that US natural gas reserves are now far higher than thought a couple of years ago, so the price advantage of coal relative to gas is likely to stay low.

The EIA predicts that structural changes in the US energy economy, boosted by the efficiency and renewable subsidies in Obama’s stimulus package, mean that emissions will not regain their 2005 level until 2024. Prominent climate blogger Joe Romm, a former Department of Energy official, points out that EIA’s models fail to take into account inevitable changes in the energy economy in the coming decades. They do not allow for any new policies on clean energy and climate, and no peak oil, “so the only thing one can say for certain about an EIA forecast is that there is no chance whatsoever it will come true.” Romm believes that believes that US emissions have peaked and will never return to their 2005 level.

The drop in emissions means that we are already more than halfway to the goal of the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House of Representatives of a 17% cut from 2005 to 2020 -- showing just how unacceptably weak the goal is (science shows that the US needs to cut its emissions to around half of 2005 levels).

If the targets aren’t tightened in whatever cap-and-trade bill gets signed into law by Obama (the Kerry-Boxer bill in the Senate is slightly better with a -- 20% target), its likely that far too many allowances (the “permits to pollute” that are the currency of the trading scheme) will be available, crashing the permit price and removing the incentive for polluters to act to bend down the emissions curve. 

Falling emissions, and the possibility that we’ve reached peak carbon for the US, is great news. But is also shows that Congress is missing a massive opportunity to promote policies that would accelerate the emissions drop to levels close to where the science suggests we need to be, while also promoting all the co-benefits of a decarbonizing economy: better health, cleaner air, green jobs, improved housing, and more pleasant towns and cities.

 

Comments

[teccoord]

The problem with the Cap and Trade legislation isn’t the underlying reason but the approach.

We are basing this legislation on a concept that is arguably affecting our Earth … Global Warming. Even though we have seen a Noble Prize, and an Oscar about Global Warming, that does not mean we need CAP and Trade legislation to stop this impending dome day’s situation. Global warming for some is still a debatable item. In fact in an Editorial in the Los Angeles Time dated 8-26-09 we can read that the US Chamber of Commerce is seeking a “Scopes monkey trial for the 21st century” appointing a judge to hear evidence on the question of does global warming endangers Americans’ health. Since then we have seen numerous editorials about Global Warming and Cap and Trade legislation needed because of Global Warming.

[teccoord]

How do I feel about Global Warming and its affects? Don’t give a damn. It is all hot air and goes against the real truth. The real truth is as follows …

I believe the approach should be similar to the way we might handle our own home environment. That is to say … we would not want our kids to play in a filthy toxic back yard, drink dirty water, breathe polluted air, swim in toxic or dirty water, and plant a garden in toxic soil … would we? I think not. Hence we need appropriate legislation to prevent the pollution of our air, land and seas. This is similar in fact to our military that protects us on land, on seas, and in the air.

[teccoord]

In fact, if we can secure ourselves militarily in the air, on the land and on the seas and rivers, then why can’t we secure ourselves environmentally in the air, on the land, on the seas, rivers and lakes?

The Global Warming discussion and influence disappears when we have as a goal to remove the toxic influence in the three major environments that are Global in nature ... Air, Land, sea, rivers and lakes?

Sooooooooo, like the financial deregulation that lead to the bursting of the financial bubble thus leading to regulation, that to some seems extreme; we need to regulate the pollution of our air, land, seas, rivers, lakes and other consumables that effect our quality of life. Perhaps in this way Global Warming will slow down or disappear.

By the way, opponents to Cap and Trade along with proponents have not considered the impact on our economy let alone our health from the toxic pollution in our environment. Go ahead and compare the costs. You can’t. Who can set a dollar value on time lost at work, jobs lost, and health consequences that were created by a toxic environment?

[jsgaetano]

How great! Instead of poisoning the air, they are just switching fulltime to poisoning our water.

[martinfrosa]

This just show what a good recession can do! Now if we can just get another 10,000,000 people to lose their jobs, our carbon emissions will be way, way down. This is something we all want to see, right?