AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By KEVIN BEGOS

PITTSBURGH (AP) - In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.

FULL story at link.


Read more: By KEVIN BEGOS

---

in this June 25, 2012 file photo, a crew works on a drilling rig at a well site for shale based natural gas in Zelienople, Pa. In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal. Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

[NYC_SKP]

1. Dead economy = less energy use and activity = lower emissions.

[kestrel91316]

4. + 5 brazillion - yep - dead in the water since 2007 here.

Nobody drives anywhere, nobody has money for gas, and without jobs or interviews there is no need to drive anywhere except to the local discount big boxes for provisioning.

[lunatica]

7. Many are like me and carpool

My gas consumption has dropped drastically because I get a ride to work so instead of two cars polluting now only one does.

[flamingdem]

12. The upside to the crap economy

[Kolesar]

2. The Powers have not been putting capital into coal fired plants and closed the obsolete plants

They did not retrofit coal fired plants because they knew that Congress or the EPA would start regulations on CO2 that would end electricity production at those plants.

[NYC_SKP]

3. PS: True that coal is a declining player in electricity generation, less carbon for natgas.

So, the change in the energy source mix away from coal toward natgas is significant, but so is the general decline in demand.

And, natgas isn't clean, it's just a little carbon intensive. It may as well be coal in the big scheme of things.

NYC_SKP

[caraher]

5. My understanding is that there are few good estimates of "fugitive" methane emissions

In other words, this kind of estimate assumes the greenhouse gas impact of burning natural gas equals the effect of the carbon dioxide produced in the combustion of methane. But methane is itself a potent greenhouse gas, many times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, and natural gas can leak in many places - from pipelines, near the point of use, and perhaps least understood of all, where it is extracted. This, along with the emerging problems with "fracking," undercuts this rosy picture to some (I believe, unknown) extent.

[GTurck]

6. The change...

is good to hear. Unfortunately there are several things in the piece I find worrying. 1. That market forces (i.e. unregulated markets) caused the change. 2. Now we don't need to work to end dependence on fossil fuels because we have found one that is less damaging.

We really do need to change to sustainable and renewable sources of energy as quickly and economically as we can. Maybe cars can't be eliminated in our large and mobile country but certainly electric power to homes and businesses can be altered. I look for the day.

[lunatica]

8. This is actually good news for a change

Though it may make the resisters even lazier I think it will make those who actually care much more enthusiastic about changing to non polluting forms of energy.

[hunter]

9. Stuff we made here is now made elsewhere.

Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

If the fossil fuels that were burned to make the stuff we import were taken into account... let's say for example the steel and concrete of the new eastern span of the Oakland Bay Bridge, then I doubt our emissions are reduced, they are simply relocated.

Made in China, Japan, and Britain:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_span_replacement_of_the_San_Francisco_-_Oakland_Bay_Bridge

[amandabeech]

15. China's plants are not very efficient.

Even their newest plants are based on old-fashioned technology offered by China's engineering sector, not the best available technology available in the world.

Eventually, all our coal will be burned, but probably not in the most efficient plants available.

[NickB79]

10. Yet they keep increasing globally

And since it's GLOBAL warming, it really doesn't matter where the CO2 is released.

Until the global rate of CO2 starts coming down, we're still in deep shit.

[GliderGuider]

11. Deconstruction

From the report: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7350

CO2 emissions during January-March 2012 were low due to a combination of three factors:

• A mild winter that reduced household heating demand and therefore energy use
  
• A decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to historically low natural gas prices
  
• Reduced gasoline demand

So CO2 emissions were down because of climate change (i.e. previous FF use), the continuing and deepening recession, and fracking - to which I will add the offshoring of heavy industry.

Sweet tradeoffs...

[Orsino]

13. Kilocalories are kilocalories.

What am I missing here? A switch from coal to gas isn't going to reduce CO2 emissions because coal is dirtier. That result can only come from burning less total carbon or greater efficiency in burning it.

Coal is called dirty because of the other crap in it. Dirtiness has nothing to do with CO2.

[KurtNYC]

14. Kick with a link to the USA Today version

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Nation/World/2012-08-17-Gas-DrillingCO2-Drop0_ST_U.htm?csp=34

(Same AP release by Begos, just grabbed link because there wasn't one in the OP somehow)