Earth Policy Institute Carbon emissions in the United States have dropped dramatically over the last two years.
Between 2007 and 2009, domestic emissions could drop by 9 percent — a massive decline due in part to the economic downturn, and in part to a new push to improve efficiency and develop renewable fuels — according to the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington-based environmental group.
“We’ve been hearing for years that it was nearly impossible to make substantial cuts in carbon emissions,” said Lester R. Brown, the group’s president. “In fact, it is not that difficult.”
Energy usage has dropped rapidly in the past two years in the United States, mostly as a result of the recession, which has crimped economic activity and pushed up unemployment figures. But Mr. Brown said that recent policies are firmly putting the nation on a path of lower carbon emissions, even in the absence of federal legislation.
These include boosting fuel efficiency for cars and trucks, investing in renewable power generation, and an “energy efficiency revolution” that will save power from buildings and appliances.
On a conference call this morning, Mr. Brown pointed out that 22 coal-fired plants in 12 states were being made more efficient, or replaced altogether by wind farms, natural gas plants or wood chip plants. Over 130 geothermal plants are also under development, he pointed out, and 102 wind farms came online in 2008.
Another 49 were completed in the first half of this year and 57 are now under construction, Mr. Brown said.
Amazingly, 300,000 megawatts of wind projects are awaiting access to the grid, which is the equivalent of roughly 300 coal plants.
He also said the American car fleet is expected to shrink by 2 percent this year, a trend that is likely to continue for years.
Adding all of this together means that the goal to reduce emissions by 17 percent or 20 percent by 2020, as Congress is currently debating, should not be too much of a stretch. The trouble, said Mr. Brown, is that 20 percent will not be enough to prevent some of the worst aspects of global warming.
Preventing ice sheets from melting in Greenland or in the Himalayas will require cuts much deeper than those envisaged either by Congress or by negotiators ahead of the global climate summit on Copenhagen later this year, Mr. Brown said.
That would require cutting carbon emissions by more than 80 percent by 2020, and need something like a “wartime mobilization” of the economy, Mr. Brown said.
“What we are hearing is not nearly enough,” he said.
23 Comments
““We’ve been hearing for years that it was nearly impossible to make substantial cuts in carbon emissions,” said Lester R. Brown, the group’s president. “In fact, it is not that difficult.”
and …
“Adding all of this together means that the goal to reduce emissions by 17 percent or 20 percent by 2020, as Congress is currently debating, should not be too much of a stretch.”
i’m sure when the economy has contracted 50%, carbon emissions will have been significantly reduced — and we’ll all be happy campers.
not even the onion could make this stuff up.
— sasAll you have to do is destroy the economy and the emissions will go down. Why didn’t they think of this earlier?
— linc312both government response to the alarmist conceit of co2-caused and the more immediate reality of peak oil conspire to create a new consensus:
the current human population, (especially at the standard of living many have become accustomed to) is unsustainable, and will, inevitably reduced, one way or the other.
— sasCome on, folks, the news is that small changes can make a big difference. Hooray!
We’ve committed over the past few years to small changes like keeping our house at 68 degrees in cooler weather and 80-82 degrees in warmer weather. I hope these and other changes are adding up for the world.
(Think it’s too cool in our house in the winter? Get a sweater!)
— KimLook, it was easy to cut emissions back in the late 70s as well. No kidding, two years is great, but the trend line is still pretty clear.
— danielThis is powerful evidence that the imperative to grow and grow and grow the economy and the imperative to achieve environmental sustainability are fundamentally at odds. Head in the sand.
— Plutothey won’t be happy when we walk everywhere.
they won’t be happy when we are living in huts.
why? because they are meddlesome.
but they haven’t the right.
i for one will take full advantage of lower gas prices and drive more to see parts of this great country before its too late and they monitor our driving habits
and with lower natural gas prices i am going to keep my house this winter at a comfortable 76 degrees before they monitor our thermostat settings.
welcome to the collective comrades.
— kit ramseyYay.
Keep in mind that coal is used for baseload and wind is for peaking power.
— David W.Don’t be deceived by minor emission reductions as major problems that no one is facing with the climate crisis are occurring and they are:
— Dr. James Singmaster!. That we have a rapidly expanding, but not recognized, energy overload that the increasing temperatures of air, water and top soil demonstrate. Dr. E. Chaisson pointed out this overload in a paper in EOS, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, Vol 89, No. 28, pg 253-4(2008) titled “Long-Term Global Heating from Energy Usage” This heating is occurring from releasing trapped chemical energy in fossil fuels and trapped nuclear energy from fission of atoms and possibly in the future from fusion of atoms. In the long run to get control of the energy overload, getting energy from fossil fuels and atoms will have to be stopped.
2. That more effects on climate may be occurring due to the soot released by burning fossil fuels than to the GHGs released. A brief report in Science, the AAAS journal, April 17, pg.323 2009 indicated that a study was showing that 75% of arctic ice melting was due to soot that had fallen on to the ice not to warming caused by GHGs.
3. That we already have an overload of CO2 causing serious damage to the environment so we need to be taking action(s) that can remove some of it from the overload.
I have made numerous comments on more than a few blogs including this one about how to make our massive ever-expanding messes of organic wastes and sewage into a resource to get some control of the energy and climate crises. With pyrolysis of those messes to get some inert charcoal, some energy and carbon are removed from their overloads and many other benefits accrue as I have pointed out in the comments that can be searched or googled under my name. Setting up a nationwide program for pyrolysis of wastes could generate many thousands of jobs. Dr. J. Singmaster
Kit -
Maybe you should take your next trip to Africa, and see people living in huts and walking everywhere, and you’ll realized what a gifted life we lead (Be sure to buy Carbon Offsets for your plant ticket!). Welcome to the collective, indeed.
— Rob S.“Amazingly, 300,000 megawatts of wind projects are awaiting access to the grid, which is the equivalent of roughly 300 coal plants.”
Amazing, because this number is simply untrue. The total installed wind capacity for the US was ~25,000 MW at the start of 2009.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/installed_capacity_2008.jpg
— AdamThey also won’t be satisfied until we have no kids
They won’t be satisfied with anything. They will keep moving the goal post.
And now they are rejoicing on other people’s misery. But wait, 20% is not enough, 80% is more like it. Come 2020, 80% won’t be enough either. US should resemble Afganistan for them.
The only people who are rejoicing at this current climate are the environmentalists led by Al Gore.
In the meantime, october is MI is as cold as december.
— Ganesh“a massive decline due in part to the economic downturn, and in part to a new push to improve efficiency and develop renewable fuels”
Only in part due to the economy? Come on! Compare that emissions graph with the list of recessions since 1970: 74-75, check. 80-83, check. 90-91, check. 2001, check. Emissions show a definite drop in every case, regardless of how enlightened environmental policies were at the time.
I am sure improving energy efficiency will help in gradually reducing carbon emissions, but anybody who points to that graph as proof clearly doesn’t understand American energy consumption. No Nobel Prize for you!
— Mike WI don’t want to rub the reporter’s or Lester Brown’s face in the dirt, but this is just proof that the Bush Administration’s position was correct. If we want to cut greenhouse gas emissions AND grow the economy, we can’t rely on European-style Kyoto Protocol rationing approach, which many ardent campaigners in Washington, DC, want the US to agree to do during the negotiations in Copenhagen in December.
Even if the US economy were to come to a complete halt, the climate change problem would still exist unless developing nations slash their emissions.
Sorry but that’s the way it is.
— WilliamWho cares about emissions? Not the atmosphere or climate: they only care about the concentration. Ocean life also cares quite a bit about that too. And the data above are for the US alone. You do know that there are other countries, right?
#14 said: “If we want to cut greenhouse gas emissions AND grow the economy, we can’t rely on European-style Kyoto Protocol rationing approach,”
Huh? Are European economies that much worse off than ours? I don’t think so. You’re right about the need for an international (if not global) approach though. Another interpretation of these US data is that America — the wealthiest large nation — refuses to do anything about its GHG pollution UNLESS IT IS FORCED TO. Talk about the moral low ground.
— melty, other side of the riverThe issue is, when will we wake up and realize that the 100 plus years of natural gas is the way to go. On top of that natural gas companies pay billions of dollars of taxes to the treasury. I for one am sick of the subsidies for the “alternative energy” companies with the graft and corruption that comes from “grants”.
— BillIf the emissions are down w/out 300,000 MGs from wind. Why is wind needed? You don’t say how many MG’s wind is actually producing right now….
— AmyYes, human CO2 emissions are down, mostly due to economic conditions, but do decreasing/increasing human CO2 emissions affect the atmospheric level of CO2? Politicos, Hollywood celebrities and most journalists/pundits would say yes.
As we point out here - http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/09/do-reductions-of-human-co2-emissions-have-any-impact-on-atmospheric-co2-levels-measurements-are-indi.html - that would seem to be a wrong assumption, so far.
Atmospheric CO2 levels keep rising relentlessly, despite economic conditions. Is it possible levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are driven by natural forces, and not by humans? Hmmmmm.
C3H Editor, http://www.c3headlines.com
— C3H EditorThis shows that if we do, we can success. Economy should slow down, endless growth is wrong economic pattern. Economic recession is a good example. Renewable energy, energy efficiency, cut transport emission all are worked methods. This is a good news. Hope continue to do effort, our target will realize.
— Wang SuyaThe news on proposed wind projects is quite good. We seem to be at the point where we will be saving money by switching to wind. There are some technologies in solar PV that are there as well but we probably have to wait until 2013 or so before half of available PV is cheaper than coal. But, as Brown points out, we are headed in a good direction.
— Chris DudleyThis is good news for all of us–small changes make a big difference. Of course, there’s more work to be done. And a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the best way to raise the cost of carbon based fuels while still protecting the economy. Congress needs to start paying attention to the solution that economists and scientists agree is superior to all the alternatives; they need to take a much closer look at a carbon tax.
— CTFThere are simply too many people in the world.
Which way will we choose to reduce to a more sustainable population? Ours, or mother nature’s?
— rebeccayes, businesses are shut and people are out of work and using less and buying less, but the difference between the peak and now is also a story of people finding ways to conserve to save money that don’t drive them crazy.
sorry to all the people who’ve got politically attached to dumping trash wherever it fits — whether you like it or not there’s no room for trash anymore.
if you’re worried about it changing your job or you’re afraid that your neighbor or your power utility will be snooping, fight that, fight those things in particular. fighting against the green future, that part won’t work, because we really screwed things up and have a lot of work to do.
— hapa