Comments on: I predict U.S. carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2007!

By: Itchy

Itchy — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:36:46 +0000

I’m really not sure how Peak Oil = lower CO2 emissions.

Peak Oil will eventually result in either Americans give up thier cars, or more coal burning.

Regardless of new laws, my bet is on the coal.

By: Cait

Cait — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:09:44 +0000

For a moment there I thought you meant globally.

I was wondering if it had all got to you a little bit too much

Regardless: here’s hoping you’re right.

By: Jim Beacon

Jim Beacon — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:46:26 +0000

Well, now we’re just speculating… juggling with many still-unknowns of the global recession and how long it might last. If it lasts until 2012 when Waxman-Markey kicks in, then we may well have hit a peak for U.S. emissions of CO2 back in 2007 (at whatever level it really was, apparently somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 million metric tons). But, if as publicly predicted by the Obama administration just yesterday and by many on Wall Street, the recession “begins to turn around” by the end of this year, then we could quickly find ourselves back on track to hit 8,000 million metric tons before Waxman-Markey begins to take effect in 2012. In fact, this seems to be the real reason behind setting 2012 as the take-effect date for Waxman-Markey: They want to give the economy a free pass on emissions for the next 3 years to “help it recover”. More “art of the possible” dilution, more costly delay… No, I’m afraid I just don’t see any real reasons to think 2007’s level (whatever it turns out to have been) will be the peak. It could easily end up being much higher.

Of course, all this ignores the very real possibility that the conservatives actually could manage to take back Congress in 2012… maybe even the White House, who knows? If that happened, does anyone doubt that their first order of business would be stop as much of Waxman-Markey as possible dead in its tracks? This is just one reason why I object to delaying W-M’s effective date until 2012. It should go into effect on January 1, 2010. No more screwin’ around.

[JR: Uhh, you have forgotten the stimulus, which pushes a staggering amount of renewables into the market.]

By: MarkB

MarkB — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:35:00 +0000

Keep in mind that much of the drop in 2008 was due to the global recession and sky-high energy prices through most of the year. But gains in renewable energy, efficiency, and the slowing of coal plant construction is helping. I hope this is the turning point.

By: Jim Beacon

Jim Beacon — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:22:53 +0000

Um, you’re confusing me here. The chart and info in this article doesn’t come close to matching that of the chart you published just the other day from the World Resources Group on the Waxman-Markey results, which shows 2007 U.S. emissions of CO2 at about 7200 metric tons, not 6000 as shown here. And it also projects that emissions will continue to rise to 7500 metric tons in 2012 when Waxman-Market, if passed as is now, only just starts. With any luck we *may* peak in 2012 at 7500 metric tons, but it could easily go up to 8000 before the Waxman-Markey provisions really start working See the chart in your own article at:

http://climateprogress.org/ 2009/ 05/ 10/ waxman-markey-2020-ghg-cuts-wri/

[JR: Apologies for the confusion. W-M projection is based on an EPA analysis using old EIA projections. This chart above is more recent -- it's based on an EIA update from April that incorporates the economic slowdown and the stimulus.]

By: Alex J

Alex J — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:00:06 +0000

Thanks for bringing that up, David. In these discussions, people often neglect to consider the globalized nature of today’s economy. If Americans are demanding ultra-cheap stuff from China, then the coal being used to manufacture it becomes at least partly our responsibility, does it not? Even if it is “outsourced” pollution and doesn’t show up on our official carbon budgets. It’s good news that CO2 output within our borders may not exceed that of 2007 (assuming the aforementioned action is taken, and we don’t start binging on coal and Canadian tar). But we also have a responsibility to help and/or prod the developing nations that have supplied cheap goods to our economy.

By: Rick Covert

Rick Covert — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:37:22 +0000

Joe,

Your book “Hell and Highwater” came out around ‘07. I know it is 20/20 hindsight now but when you wrote it you proposed several scenarious about future climate around the assumption that CO2 levels would drop by the mid 20 teens, by 2030 and business and usual if I recall correctly. (It’s been over a year since I read the book and I guess I need to read it again) So where does this put us with respect to CO2 reduction? Are current reductions, assuming a meaningful carbon cap and trade bill is passed, giving us an unexpected good start we can build on or does is the business as usual scenario still the most powerful outcome?

By: Christopher Mims

Christopher Mims — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:20:49 +0000

This makes me want to queue up the theme song to Team America: World Police.

Someone please ‘green’ the lyrics to that classic Lee Greenwood track, but quick. This movement needs its anthems, and so far Neil Young isn’t cutting it.

By: Greg N

Greg N — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:05:35 +0000

My personal CO2 emissions have peaked. I can’t see them ever reaching 2007 levels again, unless I suddenly start taking multiple long haul flights a year.

I wish I’d recorded my personal electricity/natural gas/petrol consumption each year for the past couple of decades – that would make an interesting graph!

By: paulm

paulm — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:31:22 +0000

Thats great news!