From an e-mail alert:
Energy Information Administration
EIA Reports
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 28, 2007U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Declined 1.5 Percent in 2006
Total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 7,075.6 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2006, a decrease of 1.5 percent from the 2005 level according to “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2006″, a report released today by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Since 1990, U.S. GHG emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent. The 2006 emissions decrease is only the third decline in annual emissions since 1990.
U.S. GHG emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or “U.S. GHG-intensity,” fell from 653 metric tons per million 2000 constant dollars of GDP (MTCO2e/$Million GDP) in 2005 to 625 MTCO2e /$Million GDP in 2006, a decline of 4.2 percent. Since 1990, the annual average decline in GHG-intensity has been 2.0 percent.
Total estimated U.S. GHG emissions in 2006 consisted of 5,934.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (83.8 percent of total emissions), 605.1 MMTCO2e of methane (8.6 percent of total emissions), 378.6 MMTCO2e of nitrous oxide (5.4 percent of total emissions), and 157.6 MMTCO2e of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (2.2 percent of total emissions).
Emissions of carbon dioxide from energy consumption and industrial processes, which had risen at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent per year from 1990 to 2005, declined by 1.8 percent in 2006. The decline in carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 to 2006 can be attributed to a one-half percent decline in overall energy demand and a decrease in the carbon intensity of electricity generation. Favorable weather patterns, where both heating and cooling degree-days were lower in 2006 than 2005, and higher energy prices, were the primary causes of lower total energy consumption. The decline in carbon intensity of electricity generation was driven by increased use of natural gas, the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel, and greater reliance on non-fossil fuel energy sources. Methane emissions, meanwhile, decreased by 0.4 percent, while nitrous oxide emissions rose by 2.9 percent. Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, a group labeled collectively as “high-GWP gases” because their high heat trapping capabilities, fell by 2.2 percent.
The full report can be found on EIA’s web site at:
You can directly download the report here (62 page, 1.25MB PDF).
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Well, well, well. So GHG emissions are influenced by economic activity, weather, and
fuel-price economics. Knock me over with a feather. What’s the takeaway bullet point from this
newsflash? IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT EMISSION POLICY EXISTS! Cap-and-trade, carbon tax, blablahblah.
If global economies expand, then emissions are gonna grow.
If global economies shrink, then emissions are gonna decrease.
If the temperature is abnormally high/low, then emissions are gonna grow.
If the temperature is normal, then emissions are gonna decrease.
If motor gasoline prices are low, then emissions are gonna grow.
If motor gasoline prices are high, then emissions are gonna decrease.
Emission policy (be it the Europe ETS or Liberman-Warner) is just spit in the wind of these forces.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
You’re kidding, right? You can’t possibly be saying that higher energy prices will curb emissions, but a public policy that tries to curb emissions by increasing the price of polluting energy sources somehow won’t work?
And you don’t think that a public policy that includes a strong feebate program to encourage people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles will put downward pressure on emissions?
And you don’t think that a strictly enforced cap-and-trade system that begins with a total limit below current emissions, will help at all?
Really???
November 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
What I am saying–obviously none too well–is that emissions fluctuations are driven primarily, indubitably,
and unequivocally, by factors other than government policy. Would it help for government policy to amplify those factors that reduce emissions (i.e. by “increasing the price of polluting energy sources”)? I’ll answer this way and perhaps my point will be clearer: Europe has performed less well on carbon dioxide since the late 1990s
than the United States — and Europe is inside Kyoto and has an emissions trading scheme.
And now we have this most recent EIA report showing the U.S., absent emission policy,
reduced its emissions last year.
Emission reduction policy has made a difference? Really? When? Where? I’ll turn the
tables and if you are kidding?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“Europe has performed less well on carbon dioxide since the late 1990s than the United States”
How are you measuring performance and what are your sources?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1pco2.xls
line 19 is U.S., line 109 is Europe
November 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
typo…line 18 is u.s.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Spock: No, I’m not kidding. Do you really think that anyone who runs this site and devotes his entire career to writing about this shit would kid about this?
And as for the effect–ask yourself this: If those policies had not been in effect in Europe, would their emissions have been lower than they were, the same, or even higher? This is the whole point about “downward pressure” I keep yapping about. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing you’re measuring goes down in absolute terms, but that it winds up lower than it would have been in the absence of any overt action.
And that’s the last I’ll say on this.
Fight among yourselves. I’m too busy, too tired, and too bloody sick to have these arguments right now.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:41 am
“line 109 is Europe” in 1990 line 109 says NA. Makes it very hard to compare.
Besides which that table measures “carbon intensity” (CO2/$GDP) which I think is a screwy measure. Let’s look at tons of CO2/person as the measure of performance.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:45 am
oh wait you said late 1990s. so like 1997-1998 to 2005? seems like both countries/regions went down ~10-12%. How is that performing less well?