Well, I never thought I’d be using an article from the New York Times DOT EARTH, just goes to show why you never say “never.” As you can see from the above graph, we have had a large reduction in CO2 in the United States. It’s not because we’ve been good, it’s the economy, but perhaps there are other factors because it’s more of a drop than expected.
The Department of Energy yesterday reported a sharp drop last year in emissions of carbon dioxide, and a steeper decline than what was anticipated through the impacts of the recession alone. The graph above shows one particularly notable disconnect — a drop in emissions far steeper than the drop in gross domestic product. The report uses well-designed graphics to break down the trend sector by sector and every page is worth exploring.
Interesting, the CO2 is dropping faster than my savings account.
Another notable finding is the influence of a big switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, as gas prices fell nearly 50 percent while coal prices rose 6.8 percent relative to 2008. For anyone who cares about the climate, the bottom line there — because natural gas emits nearly half the carbon dioxide as coal for the same amount of produced heat — is finding a way to manage risks from harvesting vast deposits of gas without rejecting that resource altogether.
OK, I have no problem at all with natural gas, in fact I wish someone would wake up and stop some of this BS about carbon credits and carbon taxes and start using it more. We have an abundance, it’s simple, it’s cheap, it works. Nothing wrong with it at all.
The findings have cheered environmentalists and climate campaigners, who see signs that the country could hit proposed targets for emissions in 2020 without too much cost or disruption. It’s conceivable, some seasoned experts on energy and the economy say, but way too soon to celebrate. One reason simply is that the underlying data tracked by the government are notoriously “foggy,” according to Lee Schipper, a specialist in energy use with appointments at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley.
See, we have positive things going on here that have a denier like me almost cheering, at least as far as the pollution goes. Please note, I don’t believe CO2 has much to do with global warming, but on the other hand, I’m certainly not one for polluting, nor do I like being beholden to the some of the clowns we buy oil from. So, why not cheer someone using a simple, cost-effective solution vs. all the convoluted BS that gets paraded around.
Lee just has to be the one to complain. I initially thought here goes another libtard from Berkeley, but, if you comprehend what he’s saying, his complaints are valid. What he complains about is what has led us down the road to the problems we’ve been experiencing about climategate, the aftermath , the carbon credits, CO2 agreements, etc. This guy makes sense to me. Sense that “warmers” or “deniers” should be able to agree upon. Read what he has to say.
If there is one lesson, it is that in times of rapid growth or recession, different parts of the economy change at different rates, and that differential alone can cause significant changes in the ratio of energy to G.D.P. Since a big recession might hit coal-burning utilities’ customers more than other utility customers (to name one example) or hit coal-using industries like cement and steel more than others, one has to look carefully not only at CO2 emissions changes but at underlying economic activity or personal activity changes and how those are tied to emissions in a disaggregated way.
Some countries can do this roughly 18 months to two years after the end of each year. We can’t. We don’t even maintain regular energy accounts by major manufacturing branches. We last surveyed household vehicle fuel use in 1985, and our trucking inventory and use survey died in 2002. We stopped trying to estimate household appliance electricity use in the late 1990s….
I call this the blind leading the blind. Like “ Cash for Clunkers Is a Lemon,” as I wrote in the Washington Post, we seem to like to make policies (or pronouncements) whose outcomes cannot be measured for years. I remember when high-level clowns in the Bush administration were pointing to the decline in carbon emissions in the mid-2000’s, but of course not taking credit (or blame) for the higher oil and gas prices that most agreed lay behind those declines.
It’s hard to imagine how the U.S. will enact any sensible policies in this foggy atmosphere.
Do you get what he’s saying? He’s saying our government is run by a bunch of clueless retards who make half-baked decisions not based on good information but based upon bullshit, or who donated to their campaign, or what vacation he got from a lobbyist, etc. They decide we’ll do this, that, or the other, because it sounds good, not because it IS good,because someone’s going to make a lot of money, not because it’s good for the USA. I for one would be happy if some people in Washington, DC and Sacramento would actually start basing decisions on real science and real effect, instead of what sounds “stylish” or what the libtard vote wants, or what their lobbyists want, without giving a damn if it’s cost-effective and/or if it even gets any results.
My only complaint with his statement is “foggy” is too polite. What I do agree with is lets start getting real facts, real data, real science and lets start basing these very important decisions that affect all of us on some reality.
Source: New York Times DOT EARTH