EMISSIONS STANDARD: Policies such as the increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks have helped drive down U.S. emissions of the greenhouse gases causing climate change.
Image: Flickr/Simone Ramelia
President Obama mentioned climate change almost in passing during last night's State of the Union address, noting: "The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change."
But what Obama didn't mention is that declining energy consumption in a sluggish economy and well-placed regulations targeting air pollution and oil use are creating a more climate-friendly United States. Fuel-economy standards for gasoline guzzlers and the prospect that stable, cheaper natural gas supplies will speed closure of the nation's dirtiest coal-fired utilities are beginning to depress long-term projections for U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
"They all point in the same direction. My view is that the U.S. is accomplishing something of significance," said Robert Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard University. "Other countries, European and the emerging economies, really want to see an ambitious domestic climate policy. Given our current politics, that's exceptionally unlikely."
The United States will still struggle to meet Obama's pledge during global climate talks to reduce emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. But the latest long-term energy projections are painting a far sunnier picture than people had anticipated, coming two years after the United Nations' Copenhagen, Denmark, climate summit failed to produce a binding accord.
In an energy outlook this week, analysts at the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted a dramatic decline in U.S. energy demand through 2035 and a reconfigured energy pie that sidelines a significant amount of coal for natural gas. According to EIA, an arm of the Energy Department, carbon dioxide emissions tied to energy consumption flat-lines through 2035. By 2020, U.S. emissions into the atmosphere are projected to be 7 percent below their 2005 level of nearly 6 billion metric tons of carbon. By 2035, emissions are expected to still be below what they were in 2005.
Some experts think that could change if the U.S. economy picks up steam and industrial plants start humming again.
"Perhaps the Obama policies could drive us away from coal, but I think that's too optimistic," said Michael Wara, an environmental law professor at Stanford University. "The mix of coal and gas is going to shift in a way that lowers emissions in the near term. Then by 2020, it goes up again."
A slew of new coal-fired generators are coming online, he noted, and while those plants are sleeker and more efficient, they're still not nearly as clean as gas-fired turbines or renewable power sources.
"Some people had hoped -- or dreaded -- that pollution controls would accelerate a shift away from coal to gas. When you actually crunch the numbers, that's not really true."
Combination of economic trends and policies
Still, for now an array of Obama administration actions and economic trends are conspiring to cut emissions, according to EIA: Americans are using less oil because of high gasoline prices; carmakers are complying with federal fuel economy standards; electricity companies are becoming more efficient; state renewable energy rules are ushering wind and solar energy onto the power grids; gas prices are competitive with coal; and federal air quality regulations are closing the dirtiest power plants.
"Those will have profound effects on carbon dioxide emissions," Stavins said, "because they'll reduce investment in new coal and slow the use of existing coal."
Obama has taken heat from environmental groups for the perception that he hasn't done enough to address climate change. After passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill in the House in the summer of 2009 by a slim margin, the appetite in Congress and at the White House for a bruising Senate fight eroded. Elections sweeping Republicans into the House leadership set climate proposals on a path to nowhere in 2010 and 2011 as partisanship marginalized supporters of any federal bill aimed at cutting global warming pollution.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentIt's unfortunate that any progress we make here in the states will quickly be eclipsed by other countries like China and India which have no policy on pollution what so ever!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it maybe be that there is a decrease due to an economic slowdown?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But once it's produced, gas is a far cleaner fuel than coal for generating electricity. It generates fewer toxic pollutants and roughly half the greenhouse gas emissions as coal."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so fast...increased natural gas use will actually EXACERBATE climate change:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/24/407765/natural-gas-is-a-bridge-to-nowhere-price-for-global-warming-pollution/
Yes, and a fat guy trying to lose weight can take comfort in getting that fourth plate off the buffet line because the other three plates are already in his stomach. Makes a lot of sense, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course by ruining the economy, putting millions out of work, and shutting down thousands and thousands of employers Mr Obama has indeed reduced co2, if by no other means than boosting the suicide rate thereby additionally reducing co2 output.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it is true that developing countries will increase CO2 output for several more decades, it is not true that they have no policy. Everyone recognizes it is up to the long developed economies to take the lead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you read the article? Yes economic factors are part of the reason or the decline. But Obama's policies are also a factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe crash did not happen on Obama's watch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmmmm...We've had 2 years of uninterrupted private sector job growth and more jobs were added in 2011 than in all but 1 of GW Bush's years in office. In fact, it took Obama only 2 years to beat Bush the Younger's ENTIRE 8-year job creation numbers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere are all those "thousands and thousands of employers" that the President has shut down? It's not in the oil industry, where domestic production is the highest its been since the mid-1990s. It's not in the car industry. Crysler and GM are back to profitability and have been hiring a lot of folks back. The Republican plac would have been to do nothing and hollow out the remaining industrial base of the midwest for a generation.
You need to stop listening to what the angry man on the Faux News / "talk" radio / right-wing blog tells you and look at the facts.
I like how the republicans blame all of Bush, Jr's screw ups on Obama...the oil spill in the Gulf is Obama's Katrina, etc., etc., etc..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey say that we have about 50 years of fossil fuel left; I say that we can have a lot less left if we drill as quickly as we can for oil, frack as fast as we can for natural gas, explode all the mountains as quick as we can for coal, and burn all the fossil fuel as fast as we can and pollute as much as we can. If we do this, then we may have about 20 years left of fossil fuel. After we expend all the fossil fuel, then we can force our great grand children to start cleaning up the planet.
Oh! I forgot; lets build about 900 nuclear power plants at $50 billion a plant and turn America into one of the worst third-world countries on the planet. The cost of those nuclear power plants should also get rid of all these big obese lazy rich people. The extraction of the fossil fuel should had already gotten rid of all those poor skinny people. But the main idea is to get rid of all that fossil fuel as fast as we can. We can do it America..."yes, we can!"
Hate to be a buzz-killer, but reducing CO2 emissions is not the same as reducing atmospheric CO2. We would have to eliminate CO2 emissions completely in order to reduce atmospheric CO2. And by "we" I mean the whole world, not the U.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Wikipedia article "Climate Change Mitigation":
A distinction needs to be made between stabilizing GHG emissions and GHG concentrations. [13] The two are not the same. The most important GHG emitted by human activities is carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2).[14] Stabilizing emissions of CO2 at current levels would not lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In fact, stabilizing emissions at current levels would result in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continuing to rise over the 21st century and beyond (see the graphs opposite).
Well, that's the rub. The biggest single obstacle to progress is that the "developing" countries (including some pretty "developed" countries like China and Brazil) want the "developed developed" countries to take the lead ("take the lead" is understood to mean "pay the most") whereas the "developed developed" countries counter that it's not fair for them to pay while the "underdeveloped developed" countries don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo no agreement is reached. And CO2 keeps going up.
It's not true to say that China has "no policy whatsoever". They have been moving aggressively to expand renewable energy sources and last year overtook the U.S. as the country with the most installed windpower in the world. They are now expanding offshore wind whereas the U.S. has yet to build a single offshore wind farm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is your source on the suicide rate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this