• More Blogs
• Observations »
• Bering in Mind »
• Cross-check »
• Extinction Countdown »
• Solar at Home »
• Expeditions »
• Guest Blog »
• Anecdotes from the Archive »

Carbon dioxide emissions went the way of the U.S. economy last year—which, in this case, is good news. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that U.S. emissions of the greenhouse gas dropped the most last year since at least 1990, when it began keeping tabs. The EIA says the overall 2.8 percent dip in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is likely linked to a combo of the slumping economy and high fuel prices.

ScientificAmerican.com in December reported a 2.3 percent worldwide increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 to 2006 (the last year for which information was available from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). But perhaps a decline in CO2 emissions could become a convenient truth of a continued recession.

Graph of percent annual change in carbon dioxide emissions from energy courtesy of The U.S. Energy Information Administration

7 Comments

1. 1. Broadnax 05:05 PM 5/21/09

   The drop happened inconveniently before the new administration had a chance to make laws that to get credit for it.
   
   Emissions also dropped in 2001 and 2006. You can lower emission if you have slow growing economies (as the Europeans did) and/or high energy costs. All the other stuff is just BS. Cafe standards do nothing, for example.
   
   Let's get serious and tax carbon.
   
   I suspect CO2 will become less an issue now that people have to take serious action. Until now, all you had to do to join the club was watch Al Gore movies and criticize George Bush. It is much less fun actually to use less energy or pay more for it.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Broadnax 05:07 PM 5/21/09

   The drop happened inconveniently before the new administration had a chance to make laws that to get credit for it.
   
   Emissions also dropped in 2001 and 2006. You can lower emission if you have slow growing economies (as the Europeans did) and/or high energy costs. All the other stuff is just BS. Cafe standards do nothing, for example.
   
   Let's get serious and tax carbon.
   
   I suspect CO2 will become less an issue now that people have to take serious action. Until now, all you had to do to join the concerned climate club was to watch Al Gore movies and criticize George Bush. It is much less fun actually to use less energy or pay more for it. It was fun to blame others. Now it is time for adult action, a lot of the erstwhile passion will evaporate.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. hotblack 05:46 PM 5/21/09

   Blindly assuming everyone is behaving just as you are or worse makes criticizing others easy. ...and erroneous. Overconsumption, overpopulation, and laziness. Kiss your asses goodbye, humans.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. jerryd 09:59 PM 5/26/09

   To say CAFE hasn't helped is just not true as we despite having 10% more population use the same or less gas than before it was passed.
   
   I agree we need a 'carbon' tax now, not so much to cut CO2 but to make oil, coal pay their full costs which is now in our income taxes. If that happens conservation will too and RE will be by far the lower energy cost source, thus lower CO2 and lower real energy costs.
   
   Hotblack, your post shows what kind of person you are, get a life. People are the way they are because that is how they have been trained by big business. We just need to retrain them to make them, the world a better, smarter place for them, us.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Broadnax in reply to jerryd 11:03 PM 5/26/09

   Cafe has not helped. People just drive more. When do you think Cafe was passed, BTW? Gas comsumption has risen every year except when price spikes drove it down.
   
   Coal and oil should pay their way, but you know that means that you and I will pay more for energy. We choose to use oil because it is relatively cheap and easy to use. Other alternatives are more expensive or less convenient. Gasoline, for example, is a very dense fuel from the energy perspective.
   
   Re conservation, people can do that whenever they want. You can buy a car today that gets around 50 mpg. You can ride a bike, walk, stay at home etc. People choose not to do that very much because energy is cheap. They are making logical decisons.
   
   The beauty of the higher price is that it automatically rewards good behavior (i.e. using less energy) and nobody has to argue about it. If you are serious about conserving, you can avoid much of the tax. If you are not serious, then you pay. Very just and honest.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Shoshin 11:24 AM 6/5/09

   Broadnax:
   
   You are correct, except for the issue that energy taxes will make our world smaller and poorer.
   
   Lets call a spade a spade; if the issue is energy conservation, then go straight to rationing. If the issue is AGW, then any tax is a misguided, idiotic load of hooey.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Broadnax in reply to Shoshin 12:15 PM 6/5/09

   The practical problem with rationing is that over the long run it becomes a type of black market. We still are faced with the same challenges, just less efficiency. Rationing also does not encourage innnovation, except in figuring out how to game the system.
   
   There are only three ways to distribute anything. In the real world they overlap so we choose variations. The three are:
   
   Price - you pay with money. It is flexible and effective. Trouble is that those poor in money get less.
   
   Waiting in line - . Rationing is a subset of this. It is "fair" but it is inflexible and doesn't reward innovation or account for individuality.
   
   Corruption - where someone with power or guile gets what they want first.
   
   The carbon tax is mostly price. We can address equity somewhere else.
   
   Rationing is mostly waiting in line, but it will quickly turn into corruption as governments give preference to favored individuals and groups.
   
   Price leads to the most freedom, the least corruption and the fasted adaption. That is why, IMO, the carbon tax is the way to go.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this