U.S. Greenhouse Gas Pollution Jumped 2 Percent in 2013

U.S. emissions resumed an upward trajectory

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

After two years of decline, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere because of human activity increased 2 percent in 2013 over the previous year. That surge was fueled, in large part, because of a growing economy, falling coal prices and a cold winter, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday in its annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

Emissions across nearly all sectors grew in 2013, with increased GHG emissions from electricity generation, more vehicle miles traveled on the nation’s roadways and greater industrial production, according to the EPA.

The news of the increase in U.S. human-caused GHG emissions comes at a critical moment in the global battle against climate change, particularly after the International Energy Agency announced last month that global carbon emissions related to energy consumption have stabilized for the first time in a growing economy.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Ahead of international climate negotiations in Paris at the end of this year, the Obama administration announced a plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions each year by 26 percent by 2025, compared to 2005 levels. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan may also bring about CO2 cuts if it is finalized later this year.

Last year, electric power plants accounted for 31 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, followed by transportation at 27 percent and industrial and manufacturing activity at 21 percent.

Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. Credit: EPA

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2007. That year the U.S. released 7.40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), a measure of the global warming potential of any greenhouse gas in terms of the amount of warming generated by CO2. The U.S. released 6.67 billion metric tons of CO2e in 2013, up from 6.54 billion tons in 2012.

The Great Recession had a major effect on U.S. GHG emissions as the economy stumbled.

“The big drop occurred from 2007 to 2009, and some of this was the recession,” Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said. “But there has been good progress on reducing coal consumption, often at (the) expense of more natural gas, but also renewables have done better than expected.”

But the downward trend in emissions can only continue if more renewables and nuclear power are used in the U.S., he said.

“Over the past few years, we’ve seen increased economic growth and coal has become a bit more competitive with natural gas (which has lower CO2 emissions) over the past year or two,” Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann said.

He said he is optimistic that efforts among some states, including California and some northeastern states, to place a price on carbon may eventually help to reduce overall GHG emissions nationwide.

“It will take a bit of patience to see that in the numbers, but there is evidence we are already seeing that in the global carbon emissions numbers, which, for the first time in decades, remained flat while economic activity showed substantial growth,” Mann said.

More important than 2013’s increase in emissions is the Obama administration’s commitment to reduce them through the Clean Power Plan, incentives for clean energy and the pact between the U.S. and China, he said.

“I think that sets a cautiously optimistic tone going into the COP21 in Paris later this year,” Mann said, referring to the climate negotiations in December.

This article is reproduced with permission from Climate Central. The article was first published on April 16, 2015.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe