Yes Carbon Emission Growth Slowed, But Don’t Celebrate Yet


486646_444924725602335_1726678847_n A doctor has good news and bad news for you.

“What’s the good news?” You say.

“We got rid of the HIV virus in your system that was going to kill you in 20 years.”

“Well that’s wonderful news!” you reply, “But what’s the bad news?”

“We did it by inserting a radioactive poison in your blood stream that will kill you in one year.”

This is my reaction to hearing the much lauded news about the recent slow down in carbon dioxide growth that happened in 2012  (New Scientist, 11-6-13). The story reveals that for the first time in a long time, the emissions of CO2 in major states has slowed. Global carbon emissions rose by 1.4 % in 2012. This is compared to the yearly rise of carbon emissions by 2.9 % that we’ve seen since 2000.

The world powers that emit the most carbon dioxide are the United States, China and the European Union. The United States cut their emissions of CO2 by 4%, the European Union continues its decade long decline in emissions and China probably represents the most drastic decline; After their CO2 emissions have been growing by 10 % a year for a decade, their CO2 emissions only grew by 3% in 2012.

So this all seems like great news right? Guess again. Part of the reason why CO2 fell in the United States last year is because of our switch from using coal to obtaining natural gas via fracking. Now there is nothing “natural” about natural gas, and inserting “natural” into the name doesn’t change anything either. There is a tendency to spin ugly truths by inserting prettied up words. Politicians like to talk about “natural gas” and “clean coal.” I can go around talking about “clean cancer” and “sanitary garbage” all I like, but my terms don’t change the reality of my words.

The process of fracking releases Methane into the atmosphere, which is 20 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide. But don’t take my word for it, consult the EPA’s page on Methane Gas. While methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long as Carbon Dioxide, its effect on climate change are 20 times greater than Carbon Dioxide over a 100 year period. Also, according to this website, a majority of methane emissions in the United States come from Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems.

So if we really want to measure climate progress. We should be measuring the drop in green house gasses such as Carbon Dioxide AND Methane. However, I won’t be a complete wet blanket in this article. There is some good news. Solar and wind energy have doubled their contribution to the global economy between 2006 and 2012 (New Scientist). We should applaud nations that have taken major steps in becoming more fuel efficient and fighting climate change. Germany in particular has put forward some pretty impressive reforms. (Lessons From Germany, Time)

Two thirds of the world’s nations have also agreed to some kind of treaty to limit emissions. However, the United States is not one of these countries.  If the United States insists on being an example for the rest of the globe, we need to start making a serious commitment to funding and researching renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. When measuring electricity generated by different sources in the United States, Solar and Wind still only generate 4% of the energy we use. I made some charts so you could visualize this yourself.

This is the measure of net electricity produced by source in 2012. (By Thousand Megawatthours)

energygenerationinusbysource2012thousandmegawatthours

This is a measure of electricity generated by Solar and Wind, compared to other sources, just by themselves:

electricitygeneratedwithsolarandwindthousandmegawatthours

THE SOURCE: ELECTRIC POWER MONTHLY

RELATED ARTICLES

Pagans Fight Fracking

A Plan B For the World 

Earth Day Tips

2 responses

  1. I don’t understand – we have a huge fusion reactor 93 million miles close by that powers the whole ecosystem of the earth. Its called the Sun. Why we can’t develop more efficient solar panels and batteries is beyond me. I guess its all about money since you can’t put a meter on the sun’s rays. If i had a house to build from scratch and the money it would have an underground thermal system and be on a hill for lots of solar panels.

    November 8, 2013 at 1:09 pm

  2. I would love such a house. While people are using more solar energy overall, the total use is still such a small fraction of total energy use that the percentage is laughable. But yeah, I agree with you, I think we haven’t done more with Solar and Wind because these sources would threaten the death grip that the major energy corporations have on our world economies. Solar energy means not being plugged in to the electric grid. People can generate their own energy for their own homes. It is sad though that we’re not jumping onto this opportunity, because the manpower needed to restructure the US economy to be based on solar and wind energy would create millions of new jobs. Jill Stein, the candidate for the green party, estimated that creating a “Renwable Energy Economy” would create 25 million new jobs. I can’t be sure if that’s true, but it sounds nice.

    November 8, 2013 at 1:14 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s