The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported last week that, according to preliminary estimates, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels decreased by 1.3 percent in 2006, from 5,955 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) in 2005 to 5,877 MMTCO2 in 2006.
Energy demand fell by 0.9%, resulting in a reduction of energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) by 4.2%, based on a GDP growth of 3.3%. Carbon dioxide intensity (CO2 emission per unit of GDP) fell by 4.5%.
Emissions were driven lower by weather conditions that reduced the demand for heating and cooling services; higher energy prices for natural gas, motor gasoline, and electricity, that reduced energy demand; and the use of a less carbon-intensive fuel mix (more natural gas and non-carbon fuels) in the generation of electricity.
Through 2006, total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have grown by 17.9 percent since 1990. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions account for over 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
At the energy-sector level, preliminary data indicate that:
- Carbon dioxide emissions from the residential and commercial sectors decreased by 3.7 percent and 1.0 percent respectively in 2006, as heating degree-days declined by 7.4 percent, while at the same time cooling degree-days decreased by almost 1 percent.
- Industrial emissions fell by 1.2 percent in 2006. Since 2004 emissions attributable to the industrial sector have fallen by almost 4 percent despite growth in industrial output.
- Transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions, which account for about a third of total carbon dioxide emissions, decreased by 0.1 percent in 2006.
From 1990 to 2006, the carbon dioxide intensity of the economy fell by 26.5 percent or 1.9 percent per year. By 2005 (the latest year of data for all greenhouse gases), carbon dioxide intensity had fallen by 23.1 percent and emissions of total greenhouse gases per dollar of GDP had fallen by 24.7 percent.
How much of this reduction is because of the continued decline in manufacturing? The consumed products still require the same amount of energy to make but it's generated in China by dirty coal plants (not to mention the fuel for shipping)
Posted by: Roger C | May 28, 2007 at 01:48 AM
Yeah, lets blame Americans for buying Chinese goods, which result in Chinese CO2 emissions. I mean there would be no need for any CO2 emissions anywhere whatsoever if it were not for the bad American middle class having a high standard of living - of course the Europeans with even higher standard of living don't consume anything. Its time for America to produce less, consume less, and drop its standard of living to that of the Palestinians. NOT
FYI, China is a sovereign nation. You have a complaint, then lodge it with them, and stop blaming it on Americans. They are making a living to produce these goods and who are we to tell them how to making a living? Have some respect for their culture.
Posted by: Beek | May 28, 2007 at 02:50 AM
In other news, there was a slight downturn in the US economy during this period.
And of course less gasoline usage.
(It costs a lot)
Then again, Bush always loves to claim "Carbon Intensity" can be reduced.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
(Clip to the 11:20 timemark to check out for yourself)
Posted by: GreyFlcn | May 28, 2007 at 11:11 AM
AGW has everything to do with "Carbon Intensity" since AGW is a global problems. Since the US and most western industrial countries have a low "Carbon Intensity" and China and India have a high "Carbon Intensity", shifting manufacturing to China and India increases ghg emissions.
This is why making electricity with natural gas and the Kyoto treaty make AGW worse. When consumer goods are made in China and India more ghg is produced.
The reason I like the Bush administration policy is that it addresses the world reality. By helping China and India use less coal, we are creating jobs in the US.
Posted by: Kit P. | May 29, 2007 at 08:00 AM
Wow, I've heard many excuses for Bush's policies but that he is helping global warming by reducing China's need for coal takes the cake.
Posted by: marcus | May 30, 2007 at 02:59 PM
Bush does not need any excuses on energy and the environment. As governor of Texas and President he has demonstrated leadership by doing. Marcus replies with sarcasm without suggesting a policy that he likes better.
I do not think that many environmentalists are really very interested in reducing AGW. Many are opposed to fairly examining the polices of anyone they do not like. Resolving energy demand and AGW will require a comprehensive and global approach.
A better but more complex approach that DOE takes is to look at the carbon intensity of what is produced like steel and corn. Both have been trading down since the 70s. Steel produced in the US has 70% of the carbon content of steel from China. The largest factor to reduce ghg is by helping China reduce the carbon intensity.
China and India needs coal and uses lots of it. Furthermore, China and India are going to use a lot more.
I know marcus does not understand the difference between need and want. However, Bush does and yes he is going to help China and India use less coal while meeting their needs.
Posted by: Kit P | May 31, 2007 at 08:13 AM
New site to watch free online tv http://tv.stafex.net
Posted by: http://tv.stafex.net | June 02, 2007 at 02:16 AM
Kit P., the enviro-fascists have absolutely no real solutions. Their gripe is not really about the environement. Their gripe is that they want power, and they see themselves out of power, and it really bugs the hell out of them - but of course they cannot admit that to themselves.
Marxist: Wealth is created by work.
Capitalist: Wealth is created by capital.
Environmentalist: Wealth is created by politics and mind numbing bureacracy.
I have a lot more respect for marxists than I have for the enviro-fascists.
Posted by: Beek | June 02, 2007 at 04:57 PM
It is great to see CO2 go down. I am more and more confident that we can see large near term savings. I just read an article in Government Computer News that described how the state of Missouri is implementing IT technologies that help control all of their buildings, resulting in a a large reduction of energy usage: http://www.gcn.com/print/26_13/44402-1.html
They apparently use some technology from a company named Gridlogix (www.gridlogix.com) to do it. Never heard of them, but the state seems to think this is a pretty effective way at large near term savings.
Posted by: James Bell | June 09, 2007 at 06:00 PM
FYI, guys--
Name calling is a sure sign of a weak argument.
Posted by: Mike | January 22, 2009 at 07:12 PM
Companies that grasp these new opportunities, or provide the tools for others to do so, will prosper.
Posted by: Replica Louis Vuitton | February 21, 2011 at 07:55 PM
What an amazing shopping enjoyment. I like it very much, I will come next time, thank you for your service and I am satisfied with it.
Posted by: Chinese Wholesaler | April 28, 2011 at 02:58 AM
What an amazing shopping enjoyment. I like it very much, I will come next time, thank you for your service and I am satisfied with it.
Posted by: Wholesal | April 28, 2011 at 03:01 AM