The Volokh Conspiracy

U.S. Carbon Emissions Drop, Europe's Increase:

Despite American inaction on climate change, emissions dropped in 2006. The AP reports:

The department's Energy Information Administration said Wednesday that preliminary data shows a 1.3 percent decline in the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide released in 2006 from energy-related sources, the first decline in 11 years and the biggest decline since 1990. . . .

Whether the decline of 78 million metric tons was an anomaly, or an indicator of something more, was unclear.

The Energy Department report said one reason for the decline was that 2006 had "weather conditions favorable for emission reductions." . . .

In 2006 there was a mild winter that reduced heating degree days by 7.4 percent, and a cooler than normal summer that cut cooling-degree days by 1 percent, both compared to 2005, the agency said. . . .

Carbon dioxide from natural gas declined by 1.7 percent and coal _which accounts for the most carbon emissions per unit of energy produced of any fossil fuel — was down 0.9 percent. Emissions from burning gasoline and diesel increased, but those increases were offset by declines in other petroleum fuels such as heating oil, said the agency.

The reductions resulted in the largest decline in carbon intensity — the amount of emissions related to economic growth — since 1990 with a reduction of 4.5 percent, said the report.

Meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions increased in the E.U., in part because European governments allocated excess emission credits due to industry pressure. The Guardian reports:

In 2006, industry emitted about 30m tonnes less than permitted. German emissions rose 0.6% while overall EU emissions went up by 1%-1.5% because of resumed growth in the eurozone.

EU officials claim their efforts will become more successful as they clamp down on the volume of emission permits.

Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
One theory of why the Europeans are more worried about Global Warming is that it affects them more. And it does so for a number of reasons. One is that climatically, it has been more significant there. Combine that with a much, much, older housing supply that is presumably not as energy efficient, and in a world of Global Warming, not nearly as well air conditioned. The combination of more noticable warming and less air conditioning both makes them more miserable, and creates a new demand for power for newly retrofitted air conditioning.

I should note that last night, we were supposed to get a blizzard in the southern mountains here in Colorado. The storm appears to have mostly missed the state, at least at the elevations that might have received snow. But much of our mountains are still below freezing this morning, at least for another hour or two. Which is indicative of another reason that there is more doubt here about Global Warming than there apparently is in Europe.
5.24.2007 10:01am
ed o:
so, if they talk about success while failing, it is a good result?
5.24.2007 11:34am
Bill Woods (mail):
It seems to me that to make a cap-and-trade system work, the EU governments need to make a standing offer to buy any permits offered at, say, €10/tonne, and to sell permits at, say, €50/t. Permits trading at ~€3/t should be seen as an opportunity, not a problem!
5.24.2007 12:36pm
byomtov (mail):
I don't think the triumphalism here is quite justified by the facts presented. You are hardly making a fair comparison.

Despite Bush's claims, it appears that the reduction was primarily due to a mild winter. What was the weather like in Europe?

Also, since the Administration likes to talk in terms of the misleading concept of "carbon intensity" maybe we could be told what happened to "carbon intensity" in Europe.
5.24.2007 1:06pm
Patrick (www):
Ha, so our emissions producing past is negatively affecting our emissions producing future? Assuming, of course, emissions made our winter milder than it otherwise would have been.
5.24.2007 1:12pm
Patrick (www):
And by "negatively," I mean pushing emissions in a negative direction. Which, looked at differently, would be "positively."
5.24.2007 1:13pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Despite Bush's claims, it appears that the reduction was primarily due to a mild winter. What was the weather like in Europe?
It would not be the first time that Europe has missed its carbon targets to prevent global warming because the winter was remarkably cold.
5.24.2007 2:57pm
byomtov (mail):
Do you have a point, Clayton, or are you just trying to show that you don't understand the difference between a long-term global trend and conditions in one area over a short period of time?
5.24.2007 3:32pm
Monkberrymoon (mail):
Maybe he's just parodying those like the late Molly Ivins who would scream "global warming" everytime the temperature reached 98 in Texas, but had nothing to say on days of below-normal temps.
5.24.2007 4:52pm
Matthew in Austin (mail):
Do you have a point, byomtov, or are you just trying to show that you don't understand the difference between natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate and faux science driven by politics?
5.24.2007 5:14pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
It snowed more than it has in years here in New Mexico. It even snowed in April. All I knept thinking while I was freezing was "where's all that global warming that Al Gore keeps promising me?"
5.24.2007 10:20pm
TokyoTom (mail):
EU officials claim their efforts will become more successful as they clamp down on the volume of emission permits.

The EU officials will have no incentives to actually "clamp down" until the US and China (and others without emission reduction obligations under Kyoto) agree to take binding action. This is a classic negotiation over the use of a commons. Why should anyone tale meaningful action unless they have confidence that they will not be adversely affected by significant free-riding?
5.25.2007 6:23am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Do you have a point, Clayton, or are you just trying to show that you don't understand the difference between a long-term global trend and conditions in one area over a short period of time?
My point is that there are lot of people who keep working on the assumptions that:

1. A few years trend can be extrapolated to infinity.

2. There are enough situations that develop like this--such as the recent Arctic Ocean expedition to highlight global warming that had to be abandoned because it was far colder than the activists had expected--that it starts to make you wonder if the AGW True Believers have it right.

By the way, not only has Mars suffered a global warming since 1976 that is just about identical to ours over that period--but Jupiter also seems to be warming up. While more complicated, Neptune's brightness seems to be increasing since the 1950s--and very well correlated with the increase in temperatures here on Earth.

What do Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Neptune all have in common? Hmmm. Not SUVs. Not evil Republicans out to rape Mother Earth. In the morning, go outside, and look up.
5.26.2007 1:33am