Slashdot Mirror
In Historic Turn, CO2 Emissions Flatline In 2014, Even As Global Economy Grows
mdsolar sends this report from Forbes:
A key stumbling block in the effort to combat global warming has been the intimate link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth. When times are good and industries are thriving, global energy use traditionally increases and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions also go up. Only when economies stumble and businesses shutter — as during the most recent financial crisis — does energy use typically decline, in turn bringing down planet-warming emissions.
But for the first time in nearly half a century, that synchrony between economic growth and energy-related emissions seems to have been broken, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, prompting its chief economist to wonder if an important new pivot point has been reached — one that decouples economic vigor and carbon pollution. The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons — essentially the same volume as 2013, even as the global economy grew at a rate of about 3 percent. Whether the disconnect is a mere fluke or a true harbinger of a paradigm shift is impossible to know. The IEA suggested that decreasing use of coal in China — and upticks in renewable electricity generation there using solar, wind and hydropower — could have contributed to the reversal.
But for the first time in nearly half a century, that synchrony between economic growth and energy-related emissions seems to have been broken, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, prompting its chief economist to wonder if an important new pivot point has been reached — one that decouples economic vigor and carbon pollution. The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons — essentially the same volume as 2013, even as the global economy grew at a rate of about 3 percent. Whether the disconnect is a mere fluke or a true harbinger of a paradigm shift is impossible to know. The IEA suggested that decreasing use of coal in China — and upticks in renewable electricity generation there using solar, wind and hydropower — could have contributed to the reversal.
More importantly, this strains the argument that green technologies threaten economic growth. That means dirtier fossil energy is a lot harder to justify, and renewable energy more appealing.
Could be the beginnings of a positive feedback loop. Here's hoping!
=Smidge=
Another explanation is that the global economy has flat-lined or gone into recession. CO2 may be a leading economic indicator for the next crash. GDP figures are more easily faked than CO2 levels.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
But oh, no, it can't possibly be that China's fast-track of building new nuclear power plants had anything whatsoever to do with it, oh no, never never never never. (grumble grumble grumble)
The CO2 problem will never be solved until the people who continue to loudly assert that they are so very very concerned about it get over their irrational dread of the only 24x7 source of energy that has the capacity to compete with coal.
Precisely.
Letting corporations and large banks borrow money at zero interest in order to purchase back their stocks and inflate asset prices is not the same as economic growth. Throw in massaged CPI numbers that underestimate inflation and we have what we see now, the outward appearance of economic growth in a declining economy.
Our whole society is based around economic growth, but as population increase beings to flatline this whole system will collapse. Look what is happening in Japan, soon that will happen in Europe and the rest of the developed nations. Immigration will help somewhat but after some time even undeveloped nations will begin to see negative or very low population growth and with it so will the economy growth.
So what did you expect, to tell the world's poor that if they get rich they'll pollute more and the planet can't take it, so stay poor? For the rich to say let's lower our standard of living to a third world country because it's so environmentally friendly? Genocide? We're making progress towards becoming greener in a way that will actually be acceptable, as opposed to all the ways that aren't. If curbing pollution doesn't have to be about hamstringing economic development we might see a lot more willingness to make an effort while now it's mostly a shit-slinging fight about who should bear the biggest burdens.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
A much bigger problem with fracking is the quick depletion rates of wells, both for oil and gas. It's normal for a well to decline to 50% or even 25% of the production rate after one year of production, and continue declining afterwards.
Which is exactly why OPEC has refused to decrease production. They are trying to kill off drilling in the US.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
what is the margin of error on the CO2 emission data? It's not a direct measurement, it has to be an estimate.
There is not a meter on every tailpipe, so we cannot directly measure emissions. But we can very accurately measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 from burning fuel can be distinguished from CO2 from biological processes because the isotope ratios are different. We can also measure fossil fuel extraction and storage, and from that calculate consumption.