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.
If you thought it was easy to cure all the world's ills, wouldn't you expect it to of already happened?
The world doesn't stop on a dime, it takes time to switch to low CO2 technologies.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Just in case you are not being sarcastic, or someone is not getting it: Even with constant emisions, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, now it is just no longer also accelerating.
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"?
And even if CO2 stopped increasing, global temperature would continue to increase for several decades.
Until the price dropped and it became uneconomic. Current fracking is just using sunk infrastructure costs, but unless the price goes back up again, fracking will die.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
According to wikipedia, nuclear is only responsible for 2% of the Chinese electricity right now, and most of that was already operational in 2013. They are fast-tracking new plants, but it'll take a while before these are on-line. They are aiming to get 6% of their electricity from nuclear in 2020.
Don't be so pessimistic -- we have the technological know-how to fix this problem, or at least, we are pretty close, and the right things are in the pipeline, to become mature when we need them. The article is alluding to this fact. The problem with AGW is political will, and bloody mindedness from the "truther" crowd.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That depends upon whether curing the world's ills would too negatively impact those who hold the most power and wealth. I sincerely believe that when it really comes down to it, there are very powerful people who would rather see the world end than stop getting richer while it lasts.
And lack of demand for oil is due to economic growth?
Obviously not. The GP is inventing a narrative to fit his worldview.
The oversupply that has dropped oil prices is not due to lack of demand. The oversupply has been created by N. American independent oil producers that have absolutely flooded the market with non-cartel controlled oil. There is so much oil sloshing around N. America that they are having trouble finding places to store it. This activity, combined with an effective moratorium on pipeline construction, is why you keep reading news stories about oil train derailments, fires and explosions.
Crucially, this new supply of oil is not controlled by international oil cartels. Prior to the fracking boom, most oil production (on the order of 93%) was controlled by nationalized oil companies. These nations collude to constrain supply. The appearance of a huge supply of non-cartel oil has broken this arrangement and caused a price collapse.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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.
More importantly, this strains the argument that green technologies threaten economic growth.
No, what it does is require an answer to the question: what is the margin of error on the CO2 emission data? It's not a direct measurement, it has to be an estimate. If the error in the estimate is more than the 3% of the economic growth number, then this data proves nothing at all. The CO2 levels could have actually gone up 3% to match the economy.
Once the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill, the next step would have been for the Senate to have passed its own comprehensive climate and energy bill. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to do so...S.1733 passed the committee by a vote of 11-1, with all seven Republican members boycotting the final vote...Citing a lack of bipartisan support in the Senate, however, Reid announced in July 2010 that upcoming energy legislation would not include a cap on GHG emissions. This effectively ended action on climate legislation for the 111th Congress.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Wow, the level of ignorance here is astounding. When Barack and company had both the White House and both houses of Congress, just how much did they get accomplished on this? Or did they too "kick the can down the road?" Politicians are all alike, and if you don't comprehend that then just keep feeding on what they're shoveling to you. Maybe your determined consumption of political bull$h!t will cut down on some cow's carbon footprint.
Unfortunately US politics is a lot more complex than that. The Democrats as a whole probably did want to get something done, however the Republicans REALLY didn't want to do anything even on things they could agree with, for something like Global Warming they would have been able to make it extraordinarily costly to do something.
The Democrats simply didn't have the popular support to enact a serious climate policy, especially after they spent all their political capital on health care reform and economic stimulus.
I stole this Sig
coal has a lot of other problems besides just CO2, so the switch to natural gas is an improvement in other environmental areas besides just CO2 emissions
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Democrats simply didn't have the popular support to enact a serious climate policy,
That's the real kicker. If the public support were there, they would get something done, and Republicans would go along (heck, as hypocritical as politicians are, they might lead the charge. Even Bush supported climate change legislation when it was convenient). If public support were there, then politicians who didn't pretend to go along would be voted out of office.
Even dictators work to manipulate public opinion, because even they know their power ultimately relies on the people.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."