[quote]Fracking Amazing: US Carbon Emissions in 2012 Will be Lower than in 2007 Due to Fracking
Nick Gillespie|Jan. 7, 2013 9:20 am
US energy related carbon emissions in 2012 will fall below 5,300 million tons or down about 12%, compared to the peak emissions of 6,023 million tons in 2007. Through this September, carbon emissions have been down every month in 2012, when compared to each of the first 9 months of 2011 and 2010. No other country matches that record. www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf/sec12_3.pdf/. US GDP has grown every quarter since July 1, 2009, and today our economy is bigger than it was in 2007, the peak carbon emission year. Yet, even with an economy in 2012 that is bigger than in 2007, our carbon emissions will be 12% lower than they were in 2007… Only the USA has had a shale gas boom and only the USA has cut substantially its carbon emissions since 2006…the shale gas boom substantially decreased US carbon emissions. Moreover, US electricity prices in 2012 have barely increased and natural gas prices have plummeted. Hanger further notes that the U.S. is at around 1995 levels for energy-related carbon emissions.
And note that lower emissions aren’t simply an artifact of the rotten economy (which however bad it is is larger than in 2007).
The shale gas boom is a product of fracking, a technology which has not only been around for decades but has apparently been found to be safe in a controversial and not-officially-released analysis prepared for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo has been sitting on the report while deciding whether to allow expansive fracking in the Empire State. Back in 2011 - long before Matt Damon’s anti-fracking movie Promised Land was even a glimmer in the bank account of eventual funders in the oil-rich UAE - Reason’s Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey explained fracking (including how much greens used to love it until its success and safety record starting imperiling interest in subsidizing solar and wind tech).[/quote]
A much better report on this. For example, a warm winter last year likely contributed greatly to lower emissions. Also, as gas prices increase coal will make a comeback unless other energy sources are found. In fact coal generation is expected to increase by 9% this year.
So the drop in emissions, while great, appears to be a short lived gift that won’t last.
I wouldn’t characterise a report full of, Maybe, possibly, could be. Is all that better. However they are right about the price of natural gas, it’s price declined sharply in first quarter of 2012. I’m not as confindent as they seem to be about gas prices increasing but, I don’t know where the point in gas prices is where switching to coal has better economics. It’s also interesting that they bring up the warmer winter as being a major factor. See, global warming reduces CO2 emmissions.
It’s complicated with the increase of methane release and the cheapening of coal for export as domestic market reduces. It’s no use if you export your carbon emissions. However I do think cheaper gas is a good thing for many reasons.
What is NOT open for debate is that no Kyoto Protocol or Kyoto Treaty or Rio Summit or carbon offsetting or any other alarmist activist measure is responsible for reducing these emissions. Agreed?
Since you do not seem to get your own meaning, I will rest satisfied that there is no way to get across mine. Tu y n’es pas, ne c’est-pas? (deliberate)
You aren’t making any point here, fred. Either you want emissions to drop and feel this is good news or this is merely an interesting bit of happenstance. If you want emissions to drop then setting carbon limits and installing cleaner sources of energy is a good thing as it is difficult to reach goals you don’t have.
Or are you arguing that we need do nothing because happenstance will always come to our rescue?
That is the complete OPPOSITE of what has happened and thank you for your response buttressing my point in its entirety. People like you have argued that this type of carbon setting is needed to reduce CO2 emissions and yet… and yet… the exact opposite has happened. CO2 produced by energy usage has decreased dramatically and NOT because of any limits that you have set. It has happened as the market has switched to cheaper energy that has resulted from technology that environmentalists are, for the most part, fighting… namely fracking… So your point is the complete antithesis of mine. You are arguing that environmentalists and those concerned with controlling CO2 are contributing to the solution. I am arguing that when they are not counterproductive to their stated goals, they are completely irrelevant… as is the case here… THAT is my point…
No… I am arguing that like so many things… the liberal heavy-handed approach whether to fight hunger, poverty, homelessness, war, higher food prices… is directly counterproductive and that this is most evident in the fight to reduce CO2 emissions.
Solving one problem but in the process creating a whole set of other problems is hardly worth applauding. There may be fewer CO2 emissions (giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your report is accurate), but at a cost of increased contamination of groundwater, methane emissions, particulate matter emissions, chemical and toxic pollution, reduced or contaminated drinking water supply, radioactive contamination, seismic events etc.
Bingo! Right on cue! So, environmentalists have been against increased fracking DESPITE their professed desire to reduce CO2 emissions.
The report is accurate. And there you have it… but it MAY cause some of these other problems… MAY… Let’s face it… so much of the environmental movement continually discredits itself because it has lost the way. When I was proud to be called a conservationalist, it was about sensible preservation of natural resources and wonders not holding up all natural and sensible growth because of some tree frog or one species of butterfly which differs appreciably from its other butterfly counterparts only in that it lives a valley away. This is just anti-development, anti-capitalism, anti-humanity masquerading as concern for the planet. I think that I will go to Kmart and buy plastic shit that I don’t need as a form of protest… maybe that and some McDonald’s on the way home…
As opposed to more bluster and silliness from those who espouse “activist” positions that achieve none of their stated goals?
Yes, you have been awfully silent about fracking and energy usage in the US. Is that because our DEMOCRAT president and DEMOCRAT administration and DEMOCRAT governors like the one in New York are some of the leading proponents of development of increased energy through fracking? I wonder… where’s the usual vituperative hatred of authority figures now? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Bingo! Right on cue! So, environmentalists have been against increased fracking DESPITE their professed desire to reduce CO2 emissions. [/quote]
A solution that causes other problems is not a solution.
The report is accurate. And there you have it… but it MAY cause some of these other problems… MAY… Let’s face it… so much of the environmental movement continually discredits itself because it has lost the way. When I was proud to be called a conservationalist, it was about sensible preservation of natural resources and wonders not holding up all natural and sensible growth because of some tree frog or one species of butterfly which differs appreciably from its other butterfly counterparts only in that it lives a valley away. This is just anti-development, anti-capitalism, anti-humanity masquerading as concern for the planet. I think that I will go to Kmart and buy plastic shit that I don’t need as a form of protest… maybe that and some McDonald’s on the way home…[/quote]
Those effects mentioned have all happened already.There’s no may about it.
But given the reductions indicated by Fred, which seem to surpass those in the EU and the amount of money they have spent, I cant imagine any such measures being adopted by the US, nor can I see them being persuaded to enter any type of Kyoto style agreement that punishes countries like the USA while China and India have no such obligations and have their emissions continuing to soar, and likely will for a long time to come. Nor will China or India enter any such agreement that would impose punitive damages for failing to meet reduction targets when they know full well, they will most likely continue to increase emissions for decades.
So in the practical reality, the conferences are a waste of time, no one will agree on anything. The NGO’s wont be able to implement any notable change but will continue to encourage the public to contribute to their cause. Methods like fracking, while controversial now, are a result of technical innovation and I believe even those who are truly concerned about the risks of global warming will see technical innovation as the best way to transition away from fossil fuel.
Although, I disagree with Fred that the reason for inaction is some realization the threat of Global warming is overblown, I just dont think a global agreement can be reached where it would satisfy everyone, also his notion that every time a correction or mistake is found in something like the IPCC reports reinforces his belief that the theory behind global warming is false is completely backward. Theories are strengthened by new discoveries, the theory of evolution has new discoveries being made, each time a refinement or addition is made to the knowledge it is adding to the strength behind the theory, which is what we are seeing with the theory behind AGW and why it has over time been accepted as fact by every major scientific body in the world.
I am so glad that I am still reading Forumosa. Very interesting to see these arguments here, and very, very entertaining.
May I suggest not using such absolute terms? I feel that makes is way too easy to rebut or disregard your valid point (assuming you are trying to go into the Pyrrhic Victory direction). Because if you solve major problems by creating only very minor problems, that would be a good thing, no? Finding useful trade-offs happens all the time, unless you find absolutely perfect solutions for something. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell Fracking, Nuclear Energy etc. create absolutely major problems for generations to come, and thus I would not consider them a huge improvement, at least not in the long term. I would suggest phrasing it more like [quote]A “solution” that has the very realistic potential to cause other huge problems does not seem much of an improvement[/quote]
Au contraire. It is not that the arguments are being refined… it is that they are continually being “refined” in one and only one direction and that it is that the original highly alarmist predictions are being reined in to levels that are not so alarmist and would thus fail to justify the “urgent action” being called for. THAT is a very big difference in how I am approaching the IPCC reports and how you are viewing them. It is not a question of “innocent mistakes being rectified.” It is about the very premise behind the “urgent action” and how it is being utterly discredited. Note that the global warming skepticism is being proved justified again and again and again and again… This is not about two divergent positions meeting in one dialectical solution. It is about one and only one view being corrected while the other is being vindicated.
