US Emissions In 2020 In Biggest Fall Since WWII (bbc.com) 78
US greenhouse gas emissions tumbled below their 1990 level for the first-time last year as a result of the response to the coronavirus pandemic. The BBC reports: A preliminary assessment from research group Rhodium says that overall emissions were down over 10%, the largest fall since World War II. Transport suffered the biggest decline, with emissions down almost 15% over 2019. Energy emissions also fell sharply, due to a decline in the use of coal. With stay-at-home orders in place, economic activity ground to a halt in March and April and this had significant implications for greenhouse gas emissions.
In transport, the restrictions on international travel and non-essential journeys saw demand for fuel fall sharply. At the peak of restrictions demand for jet fuel was down 68% on 2019, with petrol down 40%. They have both bounced back as travel bans were eased later in the year but jet fuel demand was still 35% down in December compared to the previous year. When it comes to electricity though the picture is more complicated. Overall the demand for electricity was down just 2% but emissions fell by over 10%. After decades of dominance, coal in 2020 was the third largest source of power, behind natural gas and nuclear. Renewables now supply 18% of power, the report says, just behind coal with 20% of the market.
In transport, the restrictions on international travel and non-essential journeys saw demand for fuel fall sharply. At the peak of restrictions demand for jet fuel was down 68% on 2019, with petrol down 40%. They have both bounced back as travel bans were eased later in the year but jet fuel demand was still 35% down in December compared to the previous year. When it comes to electricity though the picture is more complicated. Overall the demand for electricity was down just 2% but emissions fell by over 10%. After decades of dominance, coal in 2020 was the third largest source of power, behind natural gas and nuclear. Renewables now supply 18% of power, the report says, just behind coal with 20% of the market.
Silver lining? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Weirdly enough: Trump said the economy was "up" while all this fossil fuel non-burning was happening.
His fans seemed to have believed him, too, even though they give the impression the sky will fall if all fossil fuels aren't being burnt at the maximum possible rate.
Another cognitive dissonance...? You decide,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to explain the obvious, but we (US) still IMPORT oil and gas from other nations. See, that's money out the door, right? So if we produce more of our own oil and gas, and buy less, it's a net positive for the US.
a) Building all that oil/gas infrastructure at home will cost money, too.
b) Becoming world leader in things like batteries, wind turbines and solar panels would generate a lot of exports and jobs.
c) A few years from now a lot of that home-grown oil/gas production will be obsolete - money wasted!
Re: (Score:1)
Oil/gas infrastructure is already in place.
Except the stuff that Biden just cancelled, resulting in tens of thousands of lost jobs.
My worry is that by hard-cutting things, Biden will cause economic reactions in oil price surging, stock market drops, etc. And give $ to many other countries, $ that could have been used to invest in wind, solar, wave, etc.
I'm enjoying the schadenfreude of watching the PA union reps who begged their members to vote for Biden and now have to explain why those union members just lost their jobs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Trumps Doing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don Jr, nobody cares
Re: (Score:1)
Big industry lobbies for regulations, because they know it helps to squash competition.
This is actually true, but the Trump administration also facilitated a ton of regulatory capture.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was Jina
Don't foget Texas (Score:2)
Texas has one of the largest wind farms.
This is not sustainable (Score:5, Insightful)
So what can you do to help? Aside from supporting politicians who are helping deal with these things, there are charities which are helping build more wind and solar power.
The two best solar charities in general are Everybody Solar http://www.everybodysolar.org/ [everybodysolar.org] which gets solar panels for non-profits like museums and homeless shelters, and the Solar Electric Light Fund which gets solar panels for developing countries https://self.org/ [self.org] . SELF's work is particularly important because it helps mitigate the increasing carbon of developing countries as their economies ramp up while itself further stimulating those economies. For wind power the New England Wind Fund is a good one, which is helping build more wind power in the US's North-East, an area which currently has little wind power. https://www.greenenergyconsumers.org/newenglandwindfund [greenenergyconsumers.org]. I'd like to be able to recommend charities helping build nuclear power plants, but I don't unfortunately know of any.
Re:This is not sustainable (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not a sustainable form of CO2 reduction since this is as the summary notes, primarily due to COVID restrictions.
Sure it is. This brought the end of many coal plants sooner than would have happened otherwise. It also meant that many older planes and buses were retired. As the market recovers new electrical generation will be met with onshore wind, natural gas, and nuclear fission power. Public transportation will use newer and more efficient vehicles as demand returns.
This also forced people to develop more work from home, school from home, tele-health, and other options that mean less driving for people.
On the grid solar is not going to fill growth in electric demand in the future. Off the grid solar power makes sense, on the grid there are cheaper options.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah this! Coronavirus is now irrelevant to my own emissions reductions. My car will be doing 30,000km less every year, my company has already decided that. We've also abandoned one of our buildings which used to be half empty and airconditioned and lit up for very few people and consolidated people on site into a fewer areas, equipment running.
Overall the emissions are not sustainable at the levels that they were, but a not insignificant portion of them will not return. I don't see myself driving 30megamet
Re: (Score:2)
Were they actually retired or just put in storage with plans to bring them back once life returns to normal? They've reduced public transportation service here but they don't have the money to actually replace a significant portion of the fleet. So whenever life gets back to normal, it's likely many of those same vehicles are going back in service. Tax revenues are likely down for a lot of places too so odds are there just may not be money for it. Maybe we get lucky and folks can work from home so overall d
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
But it has an awful stench about it, like this is a big part of what it was all about. Measuring the impact of carbon emission reduction, which did not impact the rich in any way but completetly fucked over the poor and middle class. Also a test of how far anti-constitutional decrees actual illegal actions can be pushed how many rights can be stolen from the slaves before the buck under the hard riding, and the rich further enrich themselves and impoverish the middle class.
I am personally a little surprised
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> But it has an awful stench about it
No, that's sulphur dioxide.
It also declined significantly during 2020, mostly due to the closure of coal plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually one of the things that helped was the increase in the use of natural gas.
It's not a perfect, carbon-free option.
But it's a damn sight better than coal, oil or other forms of petroleum-based fuel.
But Corn Pop just killed the industry there.
Re:This is not sustainable (Score:5, Funny)
Many Covid reductions will be permanent.
More people will work from home. More people have experienced the convenience of buying groceries online.
Pre-Covid, I went to work on MWF and worked-from-home on Tuesday and Thursday. But I have now permanently switched from 3-2 to 4-1. I only go to the office one day each week.
It is way easier to get work done during a Zoom meeting than a physical meeting in a conference room. Position your work window just below your camera and it looks like you are paying attention. In fact, I am in a Zoom meeting right now, and my boss thinks I am listening. She has no idea I am posting on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
[...] there are charities which are helping build more wind and solar power.
Charities?! I could not help but ROFL.
Have the USA not yet realised that renewable power is a multi trillion business opportunity?
Or are those charities planning to IPO?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. My view is that everyone learned, and adjusted to, the fact that many people can work from home, vastly reducing commute traffic and auto emissions.
It has caused an increase in delivery vehicle traffic, and pushing / prioritizing for them to be EV will make a big impact on CO2 emissions.
That and please get trains rolling again. They're far far more efficient than 18+ wheelers ("lorries").
Re: (Score:2)
> with some actual scientific rigor... emissions controls will cause mass economic pain
I'm suspicious of anyone that posts a claim of scientific rigor that doesn't include a single number or citation. So let me fix that.
We've been able to demonstrate for about 50 years, "with some actual scientific rigor", that emissions controls have exactly zero economic effect at all. The US economy has continued its ever upward path, brief setbacks included, while emissions have remained flat:
https://www.oxfordenerg
The Earth Strikes Back (Score:1)
searching for equilibrium. The pendulum keeps on swinging...
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So... we done or just 1/2 way there? (Score:2)
US greenhouse gas emissions tumbled below their 1990 level for the first-time last year ...
A preliminary assessment from research group Rhodium says that overall emissions were down over 10%, ...
So... how does that compare to our (newly reentered) Paris Climate Agreement goals? We done or just 40% there?
Under the Paris Agreement, the U.S. promised to reduce its emissions by about 25% by 2025 compared with 2005 levels, ...
Re: (Score:3)
So... how does that compare to our (newly reentered) Paris Climate Agreement goals? We done or just 40% there?
Since most of this is from COVID-19, we should wait and see what happens after the epidemic is gone. Most likely CO2 emissions will bounce back up, but we don't know to what degree. It is possible that we'll keep working from home more than before, for instance.
Re: (Score:1)
Look forward to "Since Biden took office emissions have risen by.."
Totally rigged air (Score:1)
I really thought Don would claim "tree-huggers" started Covid to clean the air. It was so obvious up his style ally I'm surprised he bypassed it. Remember he claimed his face "looks orange" due to energy saving light-bulbs allegedly forced into building regulations.
The problem is that China and other nations GROW (Score:2)
Sadly, EU/UK did not do as well as America, but at least they DID drop.
The real problem is that China continues to grow theirs and add more coal plants to China AND the undeveloped nation.
This has to be stopped. As long as China continues to grow theirs (e
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully we will see the Dems push through massive infrastructure rebuild with new technology, like the East coast superconducting power distribution line and New Mexico multi-region power district balancer and battery farm that were planned and never built.
The Dems will have to get rid of the filibuster to keep gop members from blocking any change at the behest of their oil-industry masters
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"When convenient"
Since when is this situation just "convenient"?
An industry, the fossil fuel industry, as a side effect of making money are pushing the planets climate in a dangerous direction
And, rather than recognize what is happening before their faces, they have mounted a counter attack of FUD and propaganda that would make Goebbels proud
This includes a bought and paid for Senate republican caucus that will delay and destroy any proposals that the Dems are going to put forward
Biden said it, we have to m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I am fine with removing it, however, we need you dems to get your ducks in a row and pass things like a WEAK balanced budget amendment. Likewise, we need things like requiring Ranked Candidate Voting, along with Lessig's Public funding of campaigns. BUT, you dems continue to ignore those things, until you are no longer
Re: (Score:2)
As usual WindBourne is living in a fantasy world.
It would take a constitutional amendment to change anything so that the next congress couldn't just un-change back.
That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
China is doing more to roll out sustainable, renewable energy than the US ever has. They understand that being even the slightest bit reliant on energy imports is a liability, and renewable energy is cheap in the long run.
They will be selling that tech to developing countries. If the US hadn't screwed the pooch in the 1970s we could have been leading the world in 21st century energy industries.
Finally, there's no pissing section in the swimming pool; It doesn't much matter what other countries do in terms o
Re:The problem is that China and other nations GRO (Score:4, Insightful)
China is NOT developing that wind/solar tech. Almost all of it was developed in the US, Europe, and Japan.
In addition, when it comes to rolling out AE, there are several things:
1) America, in fact, MOST OF THE WEST, continues to roll out MORE AE than China on a PER CAPITA basis.
2) America, continues to drop our emissions, most of the rest of the west is steady or a slow drop, while CHina's and undeveloped nations continues to grow.
3)
FYI the US is the largest CO2 emitter in the world
There is not a SINGLE measurement in which US is the LARGEST CO2 emitter in the world. There has been 1 CUMULATIVE item which is the emissions from 1850 until today, in which America is just slightly ahead of the EU27. BUT, CO2 lasts 300-1000 years in the atmosphere. Even if you go only with 500 years, then Europe and China are so far past America, that it is a JOKE.
4) As to largest emitters, China emits more than double what America does, and continues to grow, so we are not the largest overall emitter. We are not even the worst emitter in per capita. In fact, we were not even in the top 10, and continue to drop faster than other nations. As this said, we dropped 10%+, but what was NOT said, is that our overall, and likely to stay was over 7% drop. Why? Because of more coal plants dropping, combined with EVs REPLACING LICE vehicles.
5) America lost our manufacturing edge because of CONgress, taxation, and their pushing our companies to GO HELP CHINA. Fuck, even reagan forced American companies to GIVE China the technology on how to process Rare Earth. W further allowed all sorts of tech to be GIVEN to china (and even allowed them to continue stealing when we KNEW it was happening).
And as to importance,
The globe does not need America to manufacture and dominate AE. The globe needs ALL NATIONS TO DROP THEIR EMISSIONS. This is first and foremost the MOST IMPORTANT THING. The total GHG MUST STOP GROWING. And when the west has a total drop over around 8-9% (Europe was only around 9% drop in spite of their early stuff looking good), AND THE GHG continues to grow, then we are in SERIOUS TROUBLE.
Usual WindBourne lies (Score:5, Informative)
There is not a SINGLE measurement in which US is the LARGEST CO2 emitter in the world. There has been 1 CUMULATIVE item which is the emissions from 1850 until today, in which America is just slightly ahead of the EU27.
America is about 14% more than all the 28 EU countries and the UK added together. That's not just slightly ahead.
Also America is getting further and further ahead every year as it still produces more CO2 than the whole EU + UK combined.
Re: (Score:2)
> 1) America, in fact, MOST OF THE WEST, continues to roll out MORE AE than China on a PER CAPITA basis.
"Per Capita" - nice qualifier there. Why does per capita matter exactly? Is it only because it brings China's numbers way down? 'cause PER CAPITA China uses a lot less energy too, and PER CAPITA their emissions are less than half of the US's. That bullshit cuts both ways.
Instead maybe couch it in terms that are comparable, like...
Total growth: China rolled out ~40GW of solar in 2020, the US installed ~
The reason is we shut the economy down (Score:2)
> What is not shown on this is that America remains down some 7% below last year. The reason is the continued EV growth combined with switching from coal to wind/solar/nat gas.
Even if the 1% of cars that are plugins got their energy by magic, that would be 0.2% of US energy usage. Zero point two.
Of course they don't get their energy from magic, so the reduction is well under 0.2%, maybe around 0.05%. if you want to make that number sound more number impressive you could say "fifty thousandths of a perc
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, being President does NOT give him the legal authority to impose a tax on anything. That's the job of the Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
> The real problem is that China continues to grow theirs and add more coal plants to China AND the undeveloped nation.
China is installing more renewables than any country in the world, and almost as much as the entire world put together:
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020
Construction of coal plants have completely cratered, which has resulted in coal piling up at quaysides around the world:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-24/there-s-500-million-of-coal-on-anchored-ships-off-china-
mother nature (Score:2)
made a good decision then. i say, expect more plagues. Balance is being restored whether people like it or not..
Covid (Score:2)
Someone grant Elon Muskâ(TM)s $100 million climate change award to the virus.
And most dead! (Score:1)
in the exact same context (Score:1)
...that some blame covid deaths that circumstantially happened during his presidency on Trump, then simultaneously he should get plaudits for this.
Personally, I believe neither is even remotely true, just using the same logic I hear on CNN every day.
How about the rest of the world? (Score:2)
Who cares what's happening in the US? What's happening in the rest of the world particularly the third world?
We can finally achieve our climate goals (Score:1)
We can finally achieve our climate goals if we can just prolong the pandemic as long as possible, and maybe also start another one.
Well, we all know the answer then (Score:1)