Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
- Mars Rover: Stuck in the Mud
- Tranquility Base
- NASA's Ares 1-X Test: The View From Above
- The Yes Men
- The Missing Link -- Not
- Moon Crash Kicked Up Plume After All
- Moon Crash: Where's the Water?
- Green Apple: Firm is Latest to Leave U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Recovery.gov: Your Tax Dollars at Work
- Climate: Power Companies Quit U.S Chamber of Commerce
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
U.S. Greenhouse Gases Dropping? No, But....
November 28, 2007 6:51 PM
ABC's Clayton Sandell reports:
Are the amounts of greenhouse gases coming from the United States dropping? The short answer is "no." But read on.
The Energy Information Administration (part of the Department of Energy) today released its final report on 2006 U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions. President Bush -- in a statement today-- is touting two numbers in the report that show ACTUAL EMISSIONS and EMISSIONS INTENSITY decreased from 2005. They are technically right, but the Administration seems to be ignoring other figures from the report that paint a more complete picture of where actual U.S. emissions trends are going. (Hint: it's not down.)
So what's the difference between ACTUAL emissions and emissions INTENSITY?
The ACTUAL emissions number is considered by experts to be the most honest and credible measure of annual greenhouse gas output-- billions of metric tons of pollution from sources like factories, cars, and power plants.
According to the EIA, actual greenhouse gas emissions dropped 1.5 percent from 2005 to 2006. Why the drop? The EIA says it had to do in part with a warmer winter and lower natural gas prices that led to a shift away from coal-based electricity production. In other words the reduction was not-- as President Bush and White House Press Secretary Dana Perino seemed to suggest-- a result of Administration policies.
Experts say the 2006 drop was a bit of a fluke, but the long term trend tells a different story. Notably, the EIA said today that all greenhouse gas emissions (things like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) have actually RISEN 15.1 percent since 1990. The amount of the greenhouse gas with the most negative atmospheric impact-- carbon dioxide-- has risen even faster: 18.3 percent since 1990. In addition, the EIA report says based on current data trends, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.1 percent from 2004 to 2030-- a 28.6 percent jump.
Read the entire EIA report HERE.
The White House today was quick to seize on another number in the report: the 2006 reduction in emissions INTENSITY, which dropped 4.2 percent. "The largest annual improvement since 1985," President Bush said in a statement. But the "intensity" number is considered a dubious-- even misleading-- way to calculate greenhouse gas emissions, because it is measured as the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per million dollars of gross domestic product. So if the GDP grows faster than emissions, you will always get a drop in emissions INTENSITY. That allows the President to say that the country "is well ahead" of the goal he set in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas INTENSITY 18 percent by 2012.
But it's important to remember that this "reduction" is really only on paper. The more important number to follow, say scientists, is the actual amount of greenhouse emissions pumped into the atmosphere. And that number, says the U.S. government, is clearly expected to rise.
===========================
A bemused note from Ned, added Thursday afternoon:
In all the back-and-forth over whether I got my greenhouse gases backwards, I think the first line got lost--which is that I didn't write the post. Clayton Sandell did, and I posted it for him. I think he takes no offense.
Meanwhile, the L.A. Times has written its own version, which you can find HERE.
November 28, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (11)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Who cares? More rambling and twisted use of terms that are meaningless.
Posted by: Getalife | Nov 28, 2007 10:02:41 PM
An okay piece, but still.. Get your facts right, Ned, and then come back to me. CO2, while a potent greenhouse gas, is not the most dangerous one in your list. CH4 (methane) is actually up to 25 times more potent than CO2. Putin and the Ruskis should really be worried about that because the methane that their peat bogs are releasing is quickly causing the permafrost to melt, and with it all of their precious oil pipelines.
Posted by: Eric Feld | Nov 28, 2007 10:33:00 PM
Said it before, I’ll say it again and back it up mathematically if I must. As long as the population continues to rise there is no way to reduce overall emissions of pollutants. No way, cannot be done, impossible. Do all the enginering and science you want, pass all the laws and sign all the treaties. ...... We will not reduce pollution until we reduce population. Next time you look up and see smog, thank your neighbor for his 10 kid contribution to the problem.
Posted by: Royce | Nov 28, 2007 11:15:21 PM
Drivel.
Posted by: Scott | Nov 28, 2007 11:18:37 PM
Eric Feld - i dont think ned ever says carbon dioxide is the most dangerous greenhouse gas.
if i recall correctly metal doesn't melt at the same temperature as permafrost so i think their pipelines would survive.
Posted by: wow | Nov 29, 2007 12:44:48 AM
Well, first of all, I agree with Royce 100 percent! All mathematical capabilities and scientifically-engaged research and data are almost totally innaccurate when the densities of the world population are not figured in as major, underlying contributors. Also, I think that it is time that America join our fellow Brits and strategize necessity over need. THE ABSOLUTE ONLY WAY TO REDUCE EMISSIONS is for America to decide, that we need to slow down. Contrary to the fact of slowing down and hurting the economy - we can be "econosours" and live comfortably without a lot of electrical/petroleum/gas "wants" and actually start to conserve. What is an economy, when you no longer have a habitable environment in which to live?
Posted by: Brent | Nov 29, 2007 1:45:14 AM
"The amount of the greenhouse gas with the most negative atmospheric impact-- carbon dioxide-- has risen even faster..."
Posted by: Eric Feld | Nov 29, 2007 5:14:45 AM
And to wow,
Russia's pipelines and several towns are built right on top of the permafront. Obviously the metal wouldn't melt, but it's pipelines would sure be in trouble of further deterioration if the permafrost melted. Russia's pipelines are already in terrible condition; and it's economy is completely dependent on the sale of oil and natural gas. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if Putin took an interest in environmental protection for once since they're such a major contributor to the global climate change problem. Signing the Kyoto Protocol meant nothing for him, because there were no 1990 benchmarks for him (the USSR was collapsing...)
Posted by: Eric Feld | Nov 29, 2007 5:20:15 AM
"The amount of the greenhouse gas with the most negative atmospheric impact-- carbon dioxide-- has risen even faster..." This statement is correct. While methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas, the amount of methane being released in comparison to CO2 is miniscule. CO2 has the most negative effect because there is much more of it being released. Leave it to Dubya to distort the facts.
Posted by: Christine Turple | Nov 29, 2007 7:38:20 AM
Eric Feld - Ned was not saying CO2 is the most potent greenhouse gas on a molecular basis. That would be CFCs even more than methane. But CO2 DOES have "the most negative atmospheric impact" as a whole because there is so much more of it.
Posted by: jock59801 | Nov 29, 2007 12:36:19 PM
thought the ocean releases methane on a much higher scale then C02.
Posted by: steve | Jun 19, 2008 2:27:07 AM
Post a comment
