Tony Snow thinks the United States is reducing carbon emissions.
« Thompson and Griffin | Main | Getting Worse »
Also: Ignorance Now Equals Strength
06 Jun 2007 10:20 pm
Comments (12)
"You don't need to see the scientific data."
"These are not the carbon emissions you're looking for."
"Corporate America can go about its business."
Tony Snow thinks
No he doesn't.
It might be wise to do your own factchecking before jumping on Mr. Snow. Perhaps the DOE is cooking the books. If you think that's the case, then make it. That would be far more interesting than cheap shots at Tony Snow.
OK, so he's being completely disingenuous, but technically he's not lying. Last year, Europe's emissions increased slightly (estimates are that Europe's overall carbon emissions have increased by 1-1.5% over the past two years), while US emissions in 2006 dropped by 1.3%.
The information on US emissions (from the Energy Department) is still preliminary data and it comes with the caveat that the reduction was mainly the result of milder weather overall throughout the country (and some speculate from higher energy prices), but the fact of the matter is that our numbers did go down. (One cannot expect that this trend will last for more than one year, of course.)
Meanwhile, the faulty cap-and-trade carbon trading system being employed by Europe has set the price of carbon far too low to either encourage innovation and investment in lower-polluting technologies, or to increase the price of pollution and dissuade companies from emitting. The volatility in carbon prices has been extraordinary and so far the effect has mainly been increased revenues for electric producers (who've raised prices on consumers) and little to show in the form of actual reductions.
All in all, Europe's experience goes to show that what we need here is a carbon tax, set at a high enough level to ensure that it is effective. In the latest issue, The Economist writes the following:
"The best way for governments to encourage investment in cleaner energy is to make the polluter pay by putting a price on CO2 emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body set up under the auspices of the United Nations to establish a consensus on global warming, a price of somewhere between $20 and $50 per tonne of CO2 by 2020-30 should start to stabilise CO2 concentrations at around 550 parts per million (widely reckoned to be a safeish level) by the end of this century. A $50 price tag would raise petrol prices in America by around 15% and electricity prices by around 35%—hardly draconian when set alongside recent fluctuations. The IPCC reckons that stabilising at 550ppm would knock around 0.1% off global economic growth annually.
"A carbon price can be established either through a tax or through a cap-and-trade system, such as the one Europe adopted after signing up to Kyoto. A carbon tax would be preferable, because companies would then be able to build a fixed price into their investment plans; but businesspeople and politicians are both strangely averse to the word "tax". A cap-and-trade system can be made to work, but the price has to settle at a level that affects commercial decisions. Europe's hasn't: the price has been too volatile, and, for much of its existence, too low, to shift investment patterns much."
Texas pumps out over 25% of America's CO2 emissions.
We'll have to wait until their boy is back home cuttin' brush before we do anything about it.
the typical breezily disingenuous crap from yglesias
What snow actually says "there is a carbon cap system in place in Europe; we are doing a better job of reducing emissions here."
He says the US is doing a better job of reducing emissions than europe. All the available data supports this.
The explanation of why American use went down in 2006 and Europe's went up in 2006 doesn't make sense. Was Europe on a different planet where the weather was harsher and the cost of energy cheaper?
All the available data support this
Except that reducing emissions would require someone in the US actually be doing something to reduce emissions. Who is doing something and what are they doing?
A 1.3 percent reduction.
Apparently the "ignorance" to which Yglesias refers is his own. Too funny!
"The explanation of why American use went down in 2006 and Europe's went up in 2006 doesn't make sense. Was Europe on a different planet where the weather was harsher and the cost of energy cheaper?"
"Except that reducing emissions would require someone in the US actually be doing something to reduce emissions. Who is doing something and what are they doing?"
***
Climate differs throughout the globe. Thus, and quite possibly as a result of human-induced global warming, the United States, as a whole, had fewer "heating-degree days" (that is, it was warmer during the cold months in parts of the country, and less heat was required -- in other words, less fossil fuels needed to be burned) than in years past, while Europe did not.
As for the cost of energy, gas prices in America fluctuated more than in Europe. Also, in Europe, where there is more reliance of non-carbon based fuels (in particular, the French and Germans use quite a bit of nuclear), an increased cost of carbon-based fuels has less of an effect. But the higher energy prices were more reflective of gasoline, than coal or natural gas.
The Energy Department probably says it better than I:
"Factors that drove emissions lower include weather conditions that reduced the demand for heating and cooling services; higher energy prices for natural gas, motor gasoline, and electricity, that reduced energy demand; and the use of a less carbon-intensive fuel mix (more natural gas and non-carbon fuels) in the generation of electricity."
So, to answer your second question, nobody's doing anything here. We just got lucky for one year. The trend won't continue and sure enough, even with a grossly flawed cap-and-trade system Europe's emissions will drop as they are actually making an effort to do something. (And fortunately, the Europeans are well aware of the flaws with the current carbon trading scheme and are revising it to be more effective.)
Former DOE official Joseph Romm explains what the 1.3% drop means better than I:
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2007/5/24/151349/607
Bush's dumb luck on emissions
Posted by Joseph Romm at 3:28 PM on 24 May 2007
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions dropped 1.3% in 2006, as the Energy Information Administration reported yesterday.
President Bush immediately took credit:
"We are effectively confronting the important challenge of global climate change through regulations, public-private partnerships, incentives, and strong economic investment."
[Please, no laughing.]
In spite of the fact that Bush has actually gutted programs aimed at the promoting clean energy technologies, last year's emissions dropped because of:
1. higher gasoline prices,
2. a sharp drop in heating demand from an unusually warm winter, which helped bring about
3. a decline in natural gas prices (and hence more use of this clean fuel for electricity generation).
Hmm. An unusually warm winter -- wonder what caused that. And high gasoline prices -- maybe the president does deserve credit after all.
Planet Gore chimes in that this means "we can indeed reduce our greenhouse gas emissions intensity (the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per dollar of economic output) at a rate that exceeds our economic growth rate." Well, yes, but contrary to PG's implied support of Bush's do-nothing climate policy, this fact argues for greenhouse gas standards and major clean technology investment -- so we don't have to rely on random fortuitous factors to get our emissions reductions to coincide with economic growth.
(If PG thinks Bush's policies are the cause of the drop, then then should be happy to take a wager on 2007 emissions. I'll give them $100 for every 0.1% emissions drop this year if they'll give me $100 for every 0.1% rise this year.)
Comments closed June 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Goebbels would be proud.
Posted by steve duncan | June 6, 2007 11:21 PM