photo: johnny blood
Energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the United States declined 1.3 percent last year, according to a report released today by the U.S. Department of Energy. The survey by DOE’s Energy Information Administration notes that 2006 saw the biggest drop in the economy’s "carbon intensity" – carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of gross domestic product – since 1990. Good news to be sure but climate change skeptics and ExxonMobil shouldn’t get too excited. Weather conditions and the vagaries of the economy played a big role in the emissions remission. Meanwhile, the long-term prognosis remains grim: Between 1991 and 2006 U.S. energy-related greenhouse gas emissions rose 18 percent. And yesterday a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that global C02 emissions are accelerating rapidly, with the growth rate tripling between 2000 and 2004. That’s due in part to the runaway Chinese economy.
In 2006, the U.S. benefited from a warmer winter and a cooler summer, which meant fewer people were turning up the thermostat or cranking the air conditioning. "The resulting decrease in carbon intensity … was driven by increased use of natural gas, the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel, and greater reliance on non-fossil fuels," the DOE states. The report does offer a glimmer of hope for the future: Although industrial output grew by 3.9 percent in 2006, related greenhouse gas emissions dropped by an estimated 1.2 percent.
Green Wombat 
On the CNN Money website, this story is linked by the headline, “Climate Gets Good News.” Then I read the story and discover that,”[b]etween 1991 and 2006 U.S. energy-related greenhouse gas emissions rose 18 percent.” Does this strike anyone else as odd?
This is misinformation. What tripled between 00 and 04 was the growth rate in emissions, not the total emissions.
Still what it goes to show is the price of gasoline has had some effect on consumers…
Good catch. I’ve corrected the post.
You won’t see any good news no matter what. If temps go up – bad. If temps go down – bad. No matter what, we’re screwed in your world. Well in the real world, everything’s just fine cause we’re just basically a fart in the wind. Why don’t you focus on a real problem like starvation and I have a solution for that. Put your money into buying FOOD instead of studying global warming and we’ll really solve a problem for a change. AMEN!
What is the point of this article given that there is no link between man made CO2 production and the current warming trend the planet is experiencing?
The drop ocurred from a high of a 18% increased during from 2000 to 2004.
This is like saying I am in debt to the tune of of $100,000, but my debt only increased by 10% in 2005. Great news, i am only $110,000 in debt.
Is that good news?
The effect of global warming on the food supply is very complicated. Here is something to chew on: In the next couple of decades, changes in weather patterns will reduce precipitation to California, which grows much of this nations food supply. Policy managers must then deal with these consequences. Do you grow different crops? How do you deal with displaced farmers? Where else in the country can you grow the crops that cannot be grown in California (which is dependent on soil type, water availability, agricultural infrastructure, worker availability, etc., all of which may have to be built from the ground up in other regions)? For climate scientists, research now mainly focuses on predicting how temperature and precipitation will change on a regional basis, with implications for these types of management questions. There are several different policy issues similar to climate change impacts on agriculture, many of which deal with current and future distribution of water resources (i.e., who holds the keys where it rains?).