AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

[Azure]

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...0269ea5a3ca224

Shocking.

[opendoor]

I'm not sure what your point is; doesn't this support government intervention in energy? By making dirtier power more expensive (or by subsidizing cleaner power) people will shift to the cleaner option.

[psicodude]

I think the point is that the government didn't impose laws or standards to make this happen and it wasn't because of public pressure. This happened because the "Green" option just happened to be the cheapest/most profitable one. Maybe the government should focus less on trying to legislate environmentally friendly choices and more on making them cheaper.

[Azure]

Or more on encouraging investment into 'cheap energy' like natural gas, and less on spending time and resources coming up with a 'carbon tax.'

[Devils'Advocate]

Except that when governments try to use market forces to make green choices cheaper and less environmentally friendly choices more expensive via such things as carbon taxes, they are vilified.

Interesting that the article talks about CO2 levels rather than "greenhouse gas" levels. Natural gas will decrease CO2 dramatically, but increase methane being released into the environment.
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...111562,00.html

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by psicodude

I think the point is that the government didn't impose laws or standards to make this happen and it wasn't because of public pressure. This happened because the "Green" option just happened to be the cheapest/most profitable one. Maybe the government should focus less on trying to legislate environmentally friendly choices and more on making them cheaper.

"Just happened to" is the key phrase there. Most businesses would produce 10 times the C02 from their energy usage as long as it was slightly cheaper than the cleaner alternative. Examples like this are precisely why governments introduce market incentivies (carbon taxes, clean energy subsidies, etc.) to reduce emissions. Businesses aren't going to make this change themselves because they're in the business of making money, so it falls on governments to artificially change the market if we want to encourage cleaner energy. I'm still unsure why this instance is seen as a counter example to the prevailing energy policy; it reaffirms it if anything.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

"Just happened to" is the key phrase there. Most businesses would produce 10 times the C02 from their energy usage as long as it was slightly cheaper than the cleaner alternative. Examples like this are precisely why governments introduce market incentivies (carbon taxes, clean energy subsidies, etc.) to reduce emissions. Businesses aren't going to make this change themselves because they're in the business of making money, so it falls on governments to artificially change the market if we want to encourage cleaner energy. I'm still unsure why this instance is seen as a counter example to the prevailing energy policy; it reaffirms it if anything.

Except the only reason NG got so cheap in NA was because of technology advances made by private companies that made it easier and cheaper to extract NG. Now there is a glut of NG out there.

Sure, market incentives can work if applied properly, but considering the government(US, and Canada till recently) still subsidized the oil industry, the results are debatable.

[Azure]

Oh and some more background.

And during the first six months of 2012, 165 power generators came on line with a total capacity of 8,098 megawatts (MW), but only one was a coal-fired plant. At 800 MW, it’s less than 10% of total capacity added. The remaining 90% were gas-fired generators and renewables, including solar and landfill gas, which tend to be small—hence the large number of generators.

Coal plants are shut down at a stunning pace. In 2012, a total of 9 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity will be retired, the largest one-year exodus in the history of the US! In 2015, a new record: 10 GW. Between 2012 and 2016, 175 coal-fired generators with a total capacity of 27 GW will get axed—8.5% of the total coal-fired capacity.

http://www.businessinsider.com/natur...e-cliff-2012-8

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except the only reason NG got so cheap in NA was because of technology advances made by private companies that made it easier and cheaper to extract NG. Now there is a glut of NG out there.

Sure, market incentives can work if applied properly, but considering the government(US, and Canada till recently) still subsidized the oil industry, the results are debatable.

Yes, imagine if the US had instead put huge penalties on the oil industry.

Then there would likely have been no private companies looking for advanced technology because of lack of profit motive. There would have been no significant increase in oil and natural gas productionin North America. And CO2 levels, along with energy prices, would likely have both increased dramatically.

[Erick Estrada]

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming

Of course they didn't even though it's part of their job to be aware of such things. It's not like these plants switching from coal to natural gas happened overnight. It's been going on for a while now. I simply have no faith in supposed scientists that are supposedly predicting all this man made climate change in future decades when they can't even predict tomorrows change in the atmosphere based on today's changes.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Of course they didn't even though it's part of their job to be aware of such things. It's not like these plants switching from coal to natural gas happened overnight. It's been going on for a while now. I simply have no faith in supposed scientists that are supposedly predicting all this man made climate change in future decades when they can't even predict tomorrows change in the atmosphere based on today's changes.

Predicting things is hard, especially the future.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, imagine if the US had instead put huge penalties on the oil industry.

Then there would likely have been no private companies looking for advanced technology because of lack of profit motive. There would have been no significant increase in oil and natural gas productionin North America. And CO2 levels, along with energy prices, would likely have both increased dramatically.

Expand please.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh and some more background.



http://www.businessinsider.com/natur...e-cliff-2012-8

This is the example of policy working. Coal isn't being built for two reasons, 1) natural gas prices are incredible low and 2) expected future costs of coal generation will be high. Why? Because of policy. The entire industry sees the writing on the wall, GHG emission targets are a certainty in the next 20 years. Coal plants are amortized out over 40 years, there's no way that anyone will invest in a coal plant knowing that. So while alot of people crow that this is the invisible hand at work it's more like the switch stick of government policy whipping these generators into line.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Expand please.

I believe it has to do with the fact that Oil and Gas are both products produced by the same companies in the same industry. If there were big penalties on producing, there would be less money available for R&D, and for wild shot crazy ideas like the ones that created the current glut in Natural Gas.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is the example of policy working. Coal isn't being built for two reasons, 1) natural gas prices are incredible low and 2) expected future costs of coal generation will be high. Why? Because of policy. The entire industry sees the writing on the wall, GHG emission targets are a certainty in the next 20 years. Coal plants are amortized out over 40 years, there's no way that anyone will invest in a coal plant knowing that. So while alot of people crow that this is the invisible hand at work it's more like the switch stick of government policy whipping these generators into line.

You are right, it is because of policy. Policy that allows Oil and Gas producers to make their products better and more available, not policy against coal power producers.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Predicting things is hard, especially the future.

I believe his point is that they are having trouble predicting the present, much less the future.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except the only reason NG got so cheap in NA was because of technology advances made by private companies that made it easier and cheaper to extract NG. Now there is a glut of NG out there.

Sure, market incentives can work if applied properly, but considering the government(US, and Canada till recently) still subsidized the oil industry, the results are debatable.

The best policies are pro-technology, not punitive ones.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, imagine if the US had instead put huge penalties on the oil industry.

Then there would likely have been no private companies looking for advanced technology because of lack of profit motive. There would have been no significant increase in oil and natural gas productionin North America. And CO2 levels, along with energy prices, would likely have both increased dramatically.

I'm not saying they should have applied penalties. I'm saying considering the massive profits the oil industry makes, subsidizing them isn't necessary anymore.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You are right, it is because of policy. Policy that allows Oil and Gas producers to make their products better and more available, not policy against coal power producers.

But there is policy against coal power producers. Obama mandated carbon limits through the EPA. Obama is on record saying that he will "bankrupt" the coal industry.

[Calgaryborn]

Obama should recieve some of the credit for this.Through the EPA he has made it almost impossible to start up a coal power plant or even opening a mine.

Another indirect factor that the article doesn't mention is the state of the economy. The unemployed don't spend as much on fuel; No too and from work or travelling on vacation.

With more plants closing or moving to China there is less industrial burning of carbon based fuels in the US. You might see this as good environmentally but, one should consider that those items produced over seas have a greater impact on the environment. They are produced under much lower environmental standards than North America and then shipped a great distance to market.

One net benefit of having on going record high unemployment might be the fact that people consume less. Beyond fuel there is stuff like clothes and electronics not being purchased. Less money means a lot of the extras are being cut out which is slowing China's economy.