There is alot I dont know about environmental issues, but common sense has led me to believe that significant reductions in emissions will be more difficult (impossible) than many would have us believe. Here is one man's attempt to put some numbers on the issue (and criticize the Dems at the same time, of course):


The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has chimed in to attack President Bush's recent speech on climate change. In his address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.

"Way too little and way too late," runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice – what I call the "80 by 50" target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear that the president's target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.

The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions targets espoused by the three presidential candidates and environmentalists. Indeed, these targets would send us back to emissions levels last witnessed when the cotton gin was in daily use.

Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy's most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.

Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia.

If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita.

The daunting task of reaching one billion metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 comes into even greater relief when we look at the American economy, sector-by-sector. The Energy Department breaks down emissions into residential, commercial (office buildings, etc.), industrial, and transportation (planes, trains and automobiles); electricity consumption is apportioned to each.

Consider the residential sector. At the present time, American households emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 – 20% higher than the entire nation's emissions must be in 2050. If households are to emit no more than their present share of CO2, emissions will have to be reduced to 204 million tons by 2050. But in 2050, there will be another 40 million residential households in the U.S.

Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs. Even a house tricked out with all the latest high-efficiency EnergyStar appliances and compact fluorescent lights won't come close. The same daunting energy math applies to the industrial, commercial and transportation sectors as well. The clear implication is that we shall have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources – a multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all.

Natural gas – the preferred coal substitute of the moment – won't come close. If we replaced every single existing coal plant with a natural gas plant, CO2 emissions from electric power generation alone would still be more than twice the 2050 target. Most environmentalists remain opposed to nuclear power, of course. It is unlikely that renewables – wind, solar, and biomass – can ever make up more than about 20% of our electricity supply.

Suppose, however, that a breakthrough in carbon sequestration, a revival of nuclear power, and a significant improvement in the cost and effectiveness of renewables were to enable us to reduce the carbon footprint of electricity production. That would still leave transportation.

Right now our cars and trucks consume about 180 billion gallons of motor fuel. To meet the 2050 target, we shall have to limit consumption of gasoline to about 31 billion gallons, unless a genuine carbon-neutral liquid fuel can be produced. (Ethanol isn't it.) To show how unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota Priuses in 2050, we'd still overshoot the transportation emissions target by 40%.

The enthusiasm for an 80% reduction target is often justified on grounds that national policy should set an ambitious goal. However, claims on behalf of alternative energy sources – biofuels, hydrogen, windpower and so forth – either do not match up to the scale of the energy required, or are not cost-competitive in current form.

How on God's green earth will we make up the difference? Someone should put this question to the candidates. And not let them slide past it with glittering generalities.

quote:

Right now our cars and trucks consume about 180 billion gallons of motor fuel. To meet the 2050 target, we shall have to limit consumption of gasoline to about 31 billion gallons, unless a genuine carbon-neutral liquid fuel can be produced. (Ethanol isn't it.) To show how unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota Priuses in 2050, we'd still overshoot the transportation emissions target by 40%.

I find this kind of stuff to be sort of silly. First of all, we're talking about over 40 years from now. The idea, clearly, is that by 2050 we won't be using gasoline to power our cars at all. And that's certainly something we can achieve, and it won't take until 2050 to do so either.

Nor does he differentiate between the different types of ethanol. He seems to think there's corn ethanol, and nothing else. Has he read anything about ethanol in the last 20 years? Apparently not.

So when this guy rolls his eyes and trots out his "Aha! Gotcha!" I just think it makes him look sort of silly.

As for the President's goals, the reason why everyone laughed at them is because he's not even proposing to start decreasing emissions levels until 2025. He's saying that we should continue on emitting greenhouse gases as if there's nothing wrong until then, and then freeze them at 2025 levels.

If you believe global warming is a real and serious problem, that approach is a total joke.

And, of course, if you ask the candidates how they plan to achieve these goals they'd be happy to answer Mr. Heyward -- with a cap and trade system, renewable energy standards, R&D expenditures, etc. The whole premise of this piece -- that the candidates haven't weighed in on how they'd reduce emissions -- is false.

Tupa, you've really got to start reading something other than the WSJ editorial page.

quote:

Tupa, you've really got to start reading something other than the WSJ editorial page.

i do, but nothing that gets a rise out you nearly as well.

quote:

Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910

This is the crux of his argument, to me. Is he right?

This piece does have a point, while I do think vehicle emissions can be brought under control its the housing electricy use that needs really to be looked at critically.

Again in 20-30 years I still think point of use hydrogen systems for home use is the answer. The tech is starting in Japan and some engineers here in the states. The tech actually is available so the problem is far from unsolvable.

quote:

Someone should put this question to the candidates. And not let them slide past it with glittering generalities.

Ha! fat chance. You'd have better luck getting Al Gore to answer it.

quote:

And, of course, if you ask the candidates how they plan to achieve these goals they'd be happy to answer Mr. Heyward -- with a cap and trade system, renewable energy standards, R&D expenditures, etc. The whole premise of this piece -- that the candidates haven't weighed in on how they'd reduce emissions -- is false.

So you think we CAN get emissions back to 1910 levels? Just wondering...

quote:

Originally posted by sevknowsbetter:
This piece does have a point, while I do think vehicle emissions can be brought under control its the housing electricy use that needs really to be looked at critically.

Again in 20-30 years I still think point of use hydrogen systems for home use is the answer. The tech is starting in Japan and some engineers here in the states. The tech actually is available so the problem is far from unsolvable.

Hydrogen systems for home use in Japan? Who, the Emperor? My wifes brother lives in a nice home, much better than the average Japanese. He uses Kerosene heaters. Has Air Conditioners (window) and only uses them sparsely because of the expense. They use Propane for cooking (big tanks hooked up outside the kitchen). Japan is very high tech as far as electronics (TV, Phone, Cell phone) but still way behind the US in other areas.

There is a program of 5000 test homes thru out tokyo, shinangawa,meguro,setagaya, and ota. I dont know where your wife's brother lives but this is a test of the battery system and production of point of use hydrogen production.

They are also extremely further ahead than us in recycling and trash allocation along with health care.

Just about anybody can significantly improve their MPG efficiently by up to 50% and Detroit need not do a thing.

Find somebody to carpool to work with. Voila!! Save, let's say, $30 per WEEK.

But no. Like WSS often says, Americans are unwilling to do anything that they consider and inconvenience.

For the book readers out there, pick up, "The Worse Hard Times" by Egan. The story centers on the Dust Bowl years. Those folks were a lot stronger than I could ever be, but it does show how 'soft' Americans have become in about 70 - 80 years.

As long as gas is plentiful and available, people will pay. Mass transit for the most part sucks in the USA. Japan has an excellent mass transit system. If we had gas shortages like in the 70's, these 20-30 year olds driving there SUV's would have a wake up call for sure.;

quote:

Originally posted by DieHardBrownsFan:
As long as gas is plentiful and available, people will pay. Mass transit for the most part sucks in the USA. Japan has an excellent mass transit system. If we had gas shortages like in the 70's, these 20-30 year olds driving there SUV's would have a wake up call for sure.;

Depends how broadly one defines 'Public Transportation'.

Arguably, there is a ton of Public Transportation capacity available. Just look at all the cars passing you by (or vice versa) on your way to work. My guess is that there are three empty seats in each vehicle.

Its funny john my daughter and I were argueing about the very topic. There are a lot of vehicles that only have one passenger versus their carrying capacity. We were having a discussion on why that is, she is to young yet and sees the world in a more positive light on how to address issues still.

quote:

Originally posted by We need Tom Tupa:

quote:

Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910

This is the crux of his argument, to me. Is he right?

Anybody?

Here are the actual figures.

 
80% of the 1990 levels of all greenhouse gases (not just CO2) will mean going from 6146.7 to 1229.3.

So just after as opposed to just before WWI? Is that really possible, to cut emissions to what they were when America had 1/4 of the population and 1/50 of the use for electricity?

Even if we adjust his numbers upward 20% to 1.2 billion, doesnt this argument still stand?

quote:

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia.

Let me correct this. It's even worse than I thought.

From what I can tell from historical data, he's a bit off, and maybe even being a bit misleading. Greenhouse gases didn't begin rising perceptibly until after the WWII era, so in some ways he could have just as easily said 1940 as 1910. In fact, when I'm looking at the historical data, the figure that comes closest to the 1229.3 is about 1940.

But that's also the estimate for the entire world, not just the US. I'm having trouble finding US data that dates back that far. (And these are all estimates.)

But in 1910, the estimate for the entire world is 819 million metric tons. Obviously, if just the US reduced it's emissions 80% of 1990 levels we wouldn't even get to that figure. We'd be at 1229.3. Add in the rest of the world and we're not even close to 1910 levels.

So yes, it seems he's off, probably by a great deal.

quote:

So yes, it seems he's off, probably by a great deal.

But 1229.3 divided by 420 million people is still less than 3 metric tons per person - less than half of France or Switzerland, and closer to Somalia and Belize. I have just as much faith in technology as anyone, but isnt this beyond unrealistic?

If you want to do some inexact estimates, the US produces about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases.

So multiply our emissions by four:

1229.3 x 4 = 4917.2

And what year did the world emit 4917.2 million metric tons of greenhouse gases?

About 1976-1977.

Hmm. Sounds a lot more feasible than 1910.