EPA: US Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2006 Decreased 1.5% from Prior Year; Transportation Accounts for 27% of Total GHG, 33% of CO2
08 March 2008
 |
| Recent trends in greenhouse gas emissions. Y-axis starts at 5,000 Tg CO2 Eq. Click to enlarge. |
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published the draft annual US Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The major finding in this year’s draft report is that overall emissions during 2006 decreased by 1.5% (111.8 Tg CO2 equivalent) from the previous year. Total US greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 were 7,201.9 Tg CO2 Eq.
The primary factors contributing to the decrease, according to the EPA, were: (1) compared to 2005, 2006 had warmer winter conditions, which decreased consumption of heating fuels, as well as cooler summer conditions, which reduced demand for electricity; (2) restraint on fuel consumption caused by rising fuel prices, primarily in the transportation sector, and; (3) increased use of natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector.
Overall, emissions have grown by 14.1% from 1990 to 2006 while the US economy has grown by 59% over the same period.
Inventoried greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States, representing approximately 83.1% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The largest source of CO2, and of overall greenhouse gas emissions, was fossil fuel combustion.
CH4 emissions, which have declined from 1990 levels, resulted primarily from decomposition of wastes in landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock. Agricultural soil management and mobile source fossil fuel combustion were the major sources of N2O emissions. The emissions of substitutes for ozone depleting substances and emissions of 15 HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22 were the primary contributors to aggregate HFC emissions. Electrical transmission and distribution systems accounted for most SF6 emissions, while PFC emissions resulted from semiconductor manufacturing and as a by-product of primary aluminum production.
 |
| Trends in greenhouse gas emissions for major vehicle and fuel types. Click to enlarge. |
Transportation. When electricity-related emissions are distributed to economic end-use sectors, transportation activities accounted for 27% of inventoried US greenhouse gas emissions in 2006. Of that, the transportation end-use sector accounted for 1,855.1 Tg CO2 in 2006, representing 33% of total CO2 emissions in the US—the largest share of any end-use sector.
Light duty vehicles accounted for almost 62% of CO2 emissions; medium- and heavy-duty trucks 21%; commercial aircraft 7.6%; and other sources just over 9%. Transportation CO2 emissions increased by 21% (378.5 Tg) between 1990 and 2006, an annualized increase of 1.5%. From 2005 to 2006 transportation CO2 emissions decreased by 1.7%. Almost all of the energy consumed by the transportation sector is petroleum-based, including motor gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and residual oil.
From 1990 to 2006, transportation emissions rose by 28 percent due, in part, to increased demand for travel and the stagnation of fuel efficiency across the US vehicle fleet. Since the 1970s, the number of highway vehicles registered in the United States has increased faster than the overall population, according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Likewise, the number of miles driven (up 41 percent from 1990 to 2006) and the gallons of gasoline consumed each year in the United States have increased steadily since the 1980s, according to the FHWA and Energy Information Administration, respectively.
These increases in motor vehicle usage are the result of a confluence of factors including population growth, economic growth, urban sprawl, low fuel prices, and increasing popularity of sport utility vehicles and other light-duty trucks that tend to have lower fuel efficiency. A similar set of social and economic trends has led to a significant increase in air travel and freight transportation by both air and road modes during the time series.
Resources
USA's GHG has been fairly steady at 7.2 billion tonnes for the last 7 years. Not bad for a country that will not sign any GHG reduction treaties. This is equivalent to about 23 tonnes per capita per year. The total change in GHG is not very significant but it has ceased to progress. That's positive.
Canada's GHG has risen by about 3.5% in the same period. Not so good for a country who has signed the Kyoto treaty. Due to accelerated rise in population growth, this translates into a drop from 25 to 24 tonnes per capita per year. May look good but is still awfully high.
Canada and USA still have about the highest GHG per capita in the industrialized world. We are not in a position to tell China and India to do better.
Posted by: Harvey D | 08 March 2008 at 10:11 AM
A large portion of canada's GHG emissions are due supplying the US with energy ala tar sands. Not an excuse since it's Alberta's decision but the country is basically stuck doing this.
Also remember, while Canada may have signed Kyoto, Albertan/western conservative politics has been in recent years pivotal in slowing/stopping all environmental actions, first as the opposition in a minority gov't and then as the party that formed the present minority gov't. When they took power, they openly scoffed at Kyoto and climate change.
Unfortunately, the Liberals screwed up the political situation and dropped the ball big time. When the conservatives actually will do real environmental work is anyone's guess. They are also trying to curry favour with the voters so when they get kicked out, who knows.
Posted by: aym | 08 March 2008 at 10:58 AM
aym:
I guess we're stucked with more and more GHG from tar sands operation unless somebody pressures the operators to switch to cleaner extraction methods such as in situ etc.
Nobody sees that happening soon or until such times as Alberta produces most of the GHG in Canada or when North Americans have switched to PHEVs and BEVs etc.
With production progressively going from 2 to 5 million barrels a day, to satisfy south of the border exports, GHG will not go down much soon.
Will Albertans wake up sooner or latter? I doubt it. Jobs, high wages, low taxes, cheap fuel, 3-Ton gas guzzlers every where are all too tempting.
Posted by: Harvey D | 08 March 2008 at 12:02 PM
I fear that Canada's situation won't change significantly anytime soon. We are generating massive wealth from our oil reserves and this will only continue as the price of oil rises. The conservatives have good popular support because of the prosperity they seem to be fostering. Unfortunately that's how politics works. People are swayed by immediate concerns, not the long term consequences of policies or actions. The federal Liberals have mucked up any opportunities for significant opposition to these policies.
But to take a different perspective, I wish good luck to any government that would stand in the way of selling all the oil it could to the US. To do so might insight a few missiles sent our way or puppet dictatorships established. We would be cast as the newest supplier of Muslim terrorism that must be controlled and extinguished. So in a way, yes, we are stuck doing this.
On the positive side, however, the BC provincial government has taken a completely different attitude than Alberta or the Feds and has declared that it intends to significantly tackle GHG emmissions. They have brought out unreasonable targets of like a 30% reduction by the year 20something, without really considering the implications or feasibility of this, but I think it's a good starting attitude to take. And if anyone is going to be able to do it it will be BC because of the high density of Vancouver.
Posted by: MarkMC | 08 March 2008 at 12:15 PM
I read elsewhere that Ontario is planning to invest heavily in expanding nuclear electricity generation to meet growing demand and to shut down coal powered generation in the province. This is not a short term project but, when implemented, will help Canadian CO2 emissions.
Posted by: Bill Young | 08 March 2008 at 01:34 PM
Bill Young:
Alternatively, Ontario could buy some of the surplus Hydro & Wind Power from Québec, at least until such time as new nuclear plants are in operation (another 10 years or so), Many coal power plants could be shut down much earlier.
Hope that the prevailing wind in Alberta will be north to south for the next decades. Too bad that the Arthabascan river flow cannot be reversed to go south too to take some of that pollution where is belong.
Posted by: Harvey D | 08 March 2008 at 02:33 PM
Recommend a book called "Stupid to the last Drop".
Interesting look into Alberta oil politics ie from early plans to detonate a small nuke to get the oil to how much is really going to Albertan & Canadian citizens' pockets, to the derailment of Ontario's change to NG electricity from coal because NG is being used for tar sands extraction.
Haven't checked to background source material for accuracy though but still an interesting read. It did tie into some other documentary material that I already knew so I think it's fairly correct though, more's the pity.
Posted by: aym | 08 March 2008 at 06:40 PM
"The primary factors contributing to the decrease, according to the EPA, were: (1) compared to 2005, 2006 had warmer winter conditions, which decreased consumption of heating fuels, as well as cooler summer conditions, which reduced demand for electricity; (2) restraint on fuel consumption caused by rising fuel prices, primarily in the transportation sector, and; (3) increased use of natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector."
I would have added (4) a tanking ecomnomy.
This article said "Overall, emissions have grown by 14.1% from 1990 to 2006 while the US economy has grown by 59% over the same period" but it taking about emissions decreasing in 2005-2006.
Posted by: ai_vin | 08 March 2008 at 09:31 PM
Part of the reason GHG emissions have more or less stabilized since 2000 is that the US manufacturing industry has shrunk while services have expanded. Efficiency gains in what remains of the manufacturing sector in the US are probably overcompensated by antiquated technology in the third world that is now producing many of the goods Americans are buying.
Policymakers are tempted to think in national terms, but CO2 is a global pollution issue. If production moves overseas, there may be no net gain. Ideally, you'd tally up domestic GHG production and then add the difference in GHGs emitted by the production and transport of imported vs. exported goods. Unfortunately, it is devilishly hard to track down just how much GHG is emitted in the overseas production of a given product.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 09 March 2008 at 01:15 AM
Rafael:
You rbing out a very interesting point. How much pollution is being transferred from North American and European industrial countries to China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe and other deveolping countries.
If we add up all the pollution created to produce the manufactured goods we import, our GHG situation would be much worse.
If manufactured goods (and tar sand oil producers) exporting nations would substract the pollution created by all the goods they export, their situation would look much better too.
Eventually, we will have to factor imports & exports into the calculations. It will not be an easy task but it is possible.
Posted by: Harvey D | 09 March 2008 at 08:22 AM
This report should, but will not satisfy, the hysterics that the world will not drown, or melt, or peak to some dreadful pass. Thsi report provides good news in spoite of the blind errors it contains. It does not include the effects of "natural reforestation" that is occuring in America. Only officiallly replanted trees count; such as the tax dodge that certain people undertake "to plant a tree". American forests are 40% larger than in the 1960s, yet no environmental accountant includes that effect.
Even without the fossil fuel substitution that has started and is is about to dawn on a large scale, all other GHG gases have stabilized, or are declining outright. Even CO2, the much over-hyped fear, is coming into control. And that is BEFORE the full force of fossil fuel Substitution is even felt.
We here all know that the Electrification of Ground
Transport is about to occur, and will proceed with gathering force, over the next decade. Even if it were not, ICE thermal efficiency will improve, via the OTTO and HCCI cycles, and with it the consumption of fossil liquids will stabilizeand then massively decline. With substitution, it will begin to fall dramatically in the next decade.
Secondly we know that the replacement of a significant portion of the US fossil fueled electrical generation with better, more modern, and more thermally effficent, electrical generation is also at hand.
The Utilities have by and large gone as far as they can in extending the life of thier overaged and obsolecesent coal plants. The blocking forces have about played out. Demagogues cannot prevent investment in plant any longer, with reserve margins so tight. New technologies and nmore importantly new laws, eliminate the economic uncertainty of capital investment. The power of mobilized marching ignorant mobs has been played out, as wellas the stalling tactics of legal delay.
The Utilities, having to finally replace their superannuated coal plants with newer designs, will buy (and are!) new GENIII+ fission Nukes; and newer coal facilities based on IGCC or fluid bed systems.
All of which are substantially cleaner of real toxic pollutants, and much more thermally efficient (and therefor produce less harmless effluent like CO2), for a given amount of electricity output. These technologies will contribute and will carry the main load, whiel decreasinfgg pollutants ansd CO2.
For the ignorant scientific illiterates but true-believers, some hand-waving gestures will be made, in the direction of un-economic and genuinely polluting "renewables". But it will not add up to much more than 1% of the coming rebuilding of the NA electrical base.
Even if anyone in the scientific community really believed any longer that CO2 were anything but benign. Or more than a hypothetical threat, of the ignorant qualitative Science of the 1960s, they can now rest assured that even without the awesome improvements, due to Substtitution and replacement with non-GHGs Fission and effienct coal, to our technological base, GHGs are not going to be a genuine problem. And Fusion looms ever nearer.
GHGs have been scientifically proven to be a qualitative chimera of the 1960s Science, that quantitative Science of the 21st century has demonstrated to be the case. Even were they not, the adoption of these technologies removes many of the clamitous concerns of GHGs. The environmental fundraising scaremongers or the politicians seeking cover for even more funds to collect, administer, and augment their power, will have to look elsewhere for reasons to collect more tribute, soon.
The real story here is that mere efficiency improvements alone, without the really big gains in the offing, seem to be reining in the needlessly feared GHGs.
Posted by: stan pietrewicz | 09 March 2008 at 12:18 PM
"GHGs have been scientifically proven to be a qualitative chimera of the 1960s Science"
With that statement you have discredited yourself. Science cannot prove anything; all it can do is disprove null hypotheses to varying degrees of probability. That is the fundamental methodology behind the scientific method, and why it is so effective at discovering new relationships and refining earlier discoveries. There is no such thing as any science "proving" the absence of a link between GW and GHG's, nor could there ever be.
Posted by: | 09 March 2008 at 03:12 PM
sorry, that was me. I really need to enable cookies
Posted by: MarkBC | 09 March 2008 at 03:13 PM
Stan's usual rant & roll about his own pet thoeries of how the world works and should work. It's probably a typical cut and paste job of the same words over and over.
Those that disagree are branded illiterates, ignorant & other things. Only his ideas are true. The usual bs.
Mature temperate forests have limited effects on CO2. The US forest cover is decreasing since the 60's. I see a push to include the CO2 taken out by forests but none for putting it in for example from forest fires like the huge acerage losses in the US SW. Double standards and double talk as usual. More ideology based reasoning if it can be called reasoning.
Posted by: aym | 09 March 2008 at 05:52 PM
"peak to some dreadful pass"
"is about to dawn on a large scale"
"The power of mobilized marching ignorant mobs"
"qualitative chimera of the 1960s Science"
"will proceed with gathering force"
"clamitous concerns"
"environmental fundraising scaremongers"
Stan, you're hilarious. Wonderful stuff. I wouldn't even produce that kind of proza after 20-something pints.
Posted by: Anne | 10 March 2008 at 10:10 AM
Stan,
when did you change your last name?
Posted by: Mirko | 11 March 2008 at 06:37 AM
The real guts of this report are the same as always: externalities like weather and the economy will swamp policy initiatives every time (at least so far). I work with state level data every day and the big deltas come from anything but policy and efficiency. Right now I couldn't point to a single program that is doing any better than slowing the BAU growth trend. But hey, progress is progress!
Posted by: pete b | 12 March 2008 at 01:06 PM