How is the US doing on its CO2 emission reduction goals

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jderimig

Well-Known Member
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
5,989
Reaction score
4,097
Hat tip: Roger Pielke

Three reports were issued a few days ago that are pertinent to this question.
  • U.S. Energy Information Agency Short-Term Energy Outlook (US EIA)
  • Preliminary US Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates for 2022 (Rhodium Group)
  • U.S. Power Generation: 2022 Review (Enersection)
The analysis that follows relies on the data and projections found in these reports. First, the figure below shows where the U.S. stood at the end of 2022 with respect to achieving its 2025 and 2030 emissions reductions commitments under the Paris Agreement.
1673631363576.png
The figure also shows that the U.S. will need to achieve an annual rate of reduction in emissions of about 4.8% +/- to hit its 2025 target and about 6.5%/year to hit its 2030 target.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency (of which I am a huge fan) is the federal agency with responsibility for projecting energy outlooks in the short and long terms. The Figure below summarizes the EIA’s latest projections for carbon dioxide emissions, which we can compare to the annual rates of emissions reductions necessary to hit the policy targets.

1673631441920.png
The black bars indicate the annual emissions increases and decreases observed and projected to 2024. In no year will the rates of reduction come close to the rates necessary to achieve the targets.

The figure above, which is based on data released just yesterday — well after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — indicates that after a projected modest reductions in emissions in 2023, emissions reductions are expected to come almost to a halt in 2024.

Overall, , carbon dioxide emissions from energy are projected to have decreased by just 1.8% from 2021, which was the rebound year following the pandemic, thus offering a generous baseline.

The bottom line here is that the U.S. seems all but certain to miss its 2025 emissions reduction target and with each passing day, achievement of its 2030 target gets further and further out of reach.

As I have often noted here, discussions of climate are frequently detached from empirical reality. So I suppose some might be able to continue to pretend that U.S. emission reduction targets might still be met. The good news that accompanies short-term targets is that we will not have to wait long to find out.
 
Link to Pielke's analysis?
Thoughts:
1. Pielke is an advocate of mitigating the effects of climate change, not reducing climate change itself. Seems like that would be akin to a practitioner treating the symptoms of a medical condition, not the condition itself. We should probably do both.
2. A goal is a goal. I have the goal of building a perfect rocket. Haven't achieved it yet, and probably never will. Doesn't mean it's not worth aspiring to. Better to set a high bar and fail than to set a low bar and achieve it.
 
We are doing TERRIBLE, we have 1.2 billion cars on the road at any given moment around the world and in America we have more cars than ever, so everyone of them is belching out heated toxic pollutants, nothing more to say.
 
Last edited:
My impression is that some people are putting in effort to reduce their carbon footprint and others not so much. Is collective effort increasing? How quickly? Can it be measured effectively? :questions:

My plants love Co2, they can't get enough. How much is too much?
When CO2 levels and global average temperature are rising faster than ever in human history, and costs for repairing weather-damaged infrastructure is also rising faster than ever, and none of this is reversible, people start thinking it might be time to ease off the accelerator and maybe ease in the brakes.

No one is worried for plants. Bugs will be happy. What's worrying is the possibility of overwhelming damage to human infrastructure. I'm not one to annoy people with global warming, but I can pull out data if anyone's interested, straight from the sources if needed.
 
Last edited:
Link to Pielke's analysis?
Thoughts:
1. Pielke is an advocate of mitigating the effects of climate change, not reducing climate change itself. Seems like that would be akin to a practitioner treating the symptoms of a medical condition, not the condition itself. We should probably do both.
2. A goal is a goal. I have the goal of building a perfect rocket. Haven't achieved it yet, and probably never will. Doesn't mean it's not worth aspiring to. Better to set a high bar and fail than to set a low bar and achieve it
From Pielke: Before proceeding, let me emphasize that climate change resulting from the burning of fossil fuels poses significant risks to our collective futures,"

Yes he feels we also need to focus policy on mitigation and adaptation as well, because it is obvious that reducing CO2 emissions unlikely to happen to any significant degree, and even if it unlikely were to happen, climate change is going to happen regardless.
 
Yes, CO2 is the gas of life. The more the better.
While your correct that increasing atmospheric CO2 can benefit plant growth it’s not as simple as your making out.
Lack of Nitrogen will limit plant growth, so in order for food crops to benefit from increasing atmospheric CO2 you will have to fertilise those crops more.
Also, food crops become less nutritious when grown at elevated CO2 levels loosing significant amounts of iron and zinc, grains loose proteins. This effect is significant enough that at the predicted atmospheric CO2 levels mid century there will be an effect on human health.
Even the 1-2degrees increase in average temperatures will have an effect on food crops affecting their reproduction, soil moisture deficit and heat directly damaging the plants.
 
Last edited:

More data that includes 2019 to present:
1673831074277.png
Source: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/drought/202213
Excerpt:
"The year ended (based on the USDM map for January 3, 2023) with a little less than half of the CONUS in drought (46.3% of the CONUS and 38.7% of the U.S. including Puerto Rico). The October 25 maximum was the largest CONUS drought footprint since the drought of 2012. If abnormal dryness and drought are considered, the CONUS experienced the largest extent of abnormal dryness and drought (85.3%) on November 1, which is a record in the 23-year USDM history. The previous record was 80.8% on July 17, 2012. Forty percent or more of the CONUS has been in drought for the last 119 weeks. This is also a record in the USDM history. The previous record was 68 consecutive weeks (June 2012-October 2013)."

More on the increase in droughts worldwide:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1118142
 
Last edited:
Figure 2. Wildfire Extent in the United States, 1983–2021
1673833209232.png
This figure shows annual wildfire-burned area (in millions of acres) from 1983 to 2021. The two lines represent two different reporting systems though the Forest Service stopped collecting statistics (orange line) in 1997 and is not planning to update them, those statistics are shown here for comparison.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires
 
As any procrastinator knows, this is what happens when you wait too long and then have to half-ass it at the last minute to try to sneak in under the deadline. Sometimes you pull it off, and sometimes it’s an ugly failure.

We’ve known what is happening for more than thirty years, everything is proceeding exactly as predicted, we haven’t done enough to prevent it, and now the deadline is here. Will we pull it off, or will it be an ugly failure. Looks like a fail to me, but who knows?
 
Question: Does airplane travel and pollution at altitude play a major role in the overall story of climate change? If all commercial airline travel came to a complete and permanent stop, would it make a noticeable difference in the story?
 
Question: Does airplane travel and pollution at altitude play a major role in the overall story of climate change? If all commercial airline travel came to a complete and permanent stop, would it make a noticeable difference in the story?

short answer, yes. apparently the contrails (ice crystals around the particulates) trap a lot of heat. several recent news articles on the topic if you are really interested.
 
The only way you are going to make a difference is if the whole world participates. When the only a few do it, the effect is like only one guy in a crowded pool following the no pee in the pool rule.

Airline travel and our transportation / logistics system is a huge cause of CO2 production.
 
LLNL finally got positive fusion output….yay! There are plenty of other examples albeit still at low technology readiness level.

I argue we should augment world-wide emission agreements with pledges to develop alternatives. That also means replacing dirtier fossil fuels with cleaner ones such as methane as an intermediate solution. Maybe this is already being done. I don’t know..

Lastly I am not arguing to be wasteful either. Be efficient where possible, scrub green house gases etc, and when alternatives come out, try them!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top