First, the facts: A report released this week by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated that carbon dioxide emissions released from fossil fuels increased 1.6 percent from 5,888 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) in 2006 to 5,984 MMTCO2. This article reports the facts fairly dispassionately.
So we’re not making any progress? We’re actually going backwards? That’s a little frustrating, right? However, EIA is quick to add that the GDP also increased 2.2 percent in that time, the demand for energy increased 1.7 percent, so the energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP – George W. Bush’s favorite way to measure carbon emissions) actually decreased 0.5 percent.
So isn’t that good? Well, no, most environmentalists would say. The energy intensity matters little. The only thing that will help us get out of the perceived mess we’ve created is reducing total greenhouse gas emissions. And the only way to do that is efficiency.
EIA also points out that the 2007 increase may be attributable to strange weather patterns that resulted in increased heating and cooling demands for energy.
There may be some truth to that. However, and I’m no scientist, but doesn’t it seem like a rather circular argument here - as in, spun to make things sound not-so-bad? Besides, isn’t the increased heating and cooling loads caused by climate change what most experts identify as a THE major hurdle to combating climate change in the first place, and that it’s not long before we have a positive feedback loop (the tipping point, the point of no return, etc.)? Again, efficiency has to be the priority so that the total energy spend is better insulated from spikes due to weather phenomenon. Grist – an environmental Web site – posted a short, sort of funny rebuttal to the EIA’s spin.
So really, whether you think all the efforts to reduce carbon emissions are succeeding depends on who you believe. Who do you believe?