NoaIzumiPaul (Coulter) Driessen
June 4th 2009 01:01
Eco-unfriendly columnist Paul Driessen is back, with an old argument against reducing CO2 emissions: it will cause us to enter a time warp.
Obama's energy, climate plans would drag U.S. back to 1905 – or 1862
Mr. Driessen has used this argument before. Apparently no one told him how little sense it makes. In 1905, the United States was almost entirely dependent on coal, the fuel with the highest CO2-to-energy-output. In 2009, we rely more on oil and natural gas, which release less CO2, and on nuclear and hydro-electric power, which release no CO2 (and which Driessen has apparently never heard of).
Energy Policy in the United States
CO2 from Various Fossil Fuels
Time to crunch some (very rough) numbers:
Nuclear and renewable energy account for 15% of energy used in the US today. Natural gas and oil account for over 60%. In 1905, we used about 1/6 of the energy we use today, but were almost completely dependent on coal.
1905: 17 quadrillion BTUs, almost all from coal. (amount of CO2 emitted varies, but I figured an average of 215 lb. CO2 per million BTU).
17 quadrillion BTU X 215 pounds CO2/million BTU = 3655 billion pounds CO2 from the United States in 1905.
2005: 100 quadrillion BTUs, from the following sources:
15: nuclear and renewable: 15 X 0 = 0 pounds CO2
23: Coal: 23 X 215 = 4945 billion pounds
23: Natural Gas: 23 X 117 = 2691 billion pounds
39: Oil: 39 X 155 = 6045 billion pounds
Total: 13681 billion pounds CO2 per year from the United States, or about four times what we had in 1905.
Can we cut that down? Well, nuclear and renewable power are both growing, and the United States is one of the highest ranked nations in terms of energy use per capita. By 2020 (Waxman-Markey shoots for a 17% cut in CO2 emissions by this time), say that the US population grows by 25 million (Really Long Link) , and we cut energy use by 10% per person (by weatherizing homes, increasing CAFÉ standards, etc).
This gives us 97.5 quadrillion BTUs used by the United States in 2020. As for where the energy comes from, say nuclear and renewable sources will have increased to 20%, oil use would go down slightly as CAFÉ standards go up, and natural gas becomes more important as we discover new domestic sources:
20: Nuclear and renewable
35: Oil: 35 X 155 = 5425
25: Natural gas: 25 X 117 = 2925
17.5: Coal: 17.5 X 215 = 3762.5
Total: 12112.5 billion pounds CO2, for a 12% cut.
Doesn’t quite reach the mark (as currently written), but cut energy use by 12% per person instead of 10%, and increase natural gas, nuclear, or renewable by a little more (all doable), and you come mighty close.
2030:
90 quadrillion BTUs (population growth to 360 million by 2030, per capita energy use at 75%)
25: Nuclear and renewable
35: Oil: 35 X 155 = 5425
25: Natural gas: 25 X 117 = 2925
5: Coal: 5 X 215 = 1075
Total: 9425 pounds CO2, for a 31% cut in CO2 emissions from today (actually beating the Waxman-Markey goal). And my assumptions could very well too pessimistic. If renewable energy or natural gas grows faster than expected, we might be able to eliminate coal entirely, or if we can make cars more efficient than we suppose, we can cut down further on oil.
Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill
As for 2050, an 80% reduction seems like a lot (especially to folks like Paul Driessen), but we wouldn’t have to get rid of fossil fuels entirely. Energy use (especially in automobiles) will have to be more efficient, and coal is out, but there’s no reason from a carbon emissions standpoint that oil couldn’t still have a place. And we could burn as much natural gas as we do today.
What about these reductions in energy use? Can energy use be cut by that much, without damaging our standard of living? I’m glad you asked.
List of Countries by Energy Comsumption per Capita
Most industrialized countries use less energy per person than the US does. Almost all of those use less than 75% of what we do. Circumstances are different in every country, but if citizens of the UK, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Italy, and Switzerland all use about half the energy of what a citizen of the US does, how bad could it be for that citizen to cut his energy use by a fourth?
List of Countries by Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita
The UK, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Japan, and South Korea all produce less than half the CO2 per person that we do. Have they gone back to a primitive lifestyle? Has that even damaged their economies?
Go back a century to cut CO2 emissions? I don’t think so. Despite what Mr. Driessen and his followers want, the United States is moving forward.
Obama's energy, climate plans would drag U.S. back to 1905 – or 1862
Mr. Driessen has used this argument before. Apparently no one told him how little sense it makes. In 1905, the United States was almost entirely dependent on coal, the fuel with the highest CO2-to-energy-output. In 2009, we rely more on oil and natural gas, which release less CO2, and on nuclear and hydro-electric power, which release no CO2 (and which Driessen has apparently never heard of).
Energy Policy in the United States
CO2 from Various Fossil Fuels
Time to crunch some (very rough) numbers:
Nuclear and renewable energy account for 15% of energy used in the US today. Natural gas and oil account for over 60%. In 1905, we used about 1/6 of the energy we use today, but were almost completely dependent on coal.
1905: 17 quadrillion BTUs, almost all from coal. (amount of CO2 emitted varies, but I figured an average of 215 lb. CO2 per million BTU).
17 quadrillion BTU X 215 pounds CO2/million BTU = 3655 billion pounds CO2 from the United States in 1905.
2005: 100 quadrillion BTUs, from the following sources:
15: nuclear and renewable: 15 X 0 = 0 pounds CO2
23: Coal: 23 X 215 = 4945 billion pounds
23: Natural Gas: 23 X 117 = 2691 billion pounds
39: Oil: 39 X 155 = 6045 billion pounds
Total: 13681 billion pounds CO2 per year from the United States, or about four times what we had in 1905.
Can we cut that down? Well, nuclear and renewable power are both growing, and the United States is one of the highest ranked nations in terms of energy use per capita. By 2020 (Waxman-Markey shoots for a 17% cut in CO2 emissions by this time), say that the US population grows by 25 million (Really Long Link) , and we cut energy use by 10% per person (by weatherizing homes, increasing CAFÉ standards, etc).
This gives us 97.5 quadrillion BTUs used by the United States in 2020. As for where the energy comes from, say nuclear and renewable sources will have increased to 20%, oil use would go down slightly as CAFÉ standards go up, and natural gas becomes more important as we discover new domestic sources:
20: Nuclear and renewable
35: Oil: 35 X 155 = 5425
25: Natural gas: 25 X 117 = 2925
17.5: Coal: 17.5 X 215 = 3762.5
Total: 12112.5 billion pounds CO2, for a 12% cut.
Doesn’t quite reach the mark (as currently written), but cut energy use by 12% per person instead of 10%, and increase natural gas, nuclear, or renewable by a little more (all doable), and you come mighty close.
2030:
90 quadrillion BTUs (population growth to 360 million by 2030, per capita energy use at 75%)
25: Nuclear and renewable
35: Oil: 35 X 155 = 5425
25: Natural gas: 25 X 117 = 2925
5: Coal: 5 X 215 = 1075
Total: 9425 pounds CO2, for a 31% cut in CO2 emissions from today (actually beating the Waxman-Markey goal). And my assumptions could very well too pessimistic. If renewable energy or natural gas grows faster than expected, we might be able to eliminate coal entirely, or if we can make cars more efficient than we suppose, we can cut down further on oil.
Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill
As for 2050, an 80% reduction seems like a lot (especially to folks like Paul Driessen), but we wouldn’t have to get rid of fossil fuels entirely. Energy use (especially in automobiles) will have to be more efficient, and coal is out, but there’s no reason from a carbon emissions standpoint that oil couldn’t still have a place. And we could burn as much natural gas as we do today.
What about these reductions in energy use? Can energy use be cut by that much, without damaging our standard of living? I’m glad you asked.
List of Countries by Energy Comsumption per Capita
Most industrialized countries use less energy per person than the US does. Almost all of those use less than 75% of what we do. Circumstances are different in every country, but if citizens of the UK, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Italy, and Switzerland all use about half the energy of what a citizen of the US does, how bad could it be for that citizen to cut his energy use by a fourth?
List of Countries by Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita
The UK, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Japan, and South Korea all produce less than half the CO2 per person that we do. Have they gone back to a primitive lifestyle? Has that even damaged their economies?
Go back a century to cut CO2 emissions? I don’t think so. Despite what Mr. Driessen and his followers want, the United States is moving forward.
| 65 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
