America’s environmentalists place undue emphasis on the role of automobiles in greenhouse gas emissions. Their goal of trying to reduce emissions by getting people out of their cars is expensive, self-defeating, and probably unnecessary.
According to the EPA, cars and light trucks emit less than 17 percent of the human-caused greenhouse gases produced in America. Moreover, both the percentage and the absolute level of auto emissions are steadily declining.
Meanwhile, the United States produces only about one seventh of the human-caused greenhouse gases produced in the world–about 6 out of 42 gigatons–and that too is declining (though the worldwide total is increasing). While one seventh is a lot for a country that has only about 4 percent of the world’s population, emissions in other parts of the world are growing rapidly.
The 100mg of Sildenafil Citrate in Kamagra makes order cialis without prescription it popularly known as “wonder pill”, “pleasure pill” & “magic pill” because it’s a miracle for men’s facing erectile issues. Meanwhile, the Centre told the apex court that many new facts have emerged in the market in the 10 years since sildenafil citrate, it nonetheless retains a huge market share in the United buy generic cialis States and Europe. Maha Rasayan capsules and No Fall capsules are the two efficient herbal supplements which contain powerful energy generic cialis price enhancer herbs. This has occurred in a small number of people taking sildenafil viagra generico browse around address. In particular, emissions from China surpassed those of the United States about six or seven years ago and are still rapidly growing. A major source of emissions in China is from cement production, which generally produces more than a ton of carbon dioxide for every ton of cement produced.
As recently noted in the Washington Post, China produced more cement in three years than the United States used during the entire 20th century. The best estimate is that Chinese cement production generates about 1.2 gigatons of greenhouse gases per year. That’s more than the emissions from all American cars and light trucks.
American emissions from autos represent about 3 percent of worldwide emissions, and both the percentage and (as noted above) the absolute quantity of emissions is shrinking. Moreover, the quantity is likely to continue to shrink even if driving grows in the future, because federally mandated are improving auto efficiencies faster than driving is likely to increase.
In other words, American automobiles are a relatively minor and declining contributor to worldwide greenhouse gases. Trying to get people out of their cars is both expensive and will have a trivial effect on greenhouse gas emissions. It could also have a harmful effect if it hurts our economy and leads people to produce more emissions trying to recover. People who are truly concerned about reducing greenhouse gases should focus on sources that are more amenable and less costly to change.
All the more reason to make sure that any claims of reduced greenhouse gas production are done on the basis of cost per tonne of CO2 equivalent. Any claims of greenhouse gas reduction without a cost are meaningless.
Greenhouse gas production should be quantified on production per person, not per country. Pointing out China produces more greenhouse gases without per capita is also meaningless. For example, this logic would mean that a country like Belgium could claim that they produce almost no greenhouse gases per country. However per capita they produce similar amounts to other western countries.
The Antiplanner wrote:
In other words, American automobiles are a relatively minor and declining contributor to worldwide greenhouse gases. Trying to get people out of their cars is both expensive and will have a trivial effect on greenhouse gas emissions. It could also have a harmful effect if it hurts our economy and leads people to produce more emissions trying to recover. People who are truly concerned about reducing greenhouse gases should focus on sources that are more amenable and less costly to change.
None of the facts above will in any way deter the usual suspects, who want to “get Americans out of their cars” more than anything.
Paul wrote:
All the more reason to make sure that any claims of reduced greenhouse gas production are done on the basis of cost per tonne of CO2 equivalent. Any claims of greenhouse gas reduction without a cost are meaningless.
I agree.
I have long felt that displacing electric generation powered by fossil fuels (perhaps especially coal-fired plants) with zero-emission nuclear power is one way that carbon emissions could be greatly reduced in the U.S. without any social engineering schemes, though I confess to not having a good understanding of the costs associated with same. Curiously, groups that carry-on about global climate change are frequently very much opposed to nuclear power, in spite of its obvious potential for reducing carbon emissions.
Another relatively low-cost way to reduce carbon emissions is to eliminate most or all recurring traffic congestion by properly pricing transportation infrastructure, and using the revenue to expand that infrastructure were appropriate.
” Curiously, groups that carry-on about global climate change are frequently very much opposed to nuclear power, in spite of its obvious potential for reducing carbon emissions.”
I am not an energy expert but there are a lot of reasons I am cautious regarding nukes. 1. Fukushima and the nuclear catastrophes of the last century. 2. Seeing as our best American solution regarding nuclear waste in the last 20 years is to try and convince American Indians to store it on their reservations, the humanist in me cringes a little bit.
I’m all for reducing carbon emissions, but the ends don’t always justify the means, as pointed out by Mr. O’Toole today.
bennett wrote:
I am not an energy expert but there are a lot of reasons I am cautious regarding nukes. 1. Fukushima and the nuclear catastrophes of the last century. 2. Seeing as our best American solution regarding nuclear waste in the last 20 years is to try and convince American Indians to store it on their reservations, the humanist in me cringes a little bit.
We should not build any more nuclear generating stations that rely on pumps and human operators and the like to keep the reactor cores undamaged and safe. There are new reactor designs out there right now that allow the fuel (and water surrounding same) to run dry without anything happening. The density of the fuel in the cores is much lower, which means a meltdown cannot happen. One example of such a design is from this company (full disclosure: a relative of mine works for them).
I’m all for reducing carbon emissions, but the ends don’t always justify the means, as pointed out by Mr. O’Toole today.
I agree. But I still assert that the way we do electric power generation today (with high carbon emissions) and the way that we should be doing it in the future (with much less in the way of carbon emissions) is a way to significantly reduce U.S. carbon emissions (and emission of other damaging pollutants) without the ineffective social engineering schemes that some want.
As for storage of spent fuel and related wastes, the entire U.S. political system has broken-down on this subject. First, we should be reprocessing much that fuel, which would greatly reduce its volume. Second, I think there are ways to inter the stuff safely. The U.S. has an enormous land area, and I think it is possible to entomb it someplace without harming anyone or anything.
Of course there are a lot of good reasons to encourage people to get out of their cars besides cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But it would still be worthwhile fostering less auto-dependence even if cutting GHG was the only benefit. Even though cars and light trucks contribute “less than 17 percent” of US GHG emissions that’s still one of the largest single sources next to electricity generation and industry, according to the EPA report.
While it’s true that “the percentage and the absolute level of auto emissions are steadily declining” the EPA report chalks most of this up to the decline in VMT during and after the Great Recession. The last time gas was this cheap average fuel economy declined as people bought more SUVs and light trucks, so it will be interesting to see if the downward trend can really continue in the face of cheap gas and an improving economy.
A carbon tax would likely be the most effective way of cutting GHG emissions from both transportation sources and other things like concrete that the Antiplanner is so concerned about, and it would be pretty much painless for the economy as a whole.
Certainly Ohai has gotten out of his car and walks everywhere. Certainly the planners who used to troll here have become *so* concerned about GHGs that they have given up their cars and suburban lifestyles.
Certainly Ohai and the others who are concerned about AGW have not reproduced, because reproducing is probably the number one way to increase your carbon footprint; besides, who would want to bring a child into the world only to have to endure the apocalyptic nightmare that AGW will bring?
As previously mentioned, I was pressured to give up our second car. Now, I’ve been walking everywhere, which gets pretty old pretty fast. Sometimes I just want to drive the mile to the nicer grocery store in my neighborhood rather than walking another half hour after having walked four to six miles already.
But no.
Seattle and its not-in-front-of-my-house (NIFOMH) residents have succeeded in keeping me on foot for the vast majority of my day. And weekends? Fuhgetaboudit. Can’t even make it out of the neighborhood due to the serious dereliction of duty of city planners and officials when it comes to planning ahead for population growth and a decrepit and obsolete road “system”.
But rest assured hypocritical planners! There is one anti-planner who has sucombed to the pressure to live in density and walk everywhere, thereby having a smaller carbon footprint than they do.
Wow. I’m soooooooooo surprised that NPR would advocate for a carbon tax! /sarc
Try posting something from a conservative source here and watch the planners’ ridicule and disgust. But NPR? A-ok.
As mentioned previously, the carbon tax failed in Australia. Go figure the NPR article didn’t mention that or even attempt to present an opposing point of view.
Actually, I bike most places, including work. But my wife and I do own a single car which we seldom drive.
Human reproduction is not ipso facto a contributor to GHG emissions, as demonstrated by the wide disparity in per capita emissions between the USA and most other developed and developing nations. If the USA had the per capita emission rates of Europe we could effectively double our population and see no increase in emissions.
You should try biking. You could cut that half an hour to ten minutes or less. I’ve read that even the Antiplanner gets around on a bike.
In reality it was quite successful before it was repealed by the government of Tony Abbott.
“You should try biking. You could cut that half an hour to ten minutes or less. I’ve read that even the Antiplanner gets around on a bike.”
I would but it’s a problem of too.
Too many rainy days. Too many very steep hills. Roads are in too poor condition. Drivers are too crazy. Even without these, decent bikes are too expensive.
I think I’ll move to KC instead.
If you are serious about global warming, then you either have to be (1) a strong advocate of nuclear power or (2) an advocate for severe lifestyle disruption in wealthy countries, which has zero chance of happening, zero as in 0.00000.
Nuclear power has dangers, but they are manageable, and moreover they are far more speculative than global warming dangers if you are a believer. If you want to believe that wealthy democratic nations will agree to go back to 18th century energy consumption, then there is no point in talking to you.
This is a bit different but related via the reductions in congestions and hence exhaust it could bring. It looks like MN’s governor may be back on his meds again.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/03/31/dayton-calls-for-statewide-plan-to-synchronize-traffic-lights/
Dayton Calls For Statewide Plan To Synchronize Traffic Lights
Seattle and its not-in-front-of-my-house (NIFOMH) residents have succeeded in keeping me on foot for the vast majority of my day. And weekends? Fuhgetaboudit. Can’t even make it out of the neighborhood due to the serious dereliction of duty of city planners and officials when it comes to planning ahead for population growth and a decrepit and obsolete road “system”.
Rather than whining about your entitlement to free storage for your car, have you considered renting a private parking space?
http://seattle.craigslist.org/search/prk?query=parking
While it’s true that “the percentage and the absolute level of auto emissions are steadily declining” the EPA report chalks most of this up to the decline in VMT during and after the Great Recession.
Except the decline in VMT began before the Recession. And auto emissions have been declining for decades, even in the face of growth in travel volumes.
The last time gas was this cheap average fuel economy declined as people bought more SUVs and light trucks, so it will be interesting to see if the downward trend can really continue in the face of cheap gas and an improving economy.
It will. Fuel economy standards in place will ensure that decline the years to come. The most recent ones also apply to light trucks, so they are not exempt. Incidentally, this should have salutary effects on greenhouse gas emissions as well.
My optimism about a carbon tax as another way to control GHGs is tempered by the fact that its beneficial effects depend heavily on what is done with the revenues from the tax. Knowing how governments have responded previously when confronted with an immediate windfall (see state tobacco settlements. for example) the likelihood of this being handled well is certainly questionable.