2006 sees lower emissions.

[theclimateblog]

According to preliminary data from the Energy Department, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were down 1.3 percent in 2006, following an all-time high in 2005.

The good news: Less carbon dioxide emissions is always good news. The cock-eyed optimist in me would like to think that popular outreach media like An Inconvenient Truth, Field

Comments

[mojave_wolf]

The Bush administration is hailing the 1.3% decline in 2006 as being proof that voluntary efforts to lower emissions are effective without legislation, so why change our energy policy?

They don't research/think much, do they? Or they do, but just don't care, because they figure if they get the short-term profits in for themselves and their buddies, someone else can magically fix this after it's already too late for the long term? Or they simply don't care about the long term?

The really bad news: Emissions are still increasing in India and China faster than they're dropping here . . .

[theclimateblog]

The last point is definitely true. And I also wouldn't put my money on next year's emissions being any lower. 1.3% isn't quite enough to convince me that it's going to be a long-term trend!

But yes, the lack of critical thinking that goes into these sound bits is a bit alarming! They're really all about the immediacy.

[mlima]

Doesn't that "voluntary effort" stupidity even contradict their own opinion that it was probably related to high fuel prices? That's more what I would call "involuntary conservation." We're totally screwed.

[theclimateblog]

It might not have come across this way clearly enough, but basically the Bush Administration was running with what the DoE was saying, even though the DoE was saying that's not really how it is.

[mlima]

sigh :)