Renewables & Energy Efficiency Responsible For 70% Of Carbon Emission Drop Since 2007

October 29th, 2014 by James Ayre

Renewable energy development and implemented energy efficiency measures are responsible for 70% of the the drop in US carbon dioxide emissions seen since 2007 (when a slow decline began), according to a new report from Greenpeace.

The findings stand in contrast to some of the arguments put out there by detractors of renewable energy — some of who have argued that the drop in carbon emissions was the result of the natural gas tracking boom. The numbers say otherwise, of course.

The numbers come from Greenpeace energy analyst Lauri Myllyvirta who published them recently on the Greenpeace Energydesk website.

Carbon emissions in the US fell by a total of 16% between the years of 2007 and 2013, which was accompanied a 21% drop in US coal consumption during that same period. Natural gas generation (via the fracking boom) rose significantly during this time as well, up 23%. The coincident there was very happily harped upon by proponents of the fracking boom, but as stated before, the drop had more to do with renewables and energy efficiency (at least according to the new report).

“The supposed climate benefits of fracking have been a big selling point for the shale lobby, but this myth has now been cut down to size by compelling new evidence,” explained Myllyvirta. “Our analysis shows that it was the clean tech boom, not the fracking rush, that slashed the bulk of carbon emissions from the US power sector.”

Climate Progress chimes in with more:

… burning natural gas also releases carbon dioxide, just in smaller amounts. So while it made up 44% of the hole in energy consumption coal left behind, it only accounted for 30% of the drop in carbon emissions. According to Myllyvirta’s analysis, growth in renewable generation — and wind in particular — contributed to 40% of the fall in emissions, and rising use of energy efficiency covered the other 30%.

Renewable energy consumption grew just over 48% from 2007 to 2008, making up 35% of the energy consumption coal left behind. Rising energy efficiency measures made up the remaining 21% in energy consumption.

The Energydesk study also did not account for any leakage that may occur from the natural gas industry’s infrastructure. That means natural gas is almost certainly doing considerably less good on the global warming front than even Greenpeace’s numbers suggest, as the methane that makes up natural gas is, pound-for-pound, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Multiple studies suggest the leakage is so bad it completely undoes any climate advantage to burring natural gas. And a new study published by Nature last Wednesday concluded that, absent a big regulatory crackdown on those leaks, burning more natural gas won’t work as a method to curb global warming.

The leakage issue is an important point that people need to stop ignoring. Assuming natural gas is only half as bad as coal gets us into all sorts of problems. There’s enough evidence now that natural gas production results in massive methane leakage that analyses such as this one by Greenpeace need to do a better job estimating the extra emissions that come from that. As Jeff Spross of Climate Progress notes, it’s actually unclear if natural gas offers any climate benefit at all.

Amongst the report’s other notes is a reference to a recent analysis from Alliance Bernstein that suggests that renewables could make up to 10% of the US power supply by 2020, or 20% if they keep to their current rate of increase. Of course, whether these figures are achieved or not depends greatly on the state of the economy and subsidies through those years. We’ll have to wait and see.

“Ahead of a crunch year for global negotiations on a new climate deal, all the evidence points to clean technologies and smarter energy use as the most effective solutions to tackle climate change,” Myllyvirta continued. “Our political leaders will do well to remember this.”

Image Credit: GreenPeace EnergyDesk

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: renewable energy carbon emissions, renewables, us carbon emissions

About the Author

James Ayre 's background is predominantly in geopolitics and history, but he has an obsessive interest in pretty much everything. After an early life spent in the Imperial Free City of Dortmund, James followed the river Ruhr to Cofbuokheim, where he attended the University of Astnide. And where he also briefly considered entering the coal mining business. He currently writes for a living, on a broad variety of subjects, ranging from science, to politics, to military history, to renewable energy. You can follow his work on Google+.

http://www.michaeljberndtson.com/ Michael Berndtson

It’s DOT data for all registered vehicles broken down by categories based on weight, wheel base, trucks and semis. This is old and new vehicles and a good indicator of actual efficiency.
Larry

Fossil fuels promoted by fossil fools
http://www.michaeljberndtson.com/ Michael Berndtson

What about the economic collapse of 2008?

Focusing on transportation, the total US vehicle fleet stayed about the same in numbers. The total miles driven actually dropped during this time period from a high of about 3 trillion miles. Vehicle efficiency (cars and trucks) stayed about 17.6 mpg. Less cars and trucks registered and less miles driven probably is a function of the economy. CAFE standards are pushing the entire fleet up a little bit, but not much, yet. Hopefully, by 2015 and beyond they really will start to impact the entire fleet. We need less Ford F250’s going to Wal-Mart for groceries.

http://michaeljberndtson.com/blog/2014/10/1/the-road-more-traveled-us-vehicle-miles-and-fuel-use

Efficiency is gaining and it’s spectacular, but there’s a lag. We really didn’t get anything going policy wise until 2010/2011.
- Douglas Card
  
  How does the collapse affect what is going on in 2013? The economy was bigger than 2007. A lot more miles driven. I don’t understand how you would look at this any other way than comparing 2013 to 2007. 2012 doesn’t matter any more than 2008 or any other year.
  - http://www.michaeljberndtson.com/ Michael Berndtson
    
    Look at the DOT data. We’ve flattened out on miles driven since the great recession in 2008.