US CO2 Emissions Declining

This is a mostly unexpecteddevelopment and simply may not stand up in the short term.   I assume that a lot of the culpableindustries have simply gone elsewhere.

However, it also underlines the steadydrift away from hydro carbon fuels that is taking place and can now be expectedto accelerate hugely with the pending advent of electric cars and an efficientgrid combined with the Rossi Focardi Reactor to take over heat enginesgenerally.

I have never been terribly concernedabout CO2 emissions except to understand that we were busily conducting an unsupervisedexperiment that could easily bite us.

In the long term, and that isshaping up to mean within the next twenty years, CO2 emissions will generallycollapse.  We may reach the point were wedecide to deliberately burn hydrocarbons to sustain carbon levels, though thatis likely thousands of years out.

Don’t Look Now, But C02 Output Is Falling

 Posted 04/19/2011 06:41 PM ET

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/569632/201104191841/A-Green-World-Needs-Its-CO2.htm

Environment: Two years ago, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.fell to their lowest levels since 1995. The list of reasons carbon dioxideemissions should not be regulated continues to grow.

The Environmental Protection Agency's data show that emissions of whatare considered the six main greenhouses gases fell 6.1% in 2009 from their 2008levels.

Yes, levels increased by 7.3% from 1990 to 2009. But the average annualrate of increase since 1990 has been a mere 0.4%, a data point that doesn'tseem worthy of the high-intensity hysteria that's been spread by the alarmists.

In the same year greenhouse emissions fell, the EPA, which should be anacronym for Eternally Panicked and Alarmed, determined "that climatechange caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens the public's healthand the environment." Regarding politics to be more important thanscience, it has taken it upon itself to regulate carbon dioxide as a"pollutant."

"Climate change is happening now," the EPA has claimed,"and humans are contributing to it."

This is the same EPA, it was revealed in congressional testimony lastweek, that ignores the negative impact its regulations have on jobs, eventhough an executive order requires EPA rule makers to protect job creation. Andit's the same EPA that plans to regulate CO2 without congressional approval.

If the agency is so keen on regulating carbon dioxide, maybe it shouldturn its attention to China,which has surpassed the U.S.in CO2 emissions. While U.S.greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.3% from 1990 to 2009, China's carbondioxide emissions have soared roughly 175% since 1999. If CO2 emissions must becut, then Chinais where the cutting has to start.

If not, it doesn't matter what the U.S. does. For every part permillion of carbon dioxide that Americans cut, China, and its ever-burgeoningpopulation and growing economy, will be pumping out even more.

Fortunately, there's no reason for any nation to cut its carbon dioxideemissions. CO2 is not a pollutant in the usual sense. It is, in the words ofJohn R. Christy, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alabama,"a plant food."

"The green world we see around us would disappear if not foratmospheric CO2," Christy says.

"These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2concentration was many times what it is today," he adds. "Indeed,numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by thehuman-induced rise of CO2."

It is because of its presence in everything from breathing to drivingto manufacturing to reading at home under the lights that CO2 makes a strongleverage point for those who want bureaucratic control over the rest of us,says Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric science at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.

And if CO2 continues to fall, or remains nearly flat, what will thealarmists do? Will environmentalists find a new bogeyman? They will. But theybetter hurry. The time they have left to demonize CO2 is running short.