While listening to the vague aspirational plans and thuds of repeated patting-of-oneself-on-the-back coming from the Bush administration at last week's Major Economies meeting, I had to fight my cynical streak that automatically wanted to write off all the positive-gain figures Bush's reps. were offering. They claimed that greenhouse-gas emissions intensity declined 6.14 percent between 2002 and 2005, while at the same time, our GDP grew by 9.5 percent, and that energy-related CO2 intensity declined 4.25 percent in 2006 alone. They put these forth as evidence that "We’re living proof that we can actually begin to address climate change, sustain economic growth, and do it in an environment where we are addressing energy security."
I assumed that while that was probably true, it came not as a result of anything the Bush administration had done, or that there was some other large part of the data missing. Good thing some smart folks sat down to analyze that data. Via David Roberts, a breakdown of the figures celebrated at last week's meeting, put out by representatives from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Climate Solutions, Greenpeace, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the U.S. Climate Action Network.
On the figures stated above, it turns out that greenhouse-gas emissions grew from 2002-2005 by 3.4 percent, and on this path, CO2 emissions in the U.S. will increase to 26 percent above 2002 levels by 2012, which is one and a half times faster than emissions rose during the 1990s. Oh, and the decline in greenhouse gas intensity was probably the result of mild weather. Which was probably the result of rising temperatures.
--Kate Sheppard
