Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US

May 27, 2009
Greenpeace activists burn a symbol of carbon dioxide in 2008. Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.

Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) said global energy demand would leap 44 percent between 2006 and 2030, fueled by a 73-percent rise in demand from non-developed countries.

The giants of the developing world, China and India, will fuel much of the growth as their economies continue to expand, EIA said in a report.

It projects emissions -- a major cause of global warming -- to reach 40.4 billion metric tonnes by 2030, up from 29 billion in 2006.

Despite elevated oil prices, the use of liquid energy sources -- including petrol -- is expected to rise to 107 million barrels a day, up from 85 million in 2006.

The projections presume no legislative changes to cap emission levels or other initiatives to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

In the United States, one of the world's leading carbon dioxide producers, lawmakers recently approved a plan to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 percent before 2050.

"In the absence of national policies and/or binding international agreements that would limit or reduce , world coal consumption is projected to increase... (at) an average annual rate of 1.7 percent," the report said.

(c) 2009 AFP

Explore further: India court slams Delhi's worsening air pollution

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

CO2 emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report

Sep 24, 2008

Despite widespread concern about climate change, annual carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and manufacturing cement have grown 38 percent since 1992, from 6.1 billion tons of carbon to 8.5 billion tons in ...

Reining in carbon dioxide levels imperative but possible

Mar 08, 2006

Implementing a plan to keep rising carbon dioxide levels from reaching potentially dangerous levels could cost less than 1 percent of gross world product as of 2050, a cost that is well within reach of developed and developing ...

Recommended for you

Education is key to climate adaptation

3 hours ago

Given that some climate change is already unavoidable—as just confirmed by the new IPCC report—investing in empowerment through universal education should be an essential element in climate change adaptation ...

India court slams Delhi's worsening air pollution

12 hours ago

India's environment court has slammed the government over the capital's horrendous air pollution, which it said was "getting worse" every day, and ordered a string of measures to bring it down.

US proposes stricter ozone limits

23 hours ago

The US Environmental Protection Agency announced plans Wednesday to strengthen emission regulations for ozone, a smog-causing pollutant blamed for respiratory ailments affecting millions of Americans.

User comments : 11

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GrayMouser
5 / 5 (2) May 28, 2009
It projects carbon dioxide emissions -- a major cause of global warming

Wrong, H2O is a greater GHG than CO2 and even the greenhouse effect (as applied to the real world) is still only a hypothesis.
Arkaleus
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2009
This article fails to mention that human activity only generates 8% or so of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. Some put this figure even lower. Natural events and processes are the majority drivers in all climate cycles. None of the hysterical AGW propaganda I've read so far gives you this very important statistical context.

More and more of us are realizing what climate change fairy tales are for: A push towards forms of social control and taxation that have been politically unacceptable in the West for centuries.

Those behind the AGW blitz embody a deeply anti-human ideology where a new priest class of eco-clergy merge with global governmental systems to dominate and suppress all independent human activity.

The threat isn't coming from the weather, it's from this new generation of political contenders pushing the same old game of manufactured crisis to usurp power and wealth from free societies. They want to ride AGW into power, and use major media to beguile the masses into accepting false choices to solve a manufactured emergency.

Why else would so many charlatans latch onto an immature and incomplete theory and drive it so hard, unless they thought it was a grand opportunity for wealth and political power?

It's only a matter of time before the masses gain an understanding of the insanity of extreme greens: An ecological "final solution" for the rest of us (never including themselves), a plan requiring the genocidal deconstruction of the human species and our civilizations, and the manipulation of media to create the illusion of permanent crisis, and then to use this illusion as the foundation of total rule.

It's time to rethink which group really presents the most immediate threat to our freedom and stability.
Nartoon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2009
The really important thing to remember is not CO2, but H2O (as in water vapor). NOT as a GHG, but as a source of clouds, which reflect sunlight and cool the earth. Water vapor has been increasing with the earth warming, then more H2O is evaporated and the clouds reduce heating by reflecting sunlight away from the earth thereby causing global cooling and keeping the earths temperature within a relatively narrow band. This pattern repeats itself about every 30 years -- 30 years of warming followed by 30 years of cooling. Of course there are other factors involved, but CO2 is an infinitesimal part of GW.
SteveS
2 / 5 (1) May 28, 2009
Graymouser

With all due respect, the greenhouse effect is real.

Consider the moon, it receives the same amount of energy from the sun per sq/m as the earth but its surface temperature cycles between -170C to 120C at the equator each lunar day. Without an atmosphere the same would occur on earth.

The fact is that the atmosphere mediates the surface temperature. The greenhouse effect.

Regarding arguments on whether human activities affect this process, I'll leave it upto the usual suspects to comment on that.

Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2009
Greenpeace activists burn a symbol of carbon dioxide in 2008


The above quote shows the logic of the green movement.
Arkaleus
not rated yet Jun 03, 2009
SteveS:

Of course the greenhouse effect is real, without it we would freeze to death this far from the sun.

No one here is confused about the chemistry or the climate, we are all aware of the physics of weather. We protest the political and social ideologies that are riding with the issue.

We don't have any reason to panic about climate change, and we don't have any proven means to predict the climate. All we have are wild speculations and hysterical prophecies based on bogus computer modeling. If we tested these models we'd find that they couldn't even tell you the weather next month, let alone what it will do 30 or 40 years down the line. Don't mix politics with science, and don't be fooled by Marxists posing as green evengelists.

It's sad to see politics and ideology hijack the science of ecology, and for unscrupulous opportunists to corrupt the process in order to push into the power game.
SteveS
not rated yet Jun 03, 2009
Arkaleus

My post was in response to Graymouser's first post where the greenhouse effect was described as "still only a hypothesis"

May I ask to whom you are referring when you say "we" in your reply? Do you speak for all people who post on this site?


GrayMouser
not rated yet Jun 04, 2009
Arkaleus

My post was in response to Graymouser's first post where the greenhouse effect was described as "still only a hypothesis"



May I ask to whom you are referring when you say "we" in your reply? Do you speak for all people who post on this site?

The green house effect IS still only a theory. It has not been proven in anything but the laboratory in very simple experiments. The real-world is more complex (much like the difference between physics and engineering) and all of the factors involved in climate have not been identified. Even the originator of the theory changed his mind over the constants involved from the constants used by the IPCC and Hansen. If it were a proven fact the constants (and other issues) would not be in dispute.
SteveS
not rated yet Jun 05, 2009
The greenhouse effect is real, it's the exact mechanism causing it is still not fully explained. In much the same way as gravity is real but not yet fully explained.

When you mentioned the originator of the theory describing the cause of the greenhouse effect, to whom were you referring?
Velanarris
not rated yet Jun 05, 2009
I think he was referring to the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.
SteveS
not rated yet Jun 05, 2009
I think you may be right.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.