Energy Researchers Project US CO2 Output To Grow Faster In Next 50 Years Than In Past Half-Century

[hatrack]

New York, Nov 16 - Even as it leads the clamour on global warming, the US will find its greenhouse gas emissions growing faster in the coming half century. In fact, a new study by MIT's Richard Eckaus and co-author Ian Sue Wing says the rate of US emissions would grow faster than in the past 50 years, despite technological advances and energy-saving efforts, Sciencedaily.com reported.

Eckaus, an emeritus professor of economics at MIT, feels new technology may not be of much help on this front -- and suggests that energy just needs to be priced higher. 'There is no a priori reason to think technology has the potential for reducing energy use while meeting the tests of economics. It's politically unappetising in the US. Make energy more expensive: People will use less of it,' Eckaus says.

The study, published in the November issue of Energy Policy, portrays the changing interplay among technology, energy use and carbon dioxide emissions, based on a simulation of the US economy. The researchers found that despite increasing energy prices, technological change has not been responsible for much reduction in energy use, and that it may have had the reverse effect. The duo studied the periods 1958 to 1996 and 1980 to 1996 and projected from 2000 to 2050.

Based on their findings from the past 50 years, they found that the rates of growth for energy use and emissions may accelerate from the historical rates of 2.2 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively. 'The rates of growth could be higher by a half percent or more, which becomes significant when compounded over 50 years,' Eckaus says.

EDIT

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/143093.html

[amandabeech]

1. I would like to see a lot more detail.

I wonder if the study assumes that there will be plenty of oil and coal in the projected period.

I think that is unlikely, particularly with oil.

You can't burn what just isn't there.

[The2ndWheel]

2. Because of, not despite

"despite technological advances and energy-saving efforts"

Do we use more or less oil than we did in 1907? 1919? 1893? 1970? Do we catch more fish than we used to? Do we drive more than we used to? Does China?

Why do we advance technology and try to save energy? So that we don't use all the energy? No. We do it so that we can use more energy for more stuff. We do it so that more people can use more energy. We do it so that the poor can have the same luxury as the rich.

Why would we harness wind power? Why would we harness solar power? To use less? No, we would do it so that we can use more of it.

If we didn't use more energy at every turn, we wouldn't have all this stuff. Overt slavery would make a comeback. We wouldn't have as many people. We wouldn't have technological innovations that were required because we had more and more people to satisfy because of the "free" energy we found. We wouldn't have as many rights.

We do not, DO NOT, advance technology and try to save energy so that we can use less. We don't do that. That's not what we do. And every time we do do what we do(Rumsfeldian), we increase our impact on the environment, forcing us to advance technologically to try to save energy, which increases our impact, and on, and on, and on.

[NickB79]

4. You just described Jovan's Paradox

The more energy you save initially, the more you expand your overall usage, ultimately using even more energy than before.

It's a scary realization, isn't it?

[The2ndWheel]

6. It doesn't help

with the sanity and all.

Humans(life in general, that's why a concept like diversity exists) are inefficient. We just are. Our minds wander. We use up the energy in our own bodies doing this and that, instead of, or in relation to, that and this. We can't escape it. We keep trying, but we keep wasting more energy. Even if we could harness enough wind or solar power, what would happen? Some will go towards building this, that, more of them, a little of those, a couple over there, we'll move something here, that will go there, this will have to go period, but we'll use that for this, and all the while more energy will be wasted. Then we'll have to use more energy to try and capture the energy that has been wasted, but using more energy to capture that wasted energy will end up wasting energy.

We have to constantly use more energy because the more energy we use, the more energy we waste. Then we're shocked when we're all crazy. If we can just harness the power of the sun. No. There is X amount of energy from the sun everyday. None of it goes to waste since there is no waste in nature. The more we take for ourselves, there less diversity there will be. We want to save the polar bears, but we can't afford to give them any extra energy. We want to save this species and that species, but we keep expanding where we live and where we travel. We're not getting both.

And no, I'm not trying to stand on a soapbox. I'm saying this as much for me as anyone. I'm not perfect. It's a good example of inefficiency.

[kestrel91316]

3. Don't point the finger at me. I'm on the verge of jumping on board

with the Riot for Austerity folks and their 90% REDUCTION campaign.

[NNadir]

5. We would never point a finger at you.

You're clearly totally innocent. I mean you say all the cool things, all the time and you always think pure and good thoughts.

You're always on the verge, I think. You're one of the mostest vergelicous commentators here.

Listen, anytime you want to live like the average Chadean, you can do it. Just disconnect the electricity. There's no one stopping you. Hell, you could even live like an average Chinese and come in at less than 2000 watts for all purposes, including pumping the water to flush your toilet - if you have a toilet - provide all of your medical care, all of your transportation needs and all of your food.

Really. Nobody's stopping you. No one. I'm sure that you're huge solar installation - and you know I can't remember you telling us all about it - could power 100 Chadean lifestyles.