Does avoiding climate catastrophe require global economic collapse?
March 7th, 2010 by Jim JustThe U.S. posted its biggest-ever decline in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in 2009, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). But the reductions are not expected to continue:
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels fell by an estimated 6.3 percent in 2009. Emissions from coal led the drop in 2009 CO2 emissions, falling by nearly 11 percent. Declines in energy consumption in the industrial sector (a result of the weak economy) and changes in electricity generation sources are the primary reasons for the decline in CO2 emissions (U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Growth Chart). Looking forward, projected improvements in the economy contribute to an expected 1.5-percent increase in CO2 emissions in 2010. Increased use of coal in the electric-power sector, and continued economic growth, combined with the expansion of travel-related petroleum consumption, lead to a 1.3-percent increase in CO2 emissions in 2011. However, even with increases in 2010 and 2011, projected CO2 emissions in 2011 are lower than annual emissions from 1999 through 2008.
The drop in emissions in 2009 was the biggest since data collection began in 1949. The Great Recession was primarily responsible, as U.S. real gross domestic product dropped 2.4% in 2009, in the biggest decline since 1946. Emissions dropped 5.8% in 2008.
It’s hard enough to imagine the U.S. and other developed nations voluntarily sacrificing economic growth, much less embracing voluntary frugality. Can you even conceive that China and India would voluntarily give up their ambitions to join the developed world? The entire world has joined in a suicide pact.
It’s beginning to look like the only thing that will save humans and other living things from the ravages of global warming is global economic collapse.