Thursday, May 27, 2010

CO2 Emissions Fall to 14-Year Low in 2009

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported a few weeks ago that energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States fell in 2009 by the largest amount ever in a single year going back to 1973 when EIA records started (data here), both in absolute terms (a decline of 405 million metric tons) and in percentage terms (a seven percent decline). The seven percent decline last year along with a three percent drop in 2008, brought annual energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. down to the lowest level in any year since 1995 (see chart above).

Amazingly, the U.S. generated fewer energy-related CO2 emissions in 2009 than in 1996, even though we produced almost 38 percent more output last year, our population has increased by almost 38 million, and our traffic volume was 22 percent higher last year than in 1996.

The EIA estimates that only about one-third of the drop in CO2 emissions in 2009 was because of the economic slowdown and the reduction in real output, and the large majority of the decline resulted from the increasing energy efficiency of the economy and the ongoing reduction in the carbon intensity of our energy usage. Therefore, even without a recession in the first half of the year, there would have been almost a five percent reduction in CO2 emissions in 2009, which still would have been one of the largest annual declines on record.

Our expanding output of domestic natural gas from shale rock, with its 45 percent lower carbon content than coal, has played a major role in reducing the carbon intensity of our overall energy supply, and helped bring down emissions last year to a 14-year low. Now that the U.S. has overtaken Russia as the world’s largest natural gas producer and our domestic production keeps setting new record highs, the significant improvements in carbon intensity and reduced emissions from using more natural gas should continue into the future.

We’ve heard a lot of negative energy-related news lately including stories about the oil spill and environmental damage in the Gulf, and the coal mining deaths in April, but there has also been some extremely positive and environmentally-friendly data released recently by the EIA about U.S. energy usage and emissions. The positive energy statistics reported in May include new information showing that: a) the overall energy efficiency of the U.S. economy reached an all-time record high in 2009, b) there was less total energy consumed in the U.S. last year than in any year since 1996, and c) energy-related CO2 emissions fell by the largest amount last year in EIA history to the lowest level since 1995.

Cross-posted at The Enterprise Blog.

36 Comments:

At 5/27/2010 8:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happens if you account for all of the foreign CO2 emissions for goods consumed in the US?

 
At 5/27/2010 11:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CO2, in atmospheric terms, is a trace gas. Human CO2 contribution is in no way significant enough to change the climate. Get over it.

 
At 5/27/2010 11:28 PM, Anonymous Sessel said...

Production emits CO2. Now look at the chart. What do you not see?

You'd don't see a rise at the end.

Have we become more emmision efficient all of a sudden? All those Prii and windmills are paying off?

CO2 is still down because we are not out of the recession yet. We are not producing more. Resources that emit CO2, here, are idle. Income measures of GDP reveal the true depth of our losses.

It's funny that you see leading and coincident indexes in Vehicle Miles Traveled, truck transportation, the Baltic Dry Index, but you have this staring you in the face and there's no reaction or recognition. You thought it was just a chart about energy efficiency.

 
At 5/28/2010 12:10 AM, Anonymous HYdra said...

MP is correct. This has to do with consumption of gas. Gas produces less CO2 but more H2O,also a ghg.

Anon, keep kidding yourself. CO2 is a trace gas but its effect is not. Make a terrarium and see for yourself.

Imports add to our footprint but do not change the US production stats.

Efficiency means more nations will buy from us a.d our ghg and energy use will go up.

 
At 5/28/2010 2:00 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

>"Anon, keep kidding yourself. CO2 is a trace gas but its effect is not. Make a terrarium and see for yourself."

You're kidding, right? You know that this isn't how CO2 acts in the atmosphere, don't you?

 
At 5/28/2010 2:30 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Human population

1650 500 million
1804 1 billion
1927 2 billion
1960 3 billion
1975 4 billion
1999 5 billion

Today 6.8 billion

2042 9 billion

"At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000 year period up to 1 A.D. it grew to 200 million."

 
At 5/28/2010 2:35 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

1999 6 billion

 
At 5/28/2010 6:30 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Well that damn volcano is ruining all the useless efforts and clueless wishes of the tree huggers & root...

Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Volcano CO2 Output Could Be 150-300,000 Tons Daily

 
At 5/28/2010 6:53 AM, Anonymous Hydra said...

The question wasn't how it works it was whether traces can make a difference. This is easy to test.

Attacking the science is the wrong way to attack the proposed policies. The real problem is the policy is as dangerous as the problem it is supposed to fix.

Not all production produces the same CO2.

 
At 5/28/2010 7:40 AM, Blogger Marko said...

Could this be why temps have leveled and are declining in the last few years, lol? Or has Gore been doing such a good job selling climate indulgences that it is actually working? LOL. Idiots.

So once again, a free market and the success it brings is the solution to most of the worlds problems!

 
At 5/28/2010 8:11 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Attacking the science is the wrong way to attack the proposed policies"...

Personally hydra I think you're making an excellent point...

It isn't the science but those foisting themselves off as scientists and the politcos that use them...

Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics

'Science author Heinz Thieme and 130 German scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory as an explanation of the mechanism of Earth's climate'...

From the Washington Times: EDITORIAL: Tax dollars perpetuate global-warming fiction - $6 million study is used to lobby for cap-and-tax

 
At 5/28/2010 9:10 AM, Anonymous Hydra said...

Personally hydra I think you're making an excellent point...

Then you turn around and attack the science.


Science author Heinz Thieme and 130 German scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory as an explanation of the mechanism of Earth's climate'...

This is an attack on the science using the logical fallacy of appeal to knowledge: If so many people beleive the science is wrong, it must be wrong.

Obviously, this is an incorrect way to think. A hypothesis is either true or not, regardless of how many think otherwise.

Even if you sincerely believe on a scientific basis and not a political one that the science is unsettled, taking a bet against long term global warming is probably a bad move. The preponderance of the evidence points the other way, and more is being gathered.

I would be more inclined to agree that the science is not settled if the argument was more bipartisan. Because I see mostly or only people of one political stripe dissing the science, I am led to beleive there may be a bias in their thought processes.

There is enough evidence of other anthropogenic changes to know that it is possible. We know that CO2, CH4, and H2O hold more heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen. We know that global average temperature fluctuates over short and long terms, so establishing a definitive trend is difficult. Itis apparent that CO2 concentrations are increasing 9http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full).

I'm convinced that disputing the evidence is barking up the wrong tree. But the proposed fixes are more dangerous than the global temperature problem.

As Sessel points out, production emits CO2. Reducing CO2 by 80% in the face of population increases noted by peak trader, strikes me as highly unlikely. What is likely is that any such attempt will wreck the world economy and bring on massive hardship, suffering, and death.

The Libtards have not yet explained how they are going to pick and choose who lives and who dies under their ridiculous "shrink to prosper" mantra.

"Shrink to Prosper" means a few people will live very well. They don't talk much about the rest.

And THAT is the argument you should be making, rather than tilting against the science windmill.

 
At 5/28/2010 11:01 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Then you turn around and attack the science"...

I did?!?!

"This is an attack on the science using the logical fallacy of appeal to knowledge: If so many people beleive the science is wrong, it must be wrong"...

Apparently you either didn't read the link contents or didn't understand what you might have read in those links...

 
At 5/28/2010 1:39 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

>The question wasn't how it works it was whether traces can make a difference. This is easy to test."

No, it seems it ISN'T easy to test. The Earth's atmosphere can't be replicated in a lab experiment.

>"CO2 is a trace gas but its effect is not. Make a terrarium and see for yourself."

If this is your idea of a test of how CO2 acts in Earth's atmosphere, then you are missing some very basic concepts.

A green house warms by preventing convection that would normally carry off warmer air. There is no experiment with a terrarium involving CO2 that I can perform at home that will easily prove it's effect.

You should understand that the controversy isn't about the physical properties of CO2, but about it's effect in the atmosphere.

Did you mean to attack an "appeal to knowledge", or did you mean an "appeal to authority"? It seems to me that an "appeal to knowledge" is a GOOD thing. You might consider using more references yourself.

>"If so many people beleive the science is wrong, it must be wrong."

You mock the idea, but is this anything like a "consensus"? Do you believe that a consensus probably has the correct answer?

>"The preponderance of the evidence points the other way, and more is being gathered."

Evidence of what? That Earth has warmed? Almost certainly true, but by how much is uncertain due to problems with measurement systems. Evidence of man-made warming due to increases in atmospheric CO2? No; it's not there.

How about some definitions: - An hypothesis is an attempt to explain an observable phenomenon. It is not , as you put it "true or not true". It must be tested, and if confirmed, can become part of a theory. That theory can then be used as true only until it fails once. Note that we still refer to "Newtons theory of gravitation.

Nothing about the assertion that people are warming the planet has risen above the level of hypothesis, as testing is not possible on a scale and over a time period that is meaningful. You will note that no one speaks of a "theory" of AGW. The best we have is something like this:

"Atmospheric CO2 is higher, global temperature is higher, therefore, cause & effect. Besides, we have no other explanation for the higher temperatures."

That may be good enough for you, but it isn't for me.

Part of the supporting argument for AGW being an urgent problem has been the idea that current temperatures are "unprecedented".
You must admit that that idea has been seriously damaged by recent revelations of dishonesty and fraudulent work by climate scientists we had trusted to tell us the truth.

Without "unprecedented", the assertion that the Earth is warming, even IF caused by human activity, should be met with something like "That's nice, but so what?

 
At 5/28/2010 2:18 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

"I did?!?!

"This is an attack on the science using the logical fallacy of appeal to knowledge: If so many people beleive the science is wrong, it must be wrong"...

Apparently you either didn't read the link contents or didn't understand what you might have read in those links...


Based on the quote: "Science author Heinz Thieme and 130 German scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory" ; I don't need to read the rest to see the fallacy - appeal to knowledge.

The veracity or lack of veracity in the science has nothing to do with how many people agree with it.


================================

I know and can prove that a change in a trace amount of CO2 in a controlled sample of the atmosphere causes changes in its behavior.

The real atmosphere, of course has a CO2 cycle. But given a NET change n CO2 concentration I have no reason to beleive a large sample will exhibit different behavior than my lab sample.

Changes in trace gasses WILL make a difference.

However, other factors might come into play that either undo, or cover up those differences. That does not mean the differences do not exist or cannot be proven.

================================

or did you mean an "appeal to authority"? It seems to me that an "appeal to knowledge"

Sometimes callled one or the other and used interchangeably. Either way it is a logical fallacy and faulty thinking. Not a good thing.

===============================

You should use more references

I'm not trying to sell anything. Anon made a comment about CO2 as a trace gas. His argument did not sell me and I simply told him why it did not sell me.

If he comes back with the same answer, it won't sell me next time, either. I'm suggesting that better arguments need to be made: take the suggestion or not.

Why argue with me about the science? I already said I think it is a trivial part of the argument at hand.

=================================


You should understand that the controversy isn't about the physical properties of CO2, but about it's effect in the atmosphere.

Then there is nothing wrong with my observation about the behavior of trace gases. You do not disagree that CO2 levels have increased and are increasing, but you only disagree about the effect.

I have no reason to believe the physical behavior changes in a larger sample.

The second part of the claim was that Human CO2 concentration is in no way significant enough to change the climate. We have plenty of evidence that human activity has caused global changes. I dont believe that Anons claim of "not significant" is supported.

Read the statement again:

First part:
CO2 is a trace gas. OK, trace gases can still cause changes.

Second part:
Human contribution is not significant enough to change the climate. Unsupported and does not follow from the first part.

Third Part:
Get over it. Telling me how to feel.

My conclusion: This guy has something to sell, he wants me to feel a different way and he is using faulty thinking to do it. He must think I'm stupid.

I'm willing to be convinced, but not this way.

===============================

 
At 5/28/2010 2:27 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

You mock the idea, but is this anything like a "consensus"? Do you believe that a consensus probably has the correct answer?

I'm not mocking the idea of concensus. I'm telling you that it is not how you do science.

Everybody says so.
Everybody believes so.
Everybody does so.

That is fashion, not reason, and such appeals amount to faulty reasoning.


Concensus is a decision method, but there is nothing in the concensus per se that suggests the decison won't be wrong.

Sometimes it is formalized as in the Delphi technique which seeks to find, anaylyze, and eliminate conflicting viewpoints.

What I see here is an attempt to polarize conflicting viewpoints rather than resolve them: to win rather than to be correct.

 
At 5/28/2010 2:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing about the assertion that people are warming the planet has risen above the level of hypothesis, as testing is not possible on a scale and over a time period that is meaningful.

If you can only be convinced by the outcome of a global experiment, there isn't much point in talking to you.

I'm easy to convince, all you need is a real argument that isn't obviously broken.

 
At 5/28/2010 3:21 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

You must admit that that idea has been seriously damaged by recent revelations of dishonesty and fraudulent work by climate scientists we had trusted to tell us the truth.

I don't admit any such thing, nor do I have to. If there is dishonest and fraudulent work on either or both sides it suggests a political problem.

The idea is that
-CO2 traps heat.
-CO2 levels are rising.
-Temperature in gas samples exposed tothe sun are higher when CO2 is higher.
-One [ relatively new] source of CO2 not normally part of the "natural" CO2 cycle is combustion of fossil fuels.

-Temperature appears to be rising but some believe the evidence is yet inconclusive.

: Therefore, even if temperature data is now inconclusive, global human activity consisting of massive combustion of carbon will eventually contribute to global warming, regardless of what other sources/sinks may exist.

I don't have any reason to disbelieve the first four bullets.

That leaves us with the controversial temperature issue, and your claim that post hoc does not mean propter hoc.

Well, when you drop an apple and it flies away, you will have disproved Newtons theory.

When you add CO2 to a bottle exposed to the sun and it gets colder, let me know.

You argue that planetary atmosphere is not a bottle and the example does not apply. Yet we know that Venus is hotter than it might be because of its atmoshphere and Mars is colder than it might be because of lack of atmoshpere.

Until we have evidence otherwise, all the examples we know of support the idea that CO2 increases atmospheric temperature.

The only thing left in doubt is whether temperature is actually rising, and eventually we will have unbiased evidence on that (up or down, over some kind of period).

I don't see how conservatives think there is much traction to be gained, wasting energy to fight that argument.

Better to simply recognize that Liberals intend to use it as a tool to gain control of our carbon usage.

That is where the real problem is going to lie.

 
At 5/29/2010 2:59 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Hydra, calm down. You're going to blow a gasket.

Your long rant contains little of substance to argue against. What exactly is your point? Do you have actual views of your own, or are you determined to rely on that tired old generic AGW argument?

You seem determined to defend your position beyond all reason or logic. It's OK to change your views, and gain a different perspective on a subject.

I can only suggest that you try to educate yourself better before making such positive assertions as you have made. The certainty with which you state things brings your credibility into question.

One subject in particular that you might consider becoming better acquainted with is thermodynamics. Your equating a container of gas in a laboratory to a planetary atmosphere indicates a serious lack of comprehension on your part. There are many excellent sources of information available to you.

It must be comforting to have such simplistic views.

Do yourself at least this one favor: to avoid ridicule in the future, verify what you think you know about a logical fallacy of "an appeal to knowledge".

 
At 5/29/2010 2:44 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Until we have evidence otherwise, all the examples we know of support the idea that CO2 increases atmospheric temperature"...

The above obvious rant is from the same guy who says: "I don't need to read the rest to see the fallacy - appeal to knowledge"...

Well if YOU can't deal with the sciene hydra maybe you should talk to someone who can explain it to you...

 
At 5/29/2010 4:52 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The above obvious rant is from the same guy who says: "I don't need to read the rest to see the fallacy - appeal to knowledge"..."

This must be a common practice for this person. Hydra seems to have a passing acquaintance with many subjects, but in-depth knowledge of few, if any. I have noticed that when pressed on any issue, the responses become less coherent.

 
At 5/29/2010 10:26 PM, Anonymous hydra said...

Hydra seems to have a passing acquaintance with many subjects, but in-depth knowledge of few

You are correct. Part of my day job consists of assessing technology for the purpose of investment.

I have a very strong, and varied, hands on scientific background and a couple of patents.

I only claim to be an expert in a couple of topics. One thing I have figured out is that if you think there is a single answer to anything, youare probably wrong.

When pressed for an answer you usually encounter more specifics, which changes the answer and makes it seem lesws coherent.

A common practice on this blog is to deliberately change the subject or drag in new facts to make the protagonist look like an idiot or a loser.

I'm not here to score points or promote a party. if youhave a specific problem with my comments, I'm listening.

For now, I'll accept the charge of being a generalist as a compliment.

 
At 5/29/2010 10:32 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

Well if YOU can't deal with the sciene hydra maybe you should talk to someone who can explain it to you...

My business card used to read "Senior Resrach Scientist" but I'v since been promoted.


Among other things spent eight years developing and verifying protocols for measuring trace gasses and particulates in the atmosphere.

I have a "passing knowledge" of how hard it is.

I'm soorry you regard my argument as a rant. it prevents you from making a substantive argument in rebuttal.

 
At 5/29/2010 10:40 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

Juandos:

Yopur citaion refers to backradiation. Backradiation existed prior to the time of the industrial revolution and increded fossil fuel consumption.

Therefore it falls under the category of opposing events that I mentioned. However, to the extent that it does not increase as a result of CO2 concentration, it is a non discriminator.

My statement still holds. Increased CO2 concentration tends toward increased heat retention, and no experiment I know of refutes that.

This is an example of introducing a new variable or argument and assuming it defeats all that went before.

 
At 5/29/2010 10:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hydra, calm down. You're going to blow a gasket.

If you knew me, you would know better.

On a few occasions I've been involved in what might have been a real life or death situation.

Once it was resolved I took stock of the situation and realized that most of those around me had gone more or less catatonic.

There are some real gasket blowers here, but I'm not one of them.

 
At 5/29/2010 11:02 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

Your long rant contains little of substance to argue against.

I thought that tghe comment by Ron H was oversimplified:

"Atmospheric CO2 is higher, global temperature is higher, therefore, cause & effect. Besides, we have no other explanation for the higher temperatures."

So I deconstructged it in an attmpt to show which parts are probably not in dispute and which parts are.

I'm willing to concede that global average temperature is stil in dispute (depite what I see as pretty strong average evidence.)

I'm not so willing to concede that average CO2 has not increased.

Im not so Willing to concede that increased CO2 does not tend towards increased heat retention.

I'm willing to concede that increased heat leads to increased back radiation, but I regard that as an effect due to a cause.

The whole argument, then, boils down to whether global warmning (IF IT EXISTS) is anthropogenic, and if so can we do anything to reverse it or should we?

But mostly, I regard this line of argument as a waste of effort on the part of conservatives. Aside from the fact I think it is a 9ultumately) a lost cause and it will make them look like fools in the long run, I don't think it makes sense based on funda mental conservativ principles.

If you focus on those, you will soon see the real problem is someplace else.

 
At 5/29/2010 11:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The above obvious rant ...

Logical fallacy known as prejudicing the issue.

If you have a problem with the obvious rant, say what it is.

 
At 5/29/2010 11:07 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

You seem determined to defend your position beyond all reason or logic.

I'd say it was an unassailable position then. My reason and logic is better than yours.

Pick something and unravel it. I'll even help you, if you find a losse thread.

 
At 5/29/2010 11:15 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

One subject in particular that you might consider becoming better acquainted with is thermodynamics. Your equating a container of gas in a laboratory to a planetary atmosphere

I have competed several Masters level courses in various kinds of thermodynamics.\

A laboratory container has a set of boundaries. The atmospehere has a set of boundaries. The interface between the boundaries is different (and considerably larger for the atosphere) So far as we know, the thermodymaic laws that apply ar stillthe same, unless you know something differnet.

We know more about the lab container because it is easier to look at and study.

We dont know anything about the atmospheric container that says the action of CO2 within it has a different general result.

I'm willing to be corrected.

 
At 5/29/2010 11:22 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

The certainty with which you state things brings your credibility into question.

So pick one and blow it apart.

I'm not emotionally invested. I'll be happy to change course ,as long as I think it is a better direction, or if I thinkthis one is running on the reef.

Right now, I'm suggesting to you that it appears to me that arguing (selectively) against the totality known science is like plotting a course to run on the beach.


Just saying.

I'm not opposed to you guys, I'm trying to help.

 
At 5/29/2010 11:49 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

here is what I think:

The foreign CO2 emisasions was a good point. Arguably our environmental rules ahve pushed jobs and emissions offshore.

The idea that human contribution is insignificant is burying your head in the sand.

Production emits CO2. Spot on, butnot al production is equal.

CO2 is still down because we are not out of the recession yet. Partly true.

CO2 acts in the atmosphere same as it act in a box. The atmosphere may have additonal favtors. Feedback is seldom greater than the impetus that causes it.

Humuan population is increasing.
Energy eficiencyis increasing. Energy efficiency makes it more profitable to use energy, and increasing population menad more people will rind ways to profit. We will need more energy.

Our present means of producing energy is dirty.

At is not 100% clear that alternative means are less dirty, allthings considered equally.

Volcanoes have existed before and sinse the industrial revloultion. They are not a discriminator in this particular argument (anthropgenicity) even if they eventually trump.

Over a long period of time the sun willget hotter. A lot hotter. I don't expect to be around when the solar warming enthusiasts eventually win their argument.

Global average temperatueas vary. That doesn't make anyone an idiot.

If a lot of partisans think the same way: doesn't mean they are right.


The theory of AGW has been stained by some overzealous scientists. That does not mean the theroy is wrong, any more than its attack by overzealous politicos proves it is wrong.

If anything, the partisan battle suggests neither side is "right". THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR THE RIGHT AND FAIR ANSWER, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR THE ANSWER THAT LETS THME "WIN", OTHERWISE DESCRIBED AS STEAL.

I don't see that as a conservative (or liberal) value.

As I see it the real value is individual liberty. The right to live your life same as anyone else.

Reducing production by 80% to reduce CO2 is going to shift that balance. Liberals are actively promoting the idea of "Shrink to Prosper".

I submit that rather than wasting our time on a (probably losing) argument over science we ought to be offering the challence question: "Who and how many do you plan on prospering? Is Al Gore your model?"


And before we go there, we had better have an answer ourselves. We are likely to be more successful at that when we stop wasting time on scientific nonsense.

 
At 5/29/2010 11:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

avoid ridicule in the future



Oh, give me a break. go back a nd look at the tenor of comments on this blog.

If I call you out for making a stgatement of the sort "Every good red-blooded american knows...."

That is not ridicule.
That is calling your attention to a fact. The fact being an obvious and named lack of logic.

Ridicule would be calling you a logical hypocrite, or describing your comments as a maeningless rant without providing an example.

 
At 5/30/2010 8:56 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"I'm not opposed to you guys, I'm trying to help"...

Thanks hydra but personally I think I'll stick to the actual known science...

I'll stick with folks like Fred Singer and Anthony Watts...

I'll continue to be entertained by the fact that AGW alarmists are debunked on an almost daily basis...

 
At 5/30/2010 6:53 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

I think I'll stick to the actual known science...


Why is the "known science" from one personality better than the "known science" from another?

Isn't it only that they produce results you prefer to agree with?

Let me ask you, what would have to happen before you would change your mind with respect to global warming? What would constitute adequate proof?

 
At 5/30/2010 7:13 PM, Anonymous Hydra said...

Global warming alarmists are also politicizing the science. It is a bad idea on either side.

 
At 6/14/2010 2:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The article is saying that less NEW CO2 was produced, not that CO2 levels are lower in general... duh

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home