Fossil fuels have made up at least 80% of U.S. fuel mix since 1900

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,

 

Monthly Energy Review

While the energy history of the United States is one of significant change, three fossil fuel sources—petroleum, natural gas, and coal—have made up at least 80% of total U.S. energy consumption for more than 100 years. Recent increases in the domestic production of petroleum liquids and natural gas prompted shifts between the uses of fossil fuels (largely from coal-fired to natural gas-fired power generation), but the predominance of these three energy sources is likely to continue into the future.

For the first several decades of American history, families used wood (a renewable energy source) as a primary source of energy. Coal became dominant in the late 19th century before being overtaken by petroleum products in the middle of the 20th century, a time when natural gas usage also rose quickly. Since the mid-20th century, use of coal increased again (mainly as a primary energy source for electric power generation), and a new form of energy—nuclear electric power—emerged. After a pause in the 1970s, the use of petroleum and natural gas resumed growth. Petroleum consumption decreased in recent years, but natural gas has continued to provide a greater share of U.S. energy consumption. In the late 1980s, renewable energy consumption (other than wood and hydroelectric) began to appear, increasing significantly in the mid-2000s. In 2014, the renewable share of energy consumption in the United States was the highest (nearly 10%) since the 1930s, when wood represented a larger share of consumption. Renewable energy is a small but growing piece of the U.S. energy mix. The greatest growth in renewables today is in solar and wind power, which along with geothermal and biomass, are included in other renewables.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,

 

Monthly Energy Review

 

Principal contributor: EIA Staff
 

US $200 Billion Fossil Fuel Subsidy You've Never Heard Of

Flooding in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (Credit: Pixabay)  

The $200 Billion Fossil Fuel Subsidy You've Never Heard Of

Amir Jina, Contributor

 

There’s an “alternative fact” that has been prevailing in society. That is that climate change is not happening, or at least not happening due to humans. This view has held strong even though billions of people around the world—including right here in the U.S.—are already experiencing the damaging, costly, and dangerous effects of a changing climate. In the past week, the Trump administration has put this “alternative fact” front and center—taking actions to wipe government websites clean of the words “climate change,” walk back environmental rules,  and limit the effectiveness of the EPA. These are the signs of an administration that is not only hostile towards climate change, but towards science itself.

Now for an actual fact: The costs of climate change are real. Scientists and economists, myself included, may go back and forth on how high the actual cost is, but it is definitely greater than zero. This cost can be summarized by an important number called the Social Cost of Carbon—the cost to society of emitting an extra ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That cost reveals itself in different ways. For example, rising temperatures will lead to more heat-related deaths, and less time in the labor market (more on that in my previous Forbes post).

The U.S. emitted 5.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2015, with a cost per ton of $36 (the current Social Cost of Carbon). That means the U.S. is paying $200 billion to cover the costs of all the emissions being burned. In effect, it’s a $200 billion hidden subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. This $200 billion is a cost in real money—in lost labor productivity, healthcare costs, increased energy expenditures, coastal damages—that is paid somewhere in the world for each ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted.

The Trump administration has argued that fossil fuels are not on an equal playing field due to “job-destroying regulations.” They’re right about one thing—the playing field is not equal. Numbers on the exact direct fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. vary, but it’s probably on the order of $20 billion being handed out to the fossil fuel industry each year. That’s on top of the $200 billion hidden subsidy they’re already getting for polluting our air and contributing to climate change.

Regulations like the Clean Power Plan and the meager $15.4 billion the U.S. spends subsidizing clean energy are supposed to even out this playing field. But the simplest, most efficient, way for society to make sure it’s a fair game and decrease the damages caused by climate change would be to pay the price for those damages. Doing so would mean the fossil fuel industry would need to pay their fair share, and so would we if we keep using those fossil fuels. There would then be a greater incentive—without subsidies—to transition to clean energy. Emissions would decrease.  And, the price we would have paid to adapt to climate change would get lower over time.

Instead, the opposite is happening. With time, the cost of climate change is adding up, and new costs we didn’t even know about are getting added in as the science behind climate change and its impacts grows. For example, we’re learning a lot more about the impact of major storms on economic growth. This will worsen with climate change. So, the $36 per ton we currently use as the Social Cost of Carbon could be much larger.

The National Academy of Sciences released a recommendation in January to update the process for forming the Social Cost of Carbon, pointing out ways that the newest science can transparently inform this important calculation. This is a crucial effort. Unfortunately, an anti-scientific manipulation of this recommendation would place it, and us, in an uncertain future.

The Social Cost of Carbon is the best scientific and policy tool to level the playing field and fix the current market failure where the fossil fuel industry pays zero. Without it, and a concerted effort to set it at the right price, the uneven playing field will only continue to widen. And, the Trump administration’s early actions to expand fossil fuels only exacerbate this. Not only do those actions not make sense economically, they are also anti-scientific and dangerous. The fact is, if we don’t pay the right price now, we’ll be paying a much greater price in future.

Paris Climate Accord Doesn’t Go Far Enough – but Trump’s Pullout Will Endanger Life on Earth

By Dahr Jamail    Global Research, June 01, 2017      Truthout 31 May 2017

Source: The Guardian / PolitiFact

A large number of climate experts believe the Paris Climate Accord does not go nearly far enough in addressing the crisis of abrupt anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD).

Nevertheless, in what is clearly both a symbolic move and a nod to his fossil fuel backers, Donald Trump will be pulling the US out of the agreement, according to several reports today.

The US, along with nearly 200 other countries, agreed to voluntarily reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in 2015. Interestingly, given the ongoing Russia scandal that is plaguing the White House on a daily basis now, withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement will make the US and Russia the only industrialized countries that reject taking action to mitigate ACD.

Trump has claimed that ACD is a “hoax,” despite the fact that 97 percent of the global scientific community agrees that humans are the cause of our warming planet. The majority of the remaining 3 percent of the scientific community has been shown to be taking funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Trump’s move displays a callous disregard for the future of life on Earth. A recently published study showed that the depletion of dissolved oxygen in Earth’s oceans is occurring much faster than previously believed. Hence, ACD is now recreating the conditions that caused the worst mass extinction event on Earth, the Permian mass extinction that took place approximately 250 million years ago and annihilated 90 percent of life. Dramatic oceanic warming and acidification were key components of this extinction event, and these conditions align with what we are seeing today.

 

In the US, a recent report states that it is “inevitable” that the contiguous US will lose all of its glaciers by 2050, a mere 33 years from now. Data from a January US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report show that the federal government has increased its worst-case scenario for sea-level rise to up to an average of more than eight feet by 2100. That amount of sea level rise will render large parts of many global coastal cities, including several in the US, uninhabitable.

As Trump geared up to pull out from the Paris agreement, scientists have stated the obvious: The Earth is likely to reach dangerous levels of warming even sooner if Trump withdraws the US from its promise to cut CO2 emissions.

Scientists have said that the US withdrawal could add up to 3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on an annual basis. Over time, that will be enough to melt ice sheets faster, trigger more extreme weather events and raise sea levels even more quickly.

One group ran a worst-case computer simulation showing what will happen if the US does not curb its emissions, and found that it would add up to half a degree of warming on its own by 2100.

World Leaders Condemn the Withdrawal but Vow to Move Forward
Global leaders have condemned Trump’s decision.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said talks with Trump at the recent G7 conference in Europe regarding the Paris agreement were “very difficult, if not to say, very unsatisfactory.” After meeting with Trump, Merkel said that Europe needed to unify and work together to take care of itself, given that the US is no longer working with its allies.

Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni also said that Europe needed to forge its own path.

“This takes nothing away from the importance of our trans-Atlantic ties and our alliance with the United States, but the importance we put on these ties cannot mean that we abandon fundamental principles such as our commitment to fight climate change and in favor of open societies and free trade,” he told the media.

In the US, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) tweeted:

“Pulling out of #ParisAgreement is a massive moral, economic & leadership failure for Trump admin. Loss of business, jobs, & intl standing.”

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Tuesday that ACD is undeniable and it is “absolutely essential” that the world fight the problem together, and stated that the US should stay on board with the agreement.

“If any government doubts the global will and need for this accord, that is reason for all others to unite even stronger and stay the course,” Guterres told the media during an event at New York University. “The message is simple: the sustainability train has left the station. Get on board or get left behind.”

Environmental Groups Condemn Trump’s Move

Earthworks’ Executive Director Jennifer Krill said Trump’s decision to exit the Paris agreement shows that this administration values fossil fuel industry profits over our health and well-being.

“President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Agreement sends a dangerous signal to the rest of the world that the United States values fossil fuel industry profits over clean energy innovation and the health and well-being of our citizens,” she said in the group’s recent press release. “As the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, turning our back on international climate action damages not only our global reputation on this issue, but the people here at home who suffer from the air pollution that comes along with these emissions. The over 12 million people living within a half mile of an oil and gas facilities deserve action to reduce air pollution, not head-in-the-sand climate denial.”

Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food and Water Watch, went so far as to say that Trump’s move makes the US a “rogue nation.”

In a press release, Hauter acknowledged that the Paris accord falls short of the kind of action that is really necessary, but that it was “better than nothing.”

“By choosing to walk away from the table, the United States effectively becomes a rogue nation when it comes to matters of climate change, human rights and global leadership in general,” Hauter said. “Mr. Trump’s foolish, belligerent decision to abdicate responsibility at the federal level now makes real action on climate at the state and local levels even more critical.”

Hauter added that, for the sake of our planet and future generations,

“It is imperative that elected leaders at every rung of government — from the smallest town halls to the halls of Congress — do everything in their power to resist fossil fuels and help enable a clean energy revolution.”

May Boeve, executive director of the climate organization 350.org, said in a press release that today is a “shameful day,” and called Trump’s move a “travesty” and a “crime against the future of people and the planet.” She assessed the situation as a prioritization of profit over the will of the people.

“The choice they had was clear, and they decided to side with fossil fuel billionaires over the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the agreement,” Boeve said. “By exiting, the administration has isolated the United States from the rest of the world and defamed the US position as global leader on climate action and much more.”

Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards.
His third book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co-written with William Rivers Pitt, is available now on Amazon.

Dahr Jamail is the author of the book, The End of Ice, forthcoming from The New Press. He lives and works in Washington State.

Featured image: The New York Times

The original source of this article is Truthout

Copyright © Dahr Jamail, Truthout, 2017

Boycott U.S. Firms Till Trump Signs to 195-Nation Paris Climate Agreement

By Eric Zuesse                                                                                   Global Research, June 02, 2017

U.S. President Donald Trump announced, on Thursday, June 1st, that “We’re getting out” of the global agreement on limiting the amount of greenhouse gases pouring into the Earth’s atmosphere. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, had described the agreement (which he had signed), by saying of it: “I believe the Paris agreement can be a turning point for our planet. It’s the biggest single step the world has ever taken toward combating global climate change.” Trump doesn’t place a high priority on the issue, and he says that to adhere to the agreement would hurt America’s economy, which he obviously cares about much more than he does about the planet’s climate. 

 

According to the vast majority of climate-scientists, there will be no way to avoid this planet’s climate-burnout unless the promises of the Paris Climate Agreement are kept. It therefore needs the support of the world’s second-biggest national emitter of greenhouse gases; it needs U.S. President Trump’s support. The world’s biggest emitter, China, is unwavering in its commitment to the agreement. So too is virtually the entire planet — except the U.S.

 

In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was approved by the U.S. Senate, and as a consequence of that, no new legislation is required in order for the U.S. to participate in this Agreement, which has since become a part of that Framework Agreement. 

 

The only other gigantic national contributor to global warming gases (20.09% of the total), China, signed the Agreement on 22 April 2016, and is not threatening at all to back out. The United States, the second-biggest emitter, accounts for 17.89% of the total, and likewise signed on that date. But President Trump is withdrawing the U.S. That, however, could lead ultimately to the collapse of the participation of the other 194 countries, maybe even of China’s participation — unravel and destroy the entire global effort to save this planet (from its humans, who thus are obligated to do what we can to reverse our destruction of the planet). 

 

Any intelligent person knows that abandoning this agreement wouldn’t merely be an insult to those other 194 nations; it would also be an insult to our planet. Our grandchildren should hate us if we do that. Unless this nation quickly reverses the course that Trump has chosen, they will hate us for it.

Therefore, I propose a global boycott against the U.S. aristocracy, the U.S. billionaires who control U.S.-based international corporations (the people who control the U.S. government). The way to do this would be for an international conference to be held, under U.N. auspices, in order to determine which U.S.-based international corporations are to be boycotted in the first phase, which will be be added in the second phase if need be, etc.; until the U.S. government complies with its global obligation and rejoins the Paris Agreement and is monitored strictly for its compliance with that commitment. If the U.S. then vetoes such a resolution at the U.N. Security Council — since this matter has already been officially recognized by the U.S. government as being crucial to international security — then yet an additional phase of the boycott should kick in, until the U.S. aristocracy buckles.

 

The alternative to such a boycott will be planetary burnout. Which of the two alternatives is preferable? Is the answer to this question not clear?

 

In any event, the alleged reason why Trump decided to end U.S. cooperation with the rest of the world on this, was:

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.  This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs.”

The appropriate way for the planet to respond to that concern would be to continue the boycott of the products of U.S. headquartered international firms until at least that number, 440,000, of U.S. manufacturing jobs, would be hit by it.

 

Trump announces US withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord (Source: Fox News)

 

However, that ‘440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs’ was the estimate of NERA, which gets its money from the coal, and liquified natural gas, and nuclear, and other established energy-creation industries — all of the dying ones, none of the ones that are becoming increasingly cost-effective, which are the types that would be soaring if the Paris agreement doesn’t break apart. NERA is no scientific information-source; it’s a propaganda-source. Desmog blog reported:

“NERA” is shorthand for National Economic Research Associates, an economic consulting firm SourceWatch identifies as the entity that published a June 2011 report on behalf of coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). ACCCE’s report concluded, “clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.”

That report went so far to say that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of the coal-generated electricity sector would amount to some 1.5 million lost jobs over the next four years.

NERA was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In Oct. 2004, The Guardian described Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News. 

According to NERA’s website, the late Alfred E. Kahn, the “father of deregulation,” advised NERA’s 1961 foundation. 

In 2010, NERA published a letter to the New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protest the prospective closure of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants.

A NERA report from earlier this year provided the basis for the popular King Coal refrain that the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule would cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars and “kill” 180,000-215,000 jobs.

These figures were picked up and cited by climate change denier U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in June when he spoke out against President Barack Obama’s mythological “war on coal,” as well as by the Republican Policy Committee in a May policy paper titled, “Obama’s War on Coal.” 

So, that provides a good indication, as to which types of U.S. international companies would especially need to be included in the first phase of the international boycott. Basically, it’s the type that pay Republican politicians more than Democratic politicians.

 

What other approach than an international boycott, can be effective in order to force such an extremely corrupt nation to do what it must do, for the entire world — to join the rest of the world, in salvaging the entire planet?

 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

Featured image: The Atlantic

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2017