Connect with us

Science

U.S. Efforts to Cut Emissions Stalled in 2024 as Power Demand Surged

Published

on

U.S. Efforts to Cut Emissions Stalled in 2024 as Power Demand Surged

America’s efforts to cut its climate change pollution stalled in 2024, with greenhouse gas emissions dropping just a fraction, 0.2 percent, compared to the year before, according to estimates published Thursday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.

Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.

The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting President Biden’s goal of slashing greenhouse gases 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.

Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade. That seems increasingly unlikely, experts say, especially since President-elect Donald J. Trump has promised to dismantle Mr. Biden’s climate policies and promote the production of fossil fuels, the burning of which generates greenhouse gases.

“On the one hand, it is notable that we’ve now seen two years in a row where the U.S. economy grew but emissions went down,” said Ben King, an associate director at the Rhodium Group. “But it’s far from enough to achieve our climate targets.”

Advertisement

The biggest reason that U.S. emissions have fallen in recent years is that electric utilities have been retiring their older, dirtier coal-fired power plants and replacing them with cheaper and less-polluting natural gas, wind and solar power. That trend mostly continued last year, with a few unexpected ups and downs.

The nation’s demand for electricity, which has stayed more or less flat for two decades, suddenly jumped by roughly 3 percent in 2024, in large part because scorching heat during the summer caused many Americans to crank up their air-conditioners. A smaller factor was that tech companies have been building more energy-hungry data centers in states like Virginia and Texas.

While power companies installed large numbers of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries last year to meet rising demand, natural gas use also rose to record highs, while coal use declined only slightly. The net result was that emissions from the power sector increased an estimated 0.2 percent, according to the Rhodium Group.

At the same time, transportation, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases, saw an 0.8 percent rise in emissions last year. Gasoline and jet fuel consumption both increased as Americans continued to drive and fly more after the pandemic. Nearly 10 percent of new car sales in 2024 were less-polluting electric vehicles, but those models still make up a small fraction of total cars on the road and have yet to put a major dent in transportation emissions.

On the flip side, emissions from America’s industrial sector — which includes steel, cement and chemicals — fell by 1.8 percent in 2024. Some of that may have been the result of lost output, as two hurricanes and a strike at the nation’s ports disrupted some factory activity in the fall, Mr. King said.

Advertisement

“It’s a reminder that there’s always some bumpiness in emissions,” Mr. King said. “It’s not just a question of how many electric vehicles are on the road or how much solar we’ve installed. A big portion of our economy still relies on fossil fuels.”

One of the most striking findings in this year’s data was that emissions from oil and gas operations dropped roughly 3.7 percent in 2024. Even though the United States produced record amounts of oil and near-record amounts of natural gas last year, many companies appear to have curbed leaks of methane, which is the main ingredient in natural gas and which can seep into the atmosphere and contribute significantly to global warming.

Over the past few years, the Biden administration and several states have adopted new regulations that require oil and gas producers to detect and fix methane leaks. Many companies also have financial incentives to capture methane to sell rather than vent it into the air.

Between 2014 and 2024, U.S. companies appear to have reduced the amount of methane that escaped, per each cubic feet of gas they produced, by 40 percent, according to the Rhodium Group.

Several experts have estimated that greenhouse gases generated in the United States could start dropping sharply in the years ahead if many clean energy policies stay in place, particularly the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into low-carbon energy technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear reactors, green hydrogen and batteries.

Advertisement

While Mr. Trump has pledged to scrap many of Mr. Biden’s subsidies and tax credits for electric vehicles and low-carbon energy, it remains to be seen whether Congress will agree.

That law has not yet had a major impact on the country’s emissions, said Mr. King, since it takes time for new factories to open and power plants to get built. But, he said, data shows that low-carbon energy and transportation now make up fully 5 percent of total U.S. private investment.

“That’s a leading indicator that things are changing quickly,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Trump Orders U.S. Exit From the Paris Agreement on Climate

Published

on

Trump Orders U.S. Exit From the Paris Agreement on Climate

President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, the pact among almost all nations to fight climate change.

By withdrawing, the United States will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only four countries not party to the agreement, under which nations work together to keep global warming below levels that could lead to environmental catastrophe.

The move, one of several energy-related announcements in the hours following his inauguration, is yet another about-face in United States participation in global climate negotiations. During his first term Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris accord, but then President Biden quickly rejoined in 2020 after winning the White House.

Scientists, activists and Democratic officials assailed the move as one that would deepen the climate crisis and backfire on American workers. Coupled with Mr. Trump’s other energy measures on Monday, withdrawal from the pact signals his administration’s determination to double down on fossil-fuel extraction and production, and to move away from clean-energy technologies like electric vehicles and power-generating wind turbines.

“If they want to be tough on China, don’t punish U.S. automakers and hard-working Americans by handing our clean-car keys to the Chinese,” said Gina McCarthy, former White House climate adviser and former head of the Environmental Protection Administration. “The United States must continue to show leadership on the international stage if we want to have any say in how trillions of dollars in financial investments, policies and decisions are made.”

Advertisement

On Monday Mr. Trump also signed a letter to the United Nations, which administers the pact, notifying the world body of the withdrawal. The withdrawal will become official one year after the submission of the letter.

U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were already stalling in 2024, and Mr. Trump’s entry into office makes it increasingly unlikely the United States will live up to its ambitious pledges to cut them even further. Emissions dropped just a fraction last year, 0.2 percent, compared with the year earlier, according to estimates published this month by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.

Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power that was spurred by the previous administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.

The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting Mr. Biden’s goal, announced last month under the auspices of the Paris Agreement, of slashing greenhouse gases 61 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.

In a scenario where Mr. Trump rolled back most of Mr. Biden’s climate policies, U.S. emissions might fall only 24 to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, the Rhodium Group found.

Advertisement

“President Trump is choosing to begin his term pandering to the fossil fuel industry and its allies,” the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement. “His disgraceful and destructive decision is an ominous harbinger of what people in the United States should expect from him and his anti-science cabinet.”

Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade.

The United States is also a major exporter of emissions. Because of policies promoted by both Republicans and Democrats, the United States is now producing more crude oil and natural gas than any nation in history. Mr. Trump has vowed to further ramp up production and exports.

While the United States may not be party to the Paris Agreement, it will still be part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which hosts annual climate negotiations known as COPs. This year’s COP will be held in Brazil in November and nations will be announcing new pledges for emissions reductions.

One recent study by Climate Action Tracker, a research group, found that, if every country followed through on the pledges they have formally submitted so far, global average temperatures would be on track to rise roughly 2.6 degrees Celsius, or 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, well above the 1.5 degrees Celsius the Paris Agreement originally set as a goal.

Advertisement

“Trump’s irresponsibility is no surprise,” said Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and an architect of the Paris Agreement in 2015. “In time, Trump will not be around but history will point to him and his fossil fuel friends with no pardon.”

Continue Reading

Science

RFK Jr. wants to improve Americans' health. Here's some advice from the outgoing FDA chief

Published

on

RFK Jr. wants to improve Americans' health. Here's some advice from the outgoing FDA chief

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the Food and Drug Administration a “corrupt system” that is waging “war on public health.” He has pledged to eliminate “entire departments” at the agency charged with ensuring the safety of the foods Americans eat and the medicines we take, warning the more than 18,000 people who work there to “pack your bags.”

President-elect Donald Trumphas nominated Kennedy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Kennedy will have the opportunity to “go wild” on health, foods and medicines, as Trump put it during the campaign.

Remaking the FDA may not be as straightforward — or as desirable — as it seems from the outside, says Dr. Robert Califf. He’s in a position to know: his second stint as the agency’s commissioner comes to an end Monday.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf testifies during a Senate hearing on Capitol Hill.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Califf’s career has spanned academia, large health systems, the biotech industry, Silicon Valley and the highest echelons of the federal government. His colleagues at the FDA “work just as hard and are at least as smart” as people he’s worked with anywhere else, he said. Public criticism comes with the territory, but things look different when you’re on the inside trying to ensure access to infant formula, make tobacco products less addictive and help consumers understand what’s in their groceries.

Califf spoke to a group of reporters last week on his last day in the FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md. Here’s his advice to those who will take over public health roles in the incoming Trump administration. His comments have been edited for length and clarity.

What do you wish people understood about your job?

This is a job that has a lot of bosses and a lot of constraints. When you’re in the commissioner’s office at FDA, you report to the executive branch. But Congress also thinks it’s your boss. It’s not unheard of for FDA to want to do something and get a message from an important appropriator that, “If you do this, we’re going to cut your budget somewhere else.”

It’s really interesting to me that people think the FDA can just declare this and that. It usually can’t. It usually has to go through a systematic approach. The minute you step beyond the legal boundaries of what the rule book says, you’re going to end up in court. That will get reined in fairly quickly.

Advertisement

How do you expect the new administration to change the FDA?

I have no idea. Right now we have rhetoric, and the rhetoric is contradictory. We just have to wait and see.

Some of the people who have been nominated to positions have been very critical, implying that there are nefarious motives of people working in public heath agencies. It feels a lot different when you have to make the decision and be accountable for it as opposed to criticizing the decision.

I have a copy of [President Theodore] Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech above my desk at home to remind myself every day that you get all this criticism from people who are not actually doing the work. It’s better to be in the arena trying to do the best that you can do.

Kennedy says he wants to get rid of certain departments within FDA. Are there areas you’re most worried about?

I’m worried about every part of the FDA. I don’t think you’ll find people at FDA doing work that no one cares about.

If you look at the food side of the FDA and the inspectorate, it’s massively underfunded. If you cut that — especially if you’re also saying we need to radically change the food system — that would be a problem.

Advertisement

Kennedy wants to see big changes in the food and health industries. Is that realistic?

Slogans are easy, and they sound really tough, but it’s a little different when you get into the to-and-fro. The lobbies that have very much created this food system are powerful. Maybe they can be overcome. There’s a possibility that things could be done for public health that couldn’t be done before.

The other part of this is if you really want to change the food system, you’d better have a 10- or 20-year plan. If you pronounced today, “No ultra-processed foods in SNAP or other federally assisted programs,” the farming industry would crash. I’m not saying that’s a reason to keep it the way it is. What I am saying is you’d better have a very carefully thought-out plan which sustains the economy, not just a bunch of slogans.

Trump said he would investigate claims about vaccines and autism. How should the FDA respond?

Anyone that investigates this will find that the risks and benefits are already delineated. There are dozens of studies that show no relationship between vaccination and autism. It wouldn’t be where I would spend my time, but if he wanted to do it, I think he’ll find that things are already well-documented.

That doesn’t mean that post-market surveillance couldn’t be better. It’s not a great way to have things that every time a question needs to be answered for public health, you need to get permission from every state and territory.

But I don’t think people are going to find any surprises. It’s all out there. For there to be any kind of conspiracy, it would take a whole lot of people outside of government deciding to work together. I’ve lived in America my whole life. It’s hard to get anybody to work together on things.

Advertisement

You’ve called misinformation a leading cause of death. Is it getting better or worse?

We’re losing the battle on misinformation. I’m not talking specifically about FDA. I’m talking about all of us.

To me it’s very clear that a lot of people died who would not have died had they just gotten a free COVID vaccine, and had they not been misled or been made to feel doubtful by people peddling incorrect information.

Often people who are experts in one area have opinions about another area, then when someone disagrees they call it misinformation. It’s a lot easier to put out a slogan or to make something up than it is to worry about whether you’ve got it right and take the time and effort to go to sources and get the right information.

We’re losing the battle right now because of this intersection of social media and cultural changes that have happened. It threatens a lot of the basis for public health. We’ve got to create networks of people who are dedicated to the truth.

What advice do you have for the new health leadership?

Change doesn’t come so easily in government. If we move at least five people, it has to get a congressional review. This makes it really hard.

Advertisement

When possible, use evidence for decision-making. I’ve heard a lot of tweets and short social media things saying, “We’re going to do this, we’re going to do that.” Let’s see the evidence about what an effective treatment is, and then if it’s good, go with it.

Those are my two main pieces of advice.

Continue Reading

Science

Extinct Human Species Lived in a Brutal Desert, Study Finds

Published

on

Extinct Human Species Lived in a Brutal Desert, Study Finds

Chimpanzees live only in African rainforests and woodlands. Orangutans live only in the jungles of Indonesia. But humans live pretty much everywhere. Our species has spread across frozen tundras, settled on mountaintops and called other extreme environments home.

Scientists have historically seen this adaptability as one of the hallmarks of modern humans and a sign of how much our brains had evolved. But a new study hints that maybe we aren’t so special.

A million years ago, researchers have found, an extinct species of human relatives known as Homo erectus thrived in a harsh desert landscape once considered off limits before Homo sapiens came along.

“It’s a significant shift in the narrative of adaptability, expanding it beyond Homo sapiens to include their earlier relatives,” said Julio Mercader, an archaeologist at the University of Calgary and an author of the study, which was published Thursday in the journal Communications Earth and Environment.

Fossils of our early forerunners collected over many decades seemed to confirm the special adaptability of our species. Our ancestors, known as hominins, split off from other apes in Africa about six million years ago and lived for millions of years in open woodlands. They did not seem to live in extreme environments.

Advertisement

Dr. Mercader and his colleagues closely examined environments in East Africa, which has yielded some of the richest troves of hominin fossils. They picked a site in northern Tanzania called Engaji Nanyor where paleoanthropologists had previously found fossils of Homo erectus.

Homo erectus is believed to have evolved about 2 million years ago in Africa. They were the first to reach the stature of modern humans, and they had long slender legs to run on. Their brains were also larger than those of earlier hominins, though only about two-thirds the size of our own.

At some point, Homo erectus expanded out of Africa, getting as far as Indonesia, where they became extinct about 100,000 years ago. In Africa, many researchers suspect, they gave rise to our own species in the past several hundred thousand years before disappearing there as well.

Dr. Durkin and his colleagues set out to determine exactly what kind of environment Homo erectus lived in a million years ago at Engaji Nanyor. They looked at fossil pollen grains, analyzed the chemistry of the rocks and searched for other clues to the landscape.

“These studies are an immense amount of work,” said Elke Zeller, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the project.

Advertisement

For hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers determined, Engaji Nanyor had been a comfortable open woodland. But around a million years ago, the climate dried up and the trees vanished. The landscape turned to a Mojave-like desert shrub land — an extremely arid place that seemed inhospitable for early hominins.

“The data led us to a pivotal question: How did Homo erectus manage to survive and even thrive under such challenging conditions?” Dr. Mercader said.

Instead of fleeing, the hominins figured out how survive in their changing home. “Their greatest asset was their adaptability,” Dr. Mercader said.

They changed the way they searched for animal carcasses to scavenge, for example. The hominins found the ponds and streams that sprang into existence after storms. They didn’t just drink at these fleeting watering holes. They hunted the animals that also showed up there, butchering their carcasses by the thousands.

The hominins also adapted by upgrading their tools. They took more care when chipping flakes from stones to give them a sharper edge. Rather than just pick up rocks wherever they were, they preferred material from particular places. And once they made a tool, they carried it with them.

Advertisement

“They may have had strategies where they basically say, ‘This is a good tool. I should bring it with me and be ready if we find food,’” said Paul Durkin, a geologist at the University of Manitoba who also worked on the study.

Dr. Durkin and his colleagues found that Engaji Nanyor was at the southern edge of a vast belt of desert shrub lands that stretched out of Africa, across much of the Middle East and into Asia. It’s possible that the adaptability that Homo erectus displayed at Engaji Nanyor helped them expand to other continents.

Dr. Zeller and her colleagues have taken a different approach to studying hominins: creating large-scale climate models to figure out what conditions were like during our evolution. Their models, like the new study, suggest that Homo erectus may have thrived in environments that were once thought too harsh for species other than our own.

Studies like the ones Dr. Zeller and the Engaji Nanyor team are conducting “are all starting to tell the same story,” she said. “We definitely have to look further back in time to understand our adaptability.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending