Energy emissions have declined to lowest levels since 1991 due to lower heating demand,
less coal usage, and utilization of more renewable energy sources.
Not exact matches
But delivering those same services with
less energy, more productively used, could shrink 2050
usage to 71 quads, eliminate the need for oil,
coal, nuclear energy, and one - third of the natural gas, and save $ 5 trillion in net - present - valued cost.
The fact is that there are many other ways of reducing emissions — we can reduce our energy
usage, we can reduce the carbon intensity of energy by replacing
coal - fired power with gas, we can reduce emissions from agriculture by eating and farming
less cows and sheep and more kangaroos and vegetables, we can sequester carbon in biomass by ending native forest logging and re-vegetating cleared land.
If
coal usage is never constrained by environmental policy nor limited by emergence of
less expensive energy sources, the resulting climate disruption can be expected to reach catastrophic levels.
Too bad, as the New York Times point out, that even though natural gas does have a far
less impact on global warming than does
coal, if we're going to reduce carbon emissions by 2050 enough to prevent the worst of climate change, the increase in natural gas
usage won't cut it.