US fossil fuel consumption has been dropping for a while, with per person emissions peaked in the 70’s. Population growth offset that, but total US CO2 emissions peaked in 2007. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...

Globally population and economic growth has hidden the trends, but kg per PPP $ of GDP shows very steady improvements. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD

This goes beyond simple efficiency gains, fossil fuels are inherently limited in what they can provide and we are moving past them.

The planet doesn't really care about the per person data, nor is it reassuring since human populations continue to explode, and the fastest growing CO2 emitters are in the countries with the fastest growing populations.

Per unit of GDP also should not reassure anyone since GDP is constantly growing even faster than CO2-pruduction-per-unit-of-GDP is dropping (according to the data you linked). Additionally, regional improvements in these metrics (prominently showcased for the US and EU) are driven by the fact that manufacturing has been relocated from the first world to developing countries - not because manufacturing is becoming significantly cleaner. In fact, the higher sulfuric acid levels in the Pacific are a direct consequence unfiltered coal burning in China - so we've actually made things worse by moving manufacturing to countries with poor environmental standards.

Net total CO2 emissions are all that matter. Moreover, even ZERO growth of CO2 is insufficient to stop increasing temperatures since CO2 accumulates.

The alternative to aggressive absolute level CO2 caps (something many countries openly refuse to agree to) some are quietly pursuing planning for failure. Planning for human migrations, sea level changes, and local precipitation changes, are things those with means are doing. ...and the more people with wealth and/or power begin to plan for failure, the fewer will work on preventing catastrophe. What emerges is an unfortunate game-theory dilemma without a solution where parties actually produce more CO2 in order to prepare for higher CO2-driven global temperatures, and the regional challenges they bring.

As to GDP numbers being reassuring, economies slow down when they reach near parity with developed nations. Japan’s famous for rapid growth hitting the wall when they approached parity with first world countries. China for example already built the three gorges dam, they can’t benefit by simply building another a few feet down stream.

Per person data is therefore important from a technology standpoint not an environmental standpoint. Existing infrastructure slows the transition for developed economies, but developing economies are far more agile because their infrastructure ends up using newer technology as they build it. Many countries effectively skipped landlines because cellphone infrastructure is cheaper to build out. Bangladesh is simply never going to see the same investment in IC cars that the US did. It’s not even aiming for the US’s 2020 numbers it’s aiming for the best tech available when they hit the wall.

There are things that families in the US can do to sequester CO2. They require changes to landscaping practices, but they do not require changes in laws or policies. They don't require collective action. They are small solutions that together, add up to a lot. Those same practices can also prepare families for some of these catastrophes. These practices are found in permaculture design.

You don't hear much from permaculturists because they don't need to act at a state or national level to affect changes in the local area. They are the ones quietly practicing permaculture principles in the backyard, in apartments, and some figured out how to include the homeless.

I see these extreme weathers and environmental threats to human civilizations as part of self-healing mechanism of the planet. If human civilization collapses, then the source of the protuberance disappears, and the planet can get back to restoring the ecology. The planet doesn't need us humans to save it. That's a sort of arrogance that blinds us to the truth: we need to save our place in the ecology, and that is going to require giving up some of the conveniences we take for granted. It means becoming a part of the ecology rather than somehow pretending that we are apart from the ecology. It means caring for the earth, caring for the people, and taking no more than our fair share. It means decentralizing our food system, and finding ways to decentralize the remaining basic survival needs (water, shelter, warmth, clothing).

It means reframing what "wealth" means to us. Rather than "wealth" being the result of extracting resources and controlling access to it, it would better serve us to see "wealth" as being stewards of regenerative processes.

Sounds great, but you can't convince half the population of the US to just wear a piece of cloth over their faces and you think it's possible to convince the entire population of the world to radically change their way of life?

I'm not looking to convince people. I am implementing this right now in my household. I'm trying to find ways to reach family and neighbors. The low hanging fruit are people who already have an inkling for this stuff.

Writing on here helps me clarify my thoughts, and I get a lot of good feedback from it. But again: I came to the conclusion, I don't need to save the whole world. I just need to focus on what is within my circle of influence... and there is quite a bit I can do even if it does not cover the whole population. I do what I can with CO2 sequestering, food resiliency, regenerative and restorative agriculture. I'm taking steps towards a future where many people do this ... but I will also have a much greater chance of surviving if there is a collapse of civilization because people are not doing these things.

The question for you though, is if you are willing to change your way of life. I'm ok if you decide that you are, or if you decide you are not. If you do decide you are, there are a lot of resources out there to help you get started. And if you are not, then at least you now know what your options are. You're welcomed to try later if you ever change your mind. Or not. That's the beauty of this kind of permissionless, decentralized solutions. There are things you yourself can do, and you don't need to wait for half of the US population to do it with you. It really is in your hands and your choice, your freedom to pursue this or reject it. Or come up with something better.

I think you nailed it. However 'Planning for failure' breaks down in a future with economically viable carbon capture. What happens when nations are 'un-aligned' in how much carbon should be in the atmosphere/ the total globe. If it makes India a rainforest with a certain level of carbon, but makes the US a desert, how do you decide the optimal level of carbon PPM?

birthrates are falling in every part of the world - most countries are well below the replacement rate. The effect is hidden by people living longer. We should hit peak world population within 30 years

You first two factoids are factually correct, and yet your conclusion is wrong.

The birthrates are still, globally, well well above replacement rate, and will continue to be so well beyond the climate crisis causing devestation.

*human population continue to explode.

I think you need to look at the data on that one.

No one wants kids anymore, and the data is showing world wide. Japan is panicking quite a bit over it and the US should be but our immigrants have always helped keep the numbers up.

I think we will at some point move away from toxic metals and more into a plant based tech at some point.

Some commercial uses in the works: https://www.plant-e.com/en/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis

Unfortunately it's the reality of capitalism that industrial production was moved to areas with poor environmental standards on purpose _because_ of poor environmental (and labour) standards there.

You're citing evidence of falling emissions, but that doesn't mean consumption has fallen. It looks like US fossil fuel consumption peaked in 2005, slightly above the mid-70s peak, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration[1]. It's split out into petroleum/coal/natural gas categories, but some hovering and mental math shows 2005 was the peak. The preceding decade was about as high as the mid 70s. There's a significant drop after 2007, but still not below the early 70s level.

US energy is cleaner now, and the percentage of total energy from fossil fuels has been steadily decreasing since 1970 [2], but total consumption of fossil fuels is still high.

Edit: this isn't per-capita; the per-capita numbers would definitely be lower.

[1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10

[2]: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/foss...

Fossil fuel isn't really important when we're talking specifically about oil. And Oil production has been steadily increasing:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-produc...

The updated graph for [1] through 2018 is revealing: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40013

The big story looks like the huge transition from coal to natural gas. 2005 remains the peak for petroleum, but it's been increasing recently.

We have to mention that manufacturing moved out of the US, so of course emissions dropped. Look at Chinese emissions.

We're just re-arranging chairs on the Titanic.

All that is happened is that the bulk of industrial production has been pushed overseas. Yes, personal emissions in automobiles has gone down and in many places the electricity grid is pretty green, but net emissions have gone up massively nonetheless.

  “How did you go bankrupt?"
  "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

Investing in fossil fuels today really seems like collecting loose change before an oncoming train. Decreases in the price of solar panels and batteries are not linear and sometime now far from now it'll be economic madness to buy ICEVs, build NG peaker plants or even keep coal plants operating.

Right, but oil as used for transportation is the far harder nut to crack.

there's a magic crossover point where cost-per-kwh for batteries gets low enough that it's cheaper to build an electric car than a gas car. There's some evidence that we've crossed that line in the last few months - now there's a bottleneck of how many batteries can be produced to meet demand - but that's changing fast, too. The transition is going to be faster than people expect.

The way car manufacturers are pumping out BEVs and PHEVs with 50+ km range, and buyers are gobbling them up, I think that nut is showing serious fissures ;-)

Personally, I'm expecting to reduce fuel spending by about 80 or 90% ...

It's important to bear in mind that this article isn't primarily about global fossil fuel consumption, it's almost entirely about the economic issues affecting petrostates.

Two things are hitting oil states right now. One is that developing countries, which pay the best rates for oil, are consuming less of it. The remaining increases in demand are from developing countries, but they are following the same arc as developed countries, and on a relatively accelerated time frame. Their consumption will also decline. One thing TE doesn't address is that another factor is the diversification and increase in global oil supplies from new suppliers, including frackers. That's probably having a bigger impact on the traditional petrostates right now. Hoverver the article is mainly looking at where the puck is going, not where it is now.

More non-Arab suppliers is one side. The other is that these petro-states today have much larger populations, with much higher expectations, than they did in the 70s. Saudi oil is still cheap to pump, but instead of 6M people, they now have 33M, who each spend 20x what they did, and aren't on the whole accustomed to working for it.

The report you link says the same thing:

> Emissions trends for 2019 suggest clean energy transitions are underway, led by the power sector.

Drill down in the data slightly:

In the developed world, CO₂ emissions peaked in 2007 and have been declining since. It's only in the developing world that they're rising, and that's dominated by China and India.

Because that's where we moved our manufacturing.

That is most certainly one component of it. Another is boiling water with burnt coal is still one of the cheapest ways to make electricity. Most of the US decline I would personally attribute to the massive switchover to NG from coal. If that price ratio flipped back around you would probably see a switch back to coal in the US.

as of about 2018, solar is cheaper than coal. natural gas is only cheaper because it's a byproduct of oil production. solar is still dropping in price due to technology improvements, and will beat natural gas within the next year or two.

Coal mines have been shuttering - there's a feedback loop here, low demand will reduce the supply, low supply increases the cost, high cost reduces the demand.

Is solar cheaper than coal when excluding subsidies and including storage?

yes, excluding subsidies. Excluding storage - not yet, or at least, not everywhere. But the cost of storage is falling rapidly, too.

...electricity that is needed to manufacture the products consumed by the US

On grids with competitive markets that still have a mixture of operational coal and combined cycle gas turbine plants, the short term coal/gas balance is strongly influenced by short term pricing trends. See for example this article, which is a few years old but still illustrative:

"Coal-to-Gas Switching: It’s All in the Price"

https://www.powermag.com/coal-to-gas-switching-its-all-in-th...

A coal-to-gas parity calculation—using current average Illinois Basin spot coal prices, current SO2 and NOx emissions costs, a $9.00/ton coal transportation cost, a $1.50/MWh average variable non-fuel O&M cost, and adjusted for the higher efficiency of a 7,500-Btu/kWh CCGT plant versus a 10,500-Btu/kWh coal plant—yields a gas floor of $4.15/MMBtu. While this gas parity calculation is broad, it indicates a move toward some potential for coal-to-gas switching for plants consuming Illinois Basin coal if actual forward delivered gas costs are in the range of those previously calculated.

A parity calculation for Powder River Basin coal using the same heat rate assumptions and emissions costs, current coal market prices, and a transportation rate of $16/ton yields a gas floor price of $2.42/MMBtu. While individual plant costs may vary, this indicates limited displacement of PRB coal in the Midwest when compared against the calculated forward gas price curve.

Depending on the coal source, it makes short term sense to displace as much coal as possible with gas at a gas price point below either $4.15/MMBtu or $2.42/MMBtu.

For comparison, current Henry Hub gas spot prices are below $1.70/MMBtu: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdM.htm

Gas is currently taking market share against coal up to the limits of generator capacity in any competitive market in the continental US. Part of the coal fleet still operates because there is not enough gas generator capacity yet built to replace all coal generators. Another part of the coal fleet still operates because the plants are operating as part of regulated utilities that do not have to compete with/respond to short term market incentives.

If gas prices shot up to $5/MMBtu, there would be a dramatic short term shift back toward coal. The fuel mix "floats" in the short term.

In the long term, the factors promoting gas plants in the US are more of a ratchet than a float. The median coal plant is much older than the median gas plant. Many of them are reaching end-of-life. Building a new 500 megawatt coal plant is significantly more expensive and slower than building a new 500 megawatt CCGT gas plant. Once built, coal plants require more maintenance and more employees to run than a gas plant. This makes it particularly expensive to run a coal plant if it's only needed during peak demand seasons.

As far as I can tell, Spiritwood Industrial Park was the last coal plant successfully completed in the continental US, in 2014:

https://www.gem.wiki/Spiritwood_Industrial_Park

It started construction in 2007. As of this year, it is already slated for conversion to natural gas.

I don't expect another coal plant to be built in the continental US, even if gas prices rebound.

And their populations have become much more affluent (carbon emissions correlate strongly with wealth).

Poverty levels in China went from 98% to less than 25% in 26 years from 1990[1].

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/poverty-rate

> (carbon emissions correlate strongly with wealth).

Until they don't, and only the poor who cannot afford better energy sources use fossil fuels.

We're told something similar happened with personal calorie intake ...

> Global CO2 production, which is a good proxy for overall fossil fuel use as steadily risen

Emissions reductions are much slower than the rate at which products are consumed.

If every 10 years your planes get 2% more efficient but at the same time the air traffic jumps by 15% you're still fucked. Which is basically what's happening in every industries

Not all demand is equal. If your customers are Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos, your ability to sell $100/barrel oil (needed to balance budgets in many of these countries) is much weaker than if your customers were Americans, Germans, and Japanese.

It is unfortunate from a short-term local human perspective but Saudi Arabia devolving into anarchy would be excellent from a climate change point of view - a huge amount of CO2 would be locked into the ground and the price spike would dramatically speed up electrification of transport.

The cost per kwh of renewable energy (solar, wind) is plummeting. So is battery storage. I assume that is the basis for that prediction.

edit: a good source is tony seba