Good news Monday: US emission projections drop for a fifth year running

Maybe we won't all die?

Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal highlights some good news to start the week. Projections of US CO2 emissions in 2030 at the lowest they've been in five years, according to the 2013 Annual Energy Outlook, the long-term predictions of the US Energy Information Administration.

This chart, from the EIA, shows the changes:

The administration gives five reasons for the decline in expected CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2013:

  1. Downward revisions in the economic growth outlook, which dampens energy demand growth;
  2. Lower transportation sector consumption of conventional fuels based on updated fuel economy standards, increased penetration of alternative fuels, and more modest growth in light-duty vehicle miles traveled;
  3. Generally higher energy prices, with the notable exception of natural gas, where recent and projected prices reflect the development of shale gas resources;
  4. Slower growth in electricity demand and increased use of low-carbon fuels for generation;
  5. Increased use of natural gas

Sober Look ties the news to the continued failure of the US to enact a successful cap-and-trade programme, writing:

One of the reasons for the failure of the so-called cap & trade program in the US (other than political), has to do with the fact that carbon emissions have declined on their own - without any caps. And why would a company pay for an emissions "allowance" if it can stay under the cap without it. Of course politically it made no sense to force companies to pay at the time when they were emitting materially less carbon on their own. Furthermore, there was no incentive for investors to hold these contracts because each year the long-term projections for carbon emissions in the US have declined.

That analysis is undoubtedly correct; the US cap and trade system was predicated on limiting the growth in emissions, and if they are naturally falling then clearly that limit will be moot.

That said, all it really does is highlight the appalling lack of ambition of the American climate programmes – not that the European cap-and-trade programme is doing much better. This is another argument in favour of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade programmes; if you get the cap wrong on cap-and-trade, your programme is useless, but no matter what the value of a carbon tax, it will always have some effect.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Stephen Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising space makes him almost as bad as Trump

The physicist's inistence on mankind's expansion risks making him a handmaiden of inequality.

“Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves,” Stephen Hawking has warned. And he’s not just talking about surviving the UK's recent run of record breaking heat. If humanity doesn’t start sending people to Mars soon, then in a few hundred years he says we can all expect to be kaput; there just isn’t enough space for us all.

The theoretical physicist gave his address to the glittering Starmus Festival of science and arts in Norway. According to the BBC, he argued that climate change and the depletion of natural resources help make space travel essential. With this in mind, he would like to see a mission to Mars by 2025 and a new lunar base within 30 years.

He even took a swipe at Donald Trump: “I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, unlike Donald Trump, who may just have taken the most serious, and wrong, decision on climate change this world has seen.”

Yet there are striking similarities between Hawking's statement and the President's bombast. For one thing there was the context in which it was made - an address to a festival dripping with conspicuous consumption, where 18 carat gold OMEGA watches were dished out as prizes.

More importantly there's the inescapable reality that space colonisation is an inherently elitist affair: under Trump you may be able to pay your way out of earthly catastrophe, while for Elon Musk, brawn could be a deciding advantage, given he wants his early settlers on Mars to be able to dredge up buried ice.

Whichever way you divide it up, it is unlikely that everyone will be able to RightMove their way to a less crowded galaxy. Hell, most people can’t even make it to Starmus itself (€800  for a full price ticket), where the line-up of speakers is overwhelmingly white and male.

So while this obsession with space travel has a certain nobility, it also risks elevating earthly inequalities to an interplanetary scale.

And although Hawking is right to call out Trump on climate change, the concern that space travel diverts money from saving earth's ecosystems still stands. 

In a context where the American government is upping NASA’s budget for manned space flights at the same time as it cuts funds for critical work observing the changes on earth, it is imperative that the wider science community stands up against this worrying trend.

Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising the solar system risks playing into the hands of the those who share the President destructive views on the climate, at the expense of the planet underneath us.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496