The State of New York is actively trying to eliminate natural gas. Some ways it’s going to do that are: requiring new residential and small to medium commercial builds to be all-electric and requiring all government vehicles to be electric (including school buses).
Government policy was not the driving force in the decarbonization since 2005. One can thank the Oil and Gas industry for that! The Shale Revolution is clearly the driver for reduction in CO2 production. Thanks to all the pioneers that developed horizontal drilling and frac’ing! Government policy did not create the shale revolution, in fact, government has done its best to impede the shale revolution. i. e. New York banning frac’ing, EPA creating ruled to increase cost of drilling, new war on methane, removing federal lands from development…
Roger, let us remember that the gross amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere is going up, not down, even though the ratio of CO2 to GDP is going down steadily as energy is used more and more efficiently. An example of Jevon's Paradox, it would appear. This is the reason that those who fear CO2 will bring on catastrophe will continue to press for cripplingly unrealistic Net Zero measures.
If you'd like to learn more about decarbonization, please head over the the paid subscribers tab at the header on the THB website. There you will find a tab labeled "Paid Subscribers Only." Under that you'll find my complete book, The Climate Fix, the first half of which is a nerdy exploration of decarbonization.
An element that I believe is not taken into account in the chart is the embedded carbon in imports. How much of our decarbonization is the result of transfering high carbon manufacturing overseas and buying back into our economy the products without having to take into account the carbon in their production? What would the chart look like if it included the embedded carbon in U.S. imports over the same period of time? Would it make a significant difference?
I don't know the numbers, but I suppose the graph Roger cites below shows minimal impact. Your point, however, is worth considering and is similar to offshoring manufacturing/mining to avoid restrictions in the USA in the past. I know that some companies consciously moved manufacturing and mining to countries where there weren't many OSHA or clean-up requirements during the 70's and 80's. I don't know how much CO2-related activity there is like this. It's like NY buying hydroelectric from Canada to be greener or Germany buying nuclear-electric from France to be anti-nuclear.
GDP growth and decarbonization both represent dependent variables with multiple causative factors. The challenge is to determine their relative contribution to the observed negative linear trend. At the extremes, a growing economy with no decarbonization and a stagnant economy with reduced emissions could cause such a trend. I wonder how much the move toward solid state electronics and the resulting energy efficiencies contribute.
Love the "normalized" graphs! Even if open to debate about exact fit for the case at hand, they always remind us to attempt to put things in perspective. One main "policy" contribution here is the under-publicized freeing up of nuclear -- which, before Obama (despite his never promoting the plant expansion approvals publicly), was practically killed off. The second "policy" is the continuation of fracking for natural gas production -- despite deflecting half-hearted rhetoric from some politicians about banning it. Miraculously, nuclear is now considered "green" and renewable after environmentalists tried everything they could to kill it since 1970. Germany under Merkle is a recent and extreme example of nuclear-killing "policy" which we somehow escaped and are continuing to benefit from. With small modular reactors, this portion of our renewable green energy is going to continue to grow. Natural gas is the unacknowledged and unmentionable fossil fuel "bridge" that Climate Change advocates are too embarrassed credit for anything (especially since some voting blocks of the Democratic Party are so anti-fracking).
All of this discussion of CO2 reminds me that we might be very good at hockey, but the Climate Alarmists have engaged us in basketball, very difficult while wearing skates. Let's hope that some good will come from decarbonization, but I can easily see that it is not financial, and that while we have been and must continue to deal with pollution, CO2 is not a pollutant. We need to get them on the ice.
That was the genius of the CO2 Climate Change warming claims -- flipping a good thing and turning it into an existential threat. Food supply is up. Humans choose to live in the warmer belt of latitudes. That's the real debate.
The growth of GDP in the U.S. and many other regions during the last decades has been created mainly by growth in the service sector (low carbon footprint). Heavy industry (high carbon footprint) has only had a marginal contribution (+or-) to the growth of GDP.
The shift in the composition of GDP will automatically result in a relative drop in carbon emissions per GDP-unit.
So, while the curve you show looks fine, total global emissions are still increasing.
Correct. The rate of change in decarbonization must exceed the rate of growth in GDP for emissions to drop. That means increasing the rate of decline in carbon intensity of energy.
Has not the driving force behind decarbonization been: the real and perceived effects of carbon dioxide emissions from human sources to the earth’s climate? Weren’t we directed to “net zero” to save the planet from our soon-to-be catastrophic infatuation with fossil fuels? Weren’t we told to believe that decarbonization was a moral imperative?
Recent papers by Lindzen et al (2025), Grok3 et al (2025), and Lindzen et al (2024) suggest there is reliable scientific evidence that carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic warming and more extreme weather and that the belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change is scientifically false. Granted, three papers hardly constitute a "consensus,” but it does suggest that there is legitimate question regarding that moral imperative, and that perhaps the urgency of decarbonization is overstated.
Your ultimate bullet asked the question, “has climate policy even mattered for decarbonization.” Respectfully, I submit that question should be “does decarbonization matter?"
Well, yes, it should, but not as a mandate. It should be a direction that promotes energy production through better resources stewardship. Plainly, renewables are not a long-term solution. Energy policy should be crafted to meet goals that promote a better standard of living and well-being while respecting the environment. "Net zero" is a policy inexorably tied to arbitrary fears of catastrophe, and is a goal that can never be met. Like RCP8.5, it should be dismissed from further discussion.
I hear your point, but the data in this post indicates that the economy has decarbonized even without obvious effects of intent. What underlies those dynamics? I think we understand that from a math standpoint (historically, mainly efficiency gains and sector shifts), but less so from a policy standpoint (How?).
As a matter of simple math, efficiency alone cannot drive deep decarbonization, that would require reductions in the carbon intensity of energy, which have some low hanging fruit (coal). Deep decarbonization would require intent.
thank you for responding. Pretty much agree with what you are saying, and I also don't understand the dynamics from a policy standpoint. And I agree that deep decarbonization will require intent - where you and I disagree (I think) is the underlying need for decarbonization. I'm not convinced "deep" decarbonization is necessary, or even wise (from a physics viewpoint). We should let the market dictate the path. Government intervention should establish guardrails, but should not be prescriptive.
An interesting THB post would be a discussion of decarbonization from the perspective of your Iron Law of Climate - is "deep decarbonization" a collision with "economic growth?"
The trend in decarbonization per unit of energy/GDP actually goes back much further than 1992. You can see a shift going back as far as 1920 when petroleum started replacing coal. This is more evidence that government policy does not have as big an effect on reducing carbon emissions as commonly believed.
The world has gone through three energy transition, each to lower carbon energy sources:
Wood > Coal > Natural gas/nuclear/hydro. None of these previous Energy Transitions were sponsored by governments, and they all reduced the carbon intensity of energy.
The government-sponsored Green Energy Transition is actually getting in the way of the Third Energy Transition by punishing Natural gas/nuclear/hydro:
All three sources you have mentioned above have been hammered by government policies here in the USA. People forget about the restrictions on hydro here and places like Africa. It seems that everyone has forgotten about the pushback against nuclear. Natural gas as well.
Does the green line for renewables in the third graph take into account the offshoring of emissions? Foreign made solar panels and turbines still have emissions, but they are conveniently located "upstream".
Could the decline have anything to do with the decline in manufacturing as a percentage of GDP? In line with your work on damage from extreme events I think you should see what the graph looks like when you measure embodied CO2, not emitted CO2. I don't know what the answer will be, but fascinated if you can do the work. But it has to have some impact surely that much of the emissions have probably just been exported.
Thanks. So there is an effect, and appears to be widening since 2020, but not enough data points to be sure, however, the trend is still clear. So next question is, how much of this is due to a change in the composition of consumption to being more and more service oriented?
These CO2 emission reductions would be greater if states like California or Massachusetts would use their own energy resources (oil and gas) and use regional gas resources via pipeline. Instead, they import (via ships, trains and trucks) their energy from other states and (hostile) countries.
The State of New York is actively trying to eliminate natural gas. Some ways it’s going to do that are: requiring new residential and small to medium commercial builds to be all-electric and requiring all government vehicles to be electric (including school buses).
To exactly which article does this post refer? The first two links seem to go to generic pages in TBI web site.
Government policy was not the driving force in the decarbonization since 2005. One can thank the Oil and Gas industry for that! The Shale Revolution is clearly the driver for reduction in CO2 production. Thanks to all the pioneers that developed horizontal drilling and frac’ing! Government policy did not create the shale revolution, in fact, government has done its best to impede the shale revolution. i. e. New York banning frac’ing, EPA creating ruled to increase cost of drilling, new war on methane, removing federal lands from development…
Roger, let us remember that the gross amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere is going up, not down, even though the ratio of CO2 to GDP is going down steadily as energy is used more and more efficiently. An example of Jevon's Paradox, it would appear. This is the reason that those who fear CO2 will bring on catastrophe will continue to press for cripplingly unrealistic Net Zero measures.
Great comments on this post!
If you'd like to learn more about decarbonization, please head over the the paid subscribers tab at the header on the THB website. There you will find a tab labeled "Paid Subscribers Only." Under that you'll find my complete book, The Climate Fix, the first half of which is a nerdy exploration of decarbonization.
An element that I believe is not taken into account in the chart is the embedded carbon in imports. How much of our decarbonization is the result of transfering high carbon manufacturing overseas and buying back into our economy the products without having to take into account the carbon in their production? What would the chart look like if it included the embedded carbon in U.S. imports over the same period of time? Would it make a significant difference?
I don't know the numbers, but I suppose the graph Roger cites below shows minimal impact. Your point, however, is worth considering and is similar to offshoring manufacturing/mining to avoid restrictions in the USA in the past. I know that some companies consciously moved manufacturing and mining to countries where there weren't many OSHA or clean-up requirements during the 70's and 80's. I don't know how much CO2-related activity there is like this. It's like NY buying hydroelectric from Canada to be greener or Germany buying nuclear-electric from France to be anti-nuclear.
I don't think a big difference, see:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions
GDP growth and decarbonization both represent dependent variables with multiple causative factors. The challenge is to determine their relative contribution to the observed negative linear trend. At the extremes, a growing economy with no decarbonization and a stagnant economy with reduced emissions could cause such a trend. I wonder how much the move toward solid state electronics and the resulting energy efficiencies contribute.
Love the "normalized" graphs! Even if open to debate about exact fit for the case at hand, they always remind us to attempt to put things in perspective. One main "policy" contribution here is the under-publicized freeing up of nuclear -- which, before Obama (despite his never promoting the plant expansion approvals publicly), was practically killed off. The second "policy" is the continuation of fracking for natural gas production -- despite deflecting half-hearted rhetoric from some politicians about banning it. Miraculously, nuclear is now considered "green" and renewable after environmentalists tried everything they could to kill it since 1970. Germany under Merkle is a recent and extreme example of nuclear-killing "policy" which we somehow escaped and are continuing to benefit from. With small modular reactors, this portion of our renewable green energy is going to continue to grow. Natural gas is the unacknowledged and unmentionable fossil fuel "bridge" that Climate Change advocates are too embarrassed credit for anything (especially since some voting blocks of the Democratic Party are so anti-fracking).
All of this discussion of CO2 reminds me that we might be very good at hockey, but the Climate Alarmists have engaged us in basketball, very difficult while wearing skates. Let's hope that some good will come from decarbonization, but I can easily see that it is not financial, and that while we have been and must continue to deal with pollution, CO2 is not a pollutant. We need to get them on the ice.
That was the genius of the CO2 Climate Change warming claims -- flipping a good thing and turning it into an existential threat. Food supply is up. Humans choose to live in the warmer belt of latitudes. That's the real debate.
The growth of GDP in the U.S. and many other regions during the last decades has been created mainly by growth in the service sector (low carbon footprint). Heavy industry (high carbon footprint) has only had a marginal contribution (+or-) to the growth of GDP.
The shift in the composition of GDP will automatically result in a relative drop in carbon emissions per GDP-unit.
So, while the curve you show looks fine, total global emissions are still increasing.
Correct. The rate of change in decarbonization must exceed the rate of growth in GDP for emissions to drop. That means increasing the rate of decline in carbon intensity of energy.
Excellent post. Keep at it!
Thank you, sir, a very thought-provoking post.
Has not the driving force behind decarbonization been: the real and perceived effects of carbon dioxide emissions from human sources to the earth’s climate? Weren’t we directed to “net zero” to save the planet from our soon-to-be catastrophic infatuation with fossil fuels? Weren’t we told to believe that decarbonization was a moral imperative?
Recent papers by Lindzen et al (2025), Grok3 et al (2025), and Lindzen et al (2024) suggest there is reliable scientific evidence that carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic warming and more extreme weather and that the belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change is scientifically false. Granted, three papers hardly constitute a "consensus,” but it does suggest that there is legitimate question regarding that moral imperative, and that perhaps the urgency of decarbonization is overstated.
Your ultimate bullet asked the question, “has climate policy even mattered for decarbonization.” Respectfully, I submit that question should be “does decarbonization matter?"
Well, yes, it should, but not as a mandate. It should be a direction that promotes energy production through better resources stewardship. Plainly, renewables are not a long-term solution. Energy policy should be crafted to meet goals that promote a better standard of living and well-being while respecting the environment. "Net zero" is a policy inexorably tied to arbitrary fears of catastrophe, and is a goal that can never be met. Like RCP8.5, it should be dismissed from further discussion.
I hear your point, but the data in this post indicates that the economy has decarbonized even without obvious effects of intent. What underlies those dynamics? I think we understand that from a math standpoint (historically, mainly efficiency gains and sector shifts), but less so from a policy standpoint (How?).
As a matter of simple math, efficiency alone cannot drive deep decarbonization, that would require reductions in the carbon intensity of energy, which have some low hanging fruit (coal). Deep decarbonization would require intent.
thank you for responding. Pretty much agree with what you are saying, and I also don't understand the dynamics from a policy standpoint. And I agree that deep decarbonization will require intent - where you and I disagree (I think) is the underlying need for decarbonization. I'm not convinced "deep" decarbonization is necessary, or even wise (from a physics viewpoint). We should let the market dictate the path. Government intervention should establish guardrails, but should not be prescriptive.
An interesting THB post would be a discussion of decarbonization from the perspective of your Iron Law of Climate - is "deep decarbonization" a collision with "economic growth?"
Thanks again for your great work!
The trend in decarbonization per unit of energy/GDP actually goes back much further than 1992. You can see a shift going back as far as 1920 when petroleum started replacing coal. This is more evidence that government policy does not have as big an effect on reducing carbon emissions as commonly believed.
The world has gone through three energy transition, each to lower carbon energy sources:
Wood > Coal > Natural gas/nuclear/hydro. None of these previous Energy Transitions were sponsored by governments, and they all reduced the carbon intensity of energy.
The government-sponsored Green Energy Transition is actually getting in the way of the Third Energy Transition by punishing Natural gas/nuclear/hydro:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/we-need-to-complete-the-third-energy
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-greens-increased-carbon-emissions
All three sources you have mentioned above have been hammered by government policies here in the USA. People forget about the restrictions on hydro here and places like Africa. It seems that everyone has forgotten about the pushback against nuclear. Natural gas as well.
Yes, I go into more detail on that point in the second article linked above. They are very short-sighted policies.
Does the green line for renewables in the third graph take into account the offshoring of emissions? Foreign made solar panels and turbines still have emissions, but they are conveniently located "upstream".
Have a look at this
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling
Could the decline have anything to do with the decline in manufacturing as a percentage of GDP? In line with your work on damage from extreme events I think you should see what the graph looks like when you measure embodied CO2, not emitted CO2. I don't know what the answer will be, but fascinated if you can do the work. But it has to have some impact surely that much of the emissions have probably just been exported.
Have a look at this
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling
Thanks. So there is an effect, and appears to be widening since 2020, but not enough data points to be sure, however, the trend is still clear. So next question is, how much of this is due to a change in the composition of consumption to being more and more service oriented?
These CO2 emission reductions would be greater if states like California or Massachusetts would use their own energy resources (oil and gas) and use regional gas resources via pipeline. Instead, they import (via ships, trains and trucks) their energy from other states and (hostile) countries.