EPA publishes updated GHG data

By Erin Voegele | October 25, 2013

The U.S. EPA has released its third year of greenhouse gas (GHG) data, which provides carbon pollution emissions data gathered from several thousand of the largest industrial operations in the U.S. The data can be broken down by industrial sector, GHG type, geographic region and individual facility.

“EPA is supporting President Obama’s Climate Action Plan by providing the high-quality data necessary to help guide common-sense solutions to address climate change,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “Putting this data in the hands of the public increases transparency, supports accountability, and unlocks innovation.”

According to the EPA, its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program collects annual GHG information from more than 8,000 facilities in the U.S., as required by Congress. This is the third year of data collection.

The 2012 data shows that emissions from power plants have decreased 10 percent in the two years since reporting began. The decrease is attributed to more natural gas firing and less coal use, in addition to a slight decrease in electricity production.

Ethanol plants, power plants and landfills are among the 8,000 entities for which GHG data is reported. The EPA’s online data publication tool, FLIGHT, allows users to view trend graphs by sector and facility. The data is also published through EnviorFacts.

Using the online tools, users can search for specific facilities using an online map. The tool also give the option to sort by state or industry.

Users can data on carbon dioxide emissions (excluding biogenic emissions), along with data on other GHG emissions, such as methane and nitrous oxide. The source of emissions and fuels used are also reported. Users are also able to view a chart that includes total emissions for each of the three reporting years.

Access the online tool here.




1 Responses

  1. Blaginka



    That rebuttal niecly sums up a lot of the accepted facts of unwavering peakoilers, e.g. that it's been conclusively shown that oil price hikes are linked to recession (not really; e.g. wrong macro policy responses to oil-led inflation often tried to tackle it by raising interest rates, which just compounded the problem and possibly triggered recession by itself; uncertainty in price is often more important to investment decisions that which direction it's going in, given that fuel costs are actually not a large % of overall costs.)It's beside the point too, as Dan M points out. And of course the issue isn't absolutely cannot be treated separately from considering ALL carbon fuel sources, especially gas and coal which can both, at the right price, get built into the economy's nervous system.MT: All of this argument completely obscures the main issue. We are not interested in cutting greenhouse emissions per unit of energy in half. The situation is such that this is not worth the infrastructure cutover. We should leave most of the gas in the ground along with most of the coal. Claims about local environmental impacts promote innumerate thinking about global issues and do not seem sufficient (as confirmed by the Royal Society) to win the day. // But the tactic of focusing on local impacts is doubly ill-advised because it is a distraction from the real issue. // The issue is global carbon emissions. Fracking will fry us. Will. Not may, will. A couple of bad operations might also cause some local damage, or might not. Which of these issues deserves more of your attention? This is a brilliant, hard-hitting comment making the ground-truth point very strongly. Perhaps the basis for a slightly longer article? We need to start getting as many people as possible realising this. We need to keep it in the ground, and until this is at least realised, we can't even begin to work out how. Like Monbiot though, I'm doubtful that it's at all possible. We may just be a peculiar kind of intelligent bacteria, able to be individually aware of what we're doing but collectively utterly incapable of doing a fart about it. Yearly emission rates continue to increase.Though I suppose it also implies we have to devote more resources to asking: what world are we going to face, and what, if anything, is in our toolkit to help as many people as possible endure it? Most present research is built on the assumption that we're actually going to attempt a successful transition. At the moment that doesn't appear to be true pending some miracle energy tech discovery. (Though from Bob Grumbine on how we're doing even with weather we should expect.)


    Leave a Reply

    Biomass Magazine encourages encourages civil conversation and debate. However, we reserve the right to delete comments for reasons including but not limited to: any type of attack, injurious statements, profanity, business solicitations or other advertising.

    Comments are closed