Global Climate Change: Carbon Emissions and End-Use Energy Demand

Global Climate Change: Carbon Emissions and End-Use Energy Demand

Order Code RL30036
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Global Climate Change: Carbon Emissions and
End-use Energy Demand
January 20, 1999
Richard Rowberg
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
Science, Technology, and Medicine
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT
The United Nations (Kyoto) Protocol on greenhouse gas emission reductions sets a target for
the United States to achieve annual carbon-equivalent emissions of six greenhouse gases over
the 2008-2012 period that are 7% below specified baseline years. For carbon dioxide, CO ,
2
that year is 1990. This report presents an analysis of the potential impacts of the Kyoto
Protocol on U.S. energy demand. The analysis focuses on 27 common end-uses — light duty
vehicles, residential space heating, industrial direct process heat, etc. — that describe the way
energy is used in the United States. Based on a spreadsheet model developed for this report,
results are presented that show the reduction in energy demand that would be required by each
of the 27 end-uses in order to reduce carbon emissions from energy use to the Kyoto Protocol
target levels. The model can be used to evaluate other carbon emission reduction proposals.
This study should be of interest to those staff covering the global climate change issue,
particularly those interested in the potential consequences of the Protocol on the United States.
The report will be updated as other carbon reduction proposals are made.

Global Climate Change: Carbon Emissions and End-use
Energy Demand
Summary
The United Nations (Kyoto) Protocol on greenhouse gas emission reductions
sets a target for the United States to achieve annual emissions of six greenhouse
gases, as measured in terms of their equivalency to carbon dioxide, over the 2008-
2012 period that are 7% below specified baseline years. The largest contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels for energy production to
power a wide variety of end-uses such as automobiles, space heating, and industrial
process heat. This report presents an analysis of the potential impacts of meeting the
Kyoto Protocol targets on those end-uses.
Demand for each energy source is calculated using Energy Information
Administration (EIA) data and forecasts for 1996, 2008, and 2012 for 27 common
end-uses making up the four major sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, and
transportation. Carbon emissions are then determined using carbon-emission
coefficients for each fossil fuel. Finally, energy demand reduction requirements are
calculated by applying the Kyoto Protocol target of a 7% reduction in carbon
emissions from 1990 levels to the 2008 carbon emission levels for each end-use.
Based on EIA forecasts, by 2008, total carbon emissions from energy use by the
27 end-uses is calculated to be 1,721 million metric tons carbon-equivalent (MMTCE)
compared to 1,464 MMTCE in 1996. Five end-uses — light duty vehicles (primarily
automobiles, sport utility vehicles, small trucks, and vans), freight trucks, residential
miscellaneous (small appliances and outdoor machinery), industrial machine drive, and
miscellaneous commercial (communications and information equipment) — would
comprise over 70% of the 1996-2008 increase in carbon emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol target would require average carbon emissions of 1,252
MMTCE from the 27 end-uses over the 2008-2012 period if it were applied uniformly
to all sources of greenhouse gases. In this case, energy demand for each of the end-
uses would have to decline by about 28.7% below the levels now forecast for 2008.
Further, resultant energy demand for each of the end-uses would be about 20%, on
average, below the actual 1996 values. Finally, on average, the required reductions
from the current 2012 forecast would be about 31%.
Reductions of that magnitude would require substantial increases in energy
efficiency, above those already forecast, and/or significant reductions in the services
provided by a given end-use. For example, if the target were to be met solely by
increases in efficiency, the average fuel economy of the light duty vehicle fleet would
have to grow from the current forecast value of about 20.3 miles per gallon (mpg) to
over 29 mpg by 2008. If the reduction were to be met solely by driving less, annual
passenger car (passenger cars consume about 70% of the fuel used by light duty
vehicles) travel would have to drop from the current forecast of 14,500 miles per car
to about 10,300 miles per car. Such actions would be a substantial undertaking and
consumers are likely to feel significant effects from any strategy that is used to try to
meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Report Purpose and Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Energy Demand by End-use Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Analytical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
CO Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2
Analytical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Emission Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Kyoto Protocol Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Reduction Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Concluding Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix: Detailed Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. Energy Demand by End-use: 1996, 2008, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Carbon Emissions by End-use: 1996, 2008, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 3. Carbon Emission Reduction Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 4. End-use Energy Demand Reduction Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. End-uses and Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Carbon Emission Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Global Climate Change: Carbon Emissions and
End-Use Energy Demand
Introduction
Background
The potential for global climate change from the buildup of greenhouse gases in
the Earth’s atmosphere has elicited considerable concern by the world’s nations.1 A
major source of that concern is the contribution to that buildup by greenhouse gases
resulting from human activity. Historically the predominant greenhouse gas from
human activity has been carbon dioxide (CO ) although other gases have been gaining
2
in importance in recent years. Nevertheless, CO is expected to remain the largest
2
single contributor to greenhouse gas buildup from human activity for at least the next
60 years.
The principal source of such CO is energy use. It is a byproduct of combustion
2
of fossil fuels. In 1996, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that the United
States produced 1,462 million metric tons-carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of CO
2
from
2
the combustion of 85.2 quadrillion Btus (Quads) of fossil fuels.3
The growing concern about greenhouse gas-induced global climate change has
prompted major international efforts to limit the buildup. The most recent of these
was the December 1997 United Nations (Kyoto) Protocol on Global Climate Change,
which established greenhouse gas reduction targets for the developed nations
signatory to the accord. That agreement, w
4
hich the United States has signed but not
ratified, would require the United States to achieve average annual carbon-equivalent
emissions of six greenhouse gases over the period 2008-2012 that are 7% below
specified baseline years. For CO , the baseline year is 1990. According to DOE, the
2
United States produced 1,353 MMTCE in 1990 from energy use.
1Congressional Research Service, Global Climate Change, by Wayne Morrissey and John
Justus, CRS Issue Brief 89005 (updated regularly).
One ton-carbon equivalent is equal to 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide.
2
Energy
3
Information Administration, Department of Energy, Annual Energy Outlook, 1998:
With Projections Through 2020, DOE/EIA-0383(98) (December 1997), 100, 124.
Congressional
4
Research Service, Global Climate Change Treaty: Summary of the Kyoto
Protocol, by Susan Fletcher, CRS Report 98-2, 22 December 1997.

CRS-2
There have been several analyses of the implications of meeting the reduction
targets set by the Kyoto accord. Most recently, the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) of DOE reported on the impacts on the U.S. energy markets
and economy of those reductions. In addition, a DOE study
5
carried out by five of
its national laboratories examined the potential for new energy supply and demand
technologies to help meet those targets with a minimum of economic dislocation.6
Those studies carried out detailed examinations of U.S. energy demand in analyzing
the potential impacts of CO emission reduction.
2
With some exceptions, however, the detail did not extend to the specific end-
uses — such as motor vehicles or air conditioning — that consumers are familiar with.
Although the Interlaboratory (called the 5-lab) study looked at specific end-use
technologies, it did not provide data on end-use energy demand and CO emissions
2
for all major end-uses. While such information is not necessary to estimate potential
economic impacts of CO emission reduction, it can be helpful in gaining an
2
understanding of the potential consequences of such actions at the consumer level.
Report Purpose and Format
This report presents estimates of actual and forecast energy demand for all of the
common energy demand end-use categories for 1996, 2008, and 2012. It then
calculates the CO emissions for these estimates. With these values the reader should
2
be able to see which, of the several ways energy is used in this country, are the major
sources of CO emissions. A similar report was prepared in 1991, which presented
2
energy demand and CO emissions estimates for 1988 and 2000.7
2
This report goes further than the previous report by presenting an analysis of the
CO emission reductions called for by the Kyoto accord. This analysis is based on a
2
spreadsheet model that estimates the CO emissions reductions for each of the end-
2
use categories for both 2008 and 2012, and calculates the energy demand reductions
needed to meet those emissions targets. In this way, the reader can see just how any
of the common energy demand end-uses would be affected by reaching the targets.
The report concludes with a discussion of implications of these reductions for
representative end-uses.
Energy
5
Information Administration, Department of Energy, Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol
on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, SR/OIAF/98-03, (October 1998).
6Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, Scenarios of
U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond,
prepared by the Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon
Technologies.
Congressional
7
Research Service, Energy Demand and Carbon Dioxide Production, by
Richard Rowberg, CRS Report 90-204, 11 February 1991.

CRS-3
Energy Demand by End-use Category
Background
The EIA divides U.S. energy demand into four sectors: industrial, residential,
commercial, and transportation. Each sector is characterized by sources of energy
supply and by specific end-uses. The sources of energy are the fossil fuels,
renewables, and electricity. Electricity, of course, requires primary energy sources,
namely fossil fuels, nuclear fuels, and renewables. End-uses are defined as specific
functions or equipment that perform services for consumers such as cooling, heating,
rail transport, electric motors, and lighting. Table 1 presents the energy sources and
end uses considered in this
report. There are 27 end-uses
in all. The term in parentheses
Table 1. End-uses and Energy Sources
after each end use is a symbol
(By Sector)
used to denote the end-use in
End-uses
Energy Sources
graphical representations to
follow. The end-uses are not
Residential
presented in any special order.
Space Heating (SHR)
Distillate Fuel Oil
Also, the energy sources in the
Water Heating (WHR)
Liquid Petroleum Gas
right column are not meant to
Appliances (ApR)
Natural Gas
correspond to the end-uses in
Air Conditioning (ACR)
Coal
Lighting (LR)
Renewable Energy
the left column. A given end-
Miscellaneous (MR)
Electricity
use usually requires more than
Commercial
one source of energy.
Distillate Fuel Oil
Miscellaneous (MC)
While most of the end-uses
Residual Oil
Lighting (LC)
Liquid Petroleum Gas
are self-explanatory, some need
Air Conditioning (ACC)
Motor Gasoline
further explanation. The
Space Heating (SHC)
Natural Gas
Water Heating (WHC)
miscellaneous end-use in the
Renewable Energy
Cooking & Refrig (CRC)
Electricity
residential sector includes
motors and heating elements
Industrial
commonly found on gardening
Direct Heat (DHI)
equipment, machine tools, and
Distillate Fuel Oil
Machine Drive (MDI)
Liquid Petroleum Gas
small appliances. Appliances in
Steam (StI)
Residual Oil
this sector include refrigeration,
Construction & Agri (CAI)
Motor Gasoline
Mining (MnI)
cooking, freezers, clothes
Natural Gas
Heat & Air Cond (HAI)
Coal
washers and dryers, color
Electrolysis (EI)
Renewable Energy
televisions, and personnel
Lighting (LI)
Electricity
Electric Gen (EGI)
computers. In the commercial
sector, miscellaneous includes
Transportation
electronic office equipment,
Distillate Fuel Oil
telecommunications, medical
Light Duty Vehicles
Jet Fuel
(LDT)
equipment, service station
Motor Gasoline
Freight Trucks (FTT)
Residual Oil
equipment, and manufacturing
Air (ArT)
Liquid Petroleum Gas
performed in commercial
Marine (MaT)
Natural Gas
Rail (RT)
buildings.
Renewable Energy
Pipeline (PT)
Electricity

CRS-4
In the industrial sector, direct heat refers to manufacturing processes requiring the
direct application of heat such as metal treating and chemical production. Machine
drive refers primarily to the use of electric motors to control manufacturing processes.
Steam is used in manufacturing primarily as a heat source for chemical and
metallurgical processes, as a power source for metal-forming equipment, and to drive
turbines. Electrolysis is an electro-chemical process used primarily in aluminum
production.
In addition to those manufacturing processes, the industrial sector contains
construction, agriculture, and mining. Each of these “subsectors” contains several end-
uses, but lack of good data prevents an accurate disaggregation. Therefore, each is
counted as a separate end-use. Finally, the industrial sector uses a significant quantity
of petroleum fuels for products such as asphalt, liquified petroleum gases,
petrochemical feedstocks, and lubricants. Most of the carbon in these nonenergy
applications is not released as CO emissions, and the nonenergy end-uses are not
2
included in the carbon emission analysis to follow.8
In the transportation sector, light duty vehicles include all vehicles weighing less
than 8,500 pounds. These include automobiles, minivans, sport utility vehicles, larger
passenger vans, and small trucks. Freight trucks include all commercial and freight
trucks weighing over 8,500 pounds.
In each sector, electricity is given as one of the energy sources. Electricity, of
course, requires primary energy sources for its generation. These sources are distillate
and residual fuel oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear and renewable energy. In the
calculations to follow, it is assumed that for a given year, the mix of energy sources to
generate electricity is the same regardless of which sector uses the electricity. The mix
will change over time, however, and those changes are incorporated.
Analytical Method
Energy demand in the United States for 1996 was adopted for the baseline
because that is the last year for which complete data are available for all sectors. For
the residential and commercial sectors, data for end-use energy demand by fuel are
directly available from the EIA. Consolidation of some of the end-uses provided by
9
EIA was made by combining several household appliances in a category called
residential appliances, and combining all commercial categories labeled other uses with
commercial office equipment in a category called commercial miscellaneous. These
new categories are described above.
8A small fraction of the carbon — about 20% — of these nonenergy uses, according to the
EIA, does end up as CO in the atmosphere. The effect of this contribution will be discussed
2
but will not be included in the detailed results because it is very small. See: Energy
Information Administration, Department of Energy, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the
United States, 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96), (October 1997), 70.
9Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1998, 106-109.

CRS-5
For the transportation sector, the EIA provides separate reporting of total energy
use by the various categories and by energy source. As a
10
result, estimates have to
be made of how much of a given energy source are used by any end-use. This can be
done by noting that there is a predominate energy source for a given end-use and that
most of the categories will use no more than two different kinds of energy sources.
For example, light duty vehicles will use primarily gasoline with a small amount of
distillate, air transport will use all of the jet fuel and a small amount of gasoline, and
rail is the primary user of electricity but also uses residual fuel oil. By reconciling the
total energy demand for each end-use with that for each energy source, an accurate
picture of energy demand by energy source for each end-use can be obtained.
For the industrial sector, the calculation is more complex. The sector is made up
of four subsectors: manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and mining. Detailed
energy use data by end-use exist only for the manufacturing sector. The EIA publishes
a survey of manufacturing energy use every three years, the most recent for 1994. The
report provides data on the major end-uses by energy source. A complication arises
11
in that a large fraction of the totals reported by end-use and by energy source are not
specified. By going to the individual industry groups much of those unspecified values
can be estimated from noting the types of processes used by those industries. For
example, unspecified fuel in the paper and paper products industry is likely to be wood
used to produce steam. In petroleum refining, the unspecified fuel is likely to be still
gas, a product of the refining process, used for direct heat and steam. Once energy
demand by end-use and energy source is determined for 1994, the 1996 value can be
estimated by adjusting each energy source by the 1994-1996 growth rate. That
method assumes that there is no significant shift of the type of energy source used by
the end-uses over that period.
For mining, the census of mineral industries published by the U.S. Census Bureau
of the Department of Commerce provides data on energy use for 1992 by energy
source for the entire mining industry. No data are provided by end-use. For tha
12
t
reason, the entire mining industry is included as a separate end-use. To obtain values
for 1996, the value of each energy source is adjusted by its the 1992-1996 growth
rate. For construction and agriculture, no energy use data are available. Total energy
demand by energy source for the entire industrial sector, however, is available.13 By
subtracting total energy demand by energy source for the other two subsectors from
the industry total, and considering construction and agriculture as one end-use, its
energy demand can be estimated as the residual.
Ibid. 102, 111.
10
11Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, Manufacturing Consumption
of Energy, 1994, DOE/EIA-0512(94), (December 1997), 114.
U.S.
12
Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Mineral Industries: Fuels
and Electric Energy Consumed, MIC92-S-2. See:
[http://www.census.gov/mcd/minecen/download/nc92feec.txt].
Energy Information Administration,
13
Annual Energy Outlook 1998, 101.

CRS-6
For the years 2008 and 2012, the EIA forecasts are used to estimate energy
demand by end-use and energy source. The
14
Annual Energy Outlook, 1998 provides
forecasts for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015, among others.15 To obtain forecast
estimates for 2008 and 2012, therefore, it is first necessary to determine the forecast
for energy demand by end-use for 2010.
16 Energy demand forecasts for the residential
and commercial sector end-uses are obtained directly for 2010 just as described above
for 1996. Similarly, estimated energy demand by end-use for the transportation sector
for 2010 can be obtained from the EIA data using the same methods as for 1996.
For industry, a different method must be used because there are no forecasts of
manufacturing energy demand by end-use. The EIA, however, does provide forecasts
of energy demand by energy source for the entire industrial sector. By adjusting each
energy source for a given end-use by the 1996-2010 growth rate for that energy source
for the entire sector, an estimate of the energy demand for that end-use for 2010 can
be made. This method assumes that the relative mix of energy sources for a given end-
use does not change significantly over that period. That is a valid assumption because
a major energy-source mix change in one end-use would require an equal and opposite
change in one or more of the remaining end-uses in order to keep the totals for the
sector unchanged. Such actions are quite unlikely, particularly over a 14-year period.
Once the forecasts for 2010 are obtained, they can be modified to provide
estimates of the forecasts for 2008 and 2012. This modification is performed by first
calculating the annual growth rate between 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 for each energy
source by sector. The data for these calculations are obtained from the EIA Annual
Energy Outlook, 1998. With those growth rates, it is a straightforward matter to
adjust each of the energy sources for each of the end-uses by the appropriate annual
growth rate. This method assumes that the 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 growth rates
for a given energy source are the same for all end-uses in a sector. In the cases where
that assumption can be checked — the residential and commercial sectors — it is not
strictly correct. The error introduced for those two sectors, however, will be small
because the growth rates themselves are small, 1% per year and less. For the other
two sectors, it is unavoidable, given the data available, but also quite small.
Results
The results of those calculations are shown in Figure 1 (on next page) for all 27
end-uses. They are arranged in descending order of energy demand forecast in 2012.
The results present primary energy demand for each end-use; waste heat produced in
For
14
this report, the EIA reference case forecast is used. That forecast is based on a
macroeconomic model that calculates a series of indicators that are used to drive the energy
demand model. Among the indicators for the reference case are an annual growth of real GNP
of 3.0% per year between 1996 and 2020, and a decline in total energy intensity (1000
Btu/1992 dollar of GDP) of 0.9% per year over the same period. See, Energy Information
Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 1998, 125.
Energy Information Administration,
15
Annual Energy Outlook, 1998, 101, 106-111.
In all cases the EIA reference case forecast is used.
16

CRS-7
the generation of electricity is assigned to the electricity total for each end-use.17
Tables presenting the actual data are in the Appendix to this report.
Total energy demand represented by all 27 end-uses in 1996 — 87.5 Quads —
is nearly equal to the value of total energy demand reported by EIA — 88.1 Quads —
indicating that these 27 end-uses virtually capture the full range of U.S. energy
demand. For 1996, EIA also reports that non-energy uses, as discussed above,
consumed 5.95 Quads of fossil fuels. For 2008, energy demand for the 27 end-uses
is 101.5 Quads and for 2012 it is 105.7 Quads. The EIA estimates for total energy
demand including nonenergy uses of fossil fuels for those two years are 109.6 Quads
and 113.6 Quads, respectively. These values would indicate that nonenergy use for
2008 and 2012 is 8.1 Quads and 7.9 Quads respectively. Based on extrapolation of
Figure 1. Energy Demand by End-use: 1996, 2008, 2012
Quads
20
15
10
5
0
StI
EI
RT
LDT
MC
FTT
MR
Apr
CAI
ACC
MaT
HAI
CRC
EGI
LC
LR
PT
LI
DHI
SHR
MDI
ArT
MnI
WHR
SHC
ACR
WHC
End-use Symbol
1996 Actual
2008 Forecast
2012 Forecast
past trends those values are reasonable, although it is unlikely that nonenergy, fossil
fuel use would decline from 2008 to 2012. The value for 2008 is probably a little high,
while that for 2012 somewhat low. This means that the estimates for energy demand
determined from summing the end-uses is somewhat low for 2008 and somewhat high
for 2012. The discrepancy is small, however, and very likely to be within the EIA
forecast errors.
Of the individual end-uses, the one with the largest energy demand is light duty
vehicles. It is nearly twice the size of the next largest end-use, direct heat for industrial
processes. Furthermore, its energy demand is forecast to grow significantly from 1996
17About two-thirds of the energy used to produce electricity is lost as waste heat. Thus one
Quad of electric energy delivered to consumers represents about three Quads of primary
energy used. Some of the waste heat is used for low-level heat — e.g., space heat — in
industry and commercial buildings, and, as such, replaces other energy sources. This
secondary use of “waste heat” is particularly prevalent with electricity generated on-site by
industry. This process is called cogeneration.

CRS-8
to 2012 primarily as a result of a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled. Other
18
end-uses that are expected to grow sharply between 1996 and 2012 are the
miscellaneous categories in both the residential and commercial sectors. A rapid
expansion in office electronic and telecommunication equipment, and in a variety of
small residential appliances and outdoor heating equipment and motors is expected to
be responsible for that growth. Electricity is by far the dominant energy source for
those miscellaneous end-uses. Those three end-uses — light duty vehicles and the
two miscellaneous categories — constitute 48% of the projected growth in energy
demand between 1996 and 2012.
CO Emissions
2
Analytical Method
The first step in estimating CO emissions is to determine the carbon emission
2
coefficients for the fossil fuels used as energy sources. Each fossil fuel has a
characteristic CO production rate, or emission coefficient, determined by the
2
chemistry of that fuel. That rate
is the amount of CO that will be
Table 2. Carbon Emission Coefficients
2
produced upon complete
(Millions of Metric Tons per Quad)
combustion of a specific quantity
of fuel. Those rates are given in
Source
1996
2010
Table 2 in terms of millions of
Gasoline
19.38
19.38
metric tons of carbon (MMTC)
LPG
16.99
16.99
produced per Quad of energy
19 20
Jet Fuel
19.33
19.33
used. The coefficients for a
given fuel can change from year-
Distillate
19.95
19.95
to-year depending on the quality
Residual
21.49
21.49
of the fuel produced that year.
Coal - Res/Com
26.00
26.00
The changes will be small,
Coal - IND
25.63
25.63
however, and the EIA has
reported no changes for
Natural Gas
14.47
14.47
petroleum products and natural
Electricity
16.04
16.50
gas over the period 1986 to
1996. There have been sligh
21
t
changes for coal, but they are
very small and possible future changes will not be considered in this report. Therefore,
the carbon emission coefficients for fossil fuels are assumed to remain constant over
the period covered by this report, 1996 to 2012.
Energy
18
Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 1998, 111. EIA forecasts only
a small increase in light duty vehicle energy efficiency over that period: 20.2 mpg in 1996 to
20.3 mpg in 2010.
Energy Information Administration,
19
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, 100.
These
20
coefficients are presented in terms of the amount of carbon produced. To calculate
the amount of CO produced it is necessary to multiply the coefficient by 3.67, the ratio of the
2
molecular weight of CO to that of carbon.
2
Energy Information Administration,
21
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, 100.

CRS-9
For electricity, the coefficient is calculated from the coefficients of the fossil fuels
used in the generation mix, weighted by their contribution to that mix. This mix will
change over time. Using EIA forecasts for the generation mix in 2010, the carbon
emission coefficient for electricity for that year can be calculated. Note that the change
between 1996 and 2010 is small. While the value for 2008 and 2012 can be estimated
by using the 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 fossil fuel growth rates given by the EIA, the
changes from 2010 are likely to be insignificant. Therefore, the 2010 value is used in
calculating carbon emissions for 2008 and 2012.
Once the carbon emission coefficients are calculated, it is relatively
straightforward to calculate the total amount of carbon emitted by each end-use in the
selected year. For each end-use, the quantity of energy from a each energy source is
multiplied by the appropriate carbon emission coefficient and the results are summed.
Using those coefficients, of course, will yield carbon emissions not CO emissions.
2
Although it is simple to convert to CO emissions (see footnote 19), this will not be
2
done in order to be consistent with the way the EIA presents emissions data.
Results
The results of this calculation are given in Figure 2. The detailed data are
Figure 2. Carbon Emissions by End-use: 1996, 2008, 2012
Millions of Metric Tons
400
300
200
100
0
EI
LDT
FTT
SHR
MDI
MR
ApR
MnI
MaT
SHC
HAI
EGI
WHC
CRC
StI
LC
LR
RT
PT
LI
DHI
MC
ArT
CAI
WHR
ACC
ACR
End-use Symbol
1996
2008
2012
provided in tables in the Appendix. The data in the figure are displayed by order of
end-use emission rankings forecast for 2012. Total carbon emissions in 1996,
calculated by aggregating end-uses, were 1,464 million metric tons carbon equivalent
(MMTCE). The EIA reports that total 1996 carbon emissions, including those from
non-energy use of fossil fuel, were 1,463 MMTCE. The CRS estimate might b
22
e
slightly high because no emissions from non-energy uses of fossil fuels were included.
As noted above, about 20% of the carbon in those fuels was released to the
Energy Information Administration,
22
Annual Energy Outlook, 1998, 124.

CRS-10
atmosphere. This would amount to carbon emissions of about 15 to 20 MMTCE.
Nevertheless, the value calculated here is quite close to the EIA total indicating that
the end-use structure is valid.
For 2008 and 2012, aggregation of the end-use carbon emissions yields totals of
1,721 and 1,795 MMTCE respectively. The EIA forecasts for these two years are
1,757 and 1,837 MMTCE respectively. Considering the effect of non-energy uses of
fossil fuels as discussed in the previous paragraph, the results obtained from
aggregating end-use emissions appear quite consistent with the EIA forecasts.
The largest contributor to carbon emissions was, and is expected to continue to
be, light duty vehicles. That end-use is forecast to contribute almost twice as much
carbon as the next highest end-use, direct heat for industry. These observations, of
course, are consistent with those reported above in the discussion of energy demand.
There is not, however, a direct correlation between total energy demand and carbon
emissions. Rather the energy source mix can play an important role in determining the
relationship between energy demand ranking and carbon emission ranking. In
particular, industrial steam and residential space heat rank higher on the energy demand
scale than the carbon emission scale because both include a significant amount of
biomass — wood combustion — in their energy source mix. Wood combustion does
not produce any net production of CO as long as the wood used for energy
2
production was not previously counted as a sink for CO .
23
2
Nevertheless, there are a number of similarities in the two tables. Light duty
vehicles, and residential and commercial miscellaneous are projected to have the largest
increases in carbon emission between 1996 and 2008, and 1996 and 2012. Other end-
uses that indicate a large increase are freight trucks, air transport, and industrial
machine drive. These five end-uses make up 70% of the forecast increase of total
carbon emissions from energy use between 1996 and 2012.
For some end-uses, carbon emissions are forecast to change very little and, in
some cases, decline. All of the end-uses in the residential and commercial sector,
except the miscellaneous categories, are expected to be nearly the same in 2012 as in
1996. This level behavior is due primarily to projected increases in energy efficiencies
for those end-uses. Most industry and transportation end-uses, however, are forecast
for significant growth. On average, the rate of forecast efficiency gains for the end-
uses in those sectors does not match their projected energy-demand growth resulting
from continued economic growth.
During
23
tree growth, carbon is sequestered as a result of the photosynthesis process whereby
plants consume CO and give off oxygen. Because this growth takes place within years of the
2
time when the combustion of the wood takes place, there is no net production of CO over the
2
time frame of concern for possible greenhouse gas induced climate change.

CRS-11
Emission Reductions
Kyoto Protocol Targets
In 1997, the United States joined with more than 160 nations to negotiate
greenhouse gas emission reductions targets. The result was the Kyoto Protocol that
established such targets for the Annex I countries.
24 Those countries are among the
ones that have ratified the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. According to the Protocol, the United States is to reduce those emissions to
a level 7% below 1990 levels. There are six greenhouse gases covered in the Protocol
and the targets are based on the carbon equivalent of each gas. These gases are CO ,
2
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
For last the three of the gases, there is an option that 1995 can be adopted as the base
year.25

In 1990, total emissions of the six greenhouse gases was 1,618 MMTCE . If the
26
1995 base year is adopted for the three gases, the total becomes 1,629 MMTCE. Of
the total, 1,374 MMTCE is CO , of which 1,346 MMTCE comes from fossil fuel
2
combustion for energy use. The nonenergy CO is from certain industrial processes,
2
primarily cement production and limestone consumption.
There are considerable uncertainties involved in calculating the targets and
reduction quantities required. One of the principal ones is how the reduction will be
27
allocated among the various gases. It might be possible to reduce some gases well
beyond the 7% target allowing smaller reductions in others. In addition, the Protocol
allows countries to trade emissions credits. That process could allow a loosening of
28
the target level for the United States.
One of the purposes of this report is to show what would happen to energy
demand levels for the common end-uses if the targets were applied uniformly.
Therefore, to determine the required carbon emission targets, the 7% reduction will
be taken from carbon emissions resulting from energy production in 1990. This target
level is 1,252 MMTCE. One other case has been considered, that of a 3% reduction
from the 1990 levels. This reduction level was estimated by the U.S. Department of
State and cited by the Council of Economic Advisors as possible given the flexibility
Congressional
24
Research Service, Global Climate Change Treaty: Summary of the Kyoto
Protocol; and Congressional Research Service, Global Climate Change.
Energy
25
Information Administration, Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. energy Markets
and Economic Activity, xi.
Energy Information Administration,
26
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, x, 18.
For
27
an extensive discussion of the uncertainties, see, Congressional Research Service,
Global Climate Change: Reducing Greenhouse Gases — How Much from What Baseline?
by Larry Parker and John Blodgett, CRS Report 98-235 ENR, 11 March 1998.
Congressional Research Service,
28
Global Climate Change.

CRS-12
inherent in the Protocol. This target level is 1,306
29
MMTCE. The difference between
the two target levels is small, however, and will not significantly affect the implications
of reaching these levels for any of the end-uses.
In addition to determining the target level, there is also the question of when the
reductions would start. The Protocol states that the average emissions over the five-
year period must equal the target. Therefore, if the 7% reduction is met in 2008,
emissions can remain flat throughout the period. If no reduction has taken place by
2008, the reduction necessary by 2012 must be substantially greater. This behavior is
shown in Figure 3 which compares different trajectories to the target level. In the
extreme case of waiting until 2008 to begin, and assuming a constant percentage
decline each subsequent year, the 2012 target level becomes 756 MMTCE, 59% below
the current EIA forecast for that year. Starting in 2005, the case adopted by the EIA
assessment, and assuming a constant percentage decline to the target of 1,25
30
2
MMTCE in 2008, would require a 6.9% per year rate of decline. Starting in 1999 to
the same target, would require a 1.9% per year decline.
It is clear that the degree of difficulty in reaching the target levels would increase
dramatically as the year in which the reductions begins approaches 2008. For the
purposes of this paper, it is assumed that reduction would begin some time before 2008
and reach the 7% (or 3%) level by 2008 so that carbon emissions are constant over the
2008-2012 period.
Energy
29
Information Administration, Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets
and Economic Activity, xii.
30Ibid.

CRS-13
Reduction Levels
To estimate the consequences of reaching the reduction targets of 7% below 1990
carbon emissions on end-use energy demand in 2008, it is assumed that the reductions
are applied uniformly to all the end-uses. The 2008 carbon emissions of each end-use
are multiplied by the ratio of the target emissions level to the total carbon emissions
from all energy use in 2008 as forecast by the EIA. The results are the allowe
31
d
carbon emissions for that end-use to meet the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. Once
those target emission levels are determined, the energy demand levels that would be
required to produce those target emission levels can be calculated. First, the average
carbon emissions coefficient for each end-use is calculated using the 2008 values.32
Then, the target emission levels for a given end-use are divided by its average carbon
emission coefficient, giving the target energy demand level. Finally, the difference
between the forecast level and the target level gives the required energy demand
reduction needed to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets for each end-use.
The results of this calculation are shown in Figure 4 for 2008. The detailed data
are in the Appendix. Because carbon emissions would have to remain constant at
1,252 MMTCE over that period to meet the Kyoto Protocol requirements, energy
demand for each end-use would also have to remain constant as long as each end-use
is sharing the reduction proportionately. The higher energy demand forecasts for
2012 as shown above mean that the reductions for each end-use in 2012 would be
correspondingly higher. These reductions are also shown in Figure 4 and the detailed
data are shown in the Appendix.
Figure 4. End-use Energy Demand Reduction Requirements
Quadrillion Btus
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
StI
EI
PT
LDT
MC
MDI
MR
ApR
CAI
ACC
MaT
HAI
CRC
EGI
LC
LR
RT
LI
DHI
SHR
FTT
ArT
MnI
WHR
SHC
ACR
WHC
End-use Symbol
1996
2008
2012
The
31
EIA forecast is used instead of the aggregate from all of the end-uses calculated by CRS
because the former accounts for the nonenergy contribution as described above, and such
contributions are included in the target level. Therefore, both parts of the ratio will be
comparable.
32This is just the ratio of total carbon emissions for that end-use to the total energy demand
for that end-use from all energy sources.

CRS-14
Figure 4 also presents the energy demand reductions from 1996 actual levels that
would result from meeting the Kyoto Protocol requirements. A negative value means
that the target energy demand level in the 2008-2012 period would be higher than the
1996 actual level. Only two end-uses show such behavior, residential miscellaneous
and air transport. For both, EIA forecasts that energy demand is expected to grow
well above the average of all end-uses. Other end-uses that are forecast to grow
rapidly, such as commercial miscellaneous and light duty vehicles, show relatively small
reductions from the 1996 actual levels. For nearly all of the end-uses, however, the
target levels for 2008-2012 would be significantly below the 1996 recorded energy
demand. Indeed, some end-uses show larger reductions from 1996 levels than from
the 2008/2012 forecasts. Those are primarily in the residential and commercial sectors
and are end-uses where substantial efficiency gains are expected in coming years such
as residential appliances and commercial space heating. In percentage terms, the
reductions that would be required from 1996 actual levels range from about a negative
25% to a positive 49% with an average of about a positive 20%.
Under the method used in this report to apportion the reductions that would be
required by the Kyoto Protocol, each end-use contributes the same percentage
reduction in carbon emissions and energy demand for 2008. For that year, energy
demand would be reduced by about 28.7%. Because the energy demand target level
remains fixed from 2008 to 2012 but demand growth for each end-use is forecast to
grow at different rates over that period, the percentage reduction in energy demand for
2012 would not be the same for each end-use. The percentage reductions for 2012 in
end-use energy demand would range from about 29% to 41% with most around 31%.
Discussion
Implications. Reaching the Kyoto Protocol target for carbon emissions from
energy use would result in energy demand in the year 2008 of about 70.2 Quads. This
33
would be about 28.3 Quads below the amount the EIA now forecasts for total energy
use in 2008 and about 14.8 Quads below the amount used in 1996. It would be the
lowest total U.S. energy demand since 1988. Taken from the 1996 level, to reach that
target by 2008 would require a decline of about 1.6% per year. If actions do not begin
until 2005, as assumed in the EIA study on impacts of the Kyoto Protocol, energy
demand would have to decline by about 10.5% per year to reach the target level. The
longest stretch of declining energy demand in the United States since 1949 occurred
from 1979 to 1983 following the second Arab oil embargo and oil price spike. Over
that period, total energy demand dropped by 10.6% or about 2.8% per year for the
four-year period. While that rate is considerably greater than 1.6% per year, it is much
less than 10.5% per year, and the total percentage drop that took place is about one-
half that which would be required to meet the 2008 Kyoto Protocol target from 1996.
In discussing these results, three examples are considered: light duty vehicles,
residential space heating, and industrial direct heating. Those are large energy demand
categories in three different sectors. The assessment will consider changes in energy
3 In addition, there would be about 7.5 Quads of fossil fuel use for nonenergy purposes and
3
about 3.6 Quads of biomass making a total of about 81.3 Quads.

CRS-15
efficiency needed to meet the targets as well as consequences of reducing energy
demand without any efficiency gains. Finally, a review of historical energy demand for
each of the three end-uses will be made to see whether there are precedents for
reductions called for to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.
Light Duty Vehicles.The end-use with the largest energy demand is light duty
vehicles. Meeting the Kyoto target would require a decline in energy use by these
vehicles of 4.9 Quads from the level now forecast by the EIA for 2008 and about 1.7
Quads from the amount used in 1996. This would amount to a drop of about 880,000
barrels a day of gasoline consumption. To achieve that decline by 2008 would require
an increase of the average fuel efficiency of the entire light duty vehicle fleet from 20.3
miles per gallon (mpg) to 23.3 mpg assuming no increase in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) between 1996 and 2008. If the EIA forecast of VMT for 2008 is met, fuel
efficiency would have to reach 29.6 mpg, an annual rate of increase of 3.2%.
Currently, the EIA forecasts that the light duty vehicle fleet will operate at 20.3 mpg
in 2008.
While historical fuel efficiency data for light duty vehicles as a group do not exist,
data for passenger cars, which constitutes about 60% of all light duty vehicles, show
that fuel efficiency grew from 14.6 mpg in 1979 to 21.2 mpg in 1991. The annual rate
of increase for that 12 period was 3.2%. For all motor vehicles, however, th
34
e
increase was considerably less over that period, 2.6% per year. Because the latter
includes freight trucks, the actual increase for light duty vehicles was somewhere in
between these two rates. Since 1989, however, fuel efficiency for light duty vehicles
has increased from 18.5 mpg to 20.2 mpg. This slow growth in fuel efficiency plus the
forecast that such growth will continue to be slow for the next two decades at least,
indicates that most of the effects of the fuel economy standards established in the late
1970s might already have been achieved. Therefore, to achieve the growth in fuel
economy required to meet the Kyoto target, would require a return to rapid growth
in new vehicle fuel economy.
It should be noted, however, that since the mid-1980s, there has been little
increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new
automobiles or for light trucks such as sport utility vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks.
The CAFE standards for new automobiles has remained at 27.5 mpg since 1985, and
the standard for new light trucks has only increased from 20.5 mpg in 1987 to 20.7
mpg in 1996. Furthermore, over
35
the same period the automobile portion of the light
duty vehicle fleet has been decreasing. In 1979, over 79% of all vehicle miles traveled
by light duty vehicles were accounted for by automobiles. In 1996, that percentage
had dropped to just over 64%. The remainder of those miles were accounted for by
36
Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy,
34
Annual Energy Review 1997,
DOE/EIA-0384(97) (July 1997), 53.
35National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Department of Transportation,
Automobile Fuel Economy Program: Twenty-second Annual Report to Congress, Calender
Year 1997, 3. See; [http/www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/fuelecon/index.html].
Oak
36
Ridge National Laboratory, Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book:
Edition 18, ORNL-6941 (1998), 5-5. The report can also be found on

CRS-16
light trucks, which are less fuel efficient than automobiles. In 1996, the value for all
automobiles was 21.5 mpg and for all light trucks was 17.3 mpg.
37
If no efficiency gains were to take place, a substantial decline in VMT would be
necessary. At a constant 20.2 mpg, vehicle miles traveled would have to decline about
12.4% from the 1996 actual level and about 28.8% from the level forecast for 2008.
In terms of automobiles which make up about 72% of the VMT, this reduction would
force annual miles traveled per automobile to drop to about 10,300 compared to the
1996 level of about 11,700 miles. If miles trave
38
led per automobile per year increased
at the same rate as VMT according to the EIA forecast, the value in 2008 is now
projected to be about 14,500 miles. Therefore, the VMT level required to meet the
Kyoto Protocol target without any efficiency gains would be substantially lower.
Residential Space Heating.To meet the Kyoto targets for residential space
heating energy demand, a decline would be required of 1.8 Quads, or 27.6%, from the
1996 level and about 2 Quads, or 28.7%, from the level now forecast by EIA for 2008.
The small difference between the 1996 and 2008 reductions is a result of the continued
efficiencies that the EIA forecasts will be forthcoming for residential space heating.
To achieve those reductions would require large increases in the efficiencies of
residential building shell and/or heating systems, a substantial reduction in the
temperature levels maintained in a typical house, or some combination of both. For
example, if a typical residential building had an average building thermal barrier rated
at R = 16, it would have to increase to R = 22 to reduce its space heating energy
requirements for heating by 27.6%. It could also install new heating equipment that
operated at a higher efficiency. To achieve the necessary fuel reduction, an efficiency
gain of over 37% would be needed. For example, a furnace operating at 60%
efficiency would need to be replaced by one operating at about 82%. Finally, if neither
of these two efficiency improvements were possible, that residential building would
need to decrease its average indoor temperature. For example, if the building’s normal
indoor temperature was 75 degrees, and the outdoor temperature averaged 40 degrees,
the indoor temperature would have to be lowered to about 65 degrees to reduce its
heating requirements in line with the Kyoto target.
A change in residential space heating energy demand of this magnitude has
occurred before, from 1978 to 1980. The large increase in energy prices in the late
1970s drove the demand for space heating energy down by 22%, after correcting for
changes in heat load, over that two-year period.39 After that decline, however,
residential space heating energy demand has stayed nearly constant, increasing by less
than 10% between 1980 and 1996 after correcting for changing heating requirements.
(...continued)
36
[http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb18/Index.html].
Ibid., 2-16.
37
Ibid., 5-6, 5-8.
38
Heat
39
load is measured in terms of heating degree-days. Energy Information Administration,
Annual Energy Review 1997, 55, 23.

CRS-17
That behavior is due primarily to increasing building and heating system efficiencies,
which have kept pace with housing stock growth and declining real energy prices.
DOE has assumed that those efficiency increases will continue in order to
compensate for future housing stock growth. DOE forecasts that space heating
demand per household will decline by 25% between 1996 and 2020. Therefore, the
40
reduction in space heating energy demand per household needed to meet the Kyoto
Protocol levels, estimated at about 27% as described above, would have to come on
top of the gains already forecast by DOE.
Industrial Direct Heat. This end-use is used for a variety of manufacturing
processes. It is used principally for primary metal production such as in steel mill blast
furnaces, to drive chemical reactions in chemical plants and petroleum refining, for
glass and clay product manufacturing, and in food processing. To meet the Kyoto
Protocol levels, industrial direct heat use would have to decline by about 1.5 Quads,
or 18.7%, from the 1996 level, and 2.6 Quads, or 28.7%, from the forecast 2008 level.
The EIA expects industrial direct heat energy demand to grow about 14.7% from now
to 2008, because of continued growth in the manufacturing sector. By 2010, the EIA
forecasts that manufacturing output will grow by about 42.5%. The differenc
41
e
between the two growth rates is, in part, a result of expected increases in industrial
process efficiency for those processes involving direct heat. In addition, manufacturing
output in industries that use little or no direct heat are expected to grow faster than
those that use a great deal.
To meet the Kyoto Protocol levels for industrial direct heat use, manufacturers
would have to increase the efficiency of process heat equipment, increase process
productivity for those goods requiring direct heat, reduce output, or undertake some
combination of the three steps. An average heater efficiency increase of 23% would
be required to reduce 1996 direct heat energy demand to the Kyoto target level. To
maintain that level to 2008, given the current EIA forecast, would require a total
heater efficiency increase of over 56% if that was the only action taken. That increase
would have to come on top of efficiency increases already forecast by EIA.
To see the effect of meeting the Kyoto Protocol by reducing production, consider
petroleum refining. In 1996, the United States produced about 17 million barrels per
day (MMBD) of refined products. If the U.S. petroleum refining industry had to
reduce its direct heat energy use to contribute its share in meeting the Kyoto protocol
level, production would have to decline by about 18% or about 3 MMBD. In 2008,
the EIA forecasts that U.S. refineries will produce about 19.5 MMBD. In order to
42
meet the Kyoto protocol by reducing production, U.S. refinery output would have to
drop by about 5.5 MMBD to a total of 14 MMBD. Similar analysis could be carried
out for other manufacturing areas requiring direct heat in their manufacturing process.
No historical data exist specifically on direct heat energy demand so it is not
possible to compare, directly, the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, as discussed in
Energy Information Administration,
40
Annual Energy Outlook, 1998, 41.
Ibid., 125.
41
Ibid., 116.
42

CRS-18
the preceding paragraph, with past trends. It is possible, however, to determine
industrial energy intensity by calculating the ratio of industrial energy demand to
industrial output given in dollars. From 1977 to 1989, industrial energy intensit
43
y
declined by over 30%. The decline in industrial direct heat energy intensity needed to
meet the Kyoto Protocol from the 1996 level is about 18%. If one assumes that total
industrial energy intensity and direct energy intensity track, then it would seem that
meeting the Kyoto protocol requirements is reasonable based on historical precedent.
It should be noted, however, that total industrial energy intensity stopped its decline
in 1989 and has risen slightly — about 5% — between 1989 and 1996. Furthermore,
the 18% decline required by the Kyoto Protocol would have to come on top of
efficiency gains already forecast by EIA. It projects a decline of 17% in industrial
energy intensity between 1996 and 2010. Again, assuming direct heat energ
44
y
intensity and total energy intensity for industry growth (or decline) at the same rate,45
the total decline in energy intensity required to meet the Kyoto requirements while
allowing industrial output to grow to levels now forecast by EIA to 2008 would be
over 40%. This is well beyond any historical changes.
As for reducing output, the question is whether consumers can accommodate less
production, not whether industry can produce less because of lower energy demand.
In the case of oil refinery production, from 1978 to 1983, oil products supplied in the
United States declined by 3.6 MMBD. This exceeds the decline from 1996 supply
needed for oil refineries to meet the Kyoto Protocol if they were to choose the lower
production path. Accommodation to that production decline between 1978 and 1983
was a complicated combination of fuel switching, reduced economic output and
increased energy efficiency. Since 1983, however, the volume of oil products supplied
has increased steadily to a current level near the 1978 peak. Furthermore, the EIA
forecasts continued increases as noted above. The reduction that would be needed for
oil refinery output to meet the Kyoto protocol from the 2008 forecast level — 5.5
MMBD — is considerably greater than past levels.
Concluding Comments. The analysis presented here provides a detailed view
of how energy is used in the United States. It also provides a clear picture of the
contribution these end-uses make to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the earth’s
atmosphere. Finally, it presents a way to analyze the contributions each end-use would
make to any strategy to reduce CO emissions, and the implications of those strategies
2
in terms of particular end-uses.
Obviously, end-use disaggregation could continue beyond that given in this
report. For example different types of light vehicles and different types of industrial
direct heat processes exist. In particular, it was seen above that the contribution of
Council
43
of Economic Advisors, Office of the President, Economic Report of the President,
(February 1998), 297.
Energy
44
Information Administration, Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets
and Economic Activity, 53.
To
45
the degree that future gains in industrial output are disproportionately accounted for by
less energy-intensive industry, this assumption becomes less valid. Nevertheless, the decline
in direct heat energy intensity to meet the Kyoto Protocol is still likely to be substantial as long
as total industrial output is not to suffer.

CRS-19
light trucks — sport utility vehicles, vans, etc. — to the light utility vehicle fleet is
growing. Data to carry out finer breakdowns, however, exist in only a few cases, and
further disaggregation would be less and less precise. While current and historical data
for different components of the light duty vehicle fleet exist, projections of that mix are
lacking. Furthermore, it is not clear that, with the possible exception of light duty
vehicles and the commercial and residential miscellaneous categories, more
disaggregation would add much to understanding how energy is used or to the analysis
of the implications of reduced energy demand.
It is clear from the examples given above that the reduction in energy demand
needed to reach the Kyoto Protocol targets under the assumptions made in this report
would be substantially greater than previous changes in U.S. energy demand. While
reductions required from 1996 levels, for the three examples considered above, appear
to be comparable to those taking place in the past, when growth in energy demand that
is expected between now and 2008 or 2012 is factored in, the changes required are
nearly all unprecedented. Similar observations would hold for other end-uses because
of the underlying sector growth now forecast.
Achieving the energy demand reductions by increases in efficiency to maintain the
growth in products and services supplied by each end-use appears to require
substantial gains in equipment efficiency. While for the three cases examined the gains
do not appear to be impossible, they are likely to be difficult to achieve in the 12-year
period and might be increasingly costly.46
Strategies to achieve the Kyoto Protocol levels would probably not involve
efficiency gains alone, but rather would also include fuel switching and product or
service substitution. The former involves substitution of energy sources that do not
have any net CO emissions, such as renewables or nuclear-generated electricity, for
2
fossil fuels. The latter involves using services or products that result in lower carbon
emissions than those currently used; for example, using less energy intensive materials
or modes of transportation. While such substitutions are possible, they would likely
take several years to implement on a scale that would contribute significantly to carbon
emission reduction.
Nevertheless, substitution, particularly zero-emission energy sources, appear to
be an important consideration along with increased energy efficiency in any long-term
strategy to reduce carbon emissions. While it is beyond the scope of this report to
consider such substitutions in detail, an example is given here to show how that might
work.47 If one-half of the coal-fired capacity projected for the nation’s electricity
supply for 2008 could somehow be replaced by nuclear power and/or renewables,
carbon emissions in 2008 would decline by about 15% from the current forecast. That
change would lower by about two-thirds the energy reduction requirements that would
be needed to meet the Kyoto Protocol levels. Furthermore, all end-uses, even those
46For another view on this issue see Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Department of Energy, Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy
Technologies by 2010 and Beyond.
The
47
model built to perform the analysis presented above can also be used to calculate the
effects of fuel substitution.

CRS-20
that used negligible amounts of electricity, would benefit if the burden of emission
reduction were apportioned to all end-uses as is done in this report. The long lead time
needed to build new power plants combined with material and personnel constraints,
along with other environmental and regulatory issues, however, would likely preclude
a substitution of that magnitude within 10 years. Over a longer period, such
substitution is probably more feasible.
Carbon emission reduction to meet the Kyoto Protocol levels for the 2008-2012
period by reducing energy demand for current end-uses appears to be a substantial
undertaking as seen in the above analysis. If apportioned to all end-uses, each would
be affected significantly by 2008 given the reduction requirements and the currently
forecast growth in that end-use. If all or a major portion of the energy demand
reduction were a result of a lower level of service from that end-use rather than greater
energy efficiency, consumers of those end-uses would likely be substantially affected.

CRS-21
Appendix: Detailed Data Tables
The following are the detailed data tables showing for each end-use the actual and
forecast energy demand and carbon emissions for 1996, 2008, and 2012, the carbon
emission levels and resultant energy demand levels needed to reach the Kyoto protocol
levels of a 7% reduction from the 1990 levels, and the resultant changes from 1996,
2008, and 2012.

CRS- 22
Energy Demand and Carbon Emissions — 1996
(Quads and Millions of Tons)
Fuel
End-use
Sector
Symbol
Elect
Resid
Dist
NG
LPG
Coal
Bio
Gasol
Jet
Total
Carbon
Light Duty Veh
TRANS
LDT
0.05
13.91
13.96
270.57
Direct Heat
IND
DHI
1.05
1.71
0.03
3.82
0.11
1.26
7.98
143.62
Space Ht
RES
SHR
1.74
0.88
3.76
0.31
0.05
0.61
7.35
106.45
Trucks
TRANS
FTT
3.47
0.01
1.12
4.60
91.08
Steam
IND
StI
0.09
0.32
0.04
3.38
0.08
1.03
1.83
6.77
85.78
Machine Drive
IND
MDI
4.93
0.02
0.10
5.05
80.90
Miscl
COM
MC
3.48
0.19
1.31
4.98
78.61
Air
TRANS
ArT
0.05
3.27
3.32
64.18
Appliances
RES
ApR
3.74
0.21
0.03
3.98
63.55
Lighting
COM
LC
3.71
3.71
59.49
Const & Ag
IND
CAI
1.74
0.90
0.26
0.10
0.15
3.15
54.23
Miscl
RES
MR
2.52
0.09
0.01
2.62
41.82
Water Heat
RES
WHR
1.16
0.09
1.32
0.07
2.64
40.71
Mining
IND
MnI
0.79
0.02
0.18
1.11
0.19
0.06
0.02
2.38
38.12
VAC
COM
ACC
2.20
0.02
2.22
35.64
Space Heat
COM
SHC
0.39
0.23
1.34
0.08
0.08
2.12
33.60
Marine
TRANS
MaT
0.44
0.96
1.40
28.61
A/C
RES
ACR
1.65
1.65
26.38
HVAC
IND
HAI
0.85
0.36
1.21
18.84
Lighting
RES
LR
1.10
1.10
17.59
Electrolysis
IND
ELI
1.02
1.02
16.36
Water Heat
COM
WHC
0.55
0.05
0.45
1.05
16.30
Rail
TRANS
RT
0.19
0.46
0.65
12.99
Lighting
IND
LI
0.75
0.75
12.03
Cook & Ref
COM
CRC
0.55
0.18
0.73
11.40
Pipeline
TRANS
PT
0.73
0.73
10.56
Elec Gen
IND
ELI
0.35
0.35
5.06
Totals
34.20
2.95
7.09
18.80
0.98
2.48
2.44
15.25
3.27
87.47 1464.46

CRS- 23
Energy Use and Carbon Emissions — 2008
(Quads and Millions of Tons)
Fuel
End-use
Sector
Symbol
Elect
Resid
Dist
NG
LPG
Coal
Bio
Gasol
Jet
Total
Carbon
Light Duty Veh
TRANS
LDT
0.09
0.10
16.98
17.17
332.28
Direct Heat
IND
DHI
1.30
2.00
0.04
4.32
0.12
1.33
9.10
163.72
Frgt Trucks
TRANS
FTT
5.01
0.81
5.82
115.60
Miscl
COM
MC
4.94
0.12
0.18
1.57
0.09
0.09
6.98
114.12
Space Heat
RES
SHR
1.91
0.75
3.83
0.34
0.05
0.64
7.51
108.92
Air
TRANS
ArT
0.04
4.93
4.97
95.98
Machine Drive
IND
MDI
6.09
0.02
0.11
6.23
102.69
Steam
IND
StI
0.11
0.37
0.05
3.82
0.09
1.08
2.29
7.82
95.45
Miscl
RES
MR
4.50
0.10
0.01
4.61
75.93
Lighting
COM
LC
3.71
3.71
61.20
Appliances
RES
ApR
3.37
0.23
0.04
3.63
59.52
Const & Agric
IND
CAI
1.28
0.96
0.32
0.11
2.67
46.82
Mining
IND
MnI
0.98
0.02
0.22
1.26
0.11
0.06
0.03
2.67
43.10
Water Heat
RES
WHR
1.13
0.10
1.41
0.10
2.74
42.78
Marine
TRANS
MaT
0.77
0.92
1.68
34.74
Vent. and Air Cond
COM
ACC
2.18
0.02
2.20
36.33
Space Heat
COM
SHC
0.42
0.18
1.38
1.98
30.55
Air Conditioning
RES
ACR
1.63
1.63
26.88
HVAC
IND
HAI
1.05
0.41
1.46
23.23
Lighting
RES
LR
1.26
1.26
20.86
Electrolysis
IND
EI
1.15
1.15
19.06
Rail
TRANS
RT
0.42
0.44
0.86
16.35
Water Heat
COM
WHC
0.45
0.05
0.51
1.02
15.89
Pipeline
TRANS
PT
0.81
0.81
11.68
Cooking & Refrig
COM
CRC
0.57
0.22
0.79
12.56
Lighting
IND
LI
0.57
0.57
9.37
Elec Generation
IND
EGI
0.40
0.40
5.73
Totals
39.04
3.72
8.56
20.80
1.01
2.61
2.93
17.85
4.93
101.45 1721.33

CRS- 24
Energy Demand and Carbon Emissions — 2012
(Quads and Millions of Tons)
Fuel
End-use
Sector
Symbol
Elect
Resid
Dist
NG
LPG
Coal
Bio
Gasol
Jet
Total
Carbon
Light Duty Veh
TRANS
LDT
0.09
0.12
18.20
18.42
356.35
Direct Heat
IND
DHI
1.33
1.98
0.04
4.41
0.13
1.33
9.21
165.24
Frgt Trucks
TRANS
FTT
5.20
0.84
6.04
120.01
Miscl
COM
MC
5.07
0.12
0.18
1.61
0.09
0.09
7.15
116.93
Space Heat
RES
SHR
1.99
0.73
3.92
0.34
0.05
0.65
7.68
111.22
Air
TRANS
ArT
0.04
5.45
5.49
106.21
Machine Drive
IND
MDI
6.26
0.03
0.12
6.40
105.47
Steam
IND
StI
0.11
0.37
0.05
3.90
0.09
1.08
2.38
7.99
96.68
Miscl
RES
MR
4.68
0.10
0.01
4.79
78.89
Lighting
COM
LC
3.80
3.80
62.78
Appliances
RES
ApR
3.50
0.23
0.04
3.77
61.79
Const & Agric
IND
CAI
1.32
1.01
0.32
0.11
2.76
48.43
Mining
IND
MnI
1.00
0.02
0.23
1.28
0.11
0.06
0.03
2.74
44.20
Water Heat
RES
WHR
1.17
0.10
1.45
0.10
2.82
44.03
Marine
TRANS
MaT
0.85
0.95
1.80
37.19
Vent and Air Cond
COM
ACC
2.24
0.02
2.26
37.26
Space Heat
COM
SHC
0.43
0.18
1.41
2.03
31.19
A/C
RES
ACR
1.69
1.69
27.94
HVAC
IND
HAI
1.08
0.42
1.49
23.83
Lighting
RES
LR
1.31
1.31
21.68
Electrolysis
IND
EI
1.19
1.19
19.58
Rail
TRANS
RT
0.51
0.48
0.99
18.80
Water Heat
COM
WHC
0.46
0.05
0.53
1.04
16.25
Pipeline
TRANS
PT
0.98
0.98
14.21
Cooking & Refrig
COM
CRC
0.59
0.22
0.81
12.88
Lighting
IND
LI
0.58
0.58
9.62
Elec Generation
IND
EGI
0.40
0.40
5.85
Totals
40.32
3.82
8.82
21.46
1.03
2.62
3.02
19.11
5.45
105.66 1794.51

CRS- 25
End-Use Energy Demand and Carbon Emissions
(Quadrillions of Btus and Millions of Metric Tons)
2008 Forecast
1996 Actual
2008 Kyoto Target
Energy Reductions
Carbon Reductions
End-use
Total
Carbon
Energy
Carbon
Energy
Carbon
From 2008
From 1996
From 2008
From 1996
LDT
17.17
332.28
13.96
270.57
12.23
236.78
4.93
1.73
95.51
33.79
DHI
9.10
163.72
7.98
143.62
6.49
116.66
2.62
1.49
47.06
26.96
FTT
5.82
115.60
4.60
91.08
4.15
82.37
1.67
0.45
33.23
8.70
MC
6.98
114.12
4.98
78.61
4.97
81.32
2.01
0.01
32.80
-2.71
SHR
6.88
108.92
6.74
106.45
4.90
77.61
1.98
1.84
31.31
28.83
ArT
4.97
95.98
3.32
64.18
3.54
68.39
1.43
-0.22
27.59
-4.21
MDI
6.23
102.69
5.05
80.90
4.44
73.17
1.79
0.61
29.52
7.73
StI
5.53
95.45
4.94
85.78
3.94
68.02
1.59
1.00
27.44
17.77
MR
4.61
75.93
2.62
41.82
3.29
54.11
1.33
-0.67
21.82
-12.29
LC
3.71
61.20
3.71
59.49
2.64
43.61
1.07
1.07
17.59
15.88
ApR
3.63
59.52
3.98
63.55
2.59
42.41
1.04
1.39
17.11
21.14
CAI
2.67
46.82
3.15
54.23
1.90
33.36
0.77
1.25
13.46
20.86
MnI
2.67
43.10
2.38
38.12
1.90
30.71
0.77
0.48
12.39
7.41
WHR
2.74
42.78
2.64
40.71
1.95
30.48
0.79
0.69
12.30
10.22
MaT
1.68
34.74
1.40
28.61
1.20
24.76
0.48
0.20
9.99
3.85
ACC
2.20
36.33
2.22
35.64
1.57
25.88
0.63
0.65
10.44
9.75
SHC
1.98
30.55
2.12
33.60
1.41
21.77
0.57
0.70
8.78
11.83
ACR
1.63
26.88
1.65
26.38
1.16
19.16
0.47
0.48
7.73
7.23
HAI
1.46
23.23
1.21
18.84
1.04
16.55
0.42
0.17
6.68
2.29
LR
1.26
20.86
1.10
17.59
0.90
14.87
0.36
0.20
6.00
2.72
EI
1.15
19.06
1.02
16.36
0.82
13.58
0.33
0.20
5.48
2.78
RT
0.86
16.35
0.65
12.99
0.61
11.65
0.25
0.04
4.70
1.34
WHC
1.02
15.89
1.05
16.30
0.72
11.32
0.29
0.32
4.57
4.98
PT
0.81
11.68
0.73
10.56
0.58
8.33
0.23
0.15
3.36
2.24
CRC
0.79
12.56
0.73
11.40
0.56
8.95
0.23
0.17
3.61
2.45
LI
0.57
9.37
0.75
12.03
0.40
6.68
0.16
0.35
2.69
5.35
EGI
0.40
5.73
0.35
5.06
0.28
4.08
0.11
0.07
1.65
0.98
Totals
98.52
1721.33
85.03
1464.46
70.20
1226.59
28.32
14.83
494.75
237.88

CRS- 26
End-Use Energy Demand and Carbon Emissions
(Quadrillions of Btus and Millions of Metric Tons)
2012 Forecast
2008 Kyoto Target
Reductions
End-use
Energy
Carbon
Energy
Carbon
Energy
Carbon
LDT
18.42
356.35
12.23
236.78
6.18
119.57
DHI
9.21
165.24
6.49
116.66
2.73
48.58
FTT
6.04
120.01
4.15
82.37
1.89
37.63
MC
7.15
116.93
4.97
81.32
2.18
35.60
SHR
7.03
111.22
4.90
77.61
2.13
33.61
ArT
5.49
106.21
3.54
68.39
1.96
37.82
MDI
6.40
105.47
4.44
73.17
1.96
32.29
StI
5.61
96.68
3.94
68.02
1.67
28.67
MR
4.79
78.89
3.29
54.11
1.51
24.79
LC
3.80
62.78
2.64
43.61
1.16
19.17
ApR
3.77
61.79
2.59
42.41
1.18
19.38
CAI
2.76
48.43
1.90
33.36
0.86
15.06
MnI
2.74
44.20
1.90
30.71
0.84
13.49
WHR
2.82
44.03
1.95
30.48
0.87
13.55
MaT
1.80
37.19
1.20
24.76
0.60
12.44
ACC
2.26
37.26
1.57
25.88
0.69
11.38
SHC
2.03
31.19
1.41
21.77
0.61
9.42
ACR
1.69
27.94
1.16
19.16
0.53
8.79
HAI
1.49
23.83
1.04
16.55
0.46
7.27
LR
1.31
21.68
0.90
14.87
0.41
6.82
EI
1.19
19.58
0.82
13.58
0.36
5.99
RT
0.99
18.80
0.61
11.65
0.38
7.15
WHC
1.04
16.25
0.72
11.32
0.32
4.93
PT
0.98
14.21
0.58
8.33
0.41
5.88
CRC
0.81
12.88
0.56
8.95
0.25
3.93
LI
0.58
9.62
0.40
6.68
0.18
2.95
EGI
0.40
5.85
0.28
4.08
0.12
1.77
Totals
102.64
1794.51
70.20
1226.59
32.43
567.93