You are viewing /report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/energy-systems/finding/key-message-3-2 in Turtle
Alternatives : HTML JSON YAML text N-Triples JSON Triples RDF+XML RDF+JSON Graphviz SVG
Raw
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@prefix gcis: <http://data.globalchange.gov/gcis.owl#> .
@prefix cito: <http://purl.org/spar/cito/> .
@prefix biro: <http://purl.org/spar/biro/> .

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/energy-systems/finding/key-message-3-2>
   dcterms:identifier "key-message-3-2";
   gcis:findingNumber "3.2"^^xsd:string;
   gcis:findingStatement "North American energy-related CO<sub>2</sub>e emissions have declined at an average rate of about 1% per year, or about 19.4 teragrams CO<sub>2</sub>e, from 2003 to 2014 (<em>very high confidence</em>)."^^xsd:string;
   gcis:isFindingOf <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/energy-systems>;
   gcis:isFindingOf <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report>;

## Properties of the finding:
   
   gcis:descriptionOfEvidenceBase "Data on CO<sub>2</sub>e emissions are calculated by the EIA, IEA, and CDIAC databases (Boden et al., 2016) and by the WRI CAIT database (<em>cait.wri.org).</em> All data suggest similar trends, although the exact values differ<em>.</em> Key Finding 2 is consistent across these sources."^^xsd:string;
   
   gcis:assessmentOfConfidenceBasedOnEvidence "There is very high confidence in the likelihood that the statement is based on consistent findings across the data sources assessed."^^xsd:string;
   
   gcis:newInformationAndRemainingUncertainties "These datasets include uncertainties related to the amount of fossil fuel used (typically identified through sales-weighted averages to create a national average) and the carbon and heat contents of the energy reserve (e.g., see U.S. EPA 2017a, Annex 2). According to the literature, there are further uncertainties related to lost and fugitive emissions (Alvarez et al., 2012; Brandt et al., 2014; Karion et al., 2013; P├ętron et al., 2014; Zavala-Araiza et al., 2015). Estimates of fugitive CH<sub>4</sub> levels indicate that these emissions are unlikely to substantially alter Key Finding 2 (Alvarez et al., 2012; Brandt et al., 2014). Fugitive CH<sub>4</sub> from oil, gas, and coal production and transportation is included in U.S EPA and DOE and Canadian and Mexican inventories, but there may be further emissions that are not yet accounted. For U.S. DOE, fugitive emissions include the unintended leaks of gas from the processing, transmission, and transportation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, while the trends are consistent across data sources, the absolute values of GHG emissions levels from energy consumption and production vary across datasets because of differences in system boundary definitions, inclusion of industrial process emissions, emissions factors applied, and other issues."^^xsd:string;

   a gcis:Finding .

## This finding cites the following entities:



<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/energy-systems/finding/key-message-3-2>
   prov:wasDerivedFrom <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/preface/figure/figurep-4>.