Diving into the Deeps of Decarbonization

[UPDATE: Comment from Anthony: There has been a tremendous amount of discussion and dissent on this topic, far more than I ever would have imagined. On one hand some people have said in comments that Willis has completely botched this essay, and the Kaya identity holds true, others are in agreement saying that the way the equation is written, the terms cancel and we end up with CO2=CO2. It would seem that the cancellation of terms is the sort of thing that would rate an “F” in a simple algebra test. But, I think there’s room for both views to be right. It seems true that *technically* the terms cancel, but I think the relationship, while maybe not properly technically equated, holds as well. Here is another recent essay that starts with Willis’ premise, where CO2=CO2 and expounds from there. See: What is Kaya’s equation?

Further update (modified 3AM 7/12/14): Willis has posted his response in comments, and due to my own travels, I have not been able to post it into the body of the message until several hours later, see it below. – Anthony]

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Another day, another new piece of mad garbage put out by the UN. It’s called “pathways to deep decarbonization”, all in lower case (8 Mb PDF). Their proposal is to get CO2 emissions down to zero. I didn’t get far into it before I cracked up laughing and lost the plot.

It starts with the following definition:

Deep decarbonization requires a very significant transformation of energy systems. The ultimate objective of this transformation is to phase out fossil fuel combustion with uncontrolled CO2 emissions. Only fossil fuels in conjunction with CCS [carbon capture and storage] would remain.

But that wasn’t the funny part. That was just depressing. The funny part came later.

Now, out here in the real world the most charitable way to describe this lunacy of forcing the nations of the world to give up fossil fuels is to … to … well, now that I think about it, there is no way to describe this as anything but a pathetic joke which if implemented will cause untold economic disruption, disaster, and death.

In any case, in order to figure out how to “phase out fossil fuel combustion”, they go on to describe what they call the “principal drivers” of CO2 emissions, viz:

The simplest way to describe the deep decarbonization of energy systems is by the principal drivers of energy-related CO2 emissions—for convenience, since the focus of this chapter is on energy systems, we simply refer to them as CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions can be expressed as the product of four inputs: population, GDP [gross domestic production] per capita, energy use per unit of GDP, and CO2 emissions per unit of energy:

$CO2_{emissions} = Population * \frac{GDP}{Population} * \frac{Energy}{GDP} * \frac{CO2_{emissions}}{Energy}$

That was where I lost it …

Now, at first glance that looks kind of reasonable. I mean, emissions must go up with population and with GDP per capita, and go down with energy efficiency.

Here’s why I laughed. Lets apply the usual rules of math to that equation. We know that if a variable occurs both on the top and bottom of a fraction, we can cancel it out. Starting from the left, Population on the top cancels Population on the bottom. Then GDP on the top cancels GDP on the bottom. Then Energy on the top cancels Energy on the bottom … and we’re left with …

$CO2_{emissions} = CO2_{emissions}$

Pretty profound, huh? CO2 emissions are equal to CO2 emissions. Who knew?

OK, now let’s build their equation back up again. But instead of using gross domestic production (GDP), we’ll use gross beer production (GBP) instead.

$CO2_{emissions} = Population * \frac{GBP}{Population} * \frac{Energy}{GBP} * \frac{CO2_{emissions}}{Energy}$

Note that this is identical to and equally as valid as their whiz-bang equation, in that it simplifies down to the same thing: CO2 emissions = CO2 emissions.

And as a result, the clear conclusion from my analysis is that the best way to fight the evil menace of CO2 is to figure out a way to make beer using less energy …

Now, there’s a carbon reduction program I could get behind.

Best wishes to all,

The Usual Request: If you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words you disagree with. This prevents misunderstandings, and lets us all understand your objection.

PS—Due to a cancelled flight, I’m stuck here in a hotel in LA on my way back from the Ninth International Climate Change Conference, which I’ll write about another time, and sitting in my hotel room wishing I were home. Not much to do but read boring UN documents … at least this one was funny.

PPS—Although it’s not mentioned in the document, their goofy equation is known as the “Kaya Identity“. Apparently, the number of innumerate people on the planet is larger than I had feared.

==============================================================

Willis Eschenbach says:

July 11, 2014 at 8:43 am

Well, yesterday was a long day. Up early to get to the airport, and this time the flight actually flew. Go deal with the rental car. Roll on home.

Then change clothes, I’d spent the night without luggage. Hang out with the gorgeous ex-fiancee and catch up. Put in a load of wash. Put the trash in the trash bin, the recyclables in their bin, the kitchen scraps in the garden waste bin. Roll all three of them up the driveway to the street. Unpack. Pack. Wash the dishes. Make coffee. Scrub the toilet.

Then when I got around to opening up my computer in the afternoon, after waking up from its normal sleep and running for about 15 minutes … it died. Dead. As in when I turned it on, It ran for about 5 seconds, and croaked …

So … that meant another 45 minute drive to the “local” Apple store. It also meant about an hour’s worth of waiting for an appointment. Then another three hours while they worked on the machine before finally getting It to run again. Net result?

It’s now 10 PM, and I’m back where I was last night … on line again. Oh, and a couple hundred bucks lighter.

Anyhow, that was how my day went. I hope Bart had more fun than I did.

Regarding the comments, I’m overjoyed that there is much discussion of the issue. My point, albeit poorly expressed given some of the comments, was that since the Beer Identity Is equally as true and valid as the Kaya Identity, it is obvious that we cannot use the Kaya Identity to “prove” anything.

So yes, the Kaya Identity is true, but trivially so. We cannot depend on it to represent the real world, and it can’t show us anything.

For example, folks upstream said that we can use the Kaya Identity to show what happens if the GDP per capita goes up by say 10%. According to the Kaya Identity, emissions will also go up by 10%.

But according to the Beer Identity, if Gross Beer Production per capita goes up by 10%, then CO2 emissions have to go up by 10% … and we know that’s not true. So clearly, neither identity can serve to establish or demonstrate anything about the real world.

What I tried to say, apparently unsuccessfully, is that by itself, the Kaya Identity cannot demonstrate or show or prove anything about the real world. If there is anythlng true about it, that truth must exist outside of the Kaya Identity. Otherwise the Beer Identity would be a valuable guide to CO2 emissions … but we know that’s not true.

Finally, l hear rumblings that Anthony shouldn’t have published this piece of mine. This totally misunderstands Anthony’s position in the game. The strength of WattsUpWithThat is not that it is always right or that it publishes only the best stuff guaranteed to be true.

The beauty and value of WUWT that it is the world’s premier location for public peer review of climate science. On a personal level, WUWT is of immense use to me, because my work either gets falsified or not very quickly … or else, as in this case, there’s an interesting ongoing debate. For me, being shown to be wrong is more valuable than being shown to be right. If someone can point out my mistakes, it saves me endless time following a blind alley.

And indeed, there is much value in the public defenestration of some hapless piece of bad science. It is as important to know not only which ideas are wrong but exactly why they are wrong. When Anthony publishes scientific claims from the edges, generally they are quickly either confirmed or falsified. This is hugely educational for scientists of all kinds, to know how to counter some of the incorrect arguments, as well as giving room for those unusual ideas which tomorrow will be mainstream ideas.

So it is not Anthony’s job to determine whether or not the work of the guest authors will stand the harsh light of public exposure. That’s the job of the peer reviewers, who are you and I and everyone making defensible scientific comments. Even if Anthony had a week to analyze and dissect each piece, there’s no way that one man’s wisdom can substitute for that of the free marketplace of ideas … which is why it’s not his job. Bear in mind that even with peer review, something like two-thirds of peer reviewed science is falsified within a year. And Anthony is making judgements publish/don’t publish on dozens of papers every week.

So please, dear friends, cut Anthony some slack. He’s just providing the arena wherein in 2014 we practice the blood sport of science, the same sport we’ve had for a few hundred years now, ripping the other guys ideas to bits, also known as trying to scientifically falsify another person’s claims that you think don’t hold water. It is where we can get a good reading on whether the ideas will stand up to detailed hostile examination.

It is not Anthony’s job to decide if mine or any other ideas and expositions and claims will wtthstand that test … and indeed, it is often of value for him to publish things that will not stand the test of time, so that we can understand exactly where they are lacking.

So please remember, Anthony is just providing the boxing ring. It is not his job to predict in advance who is going to win the fight. His job is to fill the cards with interesting bouts … and if this post is any example, he is doing it very well.

Best to everyone,

===============================================================

And a final update from Anthony:

While Willis wants to cut me some slack, and I thank him for that, I’m ultimately responsible for all the content on this website, whether I write it or not. While some people would like nothing more than to have content they deem “wrong” removed, such things generally present a catch-22, and cause more problems than they solve. Of course some people would be pleased to have WUWT disappear altogether. Some days, I’m one of them, because it would allow me to get my life back.

The value is being wrong is learning from it. If you don’t learn from it, then being wrong deserves every condemnation thrown at you. I plan on being wrong again, maybe as soon as today, though one never knows exactly when your training and experience will lead you down the wrong path. In this case I was wrong in thinking that this simple terms cancellation argument pretty much made the Kaya identity useless. I’m still unsure how useful it is, or whether its usefulness is mainly scientific or political, but rest assured I now know more than I ever thought I would know about it, and so do many of you. And there’s the value.

I thought this was relevant, and worth sharing:

“For a scientist, this is a good way to live and die, maybe the ideal way for any of us – excitedly finding we were wrong and excitedly waiting for tomorrow to come so we can start over.” ― Norman Maclean

Thanks for your consideration – Anthony Watts

0 0 votes

Article Rating

682 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 11, 2014 7:51 am

The Kaya identity is not an equation because it is not a relationship of any kind.
It does not relate units, variables, numbers or words in a rational way.
It is pure propaganda of the most mind numbingly stupid kind.
Yes it balances, but this is not the utility or value of equations.
Equations are useful because they reveal a calculable relationships between things.
Balancing an equation is not the same thing as identity!
Coming up with E=E will not get you into Mensa. Coming up with E=MC2 just might! 😉
Einstein’s equation can be rearranged to reveal incites such as: M=E/C2 or C2=E/M, because it parts are inextricably related.
Non of the elements of the Kaya ‘Identity’ have a physically definable or testable relationship.
There is no need to even question the use of variables or units or numbers, because it is an arbitrary construction.
In the Kaya identity, CO2 might sensibly be to balanced by Flying Spaghetti Monsters (M) for example:
CO2= CO2/M*M
Yes, the equation above is balanced, yes it is an identity but is it falsifiable; no!
Is it meaningful; no!
Is it useful; no! *
*This is actually false, because it is very useful as propaganda

richardscourtney

July 11, 2014 7:55 am

Pete Brown:
I am replying to your long missive at July 11, 2014 at 3:55 am which begins by saying

richardscourtney says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:19 pm
Richard, I know I am going to regret this but, to address your post:

Really? I am surprised because you have not shown any regret at your falsehoods, selective quotation and misrepresentations of my earlier posts. Indeed, I expressed umbrage at one of your posts which included all of those and you have shown no regret for that.
You continue by quoting my words concerning the silly equation which is the subject of this thread; I.e. I wrote of the equation

It is a political tool provided by a political organisation for political purposes.

And you reply

No, not quite. As I have explained, it is a policy tool. It is not in itself political. It doesn’t get to vote. It isn’t a registered member of a political party. And like any good light saber, it can be used equally for good or evil.

That is self-serving nonsense. Only people get to vote but that does not mean e.g. policies are not political. And your use of the phrase “policy tool” is Orwellian: the equation is not a policy but can be used to promote a policy. In other words, you admit that the equation has the purpose of being a propaganda tool.
I have repeatedly pointed out that the equation is a means of political propaganda and has no other apparent use. Nobody has suggested an alternative use and you don’t. You say the propaganda tool “can be used equally for good or evil”, but you don’t say who defines good and evil; I assume you think that should be you.
Then you add this offensive bollocks:

As I also have said, you should not just disagree with something simply because you think it disagrees with you, or could be used by people who disagree with you. You have to engage with the substance…

I DO AND YOU DON’T!
I keep addressing the propagandist nature and purpose of the equation which you have not addressed in any way until now. Instead, you have persistently attempted to force me to discuss the existing – and daft – components of the equation when those components can be anything any propagandist wants to promote.
In fact you acknowledge that I pointed out the components are ridiculous when you quote my having said

The equation is nonsense. It links independent variables to form abstract constructs which only indicate political desires. I am astonished that this is not blatantly obvious to everyone.
The abstract constructs are NOT “factors” which combine to be CO2 emissions.
For example, what evidence is there that in any nation a significant factor to CO2 emissions is GDP per capita?

You then ignore that I had selected that extract of an earlier post as example of your falsely claiming I had not explained why I refused to answer your ridiculous “4 questions”.
I wrote {snip} after that quoted question. If one reverts to the original post at July 10, 2014 at 4:57 am then the true quotation without the snip is

The abstract constructs are NOT “factors” which combine to be CO2 emissions.
For example, what evidence is there that in any nation a significant factor to CO2 emissions is GDP per capita?
When a country has constant GDP and constant population a change from manufacturing industry to service industries alters its CO2 emissions. Conversely, what evidence is there that when a country’s GDP is constant then changes to its CO2 emissions are significantly and directly related to its immigration or emigration?

You have made a reply which is refuted by my paragraph you omitted. You say

Just the whole body of economics really, since about the time just after economics started to about now. Seriously, you cannot be suggesting that the industrial revolution for example, wasn’t a bit fueled by, well, fuel? In my opinion, and in the opinions of quite a lot of people, if you were to take carbon-based fuels out of the economy right now, that would have a devastating effect on the economy. The economy (GDP) would collapse, and our ability to generate wealth (GDP per head) would collapse. The theory goes that since CO2 emissions are a by-product of economic activity, throttling economic productivity will reduce CO2 emissions other things (i.e. the other three ‘factors’) being equal. Conversely, economic growth (i.e. increasing GDP, which corresponds with increasing GDP per head if population is fixed) will entail increasing emissions, other things (i.e. the other three ‘factors’) being equal.

That is plain nonsense. It is demonstrated to be wrong by my paragraph you omitted. And as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, when one of the variables changes then it alters others so you CANNOT hold everything else equal.
You are conflating “GDP per capita” with “since CO2 emissions are a by-product of economic activity, throttling economic productivity will reduce CO2 emissions”. They are NOT the same, and if you think they are the same then you need to prove it because my paragraph you omitted shows they are NOT the same.
You follow on with more nonsense by writing

To put the point another way, if you seriously think we can de-couple CO2 emissions and economic productivity then you really need to tell us how – because that would absolutely be the holy grail…!!

Actually, the USA has decoupled its CO2 emissions from the progress of its economic activity and you would know this if you had looked at the data. The USA did it by switching to a lower CO2 fuel (i.e. natural gas).
But, and very importantly, a relationship between CO2 emissions and economic productivity may exist but not be expressed as GDP per capita. You claim the daft equation is worthy so it is your responsibility to show that GDP per capita is a valid component of it. You have not, and I have provided several examples of why you cannot.
And then – at last – you explicitly state the propagandist nature of the equation when you write

This is the point of the Kaya identity. It is intended to illustrate that if you seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions in an economy then you either have to reduce the population, or reduce the wealth of the population, or increase the CO2 efficiency of energy generation, or increase the energy efficiency of economic activity. This strikes me as pretty much a logical truism, which again is very much what the identity is intended to show. As I have said several times though, if you disagree that any one or more of these four factors has the effect that is implied by the Kaya identity, please tell us which and why? Better still, if you think there are other factors that are not already covered under these four heads, and have presumably eluded policy makers for the last 40 years, please tell us…

The equation as presented – as you say – pretends and “is intended to illustrate” that reduction of CO2 emissions requires fewer people or poorer people. It is an excuse for Malthusianism. This evil is screened by being accompanied with assertions that similar effects may be achieved by more efficient energy production or more efficient energy use, but those efficiency improvements will happen as a by-product of normal economic activity if no interference is adopted.
Then you recognise that the equation is an excuse to promote Malthusianism and try to head off that objection saying

By the way, I am not advocating reducing the population before anybody else gets silly about that. In fact I’m not advocating anything – except perhaps that people should do some research before launching in (Willis Eschenbach).

That is sophistry intended to hide a falsehood. The equation promotes Malthusianism and you are advocating adoption of the equation.
I accurately wrote

You have NOT addressed my thesis that the equation is and can only be a tool for propounding political propaganda.

You answer that with yet another of your falsehoods saying

Yes I have, many many many times: Please see Prof Roger Pielke Jr…!

Pete Brown, that is NOT an answer. It is an unfounded assertion that somebody else has provided an answer at some unspecified place and unspecified time.
If you had an answer you would state it.
You conclude saying

I’ll add this: there are people in the world who think that reducing CO2 emissions is just a matter of political will, or that we already have the means to do it. The Kaya identity can help us to illustrate that this is not the case; that if you really want to reduce CO2 emissions then you either have to have some serious technological advances up your sleeve to make our lives and economic activities more CO2 efficient (and that’s not going to be windmills), or you have to be prepared to put people into the most gut-wrenching poverty, cripple our economies and ways of life, and, frankly, end peoples lives prematurely. Those who are quick to accept this as the price of reducing CO2 emissions – especially given the actual state of the science upon which this is based – are really, really, really scary…

It is really, really scary that such demonstrably untrue propaganda as the equation you are promoting is being promoted as an excuse to increase poverty and to cull the poor.
Richard

gnomish

July 11, 2014 8:01 am

ha! it seems the numerologist i had consulted was a pessimist.
i got a second opinion from an optimistic numerologist who has proven by the same equation that one can ship an infinite number of M&Ms with zero cases!
somebody gets fired and somebody gets a consulting contract now!

richardscourtney

July 11, 2014 8:01 am

Scott Wilmot Bennett:
re your post at July 11, 2014 at 7:51 am.
Yes! Thankyou! The equation is a propaganda tool and nothing else.
I have repeatedly said the same first at July 10, 2014 at 2:31 am here.
You can see it, I can see it, and I don’t understand why not everybody can see it.
If this untrue propaganda is not refuted now it will be impossible to refute it when the media start trumpeting it.
Richard

gnomish

July 11, 2014 8:06 am

and that’s the last time i take any recommendations from pielke…

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 8:06 am

The kaya tautology does no such thing:

That is your illusion.

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 8:08 am

…
Is it meaningful; no!
…

Because CO2/M is not a meaningful ratio.
People, you need come up with meaningful ratios. Just create the most out-of-nowhere variable won’t refute the Kaya identity.

Edit_XYZ

July 11, 2014 8:19 am

Daniel G.
“The kaya tautology does no such thing:”
That is your illusion.”
Really? You’re not even trying to come up with data fudging anymore, I see; just some baseless dictum.
If your dictum has any support, then you should have no trouble coming up with a reputable source for your re-writing of the kaya tautology – from “co2 = pop * (gdp/pop) * (energy/gdp) * (co2/energy)” to “co2 = pop * (gdp/pop) * (energy/gdp) * (co2_part/energy_part)”.
Let’s see the link, Daniel G.

David in Texas

July 11, 2014 8:19 am

Comment from Anthony: …It would seem that the cancellation of terms is the sort of thing that would rate an “F” in a simple algebra test.
I respectfully disagree. There is no mathematical error, and it allows you to build a useful equation. “Dimensional analysis” is a very common practice in engineering and science. That said, I will concede that it would have been better to express the last term as a ratio and not reuse the symbol “CO2 emissions”.
But if this rates an “F” on simple algebra test, what does using Appeal to Ridicule (“a stupid maths error”) rate on a logic test?
But maybe you already agree, I see that that language was removed from the post.

M Courtney

July 11, 2014 8:19 am

Daniel G. says at July 11, 2014 at 8:08 am

Because CO2/M is not a meaningful ratio.

But it is logically scalable. It happens to be meaningless because Flying Spaghetti Monsters (M) are meaningless… but if we disagreed on the Flying Spaghetti Monsters we would be in disagreement about the Kaya Identity.
So why not look at why the Kaya Identity is not meaningless? It certainly isn’t self-sufficient as, if it were, then we open the door to the Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
To avoid circular arguments: Please justify why each term of the Kaya Identity has meaning and no other meanings are legitimate or required.
My opinion is that the Kaya Identity is intended to avoid that very discussion.
A most cynical device.

richardscourtney

July 11, 2014 8:27 am

Daniel G.:
At July 11, 2014 at 8:08 am you say

People, you need come up with meaningful ratios. Just create the most out-of-nowhere variable won’t refute the Kaya identity.

Therein lies the problem.
There are no “meaningful ratios”, there are only political objectives which people want to promote.
And because there are no meaningful ratios the equation is nonsense.
But, as I said of this meaningless equation at July 11, 2014 at 8:01 am,
If this untrue propaganda is not refuted now it will be impossible to refute it when the media start trumpeting it.
Richard

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 8:29 am

I have repeatedly pointed out that the equation is a means of political propaganda and has no other apparent use. Nobody has suggested an alternative use and you don’t. You say the propaganda tool “can be used equally for good or evil”, but you don’t say who defines good and evil; I assume you think that should be you.

J.K. and other have already suggested alternative uses.

I DO AND YOU DON’T!
I keep addressing the propagandist nature and purpose of the equation which you have not addressed in any way until now. Instead, you have persistently attempted to force me to discuss the existing – and daft – components of the equation when those components can be anything any propagandist wants to promote.

If co2 was were to cause massive warming (not going to happen, but it is hypothetical), it would be important to reduce co2 emissions. There is nothing propagandistical about that.

For example, what evidence is there that in any nation a significant factor to CO2 emissions is GDP per capita?

Look at any CO2 emissions table. Where you find a country like Haiti? Where is USA?

That is plain nonsense. It is demonstrated to be wrong by my paragraph you omitted. And as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, when one of the variables changes then it alters others so you CANNOT hold everything else equal.

That is just a assumption to simplify the proof that the terms don’t cancel. If you say, no! If population increase, GDP per capita or other factor will change! The point is that you have to prove that every relationship will cancel out. As the economy grows when population increases, it is not obvious on how an increase of population would be matched by decrease in GDP per capita.
You can drop the assumption later.

You are conflating “GDP per capita” with “since CO2 emissions are a by-product of economic activity, throttling economic productivity will reduce CO2 emissions”. They are NOT the same, and if you think they are the same then you need to prove it because my paragraph you omitted shows they are NOT the same.

Of course, they are not the same. GDP per capita is the concept the represents average wealth in the Kaya Identity. That wealth comes from economic productivity. “since CO2 emissions are a by-product of economic activity, throttling economic productivity will reduce CO2 emissions” is sentence expressing a reasoning.

Actually, the USA has decoupled its CO2 emissions from the progress of its economic activity and you would know this if you had looked at the data. The USA did it by switching to a lower CO2 fuel (i.e. natural gas).

Your reasoning is too simplistic. You have to consider more than one factor.
USA is just one country. It is developed one by the way, think of the rest of the world. But anyway, shale gas is expensive compared to burning coal, and it still emits CO2. They managed to decrease the co2 intensity factor (this is the fourth factor). So the relation between co2 emissions and economic growth is still there. It would be long before humans could decouple such relationship.

But, and very importantly, a relationship between CO2 emissions and economic productivity may exist but not be expressed as GDP per capita. You claim the daft equation is worthy so it is your responsibility to show that GDP per capita is a valid component of it. You have not, and I have provided several examples of why you cannot.
Economic productivity requires energy…. Guest what happens? Everything is explained above, you never bothered to read.

The equation as presented – as you say – pretends and “is intended to illustrate” that reduction of CO2 emissions requires fewer people or poorer people. It is an excuse for Malthusianism. This evil is screened by being accompanied with assertions that similar effects may be achieved by more efficient energy production or more efficient energy use, but those efficiency improvements will happen as a by-product of normal economic activity if no interference is adopted.

It is not excuse for Malthusianism, you first have to prove that CO2 emissions are a bad thing.

The equation promotes Malthusianism…

That is only if CO2 emissions are massively harmful.

…and you are advocating adoption of the equation.

No one is advocating the “adoption” of the identity. Whatever this means.

M Courtney

July 11, 2014 8:30 am

Sorry Daniel G.
I’m not going to tag team you with my father. It was inadvertent but still unfair.
So I’m ducking out of this debate; my opinion is clear enough.

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 11, 2014 8:36 am

richardscourtney says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:01 am
I agree Richard. The reaction by many, to blatant propaganda really scares the sh*t out of me!

Willis Eschenbach

Author

July 11, 2014 8:43 am

Well, yesterday was a long day. Up early to get to the airport, and this time the flight actually flew. Go deal with the rental car. Roll on home.
Then change clothes, I’d spent the night without luggage. Hang out with the gorgeous ex-fiancee and catch up. Put in a load of wash. Put the trash in the trash bin, the recyclables in their bin, the kitchen scraps in the garden waste bin. Roll all three of them up the driveway to the street. Unpack. Pack. Wash the dishes. Make coffee. Scrub the toilet.
Then when I got around to opening up my computer in the afternoon, after waking up from its normal sleep and running for about 15 minutes … it died. Dead. As in when I turned it on, It ran for about 5 seconds, and croaked …
So … that meant another 45 minute drive to the “local” Apple store. It also meant about an hour’s worth of waiting for an appointment. Then another three hours while they worked on the machine before finally getting It to run again. Net result?
It’s now 10 PM, and I’m back where I was last night … on line again. Oh, and a couple hundred bucks lighter.
Anyhow, that was how my day went. I hope Bart had more fun than I did.
Regarding the comments, I’m overjoyed that there is much discussion of the issue. My point, albeit poorly expressed given some of the comments, was that since the Beer Identity Is equally as true and valid as the Kaya Identity, it is obvious that we cannot use the Kaya Identity to “prove” anything.
So yes, the Kaya Identity is true, but trivially so. We cannot depend on it to represent the real world, and it can’t show us anything.
For example, folks upstream said that we can use the Kaya Identity to show what happens if the GDP per capita goes up by say 10%. According to the Kaya Identity, emissions will also go up by 10%.
But according to the Beer Identity, if Gross Beer Production per capita goes up by 10%, then CO2 emissions have to go up by 10% … and we know that’s not true. So clearly, neither identity can serve to establish or demonstrate anything about the real world.
What I tried to say, apparently unsuccessfully, is that by itself, the Kaya Identity cannot demonstrate or show or prove anything about the real world. If there is anythlng true about it, that truth must exist outside of the Kaya Identity. Otherwise the Beer Identity would be a valuable guide to CO2 emissions … but we know that’s not true.
Finally, l hear rumblings that Anthony shouldn’t have published this piece of mine. This totally misunderstands Anthony’s position in the game. The strength of WattsUpWithThat is not that it is always right or that it publishes only the best stuff guaranteed to be true.
The beauty and value of WUWT that it is the world’s premier location for public peer review of climate science. On a personal level, WUWT is of immense use to me, because my work either gets falsified or not very quickly … or else, as in this case, there’s an interesting ongoing debate. For me, being shown to be wrong is more valuable than being shown to be right. If someone can point out my mistakes, it saves me endless time following a blind alley.
And indeed, there is much value in the public defenestration of some hapless piece of bad science. It is as important to know not only which ideas are wrong but exactly why they are wrong. When Anthony publishes scientific claims from the edges, generally they are quickly either confirmed or falsified. This is hugely educational for scientists of all kinds, to know how to counter some of the incorrect arguments, as well as giving room for those unusual ideas which tomorrow will be mainstream ideas.
So it is not Anthony’s job to determine whether or not the work of the guest authors will stand the harsh light of public exposure. That’s the job of the peer reviewers, who are you and I and everyone making defensible scientific comments. Even if Anthony had a week to analyze and dissect each piece, there’s no way that one man’s wisdom can substitute for that of the free marketplace of ideas … which is why it’s not his job. Bear in mind that even with peer review, something like two-thirds of peer reviewed science is falsified within a year. And Anthony is making judgements publish/don’t publish on dozens of papers every week.
So please, dear friends, cut Anthony some slack. He’s just providing the arena wherein in 2014 we practice the blood sport of science, the same sport we’ve had for a few hundred years now, ripping the other guys ideas to bits, also known as trying to scientifically falsify another person’s claims that you think don’t hold water. It is where we can get a good reading on whether the ideas will stand up to detailed hostile examination.
It is not Anthony’s job to decide if mine or any other ideas and expositions and claims will wtthstand that test … and indeed, it is often of value for him to publish things that will not stand the test of time, so that we can understand exactly where they are lacking.
So please remember, Anthony is just providing the boxing ring. It is not his job to predict in advance who is going to win the fight. His job is to fill the cards with interesting bouts … and if this post is any example, he is doing it very well.
Best to everyone,
w.

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 8:46 am

@Edit_XYZ:
It is not re-writing, it is just that my interpretation is correct. Read the english in the paper.

But it is logically scalable. It happens to be meaningless because Flying Spaghetti Monsters (M) are meaningless… but if we disagreed on the Flying Spaghetti Monsters we would be in disagreement about the Kaya Identity.

Let me explain on what i meant by “logically scalable”. Scalable means that it scales with something. They Kaya Identity scales with logic. One can use a very simple logic, where all rhs variables (pop. and ratios) are independent. The Kaya Identity is valid. Or one can use a more complicated logic, where those variables are interdepedent. They Kaya Identity is still valid.

To avoid circular arguments: Please justify why each term of the Kaya Identity has meaning and no other meanings are legitimate or required.

What is the chapter quoted by Willis is discussing: energy-related co2 emission and how this number can be factored. (we could be discussing something else, like photography, but who wants to discuss photography)
Human people use energy (mostly electric, but also direct heating I guess) for purely material reasons, related to economics. So, for this discussion, what matters is economics and energy, in quantitative terms.
An economy can be large or smaller, it can use more or less energy. Economies tend to be larger with more people, but other than that, there is no simple variable. We can discuss things like market regulations or subsidies, but if that matters for the discussion, it will ultimately affect other variables.
Population: Number of people.
GDP per capita: GDP/(pop.). It represents average wealth, coming from economic productivity.
Energy intensity of the economy: energy/GDP. It represents how much energy is need to generate a unit of wealth.
CO2 intensity of energy: co2/energy. It represents how much co2 is emitted in the generation of one unit of energy.
Is there anything missing? Nope, look at the paragraphs above. We are discussing the quantitative aspect of the energy-related co2 emissions.

There are no “meaningful ratios”, there are only political objectives which people want to promote.

Are any of the ratios above meaningless? Which political objectives does RGB Jr. want to promote?

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 8:49 am

But according to the Beer Identity, If Gross Beer Production per capita goes up by 10%, then CO2 emissions have to go up by 10% … and we know that’s not true. So clearly, neither identity can serve to establish or demonstrate anything about the real world.

The co2 emissions on the lhs and rhs are with respect to beer. So, yes, we know it is true.

Frederick Colbourne

July 11, 2014 8:50 am

Sorry to pour ice-water on a wonderful debate. But an identity is not written with an equal sign. And identity is written with a singe with 3 horizontal bars. Either Kaya is not an identity or there is a typo.
If Kaya is an identity you cannot transpose (cancel out) terms. You have to transform terms on one side only, usually the right hand side.
To cause even more shame to the commentators, I recall this from 1952 when I did trigonometric identities for fun and scored 100 on all term papers and the final.

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 8:54 am

Sorry to pour ice-water on a wonderful debate. But an identity is not written with an equal sign. And identity is written with a singe with 3 horizontal bars.

So you are now a authority on typographical conventions? No? I though you were…
People can write identities in the way they want.

July 11, 2014 9:00 am

Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
Coming up with E=E will not get you into Mensa. Coming up with E=MC2 just might! 😉
Unfortunately, the next thing that coming up with E = MC^2 will apparently get you is a raft of idiots claiming to have falsified your Theory of Relativity because their fifth grade math skills allow them to algebraically reduce E = MC^2 to E = E.

In the Kaya identity, CO2 might sensibly be to balanced by Flying Spaghetti Monsters (M) for example
CO2= CO2/M*M

The terms of that equation are not a representation of real world concepts. M is an imaginary being and CO2/M has no meaning of interest. That is not true of the terms of the Kaya Identity:
CO2 is the level of energy-related CO2 emissions produced by an economy.
Population is the number of people in an economy.
(GDP/Population) is average wealth production.
(Energy/GDP) is the energy efficiency of an economy.
(CO2/Energy) is the carbon intensity of energy production.
These are all commonly discussed concepts, that have meaning in the real world.

richardscourtney

July 11, 2014 9:09 am

Daniel G.:
I notice that you have ignored my post which replies to you and, instead, at July 11, 2014 at 8:29 am you have replied to my post which replied to Pete Brown.
I understand that. My reply to you is difficult for you, and Pete Brown has yet to substantiate anything he has said in this thread so it makes sense for you to try to help him.
In response to my repeatedly pointing out that the equation is a propaganda tool and that nobody has suggested any other use, you claim “J.K. and other have already suggested alternative uses”.
The only post I have found which could agree with your assertion is by JK and is at July 10, 2014 at 3:59 pm: it is an attempt to show that it is possible to use the equation in the absence of knowledge of actual CO2 emissions which concludes saying

But that’s an example where you get an estimate future emissions out without putting a direct estimate in.

Sorry, but that is merely an example of the equation being used to present propaganda: the estimate is a guess based on a guess by the propagandist. It tells nothing except about the guess.
You make only two other points which are worth the bother of refuting,
You say

Of course, they are not the same. GDP per capita is the concept the represents average wealth in the Kaya Identity. That wealth comes from economic productivity. “since CO2 emissions are a by-product of economic activity, throttling economic productivity will reduce CO2 emissions” is sentence expressing a reasoning.

Well, since they are not the same then you are admitting that Pete Brown was wrong and GDP per capita is not an appropriate ratio to use in the equation.
This goes to the heart of my point in reply to you. There are no “meaningful ratios”: there are only assertions which propagandists which to promote by use of the equation.
And you say to me

Your reasoning is too simplistic. You have to consider more than one factor.
USA is just one country. It is developed one by the way, think of the rest of the world.

No. I pointed out the fact that the UISA had decoupled its economic activity from its energy use. The equation is too simplistic because it asserts such decoupling is not possible. And a policymaker has to think of her own country because she can only impose a policy there and not on the rest of the world.
I have said enough to show there is no merit in your excuses for the propaganda tool which you call the Kaya Identity.
Richard

Edit_XYZ

July 11, 2014 9:15 am

Daniel G.
“It is not re-writing, it is just that my interpretation is correct. Read the english in the paper.”
So – after all the blatant data fudging and mathematical incompetence you’ve exhibited in this thread, you still think that you have a shred of credibility left? That, when prompted to povide a link, some lame excuse is enough?
Aren’t you the optimist.
Let’s see the link (and page/paragraph).

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 9:19 am

The equation is too simplistic because it asserts such decoupling is not possible.

No, it doesn’t assert such a thing. The co2 intensity factors and energy intensity factors have decreased somewhat in the USA, so USA energy-related co2 emissions are not growing.

Well, since they are not the same then you are admitting that Pete Brown was wrong and GDP per capita is not an appropriate ratio to use in the equation.

Read what I said again, I explained why GDP per capita is a appropriate ratio.

Sorry, but that is merely an example of the equation being used to present propaganda

PROPAGANDA OF WHAT? (if this were oral discussion, that would be a scream)
Malthusianism? CAGW Alarmism? Eugenics?
No, the Kaya Identity doesn’t try to prove co2 emissions are harmful.

I understand that. My reply to you is difficult for you, and Pete Brown has yet to substantiate anything he has said in this thread so it makes sense for you to try to help him.

The same is valid for you.

I notice that you have ignored my post which replies to you and, instead, at July 11, 2014 at 8:29 am you have replied to my post which replied to Pete Brown.

Nope, I did not ignore. I answered it:
Daniel G. writes:

Are any of the ratios above meaningless? Which political objectives does RGB Jr. want to promote?

richardscourtney

July 11, 2014 9:23 am

Daniel G.:
You make a good point in your post at July 11, 2014 at 8:46 am when you ask

Which political objectives does RGB Jr. want to promote?

Only RGB Jr. can provide an acceptable answer to that question.
But the question can be applied to anybody who uses the equation. The so-called “meaningful ratios” he chooses to include in the equation are what he is promoting.
Richard

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 9:25 am

you still think that you have a shred of credibility left?
Aren’t you the optimist.

I do not expect for people to trust me.
http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DDPP_interim_2014_report.pdf
Chapter III, section 1, second paragraph:

The simplest way to describe the deep decarbonization of energy systems is by the principal drivers of energy-related CO2 emissions—for convenience, since the focus of this chapter is on energy systems, we simply refer to them as CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions can be expressed as the product of four inputs: population, GDP [gross domestic production] per capita, energy use per unit of GDP, and CO2 emissions per unit of energy: