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

David in Texas

July 11, 2014 9:26 am

Michael 2:
You made two very good points.
1. Only if you hold all three ratios constant will the Population have the anticipated effect. You are right. I was sloppy with my statement. I didn’t state all my assumptions.
2. GDP does indeed cancel out of the equation, but we do know that GDP has a great effect on CO2 emissions. The problem is that with a sharp drop in GDP there is also a sharp drop in Energy use, so the ratio Energy/GDP remain more or less constant.
Yes, it would better to express each as ratio and making them a function of other variables, i.e. R1(GDP, Population, Energy, others?), R2(GDP, Population, Energy, others?) and R3(GDP, Population, Energy, others?). Of course, this complicates the formula and makes it much hard to understand. There is a trade-off between precision and easy of communication. We often make statements without stating all the implicit assumptions.
My previous posts are good examples of unstated assumptions. Another example is “… the ratio of CO2 emissions per unit of energy. That is a simple thing to measure in a laboratory…” The unstated assumption, of course, is that you have to make the measure for all sources of energy and weight-average them. Or alternatively you, you could estimate Total CO2 emissions and Total Energy use and divide, and treat that number as a constant until you can make the estimates again.
Or another example, “So global GDP can be changed instantly on a whim by whoever decides what it is and what currency to denote it.” Here you are assuming that they are expressing GDP in nominal dollars (or some other currency) and not in inflation adjusted dollars. I am assuming that they are expressing GDP in inflation adjusted dollars.
We can always criticize whomever for not stating all their assumptions. Some people find that pleasurable.

John West

July 11, 2014 9:26 am

@ur momisugly pheonix7
@ur momisugly July 11, 2014 at 5:03 am
Certainly there are some valid criticisms of the kaya (cumba ya) identity there. I’m merely pointing out that the reduction to CO2=CO2 (units) is not in any way “bad” for an equation. That’s exactly what an equation is supposed to do. It would get an “A” in basic algebra.

Steven Mosher

July 11, 2014 9:26 am

“Whether the equation is a political tool or not should be an entirely different thread.”
Smartest comment on the thread.

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 9:28 am

@richardscourtney:
Ignoring all my other points. Good way to go.
Maybe when I write d = vt, I am “promoting” velocity and time.

richardscourtney

July 11, 2014 9:28 am

Daniel G.:
I write as a courtesy to acknowledge your post addressed to me at July 11, 2014 at 9:19 am.
If there were something there which were worth the bother of refuting then I would, but I am content to leave your sophistry for others to laugh at and I ignore your “No, ’tisn’t” assertions.
Richard

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 9:30 am

I am assuming that they are expressing GDP in inflation adjusted dollars.

That is irrelevant. Any bureaucratic change in GDP will change energy intensity proportionally.
See my comment about cutting zeros.

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 9:32 am

If there were something there which were worth the bother of refuting then I would, but I am content to leave your sophistry for others to laugh at and I ignore your “No, ’tisn’t” assertions.

I’ll gladly ignore your “Yes, it is.” assertions too.

richardscourtney

July 11, 2014 9:42 am

Daniel G.:
I write in sincere hope of helping you.
At July 11, 2014 at 9:30 am you write this nonsense

Any bureaucratic change in GDP will change energy intensity proportionally.

So you think energy intensity can be altered by a stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.
And you immediately follow that with your post at July 11, 2014 at 9:32 am which quotes my explanation of why I cannot be bothered to refute your nonsense.
Please stop typing for a few moments and try to reflect on what you are typing. When even I am not bothered to refute your words then you may wish to evaluate their cogency.
Richard

Pete Brown

July 11, 2014 9:48 am

richardscourtney says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:55 am
…
Richard, you really do seem to be quite a volatile person who does not like being disagreed with at all!
It is particularly difficult to follow your post if you’re going to start using secret hidden paragraphs. You are apparently very pleased with your game but I honestly cannot see what point has been made. Do I really have to piece your secret paragraphs together from the various places in the string where you use the word ‘snip’? Are you three years old? I really cannot be bothered with that.
I notice you do seem to think that the USA has de-coupled it’s CO2 emissions from its economic productivity. That is very strange indeed. I did not for a moment imagine that anyone could live under such a basic misapprehension.
Specifically you say;
“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).”
Actually that’s a very fine example of an economy reducing it’s CO2 intensity of energy generation – precisely one of the four terms on the RHS of the identity, and a excellent illustration of the point! If you think the USA no longer emits CO2 as a by-product of economic activity, though, then you’ve clearly forgotten what happens when you burn gas.
You say;
“You are conflating “GDP per capita” with “since CO2 emissions are a by-product of economic activity, throttling economic productivity will reduce CO2 emissions”. ”
Eh? What? Where exactly am I conflating something with something? Show me the quote? Are you a real person or am I actually debating an infinite number of monkeys? GDP per capita is just Gross Domestic Product divided by the number of people in the economy – nothing seems to be wrong there… CO2 emissions are a byproduct of economic activity – that is correct. Throttling economic activity will, other things being equal, reduce CO2 emissions. That’s basic stuff. No problem there. Where’s the conflation, and what with again?
Re-read my comment and try again. Actually don’t. I’m done.
By the way, I see you have your ‘offensive bollocks’ out again. Don’t go near any playgrounds with that…

john robertson

July 11, 2014 9:49 am

Amazing post.
Very Alice in Wonderland reasoning.
So this “Identity” expressed as a mathematic expression, can mean whatever the user wishes it to mean.
Either express yourself clearly or accept that you are supporting the use of propaganda.
This is political-speak masquerading as algebra.
As the IPCC cloaks itself in the illusion of science, while avoiding the scientific method.
As for those who attack Anthony Watts, over this posting by Willis and this free ranging discussion that follows.. WTF?
Pompous certainty ring any bells?
If the source of confusion is the use of terms beyond the comprehension of the average school graduate,that dimensional mathematics allows such poor definition..
Umm do not abuse the commenters here, your inability to understand the concept ,well enough to express yourself in clear english, will result in laughter.
The equation as expressed cancels.
If the terms are improperly expressed, correct it.
Otherwise you defend the indefensible, which is the deliberate miss use of an algebraic expression to give false credibility to a political meme.

July 11, 2014 9:53 am

Here we go again. Willis’s math knowledge has failed him. To understand the Kaya identity you need to understand what a mathematical identity is. Once that is understood we can debate the validity of the terms for the intended purpose and as importantly, if there is a problem this identity will help us mitigate.

Matthew R Marler

July 11, 2014 9:55 am

Willis Eschenbach: 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.
The beer identity is irrelevant to thinking about countries that do not produce their own beer, though perhaps you could use Beer Consumption instead of Beer Production. But every country produces something, so the Kaya identity is more general. For people unlike us who are concerned to reduce CO2 output, the Kaya identity shows the approximate short term effects of changes. For countries that produce beer, reduce the CO2 output from beer production; for countries that produce automobiles or wheat, reduce the CO2 output from automobile production or wheat production. The results of such changes can be computed on a country-by-country basis. What the Kaya identity misses completely are the long-term effects of technology improvement.
I imagine that you personally would, like me, prefer greater GDP and wealth per person, and let the CO2 change as it will. Reducing the energy cost per product is in almost everybody’s interest already, independent of CO2. To me, the problem with the Kaya identity isn’t its limitations, but its irrelevance to solving the important problems.

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 9:56 am

richardscourtney says:

I write in sincere hope of helping you.

If that is the case you may want to answer my points even if they were sophistry.
richardscourtney says:

So you think energy intensity can be altered by a stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.

Let’s say I decided to create a new unit of money: the super-dollar, it is worth 100 dollars.
This cuts two zeros of the GDP digits. But to produce 1 super-dollar, one needs to produce energy enough for 100 dollars. So the digits of energy intensity is changed.
Or I might decide to represent energy in ergs, instead of Joules. That change also alters the digits of energy intensity.
richardscourtney says:

Please stop typing for a few moments and try to reflect on what you are typing. When even I am not bothered to refute your words then you may wish to evaluate their cogency.

1) The Kaya Identity is valid.
2) It doesn’t have to be used as a propaganda tool.
3) I’ve answered to various technical criticism defending Willis idea of “it cancels”
Nothing out of the ordinary.

Matthew R Marler

July 11, 2014 9:57 am

oops, that should be: ” For people unlike us who are NOT concerned to reduce CO2 output”
sorry

gnomish

July 11, 2014 10:07 am

what a wonderfully rich and entertaining world it is where clouds are really elephants if we interpret them as such – with a tail like a rope and ears like leaves and a trunk like a snake!
when one transcends the comic to the surreal, identities can be anything one may choose.
not only that but one can sally forth on the MMORPG blogs and cast level 12 spells of dazzling numerology with magic mathlike runes and symbols. it’s an addiction.
if being limited by reality and so unimaginative as to be unable to interpret something to be what it is not, makes life seem tawdry and trivial, yet another cruel betrayal by the malignant forces of nature, it really is nature’s way punishing a person for missing the clue boat.
some commenters remark that the creation of the kaya spell is deliberate and sinister.
yup- with a lineage that stretches back thousands of years.
I MAKE THE MEMES (i write the songs- barry manilow)
i’ve been alive forever
and i wrote the very first lies
i possessed you with my demons.
i put the lotto look in your eyes-
i make the memes that keep the world confused
i write the talking points and frame all the views
i spin my narrative and call it the news
i make the memes – i make the memes!
My home lies deep within you
and i’ve got a cavity in your mind
so if you’re looking for the truth
it’s a rotten tooth you will find.
i make the memes that keep the world confused
i write the talking points and frame all the views
i spin my narrative and call it the news
i make the memes – i make the memes!
Like a puppet you will dance- and you never stood a chance-
cuz i taught your parents how to teach you too.
when uneasiness fills your heart, and your reasoning falls apart
It’s from me, it’s for you
to believe- and you do
It’s a global industry!
i make the memes that keep the world confused
i write the talking points and frame all the views
i spin my narrative and call it the news
i make the memes – i make the memes!
i’m a spin doctor
i make the memes

Bart

July 11, 2014 10:09 am

The equation is, as stated, an identity. But, it is only valid insofar as population is THE driving factor in emissions (like integrating a partial derivative, the result is ambiguous not just modulo a constant, as for integration of a total derivative, but modulo a function of the other variables which have an impact), and it is only useful insofar as the intermediate partial differences are constant, which they aren’t. Which is to say, the identity is totally useless, and is obviously intended as a slight of hand to push a population control agenda. Willis’ mirth is well justified. It is total crackpottery.

Frank

July 11, 2014 10:14 am

Lets say we use the equation to predict the effect of a change in population of 10% as one of the previous posters suggested. The “Population” variables in both the numerator and in the denominator go up by 10% and the equation predicts that there will be no net change in CO2. The only way out of that is to prove that that the ratios (eg GDP/Population) are constants. But it we instantly dropped 700 million new souls on the planet, does anyone think GDP would rise by 10%? It might even fall. In either event, the the actual ratio in the real world (GDP to Population) would change and the equation would not correctly predict what actually happens. So until proponents prove that any three of the terms on the right side of the equation are constant when the other term is changed by an arbitrary amount, the equation is useless. Put another way, this equation assumes no feedback as between any of the terms.

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 10:17 am

Bart says:

…But, it is only valid insofar as population is THE driving factor in emissions…

Not really. The identity has four factors, and we are discussing energy-related co2 emissions.
Bart says:

Willis’ mirth is well justified.

Willis is saying that “everything cancels”, thus the identity is useless, quite different from your argument.

Matthew R Marler

July 11, 2014 10:18 am

richardscourtney: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.
JK suggested an alternative use. That does not, obviously, imply that it can not also be used as a propaganda tool.
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).
Actually, the US has substituted a lot of natural gas for a lot of coal. That plus the recession reduced total US CO2 emissions. “Decoupled CO2 from the progress of its economic activity” is a gross exaggeration. Should the US economy ever grow as much as 5% in any year, or increase exports of large quantities of natural gas, then total CO2 emissions will rise. So perhaps CO2/energy will decrease, but be partially offset by GDP per person, while energy/GDP stays within a short range (say, if the conversion from coal to gas declines as more gas is exported. The results of diverse changes can be computed with reasonable accuracy from the Kaya equation, should anybody care to, thus illustrating JK’s suggested use.

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 11, 2014 10:20 am

Frederick Colbourne says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:50 am
Rest ashord, this ‘Identity” cancels itself on the right hand side. This in fact is how it is constructed!!!

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 10:21 am

Frank says:

So until proponents prove that any three of the terms on the right side of the equation are constant when the other term is changed by an arbitrary amount, the equation is useless. Put another way, this equation assumes no feedback as between any of the terms.

I and other have explained on how this is wrong on the above comments. You might very busy with something else, thus you’d prefer for me to repeat myself. But I’ll only repeat myself if you ask.

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 11, 2014 10:24 am

Rest assured! 😉

Matthew R Marler

July 11, 2014 10:24 am

Frank: Put another way, this equation assumes no feedback as between any of the terms.
that’s why I wrote that it is good for short-term forecasts of the effects of changes, and wrote of energy/GDP that it stays within a range while some other factors change more.
The basic limitation of the equation is that it isn’t about everything that matters. Other writers may have proved that, like any other tool (say a hammer) it isn’t useful for everything.

Daniel G.

July 11, 2014 10:26 am

USA smallish economic growth in the last 5 years only give more evidence towards the idea that GDP per capita is factor of CO2 emissions.

milodonharlani

July 11, 2014 10:28 am

Daniel G. says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:26 am
Main reason for declining US emissions is increasing reliance on natural gas. Economic downturn, improved insulation in new structures & more efficient cars & trucks may also have contributed, however.