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

Josualdo

July 13, 2014 1:15 am

Lots of stuff here, so I guess this comment wont be read.
Some people say this is dimensional analysis. It is not. Or, if you wish, it’s the dimensional analysis of an identity.
In dimensional analysis you replace the quantities by their dimensions. For instance, Population is a count, hence dimension is 1. As say, velocity is L/T (dimension space over dimension time). Then you simplify both sides and you must get an identity. (Units have dimensions, dimensions are NOT units).
This identity here, kaya’s, is not an identity of dimensions but of quantities, therefore not in the area of dimensional analysis. It’s a tautology, because stating “speed equals speed” and the such is true but takes you nowhere (at any speed).
Whichever change you introduce in any quantity in this kaya’s thing will produce not a single change, because every quantity is both on the numerator and denominator and therefore, A/A, is the constant 1 for any value of A.

J Calvert N(UK)

July 13, 2014 5:52 am

To Björn from Sweden Re “Kaya Identity is a tool in Economics and politics” Of course it is – Prof Kaya is an economist – and clearly not one of the brightest . But that does not make it mathematically invalid. As I has said before it is just like working out your car’s total fuel consumption – a child could do it.
To richardscourtney Re:”propaganda trick” Seems to me that calling it that – could itself be considered (by some) to be a propaganda trick! (Coming as it does hot-on-the-heels of the HI meeting in Vegas,) Working out your car’s total fuel consumption is not a propaganda trick.
But I must acknowledge that it is too simplistic – because it omits a huge sector of total carbon emissions – namely forestry and agriculture. Brazil, Congo, Indonesia and Malaysia are (arguably) responslble for enormous CO2 emissions due to forest clearance. (Maybe 25-30% of the total? Its a topic for another forum.) There are some who claim that agricultural tillage of the soil has released vast amounts of CO2 (I remain sceptical). Two academics called Houghton (‘J’ of IPCC ‘fame’ and ‘R.A.’ ) are cited as claiming that from 1859 to 1998 “net cumulative CO2 emissions from land-use change are estimated to have been 136 +/- 55 Pg of Carbon” (compared with 270 +/- 30 Pg for fossil combustion.
To the others, actually the “CO2 Emissions” term on the LHS is *not* the same variable as the “CO2 Emissions” term on the RHS! (That fact that is was written that way reflects on the sloppiness/dullness of its authors). The CO2 emissions on the LHS should have been written “Total National CO2 emissions” – analogous to the total fuel consumption of your car. The “CO2 emissions” on the RHS is not “Total National CO2 emissions” it is part of a UNIT RATE (or efficiency ratio) – analogous to the gallons per mile of your car. So a country that uses CO2-efficient fuels (all else being equal) will have a lower “Total National CO2 emissions” that a similar one that uses less-efficient fuels. (In the extreme hypothetical case of a totally nuclear-powered economy, this RATE would be (practically) zero kg of CO2 per Joule of energy produced.)

richardscourtney

July 13, 2014 7:43 am

J Calvert N(UK):
In your post at July 13, 2014 at 5:52 am you say

To richardscourtney Re:”propaganda trick” Seems to me that calling it that – could itself be considered (by some) to be a propaganda trick! (Coming as it does hot-on-the-heels of the HI meeting in Vegas,) Working out your car’s total fuel consumption is not a propaganda trick.

That is a nice attempt at misdirection which completely distorts the issue,
The so-called Kaya identity is a propaganda trick because its deliberate ambiguity enables it to be used as a tool to promote anything. This is because it comprised of “factors” which could be anything and are asserted to be “meaningful” when there is no stated definition of meaningful that prescribes what should be a “factor” and what should not.
My statement that the so-called Kaya identity is a propaganda trick is a clear and unambiguous rejection of the propaganda trick. Opposing propaganda with truth is not propaganda.
Richard

J Calvert N(UK)

July 13, 2014 8:38 am

Richard, Re: “Opposing propaganda with truth is not propaganda.” So, what is this ‘truth’ that you’re opposing the propaganda with? I don’t think you have stated it – apart from a lot of toy-throwing about ratios not being ‘meaningful’ etc. Tell me what this truth is – not what it isn’t.

john robertson

July 13, 2014 1:28 pm

@J Calvert 5:52
Yes, that is the whole point.
This “Identity” is written sloppily.
As CO2(total)= not CO2 (ratio), yet is constantly published in the accidentally misleading form, appearing to include identical terms on both sides.
Sloppiness?
Prior to Climate Gate 2009 I might have agreed with you.
However now I can no longer give the CAGW crowd the benefit of the doubt.
The identity as expressed is a corruption, deliberately used to suck in the mathematically challenged policy wonk.
It appears to be informative, while containing no information.
The endless defence of this expression here and on Willis’s next post, is most revealing.
Instead of acknowledging the idiocy of the wiki posting of the Kaya Indentity, we are treated to endless explanations of what it “really means”.
But these defenders, often expressing themselves as so much more sophisticated in their math skills, missed the point.
As written, it is useless.And very funny.
Correctly expressed it is also of marginal utility, as it is a series of assumptions.

richardscourtney

July 13, 2014 2:07 pm

J Calvert N(UK):
At July 13, 2014 at 8:38 am you ask me

Richard, Re: “Opposing propaganda with truth is not propaganda.” So, what is this ‘truth’ that you’re opposing the propaganda with? I don’t think you have stated it – apart from a lot of toy-throwing about ratios not being ‘meaningful’ etc. Tell me what this truth is – not what it isn’t.

Well, if you had read the thread you would have seen that I have repeatedly stated it in this and in the other (later) thread.
I refer you to, for example, my post at July 11, 2014 at 7:55 am which is here. It says

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.

And refuting the total nonsense of using undefined – so completely arbitrary – “factors” is not “toy throwing”: it is something called logic with which you seem to be unfamiliar.
Richard

Pete Brown

July 13, 2014 4:25 pm

Just noticed this:
richardscourtney says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:41 pm
“I first made a prediction about global warming (GW) in 1980 and it was that GW would become the major environmental issue… …I am now predicting that if this fallacious “Kaya identity” is not rejected at this early stage then it will become the major propaganda tool used in attempt to revive the ailing GW-scare.”
Is that what you thought you were doing – killing it before it spreads? “…at this early stage”??? I don’t know when it was first conceived but the Kaya identity was certainly being written about back in 1993 by the man himself and has been widely referenced ever since. Were you asleep?

Bryan

July 13, 2014 7:54 pm

Okay, I think I’m starting to see richardscourtney’s point about the ratios being chosen for political purposes.
However, I think they are (on the face of it) reasonable ratios to use if one had a good reason to want to reduce CO2 emissions. Here is what I think is meant by “meaningful ratios”:
Think of it this way. If you want to emit less CO2, a logical place to start is to look at CO2 per joule of Energy, so start with CO2/energy. Multiplying that times energy gives you CO2, so we have:
CO2 emissions = energy x CO2 emissions/energy
Now, we have 2 things we can consider reducing if we want to reduce CO2. But we would ask: should we expand “energy” into X times energy/X ? Well, we basically use energy in living our lives, but that involves producing, selling, and buying. The aggregate of the production that is bought, sold and used in living our lives is called GDP. There are all kinds of practical issues involved with defining and calculating GDP. There is also the fact that GDP necessarily misses some energy that is used in living our lives. So, understanding that the calculated quantity will be approximate, we expand energy into GDP x energy/GDP, which gives us:
CO2 emissions = GDP x energy/GDP x CO2 emissions/energy
Okay, if I were doing this exercise (which I guess I am), I would probably stop there. I would not presume that the government would have any levers at it’s disposal to influence population, so I don’t think it would occur to me to expand “GDP” into “Population x GDP/Population”. I mean, why even go there? The population is what it is, and will (hopefully, in my way of thinking) grow to what it will grow to.
But perhaps from the greenie point of view, immigration policy comes into this. It would relate to population on a country by country basis, which might enter in the their considerations, since the other variables are different in different countries.
But of course the bigger relevance of population is global population. I am aware that in the mindset of many environmentalists, PEOPLE are really the problem, so they would of course expand “GDP” into “Population x GDP/Population”. In fact, I think there is little doubt that they would start with “Population”, and go from there, instead of starting at the other end of the expression, as I did. Theirs is a very twisted way of thinking (in my opinion), but it is unfortunately very influential in the world today. When it comes to goals and policies that they might want to use to decrease global population or slow down population growth, I can think of one (increasing economic growth — which of course has a big downside from their point of view) that is benign. Unfortunately, many in this group would not stop at benign measures. I believe that warnings about their nefarious (I do not use that word lightly) intent should be taken very seriously. We have to stand against these people. There are many of them; they are influential; they are determined; and (in my opinion) they truly have a value system that is at odds with Western Civilization and simple decency.
Getting back to the “identity”, as I had constructed it:
CO2 emissions = GDP x energy/GDP x CO2 emissions/energy
Now, with the awareness that I started at the other end, and the greenies would start with “Population”, I have to consider, is it reasonable (from a purely neutral, academic point of view) to expand GDP into GDP/Population? Well, considering that ultimately people are the ones who produce and consume GDP, it does seem reasonable, just for completeness, to go ahead and expand it. I believe that one could do that as a logical step, if one’s goal is just to lay out the factors that ultimately bring about energy related CO2 emissions. So if one does that expansion, you get:
CO2 emissions = Population x GDP/Population x energy/GDP x CO2 emissions/energy
What I think I have done is start at the (to me) logical place to start (the rightmost factor), and develop the kaya identity in a purely logical manner. To me this shows that the factors are not arbitrary. So I would agree with Daniel G that the ratios are meaningful, in the sense that they arise naturally if you start with the far right factor (the natural place to start), and go from there. It turns out that the factors also arise if you start at the left (the radical environmentalist place to start).
I started this comment by stating that I was starting to see richardscourtney’s point about the ratio’s being chosen for political purposes. I can still see that, in the sense that (in my opinion) radical environmentalists probably tend to start with population and to think of lowering population and GDP/Population as the main things to do to get where they want to go. But I also agree with Daniel G that the ratios are meaningful, and would arise from a purely academic expansion of energy related CO2 emissions into the factors that lead to it.
Another point (more in agreement with richardscourtney’s point of view) concerns the issues involved in actually applying the equation. The word “identity” lends the aura of mathematical certainty. Although the expansion of the factors is mathematically sound, the many practical difficulties involved (such as defining and measuring the ratios, designing policies to influence them, and estimating the effects of the policies’ unintended consequences on other ratios in the equation) make it more suitable as a “back of the envelope” estimation than a precise policy tool. In this sense it seems that it could mostly be used in these 2 ways: In general discussions of broad policy directions, and (as richardscourtney emphasizes), for propaganda. While I don’t discount the former use (by those who in good faith, without evil intent, really think we need to control CO2 emissions), I also agree that the latter use will be predominant by the radical environmentalists. Although I do not see any mathematical basis for invalidating the general logic of the equation, we must stand against them.

Bryan

July 13, 2014 9:24 pm

“…Another point (more in agreement with richardscourtney’s point of view) concerns the issues involved in actually applying the equation.”
From my comment above. After I submitted this, I remembered that Daniel G also discussed the limited usefullness of the equation. So I think they agree on that part.

Bryan

July 13, 2014 9:29 pm

…That is, I think they agree that the equation’s usefulness is limited.

richardscourtney

July 13, 2014 11:56 pm

Bryan:
I write to confirm that you have understood what I have been trying to say and you have accurately stated it in your post at July 13, 2014 at 7:54 pm.
Also, at at July 13, 2014 at 9:29 pm you say of Daniel G. and me

…That is, I think they agree that the equation’s usefulness is limited.

Well, I do think that and – very importantly – I consider the limited usefulness to be both malign and dangerous. I said this in my first post to this thread which is at July 10, 2014 at 2:31 am and this link jumps to it.
Richard

J Calvert N(UK)

July 14, 2014 5:15 pm

Richard, I’m sorry but what you call a ‘refutation’ is nothing of the kind – merely a strongly-worded objection in which you imagine all sorts of malign ways it could be used; and an irrational belief that it was somehow ‘concocted’ expressly for this purpose.
And I’m sure there *are* crazy people who might try and use it for malign purposes – just as there were/are crazies who try to use the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest for malign purposes. This doesn’t prove the theories are wrong. In fact it has no bearing whatsoever on their validity or otherwise.
As for talk about ‘killing it off’, that’s crazy! (Who do you think you are!) It reminds me of the sort of mendacious manipulativeness we normally associate with the CAGW propaganda machine. (e.g. the statement recorded by Dr D Deming, “We have got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,”)
The underlying logic of this simple equation is quite obvious. States with large GDP consume more energy that those with smaller GDP – and GDP is a simple product of Population and Per Capita Income. If the population of a state were to Double (and somehow the GDP/capita and Energy intensity remain the same) then the state’s energy consumption would double.
Now (and this may lie at the heart of your objections) there are laws of supply-and-demand that cause interactions between the four factors. (A state whose population were to quickly double would be unlikely to succeed in maintaining a constant GDP per capita.) But this equation is only an identity – not a full-blown economic model. (You are probably quite right, however, to expect that some ‘actifist’ will use it as a model.)
There may be a possible problem with it though . . . I’m not sure it deals correctly with imports and exports. If I were to buy a heavy steel item (e.g. an anvil) from China (say) which would have needed considerable energy (and CO2) to produce, using this equation, would I somehow become responsible for that CO2? Morally it’s arguable, but in fact the CO2 would have been choofed-out in China – not here in UK.

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 15, 2014 3:42 am

I am in complete agreement with Richard Courtney.
I am also on record for pointing out the propaganda value of this silly e-quack-tion (Yes it is an Identity but that is all it is!).
Ok, forget the identity, it is useless as mathematical tool because it is not an equation or formula in any functional way!
What is apparent, is that nobody who works with it, uses the Identity.
What they do do, is apply it as a product of factors. Simply multiplying across the variables.
Straight up, I find the idea of multiplying the factors, unjustifiable and meaningless; except as propaganda.
Is it true that population and GDP are related as a product?
The very first three places in the world I looked at, not only challenge this assertion they wipe the floor with the stupidity of it!
Hong Kong has an inverse relationship of GDP to population, because its massive GDP dwarfs its population.
GDP/ Population : 263.3 Billion / 7.2 million
Singapore, according to current figures has an even greater inverse relationship of GDP to population, because it has a smaller population.
GDP/ Population : 274.7 Billion / 5.3 million
Both are massively inverse in there relationship of GDP to population and both are orders of magnitude above the next place I looked at; Bangladesh.
Bangladesh has the exact opposite but still inverse relationship of GDP to Population because of its huge population!!
GDP/ Population : 115.6 Billion / 154.7 million
CO2 emission are also in an inverse relationship to GDP for Hong Kong and Singapore and inverse for population in Singapore.
I have not looked further than this as it blew my mind and I had to write about it.
cheers,
Scott

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 15, 2014 3:49 am

Whoops, a few errors in my rush!
CO2 emission are also in an inverse relationship to GDP for Hong Kong and Singapore and are also inversely proportional for population in Bangladesh.

J Calvert N(UK)

July 15, 2014 2:50 pm

I would like to withdraw/retract the last paragraph of my last comment (about three up from this one). It might be an interesting discussion topic at another time in another place.
Scott, As someone pointed out on the ‘Beer Identity’ thread, you have got GDP and GDP/capita mixed-up.
Ruth Dixon has posted a very useful essay on this topic at http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/a-graphical-look-at-the-kaya-identity/

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 16, 2014 3:17 am

J Calvert N(UK) says:
July 15, 2014 at 2:50 pm
I had read the page you linked to but I did read it again carefully, just to be sure! 😉
My real world examples expressed again in GDP per capita:
Singapore’s GDP per capita is 1.5 times that of Hong Kong’s but it produces half the CO2 emissions per capita of Hong Kong!
Hong Kong’s GDP per capita is 48 times that of Bangladesh but Hong Kong’s CO2 emissions per capita are only 13.5 times larger!
Singapore’s GDP per capita is 70 times that of Bangladesh but Singapore’s CO2 emissions per capita are just 7 times larger!
None of these relationships are directly proportional. They demonstrate either inverse or fractional rates of proportion.
The only way to resolve the impasse is to imagine incredible efficiencies for energy production in the cases that don’t follow the ‘model’.
This of course, would be absurd but in this post-normal world, who knows, anything is possible!
It is clear to me, when looking at real examples that the relationships in the “Kaya” are not directly proportional (In all cases) as is claimed.
The the real world is not represented by the model.

Ruth Dixon

July 16, 2014 5:28 am

Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
July 16, 2014 at 3:17 am “The only way to resolve the impasse is to imagine incredible efficiencies for energy production in the cases that don’t follow the ‘model’.”
The factors energy/GDP and CO2/energy in the Kaya identity are not ‘energy efficiencies’ of any one process but of a whole country’s economy.
It does not seem unreasonable to think that one country can ‘produce’ a unit of wealth using far less energy than another (energy/GDP) – for instance, financial services versus steel-making (perhaps these are not equally useful, but they both contribute to GDP). And CO2 intensity varies by country, e.g. France has relatively low CO2 emissions not because it has low GDP but because it has a lot of nuclear power (its CO2/energy is low). The Kaya identity does not insist that each factor is the same for every country, indeed that is the point, it gives us a way of interpreting the differences that you highlight.
BTW, thanks for reading my blogpost! http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/a-graphical-look-at-the-kaya-identity/
The graphs there show that, just as you say, GDP does not explain CO2 emissions of real countries (although there is a generally proportional relationship). That means that the other Kaya factors must be considered too. I can’t see how that invalidates the equation.

J Calvert N(UK)

July 16, 2014 3:33 pm

Scott, I looked at your three examples – as well as most of the other countries listed in that World Band database. By just considering three examples, it is possible to get a quite atypical selection. Bangladesh is an outlier – far above the trendline. Hong Kong is fairly close to the trendline. Singapore is well below it. (I’m not sure I’d trust their CO2 data though – it seems too good to be true. From 2001 to 2013 their CO2 per capita emissions (tonnes/yr) go: 12, 11.3, 7.6, 6.8, 7.1, 7, 3.9, 4.1, 5, 2.7!)
So if you just take those three examples and ignore the world’s other 200+ countries, you will get a very odd picture of the relationship.
(I’ve made pictures of my two correlations – but am still trying to work out how to set up links to them. I’m pretty-much ‘blog illiterate’)

J Calvert N(UK)

July 16, 2014 3:37 pm

Correction From 2001 to 2010 [Singapore’s] CO2 per capita emissions (tonnes/yr) go: 12, 11.3, 7.6, 6.8, 7.1, 7, 3.9, 4.1, 5, 2.7!)

J Calvert N(UK)

July 16, 2014 4:27 pm

Hopefully these two links will work . . . The pink spots are Bangladesh, HK & Singapore. Bangaldesh is the upper-most one. China, USA and India are also prominent.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126112946@N07/14486064739/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126112946@N07/14486068659/

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 16, 2014 10:47 pm

Re : J Calvert N(UK)
Thank you for your comments. I agree that my examples could quite properly be outliers! I have not looked at any others yet! I set out only to show that GDP and population are not directly proportional, using real world examples. The very first three I looked at stunned me and after seeing China’s stats, I wrote about it. To restate, you can have a massive GDP (Singapore) and a very small population or a massive population and a small GDP (Bangladesh).
I don’t and can’t disagree that the more efficient the energy production in terms of CO2 emissions, the less CO2. What I do argue is that energy efficiency is actually decoupled from both population and GDP. This may be obvious but it is a concern to me because the relationship is commonly misunderstood and therefore, easily exploited for propaganda value.
It is interesting to note that 25% of Hong Kong’s power is nuclear, which is above the world average of 14%

Scott Wilmot Bennett

July 17, 2014 2:03 am

The problem with the Kaya is that it isn’t an equation or a formula and therefore has no claim to that kind of veracity. Governments might start culling population or attempt to reduce GDP rather than looking at the root cause of inefficient energy production.
Australia is an odd case, in this context, being resources rich, it is also the worlds biggest supplier of fossil fuels. Australia’s resources stoke the fires of the worlds energy production. So much so, that It has now become more profitable (Or two expensive) for Australia to use its natural gas for power generation.
I would argue that there needs to be a couple of more terms in that “equation”. The first one, is in my opinion the most import of all. For the wizards of the black art of economics, it is the equivalent of “he who can’t be named”; the Money Supply!
Is it debt based or credit based? The real reason for growth economies and built in obsolescence, is that money is always chasing money. And I don’t mean simple profit. I mean that the Supply itself, comes into existence, mostly as debt. Thus, the world is chasing the virtual not the actual economy!!
The other term that I think might be very important to include, is physical extent, the geographic size of a Nation compared with its GDP. Two of the examples I chose are extreme because of the tiny space they take up on the globe. Australia is massive by any standard, so is it even rational to compare its GDP with that of Singapore? And if we did, are we really being aware of just how abstract the idea is!!

Roger Sowell

July 20, 2014 8:21 am

Eschenbach again (how many times is it now?) shows his massive ignorance and lack of formal education with this statement:
“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?”
If the Eschenbach “discovery” were true, then engineers could not design and construct the infrastructure, process plants, power plants, and the rest of everything we build.
Hold the presses. Somebody call Fluor, and Bechtel, and KBR, and the other huge design firms and let them know that their basic engineering equations are useless. After all, the inestimable Eschenbach says so.
So, why do I get such a laugh at Eschenbach’s expense?
An example of two of the most fundamental of all heat transfer equations used by both chemical engineers and mechanical engineers will illustrate. These may be found in any first-year heat transfer college textbook.
Equation 1: Q = m x Cp x DT, with units of Btu/h = lb/hr x Btu/lb/F x F
This is the fundamental equation for heat transferred when a mass flowing at m pounds per hour, having a heat capacity of Cp, changes temperature by an amount F in degrees F.
Using the Eschenbach “discovery,” this equation reduces to “pretty profound, huh?”
The units on the right-hand side do indeed cancel, with lb in the numerator and lb in the denominator, also F in the numerator and F in the denominator. So, per Eschenbach’s “discovery,” indeed, Btu/h is equal to Btu/h. Per Eschenbach The Brilliant, this makes the equation useless. Absolutely stunning in its brilliance.
The second equation is much like the first,
Equation 2: Q = U x A x DT, where Q again is Btu/h, U is Btu/h/sq-ft/F, A is square feet, and DT is temperature change in degrees F. A similar cancellation of units can be performed, leaving Btu/h = Btu/h.
For Eschenbach’s information, these equations are indeed the fundamentals of convective heat transfer. Upon them, literally millions of heat exchangers have been designed, built, placed into operation, and work quite well around the world. They have done so for many, many decades.
Thanks for the laugh, Eschenbach.
A word of advice: talk to a competent, educated engineer sometime.

Michael 2

Reply to Roger Sowell

July 20, 2014 9:55 am

Roger Sowell says “The units on the right-hand side do indeed cancel”
Canceling units is easy. What your BTU thingy doesn’t do is cancel the variables. I suppose a “competent, educated engineer” can work the miracle of using as an input the very thing you are trying to calculate.

J Calvert N(UK)

July 20, 2014 11:01 am

I think that by now even Willis has ‘got it’ – but not Michael 2 it would seem.
The ‘CO2 emissions’ term on the left is TOTAL CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions term on the right is not TOTAL CO2 emissions. It is just a UNIT RATE of CO2 emissions. Every power station, car, plane has it’s own unit rate of CO2 emitted (kg) per unit of usable energy (Joule) generated. The last term of Prof Kaya’s equation represents these. (It is probably calculated as a weighted average.)
Michael 2 are you an engineer? The force in a rod is cross-sectional area * stress. It’s used all the time. But hey! stress = force / area. So now the equation becomes Force = Area * force/area. Look! ‘force’ on both sides of the equation – does that make it wrong? Engineers use it all the time – and it’s so simple that it is taught in the first week of engineering school. But Michael 2 knows better and all the other engineers are wrong.
Re: “I suppose a “competent, educated engineer” can work the miracle of using as an input the very thing you are trying to calculate.” They are indeed required to do that – and they can indeed perform the necessary “miracle” (with ease). For example: look up “Colebrook-White Equation”

Michael 2

Reply to J Calvert N(UK)

July 20, 2014 11:58 am

J Calvert says ” The force in a rod is cross-sectional area * stress. It’s used all the time. But hey! stress = force / area. So now the equation becomes Force = Area * force/area. Look! ‘force’ on both sides of the equation – does that make it wrong?”
Yes. You have created a ‘straw-equation’. I can do that too with Ohm’s Law:
E = I * R. But I = E/R, and R = E/I. So making all of the substitutions you get E = E/R * E/I.
Look! E on both sides! I can be a warmist too!
But it’s stupid. I can MEASURE “R” and I can MEASURE “I” and calculate E. Or, if I have measured E and I, calculate R.
If I really do have to “calulate” every term, I’m stuck. Only a warmist can come up with a number in that scenario, and it will be whatever number you want.

J Calvert N(UK)

July 20, 2014 1:56 pm

Michael 2 I don’t like being called a ‘warmist’. Just because we disagree. . . (And interesting to hear Ohm’s Law called a “straw equation”.)
Re:” I can MEASURE “R” and I can MEASURE “I” and calculate E. Or, if I have measured E and I, calculate R.” (Hmm. You might find Colebrook-White a bit steep . . .)
OK. Kaya’s Equation is no different to Ohm’s Law. One can MEASURE the CO2 output PER JOULE of a typical coal-fired power station in a country, or a typical petrol-engined car, or a typical diesel-engined car. There are tables full of this information in the public domain. Armed with this information, (and the statistics of how many such machines there are in a country) a competent professional (probably a statistician or economist – not a scientist or engineer) can calculate a characteristic CO2 kg/Joule ratio for the country’s economy. And they can do all these calculations without knowing what the final Total CO2 emissions will be.
Or . . . One can measure Total CO2 Emissions more directly* (the fuel and energy companies and the government keep a detailed account of the fossil fuel production and usage as well as the CO2 tonnes per tonne of each type). Then, using the 1st, 2nd and 4th terms of Kaya’s Equation (any country’s Department of Statisitics will have this info), calculate the more mysterious 3rd term. (i.e. the Joules used per dollar of income)
*You don’t actually need Kaya’s equation to calculate Total CO2 Emissions. **
** But calculating Total CO2 Emissions directly doesn’t allow any insights into: a) the (non-) effectiveness of policy decisions; b) the (un)realism of government and UN targets; c) the problems posed by large emerging economies such as China and India. Without Kaya’s Equation, Roger Pielke Jnr would not have been able to gain the (stunning) insights which he presents in the long video that you will find in Anthony’s latest posting on this subject. (Such as the insight that for the UK to get on track with its emmissions target timetable, it would have to come with with the equivalent of 40 (forty) 1000MW nuclear power station by 2015 = NEXT YEAR)