Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
It’s morning here in Reno, and I thought I’d write a bit more about the Kaya Identity and the Beer Identity. My last post about the Kaya Identity was controversial, and I wanted to see if I could clarify my point. On the last thread, a commenter did a good job of laying out the objections to my work:
Sorry but I think you’ve all entirely misunderstood the point of the identity. The Kaya identity is a means of communicating the factors of which CO2 emissions are comprised, in order to explain the physical levers that are available if one wishes to control an economy’s CO2 emissions.
These are analogous to mathematical factors, for e.g. 6 = 3 x 2. This illustrates that 2 and 3 are factors of 6. This doesn’t prove anything mathematically – it’s just an identity. But it is informative nonetheless. It tells you that 6 can be broken down into factors of 2 and 3. In the same way, CO2 emissions can be broken down into factors of population, GDP per population, energy per population, and CO2 emissions per energy.
That is a very clear and succinct description of what the Kaya Identity is supposed to do. The only problem is … it doesn’t do that.
Let me take another shot at explaining why. To start with, the Kaya Identity states:
where “CO2 emissions” are the CO2 emissions of say a given country; “Population” is the population of that country; “GDP” is gross domestic production of the country, which is the total value of all the goods and services produced; and “Energy” is energy consumed by the country.
The Beer Identity, on the other hand, states the following:
Where all of the other variables have the same value as in the Kaya Identity, and “GBP” is gross beer production by the country.
I think that everyone would agree with those two definitions. They would also agree that both of them are clearly true.
Now, as the commenter said above, when we write
6 = 3 x 2
it tells us that six can be broken into factors of three and two. Not only that, but we can say that for example
(6 * 0.9) = 3 x (2 * 0.9)
That is to say, if we change one of the factors by e.g. multiplying it times 0.9, the total also changes by multiplying it by 0.9.
But is that true of the Beer Identity? Suppose we get more efficient at producing beer, so that it only takes 90& of the energy to make the same amount of beer. Will this decrease our CO2 production by 10%, such that
Well … no. It’s obvious that changing our beer production to make it 10% more energy-efficient will NOT reduce CO2 emissions by 10%. In other words, despite it being unquestionably true, we have no guarantee at all that such an identity actually reflects real world conditions. And the reason why it is not true is that it doesn’t include all of the factors that go into the emission of the CO2, it only includes the beer.
Now, I can hear you thinking that, well, it doesn’t work for gross beer production, but it does work for gross domestic production.
And up until yesterday, I was convinced that the Kaya Identity doesn’t work for GDP any more than it works for GBP … but I couldn’t figure out why. Then yesterday, as I was driving along the Lincoln Highway on my holiday with the gorgeous ex-fiancee, I realized the factor that is missing from the Kaya Identity is … me, driving along the Lincoln Highway on my holiday with my gorgeous ex-fiancee.
The problem is … I’m burning energy, and I’m emitting CO2, but I’m not part of the GDP. I’m not producing anything with that energy—no goods, no services, nothing. My CO2 emission is a part of the total, but it is not included in the Kaya Identity anywhere.
So in fact, the Kaya Identity does NOT tell us the “factors of which CO2 emissions are comprised, in order to explain the physical levers that are available if one wishes to control an economy’s CO2 emissions” as the commenter said.
And that to me is the problem with the Kaya Identity. It’s not that it is false. It is that it gives a false sense of security that we’ve included everything, when in fact we haven’t. And because it looks like mathematical truth, we have folks who take it as gospel, and object strongly when it is questioned or laughed at. Steven Mosher thinks I was wrong to laugh at the Kaya Identity, and I do respect his and the other opinions on the matter, his science-fu is strong … but in fact, the Kaya Identity is no more complete than the Beer Identity, which is why I laughed at it.
So that’s my objection. It’s not that the Kaya Identity is false. It can’t be, by definition its true.
It is that it gives the false impression of mathematical certitude, the impression that it represents the real world, the idea that it identifies the “factors of which CO2 emissions are comprised” … but it doesn’t. This false certainty, because people think it’s “mathematically demonstrable”, leads people to not question whether it applies to the real world.
Finally, in closing let me repeat something I said in the comments on the first thread, which likely didn’t get seen because it was somewhere down around the five hundredth comment.
l hear rumblings that people think that Anthony shouldn’t have published this piece of mine, or should disavow it in some fashion. This totally misunderstands both what Watts Up With That (WUWT) does, and Anthony’s position in the game. The strength of WUWT is not that it is always right or that it publishes only the best stuff that’s guaranteed to be valid.
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, the public peer review afforded by 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 I’m right, well, I thought so to begin with or I wouldn’t have published it, and it doesn’t change my direction.
But if someone can point out my mistakes, it saves me endless time following blind alleys and wrong paths. And my opinions on the Kaya Identity may indeed be wrong.
There is much value in this public defenestration of some hapless piece of bad science, whether it is mine or someone else’s. It is important to know not only which ideas are wrong, but exactly why they are wrong. When Anthony publishes scientific claims from the edges of the field, 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 may 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 supported scientific comments. Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece, he couldn’t do that job. There’s no way that one man’s wisdom can substitute for that of the crowd in the free marketplace of scientific ideas. 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 or 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 withstand that test of time … 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 don’t fill up the poor man’s email box with outrage simply because you think a post is not scientifically valid enough to be published. Send your emails to the guest author instead, or simply post your objections in a comment on the thread. 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 fight cards with interesting bouts … and given the number of comments on my previous post about the Beer Identity, and the huge popularity of his website, he is doing it very well.
Regards to each and all of you, my best to Mosher and all the folks who have commented, and my great thanks to Anthony for the huge amount of work he does behind the scenes to keep this all going. I’m on the road again, and my highway CO2 emissions are still not included in the Kaya Identity …
w.
As Always: If you disagree with something that someone has said, please have the courtesy to quote their exact words. It avoids much confusion and misunderstanding.
Hans Erren says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:39 am
If it is so useful, point out to me where in the Kaya Identity I can find the megatonnes of CO2 emitted over the last decades by the ongoing coal mine fires in China. These fires are estimated to burn between 20,000,000 and 200,000,000 tonnes of coal per year. So lets call it say 50 million tonnes of coal per year to be conservative. A tonne of coal produces about two tonnes of CO2 (because of the added weight of the oxygen). So that’s a hundred million tonnes of CO2 you’re looking for in the Kaya Identity, a huge amount, and that’s just China. Have you ever been to Centralia, Pennsylvania? I wouldn’t recommend it, long-term ongoing underground coal fires have caused the town to be abandoned. Where is that CO2 in the Kaya Identity.
The answer is … you can’t find it in the Kaya Identity, because it’s not in there anywhere. Which is PROOF that the Kaya Identity doesn’t reflect the real world.
w.
I prefer the Climate Science / $ = Bullshit Produced Identity.
Matthew R Marler says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:02 am
Thanks, Matthew. You’re making the same mistake Mosher did. I’m not canceling the units. I’m canceling the variables.
w.
DH says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:04 am
Since I never said it was a “basic math error”, you are either confused or lying. I pick confused … and I’m very tired of accusations that I’ve said things that I haven’t said. Is there something in the following from the head post that was unclear to you?
Read it over and over until you get the message, and THEN come back and start again. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend your misrepresentation of my words.
w.
Don’t let go Willis, Brainwashing is a formidable Foe.
Steven Mosher says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:05 am
There are NO UNITS IN THE KAYA EQUATION AS THE PAPER PRESENTED IT! So how on earth you get the idea that I’m canceling units is beyond me. I am canceling VARIABLES.
Dear heavens, is my writing really that unclear? The whole point of the Beer Identity was to show that there is no guarantee that the Identity captures all of the variables.
Steven, you miss the point entirely. The contribution of energy to GDP is not when you buy the energy. It is when you burn it to produce something.
If I burned the exact same gas in a furnace, it would have an effect on the GDP … but that didn’t happen. I burned it to move around the country producing nothing at all.
w.
Matthew R Marler says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:16 am
Good heavens, Matthew, there are dozens of comments on this and the other thread where people say that they think everything is included. However, as my examples of gas burned on holiday travel, gas flaring, and coal mine fires shows, not everything is included. I’d say that shows a false sense of security …
w.
In the Bullshit Identity, the more that is spent on Climate ‘Science’, the less Bullshit is produced (per $) – a perverse diminishing return scenario, where they become a victim of their own Bullshit.
Kip Hansen says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:46 am
True. Any mistakes are my own.
Dear heavens, is the inability to read catching? QUOTE MY WORDS, you nasty little man, I said that in the head post because I know there are sleazebags like you out here just waiting to run your mouths.
Your claims of what I’ve done in the past are just handwaving. You make ugly accusations without the slightest attempt to back them up. Do you think that throwing mud at the wall is the proper way to hold a scientific discussion? QUOTE MY WORDS.
w.
JK says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:38 am
Certainly, they could be. My point is that people think that the Kaya Identity contains all the variables, but it doesn’t—it’s missing out on megatonnes of CO2.
I think that it is a problem because people have great faith in math, and they think that the Kaya Identity is an equation like say E=MC2. But of course, it’s not. You can put any variables into it you’d like.
So while E=MC2 says something true and unchangeable about the real world, we have no such guarantee with the Kaya Identity.
w.
granda boris says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Show me where the 100 megatonnes annually of CO2 from the chinese coal mines can be found in the Kaya identity. If you can’t, then obviously the identity is missing at least one variable.
Then show me where the gas I burned today shows up in the GDP. If I’d burned it to make a product, that would show up in the GDP … but I didn’t produce anything at all. If you can’t, then obviously the identity is missing another variable.
As a result, your claim is demonstrably false.
w.
Steve Keohane says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:29 pm
No, because we’re looking solely at CO2 that is the result of human actions. Humans flare of the gas, humans set the fires in the coal seams, humans burn gas on vacation and produce nothing with it.
w.
Thomas says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:55 pm
If I burned that exact amount of gasoline in a furnace to make a tool, that would add to the GDP.
But I didn’t. I burned it in an activity that does not add to the GDP.
So no, the fuel I burned is NOT a component of GDP at all. It would be if I built something by burning it … but I didn’t.
w.
PS—In addition, any part of that fuel that was sourced outside the US is a component of that country’s GDP … and thus cannot be a portion of the US GDP, that’s what the “D” stands form
Will, you have made the following comment about the M&M example several times above: “Ah but it is a shell game, the M on the left is not the same M we have on the right is it?”
Yes it is. Let’s keep it simple with the expression M = P * (M/P), which tells you how many M&Ms you have depending on the number of packets. You don’t have to know M ahead of time to know M/P. Let’s say the package information tells you that there are 100 M&Ms inside each packet. You now know M/P = 100 even before you decide how many packets to buy. Then if you buy 5 packets, you can now determine how many M&Ms you have by plugging in the known values: M = 5 * 100. So 5 packets gives you 500 M&Ms, 6 gives you 600, etc. And, yes, M is the same variable on both sides. Just plug the values for M back in to see that 500 = 5 * 500/5 and 600 = 6 * 600/6. If the packets are uniform, it doesn’t matter what M is because the ratio of M/P always remains 100.
It’s a similar process when estimating miles you can travel on X gallons of gas using “M = G * M/G.” You don’t have to know M (the total miles you will travel) to know what the ratio M/G (MPG) works out to be on your car under similar conditions. Knowing M/G, you can estimate ahead of time how far you can go on a tank of gas before you need to stop for gasoline. That can be useful information. (The left M is the same variable as the right M in this example, too. Keep in mind that for these examples we are assuming a constant MPG and a constant M&Ms per Packet.)
There are lots of things where you can know a ratio, like MPG, MPH, or M&Ms per Packet, without knowing the individual variables that make up the ratio. And that knowledge can be very useful as shown in the simple examples above. If you still think it is a “shell game,” please show me an example where the M on the left CANNOT be the same as the M on the right for the M&M formula. Just one such valid example can prove your point. Otherwise, stop repeating it.
Willis. I enjoyed your first article introducing beer into Kaya identity. The second introducing your holidays pleases me even more. But, regrettably, cutting both seem to fit CACA picture so well that your kind and considerate message got blurred.
Let’s use Mosher et al understanding of Kaya identity on something global, consuming masses of energy, harming GDP and providing citizens no products, services or results to speak of. The IPCC conferences springs into mind. Suggestions anyone?
Willis, Willis, Willis … the gasoline you burn driving around on your vacation IS included in GDP. You have have in mind a non-standad definition of GDP. If you buy the gasoline from Saudi Arabia, then you ought to include the population of Saudi Arabia in the equation.
Taken in context, the equation expresses HUMAN emission of CO2 for economic purposes. It does not presume to include all sources of CO2, or sources that are beyond human control — volcanoes, underground coal fires, etc.
It would be better to expressed human emissions of CO2 as energy used by humans times the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy used by humans. (Human CO2 emissions = energy used by humans x CO2/energy.) GDP and population are unnecessary factors because we have a pretty good estimate of how much energy we consume in the USA, and in most other countries. The population and GDP factors only add potential for error. Maybe this is what you (and I) find objectionable. Including those terms implies that killing, starving or impoverishing people are all valid ways to reduce our output of plant food.
Of course, even my simplified (and more accurate) equation implies that we should, or even could, reduce our use of fossil fuels. I also find this objectionable. If you like being able to get cool stuff cheap, or if you like diving around the American West with gorgeous fellow humans (opposite sex in my case, and yours, but who are we to judge?), then emitting more plant food seems like a pretty good idea.
The equation is, I think, intended to offend thinking skeptics. It’s a bit like writing an equation showing which factors cause perfectly good American children to grow up to be flaming liberals. One could write such an equation but one would have a hard time getting it accepted by Liberal Americans.
: )
Steven Mosher says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:05 am
Quote my words
You laughed because of the cancelling of units.
As I said
Not because it didn’t capture everything.
And when you drive you buy gas.
If no one bought gas what would happen to gdp
So when a French driver of a Fisker does not fill up with gas but plugs in and gets recharged from a nuclear power plant (most of French electrical power generation is nuclear) – what happens to GDP Steven?
As France has most of its energy nuclear does this ‘identity’ even make valid sense for France or as a comparator between nations?
There are three illogicalities –
1. Equating energy use with CO2 output
2. Assuming linearity of all the variables
3. Assuming that GDP which can include financial non-industrial product has a direct relationship with emissions of anything.
This is an example of the level of logic in academia and the reason why if you want anything sensible you need to go to an engineer.
Dr. Doug says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Thanks, Doc. You claim it “can be useful”. Perhaps you could give a real world example of using it, and exactly what the use of it might be.
Suppose for a moment that the US government decreed that all fuel burned on wasteful holidays such as I’m taking must go into actual production. What would be the result?
Well … the population wouldn’t change. And the energy used wouldn’t change. And the CO2 emitted wouldn’t change.
But the GDP would increase, because instead of using that gas to carry my sorry okole and a whole lot of other folks around the United States, that same energy would be used to produce say new homes for the poor, or more beer.
However, the GDP appears in both the numerator and the denominator, so the net result is unchanged. We’ve totally restructured the economy, we’ve converted huge amounts of energy from being “wasted” on holidays to actually producing something … and yet it makes no difference at all to the Kaya Identity. It looks just like when we started.
So perhaps you could explain, Dr. D, how the Kaya Identity is “useful” in that regard? Because I’m not seeing the utility. What do we know from using the KI that we didn’t know before we made the switch from holidays to production?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 13, 2014 at 12:57 am
First, whenever a man says “other things being equal”, I have to point out that in this all-too-real world of ours, other things are never equal … and since your claim depends on that clause, your claim is falsified.
Next, although the population of the US has grown steadily, at times the GDP has dropped. So obviously, greater population does NOT always lead to greater GDP.
Next, I don’t understand the claim that greater GDP somehow leads to more energy use. As I pointed out above, increased GDP may only reflect a shift in energy use from non-productive use to actual production of something.
Nor do I agree that more energy use leads to more CO2 emissions. Energy use in the US is shifting from coal to natural gas … which gives us more energy use with LESS emissions.
So in fact, your example points out the problem. When we break the Kaya Identity into pieces and look at them individually, none of the hypotheses are true. More energy use may or may not involve more emissions. Greater GDP may or may not involve greater energy use. Increasing population may or may not increase GDP.
And those problems are not solved by cramming them into an identity.
Best regards, and thanks for your interesting points.
w.
Rdcii says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:35 pm
(T Co2 Emissions) = (X Population) * (Y GDP / Z Population) … * (A Co2 Emissions / B energy)
*************************************************
Well, is that how an increase in Chinese parameters needs to be off-set by corresponding reduction in the US? Which parameters would need to be cut, by whom, where and for what reason? I’m asking this because temperatures have not risen for a couple of decades and I’m having increasingly hard time differentiating Kaya identity from an equally insatiable Lebensraum identity.
This Wikipedia post points to a paper showing how the Kaya Identity is actually used in one study:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1
It seems that the identity is only the starting point and derivatives are used to look at trends. Units are conveniently balanced in the identity so that the trends can be analyzed according to the assumptions of the identity. The units and math are correct, but are the assumptions or the numbers plugged into the equations right?
And no, I don’t see where they included “100 megatonnes annually of CO2 from the chinese coal mines” in the analysis. A paper may be literally correct in what it says, but not in what it doesn’t say.
You can take any linear formula and factor out whatever you wish when only the units are being presented. Take X= V*T The terms X, V and T are simply names. if you take away the variable names distance, velocity and time: inches = inches/second * seconds which can be factored down to inches=inches or 1= seconds/seconds etc.
The only ‘problem’ I see with the Kaya formula is that it has no names for the values GDP/population, Energy/GDP or CO2/energy and simply uses the unit ratios instead. Give them names and the Willis “problem” goes away. Let’s call GDP/population “L”, Energy/GDP “H” and CO2/energy “Q” so now the Kaya formula becomes: CO2 = Population * L * H * Q
Try the formula for figuring out your gasoline mileage: MPG = miles driven / gallons consumed
so … miles/gallons = miles/gallon . So yes, miles=miles or gallons=gallons … so what?
I’m sorry Willis, I don’t think you’ve stumbled on to anything at all here, you have just stumbled. The moment you factor out this or that unit from a formula you have taken information away from it and it is not the same formula anymore and doing so in some cases can become nonsense. For example X= 1/2 * A * T^2 reduced to its units is: inches = 1/2 * (inches / sec^2 ) * sec^2. factoring out inches and sec^2 we are left with: 1= 1/2 Does that invalidate the original formula? Of course not!
Friends:
OK. I will try to put this as a question in hope somebody will address the basic problem which I have pounded throughout the previous thread and again stated in this thread (at July 12, 2014 at 11:40 pm).
The “ratios” in the Kaya identity are claimed to be “meaningful” so they are included as “factors” which combine to determine anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Can anybody provide a definition of “meaningful” which determines what should and what should not be used as “factors” in the Kaya identity?
Is anybody able and willing to address this instead of waving red-herrings and providing reams of sophistry as happened in the other thread? I want to know because I am certain I know what “meaningful” means (see my above post at July 12, 2014 at 11:40 pm).
In the previous thread I pointed out that GDP per capita is a misleading indicator of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and I notice that others have also pointed that out in this thread (including the use of my illustration). Clearly, GDP per capita is asserted to be “meaningful” because it is a factor in the Kaya identity; why?
Richard
@JK:
“I just can’t see why people are finding this so hard.
Let’s say we want to understand the number of web page hits.
We can invent an identity:
page hits = number of readers * ( page hits / number of readers)
…”
Yes, but we could also invent an identity (among … many many many possibilities):
pages hits = minimum size of pages in bytes * ( page hits / minimum size of pages in bytes )
as I’m sure that the size of the pages has *some* influence on each individual reader, don’t you think ?
But this identity would lead to weird strategies, if you want, say, to maximize the number of hits, either to *increase* the size of your pages (if you consider the 1st term) or *reduce* it (if you consider the last division). And both of them are nonsense, all other things being equal. Besides, the inability to decide if you need to increase or decrease is salient, to say the least.
The fact is that you have put into the equation a *vaguely plausible relationship that you assume* between terms, then you pretend to *find* it into the terms because of the algebraic formalism which gives you a feeling of scientific legitimacy. If you want to demonstrate something, and define a policy, work on your vaguely plausible hypothesis first, rather than on any identity.