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.
mkelly says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:41 am
The Beer Identity:
1 beer = I should have another
2 beers = I should have a third
3 beers = 1 trip to rest room
4 beers + 1 car = 1 trip to the pokey
Johan says:July 13, 2014 at 12:18 pm
There is no such thing as algebraic tautology. Tautology is a term used in logic.
The KAYA identity is an identity, of the sort: a = a x 1 x 1 x 1
To avoid misunderstandings, the x is a multiplication sign. There are no variables in the Kaya identity.
Toto says: July 13, 2014 at 11:25 am
“So the “all other things being equal” line does not work, change one term and the other terms will change too.
This seems wrong. The equation works if you use the same valve for all variable that have the same name. It is to be used for one snap shot of data. At any given time there are fixed and knowable valves for population, energy, GDP, etc.
“Other things being equal” is a perfectly valid logical tool. You hold all but one variable constant and see what the answer is. It tells you something about the process and it tells you something about which variables you should control to get your desired outcome.
The Kaya identity is silly only because we don’t need to know the population, or GDP, to know emissions. We track emissions so we can just look up the value. No measurement is exactly precise but the other variables only add to the measurement errors.
Matthew R Marler and Shawnhet:
Genuine thanks for your replies to me at July 13, 2014 at 9:54 am and July 13, 2014 at 10:30 am, respectively.
I intend no offence to either of you by this single reply to your posts addressed to me. I understand you to be saying the same thing in different words and, therefore, I am making this one reply.
I understand each of you to be making an honest admission that there is no clear answer to my question. If my understanding is correct then the Kaya identity can only be an expression of the opinion held by whoever presents it.
I explain that understanding by addressing Matthew’s post because it was the former. It says
I am not sure what you mean by an “abstract definition”. All I want is a clear statement such as;
‘Factors in the identity are all the known quantifiable effects which X and they are included in the form of Y’.
The things which contribute to GDP in a country are not relevant. Either GDP fulfills ‘X’ or it does not. And the “rubric” idea is not helpful because it presupposes the outcome of its use in the ‘identity’.
Hence, I contend that the Kayla identity is not defined unless and until the nature of its components (i.e. the “factors”) are defined. This leaves its definition to anybody who cares to present a version of the ‘identity’ to ‘make it up’ in any way they want.
And I again thank each of you for your honest and clear presentation of your view.
Richard
Willis
Thanks for the quote.
Firstly, can I just point out that your post is not just a clarification of your original point. Your original point was different and it was just wrong – there was no “stupid maths error”. If you want to be taken seriously as someone who is on a genuine quest for truth and reason, you could do more to acknowledge this.
Moving on:
As I said in a previous comment in this saga the very fact that the Kaya equation reduces to CO2 Emissions = CO2 Emissions is precisely because the right hand side is a valid decomposition of the left hand side. It stands to reason that a valid logical decomposition of a concept can be ‘re-composed’ back into the thing that you started with. If it doesn’t then you’ve made a mistake.
To be clear though, that does not mean that any mathematical expression following a similar form, where the RHS can be reduced to the LHS in a similar way, should be deemed equally meaningful in its application. It certainly does not mean that you can just throw anything into the mix as long as you balance it in the numerator with it’s equivalent in the denominator – and expect to come out with something equally meaningful.
The Kaya Identify is useful not because the terms cancel, but because the decomposition that it communicates is a correct reflection of macro economic theory and because it is broadly supported by macro economic facts.
The Kaya Identity is mathematically ‘true’ because the terms on the right hand side do indeed reduce to the term on the left. But for a logical decomposition of this sort to be useful it has be both logically ‘true’ AND correctly reflect the theory and facts that it is intended to represent.
As your example makes clear, your beer identity passes the first test but not the second. The terms are not true in the context of macro-economic theory or fact. In reality, CO2 emissions are not limited to beer production (although round my place, it is quite a big contributor).
Certainly if it were not mathematically ‘true’, then it would not be meaningful for that reason. It would be refuted, and that would be a good challenge. But the fact that it is mathematically true isn’t sufficient for it to be meaningful in context. It is necessary but not sufficient, to coin a phrase.
That’s why the Kaya identity is considered useful whereas the beer identity is not – as other people have pointed out many times previously.
So the Kaya Identity doesn’t rely on mathematical certitude for its usefulness as you suggest. It isn’t a mathematical proof. And the people that use it in their area of speciality are not generally lulled into a false sense of security about it’s usefulness, as you also suggest. – And if you’re not convinced of that then you could try reading their work…
But that is not the nub of your current misunderstanding……..
The real nub of the issue from your current post is that you do not agree that the terms of the Kaya Identity correctly reflect the relevant economic facts and theory. Whilst that is an entirely valid way to challenge the usefulness of the Kaya Identity (finally), there is still a very basic problem in your thinking.
The problem is twofold:
Firstly, you are absolutely and categorically wrong to imagine that your purchase of a tank of fuel for your car is not included in GDP figures. The fact that the crude oil was pulled out of the ground somewhere else is entirely beside the point according to the definition of GDP.
GDP can be defined as the market value of all of the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period. As soon as you put the fuel in your car and ‘consumed’ it, it counts as a ‘finished product’ and it is most certainly included in the figures.
If it helps you can think roughly of GDP as being the total value of everything that we do in an economy. But the definition uses ‘finished’ products and services to try to avoid double counting.
The point is, given the definition of GDP it is very difficult to see that one could do anything that results in human CO2 emissions without it being reflected somewhere in GDP figures – other than breathing, defecating or passing wind, but I’d question whether they count as human emissions in the context of economic policy.
Secondly though, the theory only requires that your consumption of a tank of fuel is related to GDP. That’s not necessarily the same as requiring that the cost is included in the GDP figures. In other words, you and the other couple of hundred million people in your country like you are more likely to buy a tank of fuel if you can readily afford it than if you cannot. And your ability to afford it, your wealth, is tied to GDP (and population).
Similarly, as GDP goes up, demand for oil goes up which results in increased “flaring of gas from oil wells” to address one of your comments.
I’m not sure if the underground coal fires in Pennsylvania, India, and China you refer to are man made or naturally occurring? If the latter then they’re irrelevant anyway for current purposes. If the former then presuambly they’re a by-product of coal mining in which case the same point applies as with flaring oil well gas, and their economic impact is included in the price of coal.
I hope this helps.
“I am astounded at the large number of commenters who don’t apparantly understand the first thing about math, and proceed to display their ignorance in spades.” — PlainBill
It’s still bunk and poorly expressed bunk at that, having left itself open to interpretation. As John G observes (and I believe i paraphrase correctly) the Kaya Identity is an effort to describe a non-linear problem with linear model. It’s not even a good first order approximation given the degree of non-linearity. It takes no account of interdependencies, substitutions, unintended consequences–because those are always overlooked–plus other factors that, no doubt, belong in the model. Nor does it account for the vagaries of GDP and how it’s measured. It is the same sort of static analysis the Congressional Budget Office uses to score tax and spending bills. In other words, it is not only wrong, it is harmful. It is the same sort of analysis that led people, some of them very bright with very sophisticated models, to believe housing prices would keep going up and that if there were any pauses in appreciation they would be local and limited in scope. And then 2008 and Lehman Bros. happened. Go figure.
We’ve seen this movie before. Analyses like the Kaya identity are worse than useless–they are harmful. They lead to bad policy decisions. Even worse is that they let true believers cloak their crummy policy choices in the mantle of science.
algebraic tautology ?
The term is purely illustrative. I do not pretend to invent some new mathematical notion.
tautology because it’s a formula of the sort : CO2 = 1 * 1 * 1 * CO2 (of course, the value 1 is not explicit)
algebraic because the algebraic form obfuscates the obvious, and allows some people to pretend discover or prove interesting findings as the usage of algebra gives the illusion of scientific legitimacy.
does it answer the question ?
Tracking emissions is not predictive. Understanding why emissions grow or shrink as a function of GDP/Population/Energy Usage allows us to inform policy, hopefully to ensure policy is appropriate to the purpose. It can also be used to identify bad policy but nobody in government would pay for such research.
A problem people here are having with the simple variables is that they view them as simple rather than the complex things they are. There is an acceptable definition of GDP (several, actually), for example, and the formula for calculating that is quite lengthy. But every element of it is implicit in the Kaya identity. Same with emissions – there is an acceptable definition (scope) of what is meant by emissions else we could not have a conversation about emissions. Population is more complex than many might think in determining per-capita GDP. What is the role of children, for example, in the per-capita GDP calculation? Energy consumption is another that needs to be commonly understood when instantiating the Kaya identity. Each of these simple variables has, necessarily, a complex definition and scope and this has to be established and agreed upon by the creators and consumers of Kaya identity-driven analyses. Willis’ view of things does not consider this implied data appropriateness agreement in his criticism. Analyzed as he presents it the creator and customer are working in a void. It can work that way but the result of any such analysis would be of dubious value.
The nonsense of grabbing numbers out of the air and plugging them into the identity, or suggesting changing one thing necessarily changes another is wrong-headed. The entire purpose is to explore independently the impact of each variable on the outcome even when it is well understood from experience that a change in one parameter will change another because of the linked relationships. Case in point: What becomes of the per-capita GDP if there is another baby boom? What becomes of the per-capita GDP if you allow hundreds of thousands of uneducated people to cross the border into your country to stay permanently? How are border states affected vs opposite border and interior states? What happens to the quality of health care if everyone is guaranteed access to all the care they want? If doing a global analysis vs Willis’ regional analysis there are no international boundaries and regulations to get in the way or obfuscate the problem. An analysis will show that if one significant parameter changes, necessarily another must change, and because this is predictive, we can anticipate the dependent changes needed to accommodate a desired change (policy is informed).
And we haven’t even addressed how rates of change of each element affect the growth/shrinkage of the units in the output. That is what the Kaya calculator at the U of Chicago site is presenting and it is well worth a visit to see how it works.
Some salute an Identity, Kaya!
At this blog, it is burning like fire!
But “1 equals 1”
Ain’t new under the sun.
Nor is “zero is zero” much higher.
Richard says: July 13, 2014 at 12:55 pm
As John G observes (and I believe i paraphrase correctly) the Kaya Identity is an effort to describe a non-linear problem with linear model.
Both the Ehrlich-Holdren IPAT identity and the KAYA identity emerged out of efforts to investigate the drivers of environmental impact / CO2 emissions.
But they’re not even very good at that. For example, they do not take explicit account of culture and institutions, so they cannot be used to examine the potential influence of these drivers. Which is what Krugman was kind of saying to Pielke.
And some, out of ignorance, abuse it.
Pete Brown says:
“The Kaya Identify is useful not because the terms cancel, but because the decomposition that it communicates is a correct reflection of macro economic theory and because it is broadly supported by macro economic facts.”
Well. Seems strong (think about it: the *whole* macro economics are behind the formula !) but in fact contains a weakness:
As said many times before, and by many: the formula is only a tautology, CO2 = 1 * 1 * 1 * CO2. It contains *no information* at all, and the decomposition of 1 is purely rhetorical, just expressing some common beliefs (we are too many, we need to improve engines efficiency, etc.) .
Saying it is a correct reflection of macro economic means … that macro economic knows nothing about CO2. And your argument looks like a circular reasoning.
I don’t like this KI because I think it’s incorrect.
By using “models all the way down” (h/t to w.) it assumes that people and CO2 are evil and must be dealt with.
I believe that human CO2 is at worse a minor problem.
To me, I see emissions as a factor of 2 things.
Fossil Fuel Use and Energy Efficiency of the Fuel.
More people doesn’t guarantee more CO2.
More GDP doesn’t guarantee more CO2.
If more fossil fuels are burned then CO2 goes up no matter who or how many people burned it and no matter what they did to consume the energy from the burned fossil fuel.
The only Identity the IPCC is pushing is to convince the world that they must identify humans and their CO2 as a problem and force the UN to fix said problem.
cn
“Willis
Thanks for the quote.
Firstly, can I just point out that your post is not just a clarification of your original point. Your original point was different and it was just wrong – there was no “stupid maths error”. If you want to be taken seriously as someone who is on a genuine quest for truth and reason, you could do more to acknowledge this.”
#########################
Willis used to be known as someone who would readily admit his errors.
In this case he wont. Its sad because his Subsequent argument is more cogent.
So, until he admits his error, HELL he could call it an error of FOCUS, until he does that,
he is lost. he is like those people who wont call out the climate gate folks for their errors of judgement.
he screwed that part up. he needs to own it, even in some miminized, inconsequential way.
he could say ‘I goofed by focusing on the maths error part, and that has obscured the discussing of the more fundamental point I wanted to make”
Simple. just a flesh wound
but. he wont. for some strange reason.
This pretty well sums up the complete lack of understanding of what an identity is. Well done.
Willis wrote: “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.”
Your purchase of the gasoline you burned is part of GDP. The depreciation of the car you were driving is part of GDP, because someday that car will need to be replaced. Servicing your car every X thousand miles is part of GDP, even if you provide the labor. Sure, there are some activities that don’t get captured by GDP (especially for a DIYer like you), but GDP captures a large fraction of activity that is responsible for our standard of living. Beer consumption doesn’t. Every government wants its per capita GDP to grow, especially underdeveloped countries.
As for Andy and credibility of WUWT, I find it extremely difficult to read through hundreds of comments and replies (written with little thought) to find the few comments that provide useful information. Nothing is stopping Andy from submitting articles like this one to some sort of peer review process before they are released to the public or asking submitters like you to summarize the limited peer review your posts receive from peer review. Your knowledge may be increased by answering comment, but how much of that reaches the average reader?
oh man… it’s time for a downfall vid
Well, I laughed too, when I got to that ridiculous Kaya equation. I mentally crossed off the factors just as you did, and figured out how meaningless it realy was before you explained it.
All the real details are missing:
how do people use the energy?
where else is CO2 coming from besides fuels? (I think its mostly poison-agriculture killing soil lifeforms)
Not to mention:
Why do they hate humans so much that they are willing to kill everything else alive? (CO2 is where every land-based living thing comes from)
How can they imagine that raising the Earth’s temperature from 12C/57F would be a bad thing?
richardscourtney: All I want is a clear statement such as;
‘Factors in the identity are all the known quantifiable effects which X and they are included in the form of Y’.
There is nothing wrong with “Everything that contributes at least 1% of GDP.” It does not satisfy you, but you do not explain or list what is lacking.
However, you specify “known quantifiable effects” which precludes anything that might be learned, and seems from your previous posts to be “known exactly” instead of “known within a margin of error”; and you require “all” which is not satisfied by any other equation in applied math. “In the form of Y” is satisfied already by (a) a scaling factor and (b) ratios; and of course the units should resolve to CO2..
richardscourtney says:
July 13, 2014 at 12:49 pm
“I understand each of you to be making an honest admission that there is no clear answer to my question. If my understanding is correct then the Kaya identity can only be an expression of the opinion held by whoever presents it.”
That wasn’t really my point. It seems to me that all the components of the Kaya are understandable and at least potentially measurable. The issue I was having was whether we can use the factors presented in the Kaya model to make reasonably accurate predictions about the real world.
Someone above helpfully pointed us to this link that discusses this particular issue.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2014/06/clueless-krugman.html
“Using the Kaya Identity in crude fashion tells us that China’s CO2 emissions should have increased by ~8.1% in 2011 (that is 11.1 – [0.6+2.4]). Data from EIA shows an increase of just under 9%. So very close.”
I must admit that this is much better than results than I was expecting (assuming 2011 is not just a fluke) but there is definitely room for improvement. In my book a prediction of 8.1% vs. a reality of 9% is in the right ballpark.
Cheers, 🙂
richardscourtney: I understand each of you to be making an honest admission that there is no clear answer to my question. If my understanding is correct then the Kaya identity can only be an expression of the opinion held by whoever presents it.
Your understanding is not correct. The terms in the Kaya identity can be given operational definitions that can be understood by a group of people. There is no answer that you will accept. You require that the terms in the equation be defined better than “mass” and “electric charge” are defined.
Frank says: July 13, 2014 at 2:08 pm
Sure, there are some activities that don’t get captured by GDP (especially for a DIYer like you),
For instance, he could have mentioned that the black market isn’t counted in calculating GDP, which in some countries may be fairly substantial (although one probably shouldn’t exaggerate). The European System of Accounts would require their member countries to add their respective black market when calculating GDP for next year.
This is the sad thing about the original post. There are so many, many valuable arguments against the use of KAYA, yet Willis with his uninformed ‘analysis’ only makes a fool of himself, and by association, of WUWT.
Shawnhet: Someone above helpfully pointed us to this link that discusses this particular issue.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2014/06/clueless-krugman.html
“Using the Kaya Identity in crude fashion tells us that China’s CO2 emissions should have increased by ~8.1% in 2011 (that is 11.1 – [0.6+2.4]). Data from EIA shows an increase of just under 9%. So very close.”
I must admit that this is much better than results than I was expecting (assuming 2011 is not just a fluke) but there is definitely room for improvement. In my book a prediction of 8.1% vs. a reality of 9% is in the right ballpark.
Some or perhaps all of us read some of Pielke’s links. It was good of you to think to quote one.
Every now and then through this thread, a comment pops up, warming that the credibility of WUWT is at stake if this conversation is not deleted or discontinued…
Why?
Surely there is something very interesting going on here, we have a clear failure to communicate, this needs explored, not hidden from.
As for the KAYA IDENTITY, if it is poorly expressed by Willis and Wiki, then express it properly.
Do not continue to bleat on that we, who snicker,fail to discriminate between two terms both assigned the same definition.
So CO2total is not CO2 per unit of energy used locally.
Everyone gets that.
The comedy is in the constant misrepresentation of this identity as a useful equation.
Which it is not, as expressed by Willis or Wiki.Nor by the IPCC.
This pseudo formulae is used as a tool, there are no accidents when information created by Public Relation firms is the dominant source of 30% of UN documents.
Everything from the CAGW control folks has an agenda, this devious identity is yet another deliberate distortion.
Only a Policy Wonk or Economist will insist a series of assumptions has a certainty of result.
Each and every assumption ,if erroneous will sink the entire speculation.
There fore to me the “identity” is useless, scrying the entrails of a duck has as much scientific or algebraic credibility.
And if you know how to cook, you can eat the duck.
kabend says: July 13, 2014 at 1:02 pm … Thanks Kabend. I don’t agree that the equation is flawed. It’s “silly” but it can be used for it’s purpose.
dp says: July 13, 2014 at 1:21 pm “Tracking emissions is not predictive. Understanding why emissions grow or shrink as a function of GDP/Population/Energy Usage allows us to inform policy, hopefully to ensure policy is appropriate to the purpose.”
Tracking GDP, population and energy is no more predictive than tracking emissions of CO2. We all know where human CO2 emissions come from, they come from humans burning fossil fuels to make useful power.
Tracking GDP, population and energy production informs CO2 policy only if you’re considering policies which would kill, starve, or impoverish the population in order to reduce CO2 emission. I suppose abortion and birth control could be policy choices but the government already promotes those for other reasons (which I don’t pretend to understand).
Here are a list of fallacies currently being repeated over and over again on this thread:
Fallacy: GDP does not include stuff consumed for recreational purposes.
Truth: By definition, GDP includes everything consumed for recreation purposes or any other purpose. It also includes all imports … unless you smuggle them in.
Fallacy: The Kaya equation doesn’t include all possible sources of CO2.
Truth: It doesn’t try to. It’s merely a way of calculating HUMAN CO2 emissions.
Fallacy: The Kaya equation is mathematically absurd.
Truth: It’s a valid equation. It shows the relationship of human CO2 emission to human activities that produce CO2 emissions.
Fallacy: The Kaya equation is a good (or the best) way to predict future human CO2 emissions.
Truth: It is neither a good way nor the best way. We know current emission and we know the trend. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance but for something as macro and all encompassing as this question, it more reasonable to predict future emission but extrapolating the current trend. Adding factors for population, and energy use, and CO2/energy produced, and GDP does not add to the utility of the equation. All those factors will have uncertainties that add to the uncertainty of the result. For example, the USA has a trillion dollar grey economy that is not included in GDP.
The Kaya equation has a mild heuristic (teaching) valve in that it shows that changes is population, and/or GPD (consumption), and/or changes in the ratio of CO2 per unit of energy produced, would result in a change in CO2 emissions. However, the answer the equation produces is “human-produce CO2 emissions.” It’s given that humans produce emissions by burning fossil fuels, and that by doing so they increase their standard of living. So it’s a silly equation. It’s better just to recognize the CO2 emissions = CO2 emissions and go look up the value.
Here’s a better equation with far more heuristic value. We simple replace the term on the left (the answer) with the following factor.
Human Prosperity Factor = population x GDP/population x Energy/GDP x CO2/energy.
This equation teaches us that human prosperity is directly linked to CO2 emissions. It can be simplified to:
Human Prosperity Factor = CO2 emissions.
We can “prove” this equation with a simple thought experiment. Imagine a year without fossil fuels? CO2 emissions would go to near zero, and the human prosperity factor would plummet. Forests, which have regrown since the dawn of the fossil fuel revolution, would be cut down and burned for heating and cooking. When they were gone, most humans would be gone too.
My equation will not hold true forever but it is true now and will continue to be true until we find a cheaper source of energy, or develop methods to reduce energy use without reducing GDP.