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.
That isn’t what the paper said it was doing:
Since GDP is defined as the sum total of all economic activity and every unit of economic activity requires some amount of energy to produce there is nothing wrong with the identity.
There is plenty of room to quibble with how those two values are comprised, and how they should be calculated. Saying the identity was a “basic math error” is simply an error on your part and a misrepresentation of what they were trying to do.
Anyway, it still “feels wrong”. When I play chess I do much better when I heed the “feel”, that non-linguistic part of my brain that calculates in the background fast and parallel, a quick approximation of wrongness or rightness. I really don’t see why GDP is in there. Change the unit of currency and suddenly GDP changes — but what really changed? Nothing.
This whole thing exists because there is no way to know any of these factors other than the fourth term, the carbon dioxide produced per unit of energy produced for each method of producing energy. Since that isn’t actually specified, your MIX of energy sources makes the fourth term highly variable.
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
Matthew R Marler says: “LHS CO2 can be computed from the formula on the RHS.”
Okay, I double dog dare you to actually DO that with THIS equation, using “Global CO2 emissions” as the numerator of the 4th term.
Duh.
That’s what you are trying to calculate.
What you put anywhere else doesn’t make the slightest difference since every numerator has a matching denominator.
That’s math.
But I sense your intention — you intend for GDP in the second parmater to NOT be GDP in the third parameter!
That’s NOT math.
I don’t understand what the argument is about. The “Kaya equation” is mathematically meaningless. Standard mathematical reduction removes “Population”, “Energy” and “GDP” from the equation, leaving “CO2 = CO2”.
While this is obviously true, it is meaningless.
(Anyone not understanding “mathematical reduction” it means any expression “A / A” can be removed from an equation without changing the truth of the equation. This also includes such expressions as “(A / B) * (B / A)” – that also equates to “1”.)
When in a hole, stop digging.
Willis Eschenbach: 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.
If you could come up with some examples of such false sense of security, you might have a case.
Note that with the more complex applications of the general circulation models, there have been examples of a false sense that the model outputs are accurate. Much more complicated models, but it could be the case that the models themselves are complete and accurate, but the parameter values (analogous to the ratios in the RHS of the equation under discussion) might be wrong, either a few of them or many of them, by small or large amounts.
In lots of places it has been shown that correct applications of reasonable rules sometimes produce unreasonable results. By the usual rules of English, “grue” and “bleen” could be words, it just happens that they are not.
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.
Where you are wrong is in your inference that, because the Kaya identity may be used ridiculously, it must necessarily be ridiculous. But where you choose ridicule, others may choose utility.
I think that point doesn’t make sense to you (a guess!) because from the start you see no utility in reducing anthropogenic CO2 (another guess! or perhaps a reasonable inference?). On that I agree with you (or with my guess about you), but the flaw is not in the equation.
Vince Causey says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:53 am I think the problem with the Kaya identity is that it states the “bleeding obvious.” All it says is that total CO2 emissions are a function of energy use per capita, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy per capita all multiplied by the population.
The interesting thing about the politicians and progressive scientists making an equation putting me and my family on one side and carbonic acid molecules on the other side is that politicians and progressive scientists are creating an equation with me and my family on one side and carbonic acid molecules on the other side.
And as far as energy use, we all have energy inputs into our homes in the form of electricity, and we all have sunlight shining on our property. The intelligent use of that energy is going to vary greatly between families, with different results. One family uses the energy largely in spending recreational time together, which has value for them, and the other family may also be producing food, artistic works such as music and illustrations, recreation, and education. So the use of the energy will have widely differing results, and these values are not calculable by government because they have lost the plot. (:
Clearly both identities need a additional factor, (1 + epsilon). And some way of estimating the size of epsilon. And in the case of the Beer identity, lots and lots of field work.
Let’s try a simpler case – a total CO2 generated by cars:
CO2 = (number of cars) * (CO2 per car), or
CO2 = (number of cars) * (CO2 / (number of cars))
True or false – Does it matter if the cars are driven at all? Does it respect the efficiency of car engines?
I agree with Arthur it is a meaningless formula as it is a beancounters approach to complex issues.
Perhaps Obama should make “Beano” mandatory?
(OOPS! Wrong emission. Sorry. Carry on.)
The gas and the sandwich do not get credited to W. That would be double counting as the cook and big oil already got credit. The only thing added is the joy of travel. Hard to put a number on that. I agree the GDP was not increased.
Michael, Okay, I double dog dare you to actually DO that with THIS equation, using “Global CO2 emissions” as the numerator of the 4th term.
this is the equation:CO2_{emissions} = Population * \frac{GBP}{Population} * \frac{Energy}{GBP} * \frac{CO2_{emissions}}{Energy}
What exactly is the problem? If you can reduce the CO2emissions/energy you can reduce total global CO2 emissions. The equation is more useful on a regional or gdp segment view: such as reducing the energy input to agriculture, or the energy cost of transportation, or the CO2 output per energy in Sweden. No particular change can make much difference to total global CO2, but that is not a flaw in the equation.
Again?!?!? Willis really has explicit a mistake which on the last thread I just assumed he knew was not right. I assumed he was making a joke, but apparently he really believes it.
Willis writes that in the Kaya identity:
‘“Energy” is energy consumed by the country.’
Willis writes that in the Beer identity:
‘all of the other variables have the same value as in the Kaya Identity, and “GBP” is gross beer production by the country.’
To be clear then, “Energy” in the Kaya identity means ALL energy consumed by the country. “Energy” in the Beer identity has, to quote Willis’ words ‘the same value’. That means that “Energy” in the Beer identity means ALL energy consumed by the country.
Then Willis asks ‘Suppose we get more efficient at producing beer, so that it only takes 90% of the energy to make the same amount of beer?’
But what does “energy” mean here. Energy means ALL energy consumed by the country.
That’s one remarkable advance in brewing technology you’re proposing – especially if making beer consumed less than 10% of the country’s energy in the first place. Not one an advance in brewing that reduces the energy used to make beer by 10%, but an advance in brewing that reduces the whole country’s consumption by 10%.
But IF such a remarkable advance did take place THEN the Beer identity would be entirely realistic.
Willis writes ‘Well … no. It’s obvious that changing our beer production to make it 10% more energy-efficient will NOT reduce CO2 emissions by 10%.’
This statement is plain wrong.
Changing our beer production in such a miraculous way would indeed reduce CO2 emissions (from energy) by 10%.
“such as reducing the energy input to agriculture”
We already have reduced the energy input into agriculture, reduced the needed land for agriculture, reduced the needed labor hours, and increased the output to 2 to 5 times yields known in the 1940’s.
You cannot reduce the energy input into agriculture without greatly increasing labor and lowering yields. So you actually did not reduce energy at all but shifted it to manual labor and got much less per acre. It is a hidden shift to hand weeding and greatly increased energy input. That is the truth about organic agriculture and why it provides only 1% of the crops in the US.
Thanks Willis, GDP is an interesting parameter, mass destruction, i.e. riots, wild fire, so on, will cause GDP to rise, if the effected society rebuilds.
So vandalism is arguably good for GDP.
The reaction to your earlier post is very interesting, almost an “Ah Ha” moment.
We see a major communication breakdown.
Why?
From my perspective, algebra requires agreed definitions and internal consistency, therefore I too LOL at the self cancelling Identity.
From others POV apparently the defined terms are flexible, CO2=Not CO2, but some other definition, yet they insist the equation as expressed is valid.
Either my reasoning processes are completely askew or we are not using the same language.
Now as a cynic with experience as a govt employee, I lean toward the belief this corruption of language(Algebra in this case) is deliberate.
Policy meetings are a revelation that should be compulsory viewing for all taxpayers.
This “Identity” has all the earmarks of bureau speak, as it says nothing of value, while appearing to contain information.
Matthew R Marler says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:02 am
I agree Mathew – I too could not believe this piece of nonsense! These “equations” could be wrongly attributed to anything, not just “Beer or Kaya Identity”, whatever they are. CO2 would always = CO2, because all else cancels out!! I think we need to drop this silly subject pronto.
All should know that Willis E. publishes here without prior approval from Anthony or anyone else — in other words, he has authority to put up his own work directly without oversight.
This is not the first time he has gone off half-cocked and shot himself in the foot with something ill-considered. Nor will it be the last.
Hopeless (inutil) thread.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/the-beer-identity/#comment-1684364
How about auto insurance, motor vehicle fees and property taxes? How do they count towards Kaya
To put it more simply:
I have no pb with the kaya identity unless someone pretends to use it in the real world.
Doing so, one makes 2 mistakes: One conceptual, and one operational.
– Conceptual: The fact it is (trivially) true in algebra does not mean it has anything to do with actual physical relationships in the real world. Hence the “gross beer production” joke and alike.
Someone has demonstrated this very clearly in another thread: Take V (voltage), R (resistance) and I (intensity), we know that V = R * I for good physical and scientific reasons.
But I can also write a beautiful “kaya-like identity” : V = R * ( I / R ) * ( V / I )
This unfortunately demonstrates nothing (and even *shows* nothing) with any physical meaning in the real world, even if I suspect some relationship between V, R and I, because it holds true whatever V, R and I, which is not very useful when, say … building electrical circuitry…
– Operational: One can pretend to “find” some useful relationship between variables only by doing a wrong (illogical) usage of the identity, by voluntarily (but silently) forgetting one term of each pair. Let me explain: In the above V = R * (I / R) * (V / I), I can proudly tell that “V is proportional to (I / R)”, which is NOT true. Doing so, I am only ignoring the remaining R and I factors elsewhere. If I was to use them correctly, it would turn that V is proportional to R * (I / R) / I, or more simply that V is proportional to … 1. Bravo.
So, unless someone finds some strong physical relationship between CO2 and whatever in the real world, the kaya identity is only a trivial and pretentious algebraic thing.
My 2 cents.
Well, as the EU has included blow and hookers in its GDP, we can clearly now fix the Global Warming thing by using less blow and hookers because that way we would reduce our GDP. BTW we would get the added advantage of less addiction and STD’s.
Since GDP includes government spending, it is even worse than you imagine.
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:09 am
Thanks, Caveman, but nope. I’m buying fuel inter alia from Saudi Arabia, where it is counted correctly as part of their GDP, and thus it can’t be part of ours.
w.