A conversation with Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. on the Kaya Identity

I don’t have 90 minutes for a “simple” explanation. I’m raising points I have raised before. Why is it all about “fossil” fuels and not the non-“fossil” hydrocarbon sources of CO2? ethanol? bio-gas methanol? wood? And where in the equation are the natural CO2 sources? Or is it as I have posed elsewhere anthrocentric – all about man?

Another version of Kaya identity
2 + 2 = 5 ±1
and just as useful. Post modern science at work. In addition to peer review now we have to redefine maths too.

The meaning of the word equation: both sides are equal. There is no such thing as a soft equation. Either two things are equal, or they’re not. The climate models are more accurate than that ridiculous so-called equation.

Thanks Dr. Pielke. I’m looking forward to reading and viewing this this weekend.

It kinda makes sense, however given the softness of the parameters any hope of accuracy must go out of the window. Having said that, accurate or not, it will provide guidelines to the politicos as to whether they can reach their targets. More importantly, from my point of view, including the GDP/head of population makes it explicit to the politicos that any mistakes that are made in their assumptions will have a price to pay in the GDP/head of population. All too often these mitigation strategies are developed with lots of arm waving and it will be “alright on the night” this at least tries to show the interaction between mitigation and economic welfare.
It is not Schroedingers Wave Equation, or Kirchoff’s Laws, that’s for sure, but a reasonable attempt at telling the whole story. The politicos should have some backcloth against which to make their decisions.

Dr. Pielke is a man I respect. Not strident; well reasoned in his arguments.

“An extremely powerful tool for policy analysis.”
C = C
Wow.

Perhaps what is truly interesting here, is that these soft “sciences” have gotten away with impersonating actual science for so long, that they now believe these kind of methods can produce useful information.
There is an obvious failure to communicate at play in both of Willis’s posts.
This Kaya thing, is a mockery of empirical measurement and reproducible results.

I’m with Anthony, it’s in the middle, but it really depends on your purpose. If you want to understand the basics of your “policy levers”, the equation is mostly inoffensive. But if you want to really understand, or better yet predict, the GHG emissions of an economy/society (as if that will really have much impact on actual climate!) then I think it fairly crude and useless.
Cheers,

The bathtub analogy is oversimplified. In practise if the inflow is increased the water level will rise only until the increased inflow matches an increased outflow, due to the increased hydraulic pressure of water at the outflow orifice. A new equilibrium will be established at a slightly higher water level. Similarly if a person gets into the bath the level will immediately rise, but outflow will increase and the level will drop until the same equilibrium level is again achieved, but now with less physical water in the bath. In the climate system more CO2 stimulates more photosynthesis, the planet gets greener and a new equilibrium at the slightly increased CO2 level develops. Nature has a way of compensating, in this case to the benefit of living things.

Gee. I am stunned you guys don’t get it. Instead of focusing on the CO2 terms, plug in real world numbers for the other terms and see what you get.
I have not followed the threads, but Willis gets it wrong with his very first statement when he says “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.”
And then he basically says he can perform a trivial dimensional analysis to show the identity is meaningless. I guess the same type of analysis applied to Newton’s Law’s of Motion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion. Or how about JKeplers lay of planetary motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion. Or consider the law of gravity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation.
Go back to high school physics Willis. Every equation in physics cancels out in the same way – the dimension on the left will equal the dimension on the right be it joules, watts, or KG CO2. It is the stuff in between that is relevant.
Now, lets go back to the identity (I am doing this from memory and a brief refresher on the equation)
On the left we KG CO2 emitted by the entity.
On the right we have total population in people of the entity
We have GDB (dollars) per person of the entity
We have energy (watts)/dollar of GDP of the entity
We have KG CO2/watt of energy of the entity
Each of these terms describes something that is of interest and measurable. IMHO, it requires a unique form of obtuseness to not be able to figure out the applicability of this identity.

As formulated, the Kaya is ridiculous, but focusing on that is to worry about the trivial. Why bother?
It’s either a mistake , or we should reformulate the thing to have a more useful discussion. Here is one version that might be more useful.

co2em =  totCO2emissions * EconEnergyEff * perCapitaGDP * Population
units:      CO2/GW           GW/GDP         GDP/person	     Persons

(I hope the format doesn’t totally suck. It started out looking good.)
In this version the units cancel out to something slightly more interesting. But that part I realize could be very valuable is the Economic Energy Efficiency. In other words, how much raw energy does it take to produce our GDP? How have we done historically? How do we compare to other nations? I’m working on some of those figures now.
As an aside, I updated my understanding of GDP versus GNP. I had thought the GNP only included balance of trade, but no, it also includes all foreign business activity of Americans and removes foreign business activity here. And surprisingly (at least to me), our GNP is much higher than our GDP. The economic benefits of foreign trade make the trade deficit appear to be much less of a worry. However, we should remember our federal debt is equal to our current GNP.
I wonder what it really means when our domestic economy is apparently so weak and our companies involved in foreign trade are doing seemingly very well. Something seems seriously wrong about that. That current buzzword “sustainability” comes to mind. I also wonder how much our government is interested in our well being, since it is getting much more revenue from sources other than US citizens (as income tax). Could we ever reach what should be an impossible state in which the government needs nothing from its citizens? Then what will make it continue to work in our best interests?

Hmmm forgive my ignorance Dr P. But what has mathematics got to do with the weather. We have had snow in New England (Australia not the USA) And it is colder here that it has been for nearly 103 years. Although we are 3,500 ft about sea level, we are surviving well. I just don’t understand how some climate scientists relay the planet is warming when we have two hemispheres and so many micro-climates within them that we can’t make one decision or hypothesis to cover all. Cutting greenhouse gases when 95% is water vapor, is an impossible dream. The physics does not support any of the predictions about climate change being forced by human activity, unless you are referring to UHI effects known in big urban and city environments which is not typical in smaller or rural communities. Australia has diverse environments including that nearly 2/3 of our land mass is classed as desert. Yet Alice Springs right in the centre is experiencing night time temps of minus and daytime temps up to 20 C. A typical arid environment or desert temperature fluctuations.

Kim – the Kaya identity deals with decarbonizing the economy and has nothing to do with with temperatures. It was created by an advocate of renewable energy. It doesn’t offer many pragmatic ways to reducing CO2, but that never stopped an alarmist. I’ve decided it is the perfect tool for Planned Parenthood to use to leverage climate change hysteria in promoting their services.

kim LOL I can remember the tune vaguely but not the words. I’ll just hum it.

Mike Jonas says: July 18, 2014 at 10:39 pm
“RobertInAz – Willis got it right. The equations are circular logic.”
In which case, every identity that forms the basis of modern physics is circular logic.
You make the same error as Willis when you say: “So the exact same number that goes into the ‘top’ of one equation goes into the ‘bottom’ of the next equation.” The correct description is: “The units of the variable at the top of one term of the equation are the same as the units of the bottom of the next term of the equation. In physics, we confirm our equations are right when the units on the right cancel out to equal the units on the left.
Let’s break down Willis’s wildly incorrect description of the identity term be term: the entire statement was “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.”
1. where “CO2 emissions” are the CO2 emissions of say a given country;. CO2 Emissions on the left are the CO2 emissions of, say a given country The CO2 emisiions term on the right is the CO2 emission for a given unit of energy production. The CO2 term on the right is much smaller. Both terms can be expressed as KG CO2 – the basis of the confusion,
2. “Population” is the population of that country; This is true for the first term. Population in the second term refers to a single person. Again, these are entirely different things that have the same unit of measure – people.
3. “GDP” is gross domestic production of the country: Again, true for the first appearance of the term. For the US, this is trillions of dollars. For the second appearance of the term, it refers to a single dollar. Again, the units are the same (dollars) but the terms refer to completely different things.
4. “Energy” is energy consumed by the country.”. Same store, the first use of the term is a really big number (terrawatts), the second use of the term is a single watt. Once again, the units are the same but the meaning of each appearance of the term is different,
I see the ambiguously framed equation is on 12 of the report Willis referenced. It should have been written like this:
Total CO2 = Total Population * (GDP (dollars)/Person) * (Energy (watts)/ dollar GDP) * (Gram CO//Watt)

In defense of the report, the description immediately before the ambiguous equation was correct:
“we simply refer to them as CO 2 emissions. CO 2 emissions can be expressed as the product of four inputs: population, GDP per capita, energy use per unit of GDP, and CO 2 emissions per unit of energy: “

JamesNV says (at 11:46 pm):
I hear people saying that skeptics are acting like alarmists. Or are skeptics and alarmists acting like… people?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html
= = = = = =
Some people argue just because they don’t enjoy living in a world of extraordinarily popular delusions, with the ruling caste of “movers and shakers” and “opinion makers” always herding us into their shearing sheds or abattoirs. Some people argue for the opposite reason, of course, and they have the loudest voices.

That said, if you insist on wrongly interpreting the Kaya identity as did Willis…

Because that happened the rest of Willis’ initial article had to be accepted as uninformed. It never got better from there. As strange, his misunderstanding seemed to be the prevalent take on the identity. Not many got it right. It’s happening again in this thread, too.
I do question the value of the entire enterprise given that the presumption of it is more CO2 is bad. We don’t know that, yet.

The problem is most people don’t seem to realize that 6=(6/2)*2 is as much an identity as is y= (y/x)*x; where 6 and 2 are obviously just “numbers”; and where y and x are “variables”. In other words, an identity does not have to contain variables !
The KAYA identity is trivially true when using “historical values” (i.e. “just the numbers”) for CO2 emissions, population, GDP per capita, energy consumption per unit GDP and CO2 emissions per unit energy.
The real problem begins when KAYA is used as y = x1 * x2 * x3 * x4, where y = CO2 emissions, x1 = populaton, x2=GDP per capita, x3 energy consumption per unit GDP and x4 is CO2 per unit energy; AND where y, x1, x2, x3 and x4 are now all treated as variables. It does not take a genius do understand this is NO LONGER an identity! You cannot take an arbitrary value of y (CO2 emissions), and expect that for whatever values of x1, x2, x3 and x4 the LHS = RHS.
Once you consider y as an independent variable, and x1, x2, x3 and x4 as dependent variables, you are treating the KAYA “equation” as some kind of “model” that allows you to calculate future values of y, based on some “assumed” values of x1, x2, x3 and x4. But such kind of model is totally detached from reality, for a number of quite obvious reasons. Firstly, it’s an oversimplification (just 4 variables to describe a very complex reality!). Secondly, and more importantly, none of those variables on the RHS are independent of each other (e.g. GDP per capita would more likely than not be some kind of function of Population; not to say that Population in the long run might as well depend on GDP per capita). And accepting that there are dependencies between x1, x2, x3 and x4, there are absolutely no reasons to expect that those dependencies would have to be linear, on the contrary!
In conclusion. The KAYA identity used with historical values is trivially true; KAYA used as an equation to “predict” or “prognosticate” future values of CO2 emissions is an abomination.

Johan says: July 19, 2014 at 2:03 am
Correction, I of course mixed up independent and dependent variables !

M Simon says: I can do that. F=ma
That sounds good until you mix it with politics and everything goes wrong. I have an example.
In the UK we have a 12 ft.lbf legal limit on the permitted power for an unlicenced pneumatic rifle. The accepted formula for calculating muzzle kinetic energy is velocity squared times projectile mass in grains, avoir dupois, all divided by the magic number 450240 and there lies the rub. Obviously to convert pounds mass to pounds force you have to stand somewhere and drop something. To get 450240 you have to stand somewhere where gravity is 32.16 ft/s/s. Beats me.
Obviously science disagrees with the accepted norm. Try to decide which is correct and you end up having Pilates’, “What is truth?” argument. If you are programming for MKE do you want to spend eternity explaining why you are right and 450240 is wrong? No, you use 450240.
If this Kaya thing is for policy makers perhaps we simply render unto Caesar that which is Caesars’ and agree even though it is complete bunkum and tosh.
I tend to infuriate people, if this post infuriates you I apologise, I will try to understand but it is difficult for me, please define your precepts.

What really beats me, even none other than IPCC itself admit that at best,KAYA can only be used to organize discussions of the primary driving forces of CO2 emissions
[QUOTE] While the Kaya identity above can be used to organize discussion of the primary driving forces of CO2 emissions and, by extension, emissions of other GHGs, there are important caveats. Most important, the four terms on the right-hand side of equation (3.2) should be considered neither as fundamental driving forces in themselves, nor as generally independent from each other. [/QUOTE]
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=50

There is no good reason to write down the Kaya identity, because given values for the terms on the right hand side, calculating the CO2 follows from a trivial application of algebra which we expect anyone over the age of twelve to be able to do. It certainly does not merit a grandiose name. The only reason to write it down and give this trivial algebraic identity a name is to give the illusion that the variables contained in it are fundamental, like mass and time and similar in physics equations. Equations from physics, of course, are not mere algebraic identities.

The Wizard of OZ is on TV tonight in Aus! I wonder how many know it was original written as an allegory of Economics with weather and climate as major themes.

Shawnhet says:
July 19, 2014 at 2:55 am
You can put any values you like into any variables and “c” will equal the value you gave it.
Just do the Math yourself, as Dr Rodger Pielke Jr recommended, over and over.

I’m a mathematician. Willis is right and Pielke is wrong. Here is my attempt at an explanation.
The climate change economics community would like to have a useful equation that shows how changes in things like population would affect things like carbon dioxide levels. No such equation has been derived from controlled experiments, so they posit a theoretical relationship between the variables of interest, and use this as a tool to describe potential outcomes to politicians. This is all well and good.
Problems arise when you compare their equation with something like F = ma (Newton’s 2nd law of motion). This too is a theoretical relationship linking force, mass and acceleration. This “law” is just a very good approximation of the physical world – special relativity is needed for an improved understanding. However, F = ma can be used to solve real and important problems. In order to put men on the moon, NASA knew how much acceleration was needed, and then designed rockets with different mass and force configurations that would (hopefully) attain the acceleration. This IS rocket science, and without F = ma the moon landings would very probably not have happened.
Compare this with the Kaya identity. Supplying values for global population, gross domestic product and gross energy consumption gives you absolutely no new information. You haven’t solved a problem. It doesn’t matter if the values are accurate current estimates, or if they come from an idealised scenario. You end up knowing that the carbon dioxide emissions are equal to the carbon dioxide emissions.
Unlike (say) physics and chemistry, economics and climate science are full of “models” which can’t be used to solve any actual problem. This isn’t the fault of the disciplines: no-one is going to test an economic model involving (say) minimum wages by increasing them $10,000 per hour and seeing what happens, and there simply isn’t another planet that we can test climate models on by removing all the humans. So they have to invent mathematically and scientifically sub-standard “models” like the Kaya identity to make any progress. It only becomes a problem when they believe their own hype, and start thinking that these “models” encapsulate some scientific truth.

The formula/equation/identity provides only one way to reduce CO2 to the level necessary to save the earth.
Reduce people.
Nothing else goes far enough.
But first, you have to believe in the identity.
You have to know it is the only answer.
(2+2=5 you see that, don’t you Winston?)
What do you see?
cn

Here’s my identity:
political policy acceptance = baffle them with bull sh*t
In plain English: the more you bullsh*t people the better chance of your politics being accepted.
I believe that also applies to climate “science”.

Tom in Florida says:
July 19, 2014 at 5:48 am
Here’s my identity:
political policy acceptance = baffle them with bull sh*t
Here’s an identity I’ve discovered over my 60 years of living, let’s call it the Kaka Identity:
Politician = Bullsh*t Artist

And, once more, what is the connection between CO2 and climate/weather especially the catastrophic kind?

“If the bathtub model of atmospheric CO2 levels is correct, with humans as the source for increase, why does Mauna Loa not show a corresponding jump in the rate of increase? Doesn’t this argue strongly that the increase in CO2 is not directly tied to human emissions?”
The identity does not address atmospheric CO2 levels – it is focused on the CO2 emitted by an economy.

False God’s/Equation’s

There appears to be a group of posters who still parrot Willis’s original misunderstanding of the meaning of the equation. This is from the document he linked.
The simplest way to describe the deep decarbonization of energy systems is by the principal drivers of energy-related CO 2 emissions—for convenience, since the focus of this chapter is on energy systems, we simply refer to them as CO 2 emissions. CO 2 emissions can be expressed as the product of four inputs: population, GDP per capita, energy use per unit of GDP, and CO 2 emissions per unit of energy:
CO 2 emissions = Population x (GDP/Population) x (Energy/GDP) x (CO 2 /Energy)
Unfortunately, the equation is poorly framed and thus ambiguous.
Johan above proposed re framing it. ( Johan says: July 19, 2014 at 2:03 am ) similar to this
T-CO2 = (T-POP) * (GDP-POP) * (WATTS-DOLLAR) * (CO2-WATT) where the terms are defined as above. If the article had done something like this, then Willis would not have found the equation remarkable.

ferdberple says: July 19, 2014 at 7:28 am
“The unstated premises of the Kaya Identity are:” –>Both conclusions are wrong
The Kaya identity says nothing atmospheric CO2. It says nothing about atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

OYG!
A third post showcasing Willis Eschenbach’s mathematical errors and personality deficits? Does not the notion of quitting while one is really, really behind have any resonance here?
Rule #1 of successful deep hole rescue – stop digging.

Now, if a Senator or Congressman really is that stupid…

Never misunderestimate the ignorance of representative government. It is populated by giving an uninformed public promises of a chicken in every pot, pot in every brownie, and free health care, food, and shelter to foreigners willing to hike into the country illegally.

Discussion of Kaya identity starts here.

Not sure what all the fuss is about.
Is there anybody who is saying that CO2 emissions are not the product of energy use? And that the more energy we use the higher emissions will be? And that our production of wealth requires a certain expenditure of energy?
That’s all this says – trivial yes, true yes.

Johan says: July 19, 2014 at 6:39 am “Now, I ask you, my engineering friends, is F = P*g*e*f an IDENTITY ????? Is it, if you know that in mathematics identity means an equation which is true regardless of what values are substituted for any variables? So, is this what engineers are saying: 20 = 2 * 5 *7 * 2.4; or maybe 34 = 9 * 2.7 * 30 * 0.1 ??? ”
Not quite. Consider F=MA. Where F is expressed as KG * M/SEC**2, M is KG and A is expressed as M/SEC**2. I would consider this a physics identity. The dependent variable is on the left, the independent variables are on the right. Applying Johan’s approach of inserting random values on the left and and the right of course leads to ridiculous results. In Kaya, the value on the left is calculated from the values on the right. It holds for a broad range of real world examples. In F=MA, you can insert implausible values on the right. It does not impact the usefulness of Newton’s second law of motion.

Wrong/incomplete question. Are CO2 emissions only/totally/solely/alonenessly the result/consequence/product/result of mankind’s energy use? Well, no. And CO2 is not the only GHG. Now “they” are coming for methane! A psychopathic anti-coal agenda is driving all of this nonsense.

Tim Hammond says: July 19, 2014 at 8:11 am
Not sure what all the fuss is about.
It keeps us off the streets. Our wives like that.

Johan says: July 19, 2014 at 8:37 am It keeps us off the streets. Our wives like that.”
+1

I started this thread in 1989 when it was simple global warming. Premises: 1) earth is warming at an alarming rate (seems subjective and lately not so) 2) the sole cause is rising levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Keeling) 3) mankind’s industrial activity is solely responsible for this increasing CO2 concentration (only because no one has bothered to locate other sources such as ocean floor volcanic vents. IPCC AR5 admits it has no knowledge of the bottom half of the oceans.) After twenty five years not one of these points has been conclusively demonstrated.

The Kaya “identity” is too simplistic to be of any scientific use. It simply lends scientific credibility to the political opinion that we developed people are too destructive, and too numerous, to be allowed to continue our way of life.

Michael 2 says:
July 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Ian says:”and that effect is close to, if not at, saturation.”
Saturation would be 1 million parts per million. We have a long, long way to go.
Michael, Ian is addressing the absorption spectrum of CO2, that is how that molecule absorbs selective wavelengths of infra red radiation, which does follow a logarithmic curve. You are referring to concentration which relates to the gas mixture. Ian is entirely correct that the atmosphere is already absorbing most of the IR it is sensitive to in the system so increasing CO2 will only have a diminishing effect on heat content. This is the great flaw of the alarmist community argument. They assume that the CO2 / heat relationship is linear. It is not.

It would’ve been real nice if Pielke Jr. had at least admitted that the equation is *not* an identity, and is not justified through algebraic construction.
It would be even nicer if he and others would write the equation properly, with the required variables included, rather than using the exact same text to refer to both a variable *and* a unit.
The confusion and controversy have, as their root cause, imprecision in expression.

If you can prove that y = x is true regardless of what values are substituted for y and x, than clearly y = x is an identity. If not, it’s an equation but not an identity.

I am still not getting the joke here. In the case of a function y = x we see that the value of y is dependent upon our choice of x. If I pick x = 1 then y = 1.
Consider f(x) = 2x +2 when x = 4. We get 2(4) + 2 = 10 and that is it. So, f(4)=10 and nothing else. Y = 10. You don’t get to just pick both x and y independently of each other then claim it satisfies the given relationship for god’s sake. If that were true it sure would make grading math tests a whole lot easier! (no child left behind indeed!)

Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says: July 19, 2014 at 9:21 am
I am still not getting the joke here
My word! All I had to do to prove that y = x is not an identity, is to provide a counter-example. Which is exactly what I did. What if y = 2 and x = 1. Clearly, 2 does not equal 1, hence we conclude y = x cannot be an identity.
(drum roll). Enters the joke. Oh, but wait, what if we can prove that 2 = 1 … !!!
I cannot believe I even have to explain such a silly joke. This whole thread on KAYA is more absurd than any Monthy Python sketch I’ve ever seen.

Johan says: July 19, 2014 at 9:29 am “My word! All I had to do to prove that y = x is not an identity, is to provide a counter-example. Which is exactly what I did. What if y = 2 and x = 1.”
Oh my oh my. You have a physics degree and are currently an economist? I guess as an economist, you can provide counter-example to all of the trigonometric identities listed here. Mathematicians do use the term identity – a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_identity
In fact, you can invalidate all of modern mathematics with similarly framed counter-examples. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_identities

“I think that much of the dissent over it has to do with the difference in viewpoints between science and engineering.”
The viewpoints of science and engineering? How about the viewpoint of Jr High Math.
The Kaya Identity is a fancy pants version of The Multiplicative Identity Property:
x = (1)x
The Kaya Identity does not show the relationship between population, GDP, energy consuption and CO2. I think what would be needed would not be an identity but and equation along the lines of Ohm’s Law. A “Kaya equation” that shows the relationship of population, wealth (I would use income per capita not GDP) and CO2 emissions.
How this formula is used politically becomes ugly very quickly. Poverty and population control = good…….wealth and babies = bad.

Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says: July 19, 2014 at 9:43 am
“nor can you just pick any value you want for x and y if y is the dependent variable and x is the independent variable.”
To begin with, I never mentioned functions, you did. Secondly, y = x is a function, but it is also an equation (or do you disagree with that?). And no, you cannot pick any value you want for y and x, because it’s an equation but not an identity (it’s completely irrelevant that y = x also happens to be a function). Now, this may surprise you, but x^2 + y^2 = r^2 is an equation, but it is NOT a function. Still, it is obviously not an identity either, unless 3^2 + 4^2 = (whatever)^2.
You also say: “I still find no reason to equate Dr. Pielke’s work with that “proof”.”
How many times do I have to tell you this, I was not attacking Pielke but ridiculing one of the commenters.
And as for the relevance to Pielke. Pielke is using F = P*g*e*f, where F, P, g. e and f are variables. And for anyone who has more than 2 brain cells left, F = P*g*e*f is an equation, not an identity.
And now I’m out of the loony bin. Enough is enough !

RobertInAz:

“…Kaya is relevant because of the assumption that human CO2 emission drives atmospheric CO2…that assumption is not part of Kaya.”

Yes. If you argue CO2 emissions don’t matter then Kaya is irrelevant to your argument.

“Kaya is a strong argument in favor of adaptation not mitigation because it drives out the true cost of mitigation.”

Agree. The Kaya Identity helped Pielke memorably demonstrate that the UK cut their CO2 emissions primarily by making the nation poorer, not by filling the countryside with wind turbines.
ferdberple:

“If governments simply get out of the way and let people innovate…”

Pielke seems to be saying “give up your Soviet-style xx-year emissions targets and concentrate on developing low-cost, low-impact, low-carbon energy.” I’m not sure he wants governments to get out of the way, but he’s doing a good job showing what should be obvious to everyone by now: current governments are not just dysfunctional, they’re misanthropic.

I have mixed feelings about Pielke Jr. Unlike his father, he is not a physical scientist but he seems to buy the AWG story lock-stock-and barrel. He appears to be genuine, but I instinctively find anyone to be naive who voted for Obama, not once, but twice, and is still proud of it.

I see the former ardent defenders of the utility of this Kaya Identity, are finally acknowledging its actual usefulness, as a tool of committee.
But hey, maybe we can go 500 comments on this too..
The official orchestrated hysteria toward carbon dioxide emission from the activities of mankind, as demonstrated by the IPCC and endless national bureaucracies, arose due to pseudo science and pretentious claims of scientific evidence that CO2 causes Global Warming.
The work of committees, created and controlled by the likes of Canada’s Liberals, so we should look for truth and actual science in the creation of people who openly stated ; “Who cares if its true.. it works for us..”Like our past Minister of the Environment?

Johan said at 8:08 am: “Now, of course, there is a proof that says 2 = 1”. However I’m afraid all your example actually proved was that 2*0 = 1*0 (as does every integer multiplied by zero). It did not actually give any conclusion that was fallacious: the algebra was simply wrong.
And I personally think that saying that A/B * B/C * C/A = 1 (which of course is trivially true so long as none of A, B or C are zero) can produce useful conclusions, so long as considered in proper context.

So that’s what the “thermodynamic identity” is? I’ve applied it for over thirty years in real power plant performance analysis, it describes what happens to the steam energy flowing through a real steam turbine’s bade path. I don’t think the Kanye equation has a similar, real, physical, application.

The Kayla identity obviously makes the assumption that CO2 production is directly proportional to GDP, so substituting a different factor like beer producion is an apples and oranges situation.

After some more research, I concede Johan’s point that the Kaya identity is not like a mathematical identity. My post at July 19, 2014 at 9:41 am is completely wrong. Mathematical identities have no dependent variables. I should have stuck with physics.
That said, while making the analogy between Kaya and the laws of physics I stated that these laws are like an identity, They are not like a mathematical identity, A physical law has independent and dependent variables so it is incorrect to refer to them as an identity.
So I have to agree that calling Kaya an identity is a misnomer and is clearly getting in the way of understanding its usefulness.
Good on you Johan.

Not having read much of the other discussions about this I am probably repeating other’s comments.
Anyone here who runs a business will know that numbers can be explained in more ways then one. Numbers are not absolute by any means, only when used in a certain way, but there are always more ways then one. And which is more valid depends on opinion. One can turn a profit into a loss and the other way around (within reason) and eventually you do run out of options.
According to the link given by Dr Pielke, and the graph supplied therein, China has the highest rate of emissions per $1000 GDP but they also have the lowest rate per capita, although no mention of this in the article that I could find.
This is not meant as trying to criticize the equation by the way, just a fact.
If I were a Chinese official I would use the per capita figure to clobber the rest of the world for not doing enough, and you could not fault their side of the argument.
The UK comes out quite well in the per $1000 graph, but all they have really done is exporting their most dirty industries to the likes of China, India and others.
And the UK is not alone with that, it was all done to help developing nations or so we were told by policy makers and it is was a sign of the times according to them running those companies.
The equation stacks up as far as a mathematical formula is concerned for the CO2 issue based on the given parameters, but it depends on how you wish to look at it where the problem lies.
In the case of this report, as this was written for the Brits all I can conclude is that it makes the British Government look pretty good compared to some others and that was the intention of the Brits in the first place.
They already knew the outcome of the findings before they asked, Dr Pielke in this case, to conclude it. I do not wish to criticize Dr Pielke’s good work but to me this is a bit like Cadbury getting research done to show the benefits of chocolate, pay for the research and set the parameters and presto there is the conclusion we were looking for. How about that.
Or is that being too skeptical.

I would point out that based on the “Kaya Identity”, doubling the population while keeping gdp, energy consumption, and efficiency equal results in zero increase in CO2 emmisions. I guess CO2 is independent of population.

“In the case of this report, as this was written for the Brits all I can conclude is that it makes the British Government look pretty good compared to some others and that was the intention of the iBrits in the first place.”
on the contrary
nutso fasst says: July 19, 2014 at 10:36 am
“Agree. The Kaya Identity helped Pielke memorably demonstrate that the UK cut their CO2 emissions primarily by making the nation poorer, not by filling the countryside with wind turbines.”

“Only if you use the incorrect understanding of Kaya. With the the correct understanding: CO 2 emissions can be expressed as the product of four inputs: population, GDP per capita, energy use per unit of GDP, and CO 2 emissions per unit of energy: then doubling population while holding all other terms constant will double CO2.”
The “Kaya Identity” is misunderstood when it is poorly stated.
1) it’s not an identity, it’s an equation;
2) the equation is stated with units only, not variables.
With the correct equation presented, it will be correctly understood. The proper way of writing out the Kaya Equation is:
F = P*g*e*f
It is left as an exercise for the reader to understand that because the Kaya Equation is *not* an identity, it cannot be constructed algebraically from CO2 = CO2.

So what’s the point of reducing CO2? Obama/EPA limited US power generation to 1,100 pounds CO2 per MWh which will make a 2.2% difference in global CO2. Big deal! Why are governments compelled to reduce CO2?

Mitigation – of what? Why? CO2 does not equal warming does not equal apocalypse does not equal any needed policy “mitigation” solutions. First step in a solution is making certain you have the correct problem. What does the Kaya tell policy makers they need to do? Why do the “policy makers” need to do anything??!! Too much time on their hands? Trying to insure their “legacy?”

nickreality65, The reality is that policy makers believe it to be a problem. So they ARE going to do something about it. What would you rather them do? ‘Investing’ in energy innovation, research and development is not necessarily a bad idea regardless of CO2.

I read the paper and listened to the lecture. It was a somewhat boring lecture that did make a few obvious points.
I did notice that Pielke had one huge mistake in his thinking. The major mistake is that Pielke does not seem to understand the economic distortions that are caused by subsidies and indirect subsidies and costs that are added due to anti-CO2 legislation.
For example – the government tells a utility that they must have 20% clean energy. The utility decides to put up windmills and add the infrastructure to handle the windmills. They need to shutdown some of the existing power plants and build new plants to provide “peak power” when the windmills are not generating enough power. The amount of infrastructure needed is enormous as are the costs for the windmills. The end result is that most of the components for the windmills, new plants and infrastructure are manufactured in places like China. To manufacture the new plant, the infrastructure and windmill components requires large amount of emissions as the steel, copper, carbon fiber, fiberglass, housings and etc. are all manufactured. The other cost is transporting all the components and the using large amounts of cement, the transport of workers and etc. etc. The end result is that some of the windmill projects may never generate the amount of power to pay the energy costs for building the infrastructure, installing the infrastructure transporting it, switching to new power plants and building the windmills. However, they have effectively shifted the CO2 emissions to China for the power that is generated. Going to 20% clean energy though does increase the cost massively for energy because essentially, the energy user is financing a huge amount of waste that only has the benefit of shifting CO2 generation to China and does not actually have any net CO2 reduction or if there is some it is very small.

@outtheback 12;37.
You nail it.
Its Bistro-maths.
Or is it the joke about the 3 accounts seeking the same job.
Final answer;”Whatever you want the numbers to be”
Your hired.

Anthony wrote (main post):

In fact I think it is that simplicity that lends itself to being criticized as not being fully representative of a complex system. Willis described the Kaya Identity as being “trivially true” while Roger in his book and video treats its with the same respect as some physical law equation. My take is that the truth is somewhere in the middle between those viewpoints.
Whether it is best used as a political tool or as a physical science tool is still an open question in my mind, though I tend to think it leans more towards political usefulness.

Anthony,
The point of the Kaya Identity is simply to provide an analytical framework to account for the technical relationships that result in the flow rate of anthropogenic CO2. Yes, in math terms it’s ‘trivially true’. Also, it doesn’t (in itself) ‘fully represent’ a complex system, but it provides the framework for representing whatever degree of complexity might be desired — in examining how GDP affects energy use, how energy use affects CO2 emissions, and so forth. The Kaya Identity is worthy of respect as a useful truth.
The Kaya Identity does not purport to be a ‘physical science tool’. Technological change, as Pielke notes, affects the values of two of the ratios that make up the identity, but that’s the extent to which physical science comes into it. The Identity adds nothing to our understanding of how any given flow rate of anthropogenic CO2 will affect climate. Pielke does not claim otherwise.
The Kaya Identity is certainly a policy tool, if that is what you mean by ‘political tool’. In the text, Pielke uses the Kaya Identity to show how a particular policy would only be feasible given implausible assumptions about future changes in the ratios that make up the Identity. Isn’t that useful?
I am disheartened at the number of comments that make empty arguments against the Kaya Identity without engaging with Pielke’s actual use of it. We have already had two long threads in which people made such arguments in a vacuum. Now that we have an actual text (and/or video), I would expect that people would respond to it.
I’m also hugely disappointed that you, Anthony, refer to Willis and Roger as having two ‘viewpoints’ — presumably somehow of equal weight, despite the vast (!) difference in their expertise. You introduce Roger here as one of Willis’s ‘more strident critics’, when Roger is the expert on the matter, while Willis has not yet shown that he even understands just how the Kaya Identity is used. In scholarly discourse, the proper approach is for a well-developed analysis to be tested by criticism. It is Roger who has that analysis, not Willis. Furthermore, Roger has certainly not been ‘strident’, but low-key and very substantive. Willis, on the other hand, has taken drive-by pot-shots.
I would have expected better of both of you.