5 ms·

First sign that humanity is slowing its carbon surge

51 points by d4vlx 13y ago

marvin 13y ago
This is good - but remember that "emissions" is already the first derivative of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So what this article is saying is that the second derivative was ~35% lower than the average through the last decade. What we need is to eventually have net zero emissions, after a period of having emissions low enough to be taken in by oceanic uptake and reforestation. So obviously we are far, far away from that goal. And there is very broad scientific consensus that we need to get there. Negative second derivative is good, since it implies we won't have exponential runaway in CO2 concentration. But it is just the first step on the way there.
- jol 13y ago
  If we are talking about changing something I the way people in the whole world acts, it takes a lot of time, the talks started long long ago, finally we see some result of this. There is a lot of "greener" technologies developed now and in past 2-3 years that soon will become mainstream, thus making us all closer to the goal
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    Are we seeing some results or is that just because fossil fuels are harder to get (read - more expensive) nowadays?
- pygy_ 13y ago
  Keep in mind that, to reduce greenhouse, plants worldwide would have to reduce a significant fraction of the net CO2 surplus emitted during the industrial era. Not a small task...
csmuk 13y ago
The first question I'd like to ask: are we sure we actually did this? The modelling is so variable, incomplete and inconclusive from what I can see, it's almost down to whoever manages the most statistically significant mistake to come up with these numbers.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  That's pretty much exactly where I headed on this.
- phaemon 13y ago
  That depends: who's "we" and what's "this"?
dredmorbius 13y ago
"We see a decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth" "The three biggest emitters – China, the US and the European Union – which account for more than half of global emissions, all show this decoupling effect." China's GDP numbers are pretty famously shaky, and a number of alternate indices have been proposed. For the US, a prolonged depression with some recovery, but largely in FIRE industries, would tend to create the appearance of growth. The EU is another mixed bag, though I haven't looked as closely at it. In all I find the premise highly suspect. On the positive side: fuel switching (essentially anything but coal), and efficiency improvements (China's $GDP/bbl is less than half the US's, though Europe's overall economic output per unit energy is very high), might actually be starting to show an impact. Though you've got to be very careful for how you account for both the GDP and emissions sides of the equation here. The coupling of energy utilization to GDP is so strong, and persists over such a long period of time (Gail Tverberg has used the Angus Maddison historical economic dataset to trace it back 2000 years, and I find she's also looked at the decoupling story), and recent research has shown that the "decoupling" touted in many "advanced" economies can be shown to actually be a shifting of fundamental inputs to exporting nations. I've shown that the the growth in the economies of China and India are very strongly linked to growth in energy use from 1980 - 2010: https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx8fcvYBG https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx... You can see the plots yourself using Wolfram Alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china++GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china++GDP+%2F+%28total... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india++GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india++GDP+%2F+%28total... Additional references: The Long-Term Tie Between Energy Supply, Population, and the Economy Gail Tverberg, August 29, 2012 http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-between-energy-supply-population-and-the-economy/ http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-betwe... When a person looks back over history, the impression one gets is that the economy is a system that transforms resources, especially energy, into food and other goods that people need. As these goods become available, population grows. The more energy is consumed, the more the economy grows, and the faster world population grows. When little energy is added, economic growth proceeds slowly, and population growth is low. Is It Really Possible to Decouple GDP Growth from Energy Growth? Gail Tverberg, November 21, 2011 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8615 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8615 Prior to 2000, world real GDP (based on USDA Economic Research Institute data) was indeed growing faster than energy use, as measured by BP Statistical Data. Between 1980 and 2000, world real GDP growth averaged a little under 3% per year, and world energy growth averaged a little under 2% per year, so GDP growth increased about 1% more per year than energy use. Since 2000, energy use has grown approximately as fast as world real GDP–increases for both have averaged about 2.5% per year growth. This is not what we have been told to expect. Study reveals 'true' material cost of development say researchers Matt McGrath, 2 September 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23931590 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23931590 Current methods of measuring the full material cost of imported goods are highly inaccurate say researchers. In a new study, they found that three times as many raw materials are used to process and export traded goods than are used in their manufacture. Richer countries who believe they have succeeded in developing sustainably are mistaken say the authors. On China's GDP data, two views: How Reliable Are China's Economic Statistics? Thomas Orlik, Jul 20, 2011 http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1732874&seqNum=2 http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1732874&seqNu... With so much attention on developments in the Chinese economy, the reliability of China's economic indicators has been the subject of some controversy. In the popular imagination, the production of China's economic data is regarded as a crude political farce: the controlling hand of the Communist Party intervening arbitrarily to direct the level of key indicators before they are published. In the past, that image was not too far from the reality. Orlik concludes "The system is not perfect. Some data points are more reliable than others. But neither is it a farce." FRB research suggests that Chinese data are at least "systematically related" to alternative indicators, though the norming is based on Chinese government statistics themselves: On the Reliability of Chinese Output Figures http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2013/march/reliability-chinese-output-figures/ http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic... Conclusion: We found that reported Chinese output data are systematically related to alternative indicators of Chinese economic activity. These include alternative indicator indexes of Chinese activity composed of variables that are less susceptible to official manipulation, as well as externally reported trade volume measures. Importantly, these models suggest that Chinese growth has been in the ballpark of what official data have reported. We find no evidence that recently reported Chinese GDP figures are less reliable than usual.
mcv 13y ago
Finally! It is good news, I suppose, but we really should have been at this stage a long time ago. And emissions are still growing, just not as fast. We need to reduce emissions. Decoupling emissions from economic growth sounds great, but it's only slightly decoupled. We still need to get rid of coal as soon as possible. And the big economies need to have better energy solutions ready so the up-and-coming economies can use those, instead of their rapid growth sending coal use through the roof.
wyuenho 13y ago
Can someone explain to me why Reuters is reporting a completely different result from the WMO? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/greenhouse-gas-emissions-highs_n_4223800.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/greenhouse-gas-emis...
- phaemon 13y ago
  They're not. It's the same result. The rate of emissions is growing, but the rate of increase of the rate of emissions is falling. It's like you've reduced your acceleration from 10ms^-2 to 5ms^-2 - the distance you're travelling is still on an upward curve, and you'll still be hitting higher and higher speeds, but you'll be taking longer to reach them than you were previously.
  - trendoid 13y ago
    basically like global population.
smackay 13y ago
So instead of sprinting off the cliff, we are now merely going to run off it. There's lot of wishful thinking in the idea that emissions can be decoupled from GDP - in the same way that we can all return to ever-increasing house prices to boost personal wealth, without creating bubbles. There has to be a huge increase in efficiency and a huge decrease in demand for just about everything to bring this under some degree of control. The latter is probably unthinkable for most politicians, economists and pundits. It is just possible we can innovate a way out of this but that's going to need a whole lot of change in the next 30 years - not impossible but not easy either.
- mathattack 13y ago
  I agree - what's required is a wholesale conversion to low-emission energy. That will impact GDP. I used to think we'd run out of coal and oil and then work our way around it, but I think that will be too late.
- mcv 13y ago
  While an increase in efficiency would definitely be nice, it's not a requirement for reducing emissions. If we manage to switch to emission-free energy (solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever), then the problem is basically solved. We could be as wasteful as we wanted without increasing CO2 emissions (though it may still have other costs of course). And we have the technology required for this. We just lack the political will. Of course going completely emission-free will still be hard, but if we could just get rid of all the big coal and oil burning plants, that would already make a huge difference. (Disclaimer: I'm no fan of Uranium fission, but it's still much better than coal. While I'd prefer to switch to something better than Uranium, a switch from coal to Uranium is still a vast improvement. If that switch is easier, faster and cheaper to make than a switch to something more durable, I'm all for it.)

51 points by d4vlx 13y ago

This is good - but remember that "emissions" is already the first derivative of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So what this article is saying is that the second derivative was ~35% lower than the average through the last decade. What we need is to eventually have net zero emissions, after a period of having emissions low enough to be taken in by oceanic uptake and reforestation. So obviously we are far, far away from that goal. And there is very broad scientific consensus that we need to get there. Negative second derivative is good, since it implies we won't have exponential runaway in CO2 concentration. But it is just the first step on the way there.

jol 13y ago
If we are talking about changing something I the way people in the whole world acts, it takes a lot of time, the talks started long long ago, finally we see some result of this. There is a lot of "greener" technologies developed now and in past 2-3 years that soon will become mainstream, thus making us all closer to the goal
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  Are we seeing some results or is that just because fossil fuels are harder to get (read - more expensive) nowadays?
pygy_ 13y ago
Keep in mind that, to reduce greenhouse, plants worldwide would have to reduce a significant fraction of the net CO2 surplus emitted during the industrial era. Not a small task...

csmuk 13y ago

The first question I'd like to ask: are we sure we actually did this? The modelling is so variable, incomplete and inconclusive from what I can see, it's almost down to whoever manages the most statistically significant mistake to come up with these numbers.

dredmorbius 13y ago
That's pretty much exactly where I headed on this.
phaemon 13y ago
That depends: who's "we" and what's "this"?

dredmorbius 13y ago

"We see a decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth" "The three biggest emitters – China, the US and the European Union – which account for more than half of global emissions, all show this decoupling effect." China's GDP numbers are pretty famously shaky, and a number of alternate indices have been proposed. For the US, a prolonged depression with some recovery, but largely in FIRE industries, would tend to create the appearance of growth. The EU is another mixed bag, though I haven't looked as closely at it. In all I find the premise highly suspect. On the positive side: fuel switching (essentially anything but coal), and efficiency improvements (China's $GDP/bbl is less than half the US's, though Europe's overall economic output per unit energy is very high), might actually be starting to show an impact. Though you've got to be very careful for how you account for both the GDP and emissions sides of the equation here. The coupling of energy utilization to GDP is so strong, and persists over such a long period of time (Gail Tverberg has used the Angus Maddison historical economic dataset to trace it back 2000 years, and I find she's also looked at the decoupling story), and recent research has shown that the "decoupling" touted in many "advanced" economies can be shown to actually be a shifting of fundamental inputs to exporting nations. I've shown that the the growth in the economies of China and India are very strongly linked to growth in energy use from 1980 - 2010: https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx8fcvYBG https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx... You can see the plots yourself using Wolfram Alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china++GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china++GDP+%2F+%28total... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india++GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india++GDP+%2F+%28total... Additional references: The Long-Term Tie Between Energy Supply, Population, and the Economy Gail Tverberg, August 29, 2012 http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-between-energy-supply-population-and-the-economy/ http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-betwe... When a person looks back over history, the impression one gets is that the economy is a system that transforms resources, especially energy, into food and other goods that people need. As these goods become available, population grows. The more energy is consumed, the more the economy grows, and the faster world population grows. When little energy is added, economic growth proceeds slowly, and population growth is low. Is It Really Possible to Decouple GDP Growth from Energy Growth? Gail Tverberg, November 21, 2011 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8615 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8615 Prior to 2000, world real GDP (based on USDA Economic Research Institute data) was indeed growing faster than energy use, as measured by BP Statistical Data. Between 1980 and 2000, world real GDP growth averaged a little under 3% per year, and world energy growth averaged a little under 2% per year, so GDP growth increased about 1% more per year than energy use. Since 2000, energy use has grown approximately as fast as world real GDP–increases for both have averaged about 2.5% per year growth. This is not what we have been told to expect. Study reveals 'true' material cost of development say researchers Matt McGrath, 2 September 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23931590 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23931590 Current methods of measuring the full material cost of imported goods are highly inaccurate say researchers. In a new study, they found that three times as many raw materials are used to process and export traded goods than are used in their manufacture. Richer countries who believe they have succeeded in developing sustainably are mistaken say the authors. On China's GDP data, two views: How Reliable Are China's Economic Statistics? Thomas Orlik, Jul 20, 2011 http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1732874&seqNum=2 http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1732874&seqNu... With so much attention on developments in the Chinese economy, the reliability of China's economic indicators has been the subject of some controversy. In the popular imagination, the production of China's economic data is regarded as a crude political farce: the controlling hand of the Communist Party intervening arbitrarily to direct the level of key indicators before they are published. In the past, that image was not too far from the reality. Orlik concludes "The system is not perfect. Some data points are more reliable than others. But neither is it a farce." FRB research suggests that Chinese data are at least "systematically related" to alternative indicators, though the norming is based on Chinese government statistics themselves: On the Reliability of Chinese Output Figures http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2013/march/reliability-chinese-output-figures/ http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic... Conclusion: We found that reported Chinese output data are systematically related to alternative indicators of Chinese economic activity. These include alternative indicator indexes of Chinese activity composed of variables that are less susceptible to official manipulation, as well as externally reported trade volume measures. Importantly, these models suggest that Chinese growth has been in the ballpark of what official data have reported. We find no evidence that recently reported Chinese GDP figures are less reliable than usual.

mcv 13y ago

Finally! It is good news, I suppose, but we really should have been at this stage a long time ago. And emissions are still growing, just not as fast. We need to reduce emissions. Decoupling emissions from economic growth sounds great, but it's only slightly decoupled. We still need to get rid of coal as soon as possible. And the big economies need to have better energy solutions ready so the up-and-coming economies can use those, instead of their rapid growth sending coal use through the roof.

wyuenho 13y ago

Can someone explain to me why Reuters is reporting a completely different result from the WMO? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/greenhouse-gas-emissions-highs_n_4223800.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/greenhouse-gas-emis...

phaemon 13y ago
They're not. It's the same result. The rate of emissions is growing, but the rate of increase of the rate of emissions is falling. It's like you've reduced your acceleration from 10ms^-2 to 5ms^-2 - the distance you're travelling is still on an upward curve, and you'll still be hitting higher and higher speeds, but you'll be taking longer to reach them than you were previously.
- trendoid 13y ago
  basically like global population.

smackay 13y ago

So instead of sprinting off the cliff, we are now merely going to run off it. There's lot of wishful thinking in the idea that emissions can be decoupled from GDP - in the same way that we can all return to ever-increasing house prices to boost personal wealth, without creating bubbles. There has to be a huge increase in efficiency and a huge decrease in demand for just about everything to bring this under some degree of control. The latter is probably unthinkable for most politicians, economists and pundits. It is just possible we can innovate a way out of this but that's going to need a whole lot of change in the next 30 years - not impossible but not easy either.

mathattack 13y ago
I agree - what's required is a wholesale conversion to low-emission energy. That will impact GDP. I used to think we'd run out of coal and oil and then work our way around it, but I think that will be too late.
mcv 13y ago
While an increase in efficiency would definitely be nice, it's not a requirement for reducing emissions. If we manage to switch to emission-free energy (solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever), then the problem is basically solved. We could be as wasteful as we wanted without increasing CO2 emissions (though it may still have other costs of course). And we have the technology required for this. We just lack the political will. Of course going completely emission-free will still be hard, but if we could just get rid of all the big coal and oil burning plants, that would already make a huge difference. (Disclaimer: I'm no fan of Uranium fission, but it's still much better than coal. While I'd prefer to switch to something better than Uranium, a switch from coal to Uranium is still a vast improvement. If that switch is easier, faster and cheaper to make than a switch to something more durable, I'm all for it.)