Comments on: Understating the Mitigation Challenge, IEA 2008 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: tomfid http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11284 tomfid Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:28:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11284 I think point A is incorrect. Eyeballing the graph, IEA is putting current energy-related emissions at between 28 and 29 GtCO2. The GCP report you link puts 2007.5 total emissions at 8.47 GtC or 31 GtCO2, not 31.5. The GCP fossil fuel number is 29.6. GCP includes cement; IEA may not, in which case the GCP number should be deflated to 28.5 for energy-related emissions only. Thus IEA and GCP apparently agree, well within the 5% error cited by GCP. I think point A is incorrect. Eyeballing the graph, IEA is putting current energy-related emissions at between 28 and 29 GtCO2. The GCP report you link puts 2007.5 total emissions at 8.47 GtC or 31 GtCO2, not 31.5. The GCP fossil fuel number is 29.6. GCP includes cement; IEA may not, in which case the GCP number should be deflated to 28.5 for energy-related emissions only. Thus IEA and GCP apparently agree, well within the 5% error cited by GCP.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11282 Roger Pielke, Jr. Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:55:13 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11282 Thanks Hans, now fixed. I agree that emissions growth rates are highly uncertain. Thanks Hans, now fixed. I agree that emissions growth rates are highly uncertain.

]]> By: Hans Erren http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11280 Hans Erren Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:43:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11280 Hi Roger, First, the graph in magnification still has the wrong 1.6% label. Secondly, I think you underestimate the effect of recessions on emission growth. I plotted Dow Jones year to date growth together with CO2 emission growth, using global emission data from CDIAC: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/dji_emis.gif So I don't think the current emission trend is sustainable: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2sres.gif In the end it all depends how smoothly China will move into real free market economy, and when (not if) the recession will hit China. Hi Roger,

First, the graph in magnification still has the wrong 1.6% label.
Secondly, I think you underestimate the effect of recessions on emission growth. I plotted Dow Jones year to date growth together with CO2 emission growth, using global emission data from CDIAC:
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/dji_emis.gif
So I don’t think the current emission trend is sustainable:
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2sres.gif

In the end it all depends how smoothly China will move into real free market economy, and when (not if) the recession will hit China.

]]> By: Climate Research News » Emission Impossible: Meaningful Atmospheric CO2 Reductions http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11279 Climate Research News » Emission Impossible: Meaningful Atmospheric CO2 Reductions Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:46:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11279 [...] See related post on Prometheus: ‘Understating the Mitigation Challenge, IEA 2008′ [...] [...] See related post on Prometheus: ‘Understating the Mitigation Challenge, IEA 2008′ [...]

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11276 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:55:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11276 Hi Saint- I'm not sure that future emissions can be predicted with much accuracy. hence, mitigation policy has to be robust to a wide range of possibilities. The Pielke, Wigley, and Green Nature paper explained why the models incorporate such low growth rates, as compared to what has actually been occurring. The IEA (and others) would be far better served by presenting policies across a much wider range of assumptions, rather than picking out a single set. The IEA policy proposals do not work at emissions growth rates much higher than the baseline. What then? Thanks . . . Hi Saint-

I’m not sure that future emissions can be predicted with much accuracy. hence, mitigation policy has to be robust to a wide range of possibilities.

The Pielke, Wigley, and Green Nature paper explained why the models incorporate such low growth rates, as compared to what has actually been occurring.

The IEA (and others) would be far better served by presenting policies across a much wider range of assumptions, rather than picking out a single set. The IEA policy proposals do not work at emissions growth rates much higher than the baseline. What then? Thanks . . .

]]> By: Saint http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11273 Saint Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:44:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11273 Roger: The models I've seen use annual growth rates anywhere from about 1.2 to 2.3 percent. EIA's is about 1.7 percent, if I recall. The IGSM model has at roughly 2.3 percent the highest growth rate of the three models highlighted in the CCSP 2.1 report. I agree with you that 1.4 percent is probably bit on the low side. I guess my larger point is that without better emissions data, particularly from developing countries, we're stuck debating over which estimate from which source is better, and that has very real impacts on policy, as you suggest. The notion of developing countries aiming for a "significant deviation" below their BAU baseline is one that is gaining a bit of traction, but without proper emissions data and, based on that, reasonable projections, I don't see how this works. Roger: The models I’ve seen use annual growth rates anywhere from about 1.2 to 2.3 percent. EIA’s is about 1.7 percent, if I recall. The IGSM model has at roughly 2.3 percent the highest growth rate of the three models highlighted in the CCSP 2.1 report. I agree with you that 1.4 percent is probably bit on the low side. I guess my larger point is that without better emissions data, particularly from developing countries, we’re stuck debating over which estimate from which source is better, and that has very real impacts on policy, as you suggest. The notion of developing countries aiming for a “significant deviation” below their BAU baseline is one that is gaining a bit of traction, but without proper emissions data and, based on that, reasonable projections, I don’t see how this works.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11270 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:48:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11270 Saint- Thanks, I'm not sure what you are unconvinced about. Co@ concentrations in the atmosphere are well measured, and they match up well with the GCP estimates. For the past several years 3.0% is not a high growth rate, it is low as the actual rate has been estimated at 3.3% (see GCP). More importantly, do you really think that 1.4% CO2 growth rate to 2030 should be the basis for policy planning? Saint-

Thanks, I’m not sure what you are unconvinced about. Co@ concentrations in the atmosphere are well measured, and they match up well with the GCP estimates. For the past several years 3.0% is not a high growth rate, it is low as the actual rate has been estimated at 3.3% (see GCP).

More importantly, do you really think that 1.4% CO2 growth rate to 2030 should be the basis for policy planning?

]]> By: Saint http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11269 Saint Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:06:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11269 Roger: This is a bit unconvincing, Roger. For instance, EIA's IEO estimates energy-related CO2 emissions were about 28.1 gigatons in 2005. If you apply a (high) 3% annual growth rate, the figure for 2007 comes out to about 29.8 gigatons, which is not all that far off from IEA's estimate. (A 2% growth rate would yield 29.2 gigatons in 2007, which is just about what IEA estimates.) The Global Carbon Project does fine work, but I'm not convinced its estimates should be treated with any more deference than those produced by IEA, EIA, or other groups. These different estimates do, however, highlight what is really one of the big scandals in this whole climate change debate: We really do not have a good handle on global GHG emissions. And as your analysis shows, even a relatively small error now can translate into a large error (+ or -) down the road. Roger: This is a bit unconvincing, Roger. For instance, EIA’s IEO estimates energy-related CO2 emissions were about 28.1 gigatons in 2005. If you apply a (high) 3% annual growth rate, the figure for 2007 comes out to about 29.8 gigatons, which is not all that far off from IEA’s estimate. (A 2% growth rate would yield 29.2 gigatons in 2007, which is just about what IEA estimates.) The Global Carbon Project does fine work, but I’m not convinced its estimates should be treated with any more deference than those produced by IEA, EIA, or other groups. These different estimates do, however, highlight what is really one of the big scandals in this whole climate change debate: We really do not have a good handle on global GHG emissions. And as your analysis shows, even a relatively small error now can translate into a large error (+ or -) down the road.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11268 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:23:08 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11268 Typo now fixed Typo now fixed

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718&cpage=1#comment-11267 Roger Pielke, Jr. Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:31:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4718#comment-11267 Typo alert -- The label for D should say 2% per year. Thanks to an alert reader. I'll fix soon. Typo alert — The label for D should say 2% per year. Thanks to an alert reader. I’ll fix soon.

]]>