Massive Confusion in the New York Times
January 19th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Today’s New York Times has an editorial in which it claims that:
The plain truth is that the United States is an inefficient user of energy. For each dollar of economic product, the United States spews more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than 75 of 107 countries tracked in the indicators of the International Energy Agency. Those doing better include not only cutting-edge nations like Japan but low-tech countries like Thailand and Mexico.
The first problem with this set of claims is that the New York Times confuses energy efficiency with carbon dioxide intensity of the economy. The second error is that the New York Times uses market exchange rates as the basis for evaluating U.S. carbon dioxide per dollar of GDP against other countries, rather than the more appropriate metric of international GDP comparisons using purchasing power parities.
So the New York Times makes a muddle of reality when it suggests that the United States is an “inefficient user of energy” suggesting that 70% of all contries are more efficient than the United States.
This is just wrong.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on energy consumption (BTUs) per unit of GDP (PPP) shows that the United States is more efficient than about 68% of all countries. Similarly, the United States emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP is better than 69% of countries.
To be sure, there are a number of countries that make excellent models for how the United States might become more efficient and reduce the carbon intensity of its economy, including Japan and Germany. However, as models to emulate, Mexico and Thailand, as suggested by the Times, are probably not the best examples.
Decarbonizing the economy will be an enormous task. It will be impossible if the problem is fundamentally misunderstood.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Good catch. However, while the US could no doubt learn from Japan and Germany (including what not to push), I would disagree that they would necessarily be excellent models for the US. First, Japan doesn’t have a similar endowment of energy resources as the US. Lacking any significant fossil fuel resources and, moreover, being suspicious of nuclear, it has had to be more energy efficient than the US. Secondly, both Germany and Japan have lower population densities, lower areal extent (and lower populations), which means less miles traveled per capita and more scope for mass transit. Hence, it is hardly surprising that their energy intensity is lower than that of the US. (It may also be worthwhile looking at differences in heating and cooling degree days.)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
What is left out of these much smaller geographic country comparisons, is well, they are much smaller in geographic size. As a country that spans a continent, it’s going to take more energy to travel and move goods around.
What I find most interesting about discussion with people about CO2, few know what photosynthesis is, and even less understand cellular respiration. Photosynthesis, isn’t that something you do with Photoshop? Cellular what? I know what texting is but … Carbon lifeforms could use a little education to go with that Blackberry.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think the Times was confused. They always use the data that’s most persuasive in supporting their agenda. Roger have you sent a letter to the editor?
Mike McHenry
January 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Tarpon-
Cross country comparisons are indeed likely to deceive. Using the NYT methodology the world’s three most “efficient” countries are Chad, Cambodia and the Congo.
Maurmike-
I did send in a letter, and its text is different than this blog posting, since they disallow prior published material. If it is not accepted within a week, I’ll post it up for posterity sake.
Goks-
Agreed, but since Japan and Germany are both 50% less carbon intensive than the US, there remain important lessons to be learned, even if not all the lessons can be transferred. More on this soon.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“Japan doesn’t have a similar endowment of energy resources as the US. Lacking any significant fossil fuel resources and, moreover, being suspicious of nuclear, it has had to be more energy efficient than the US. Secondly, both Germany and Japan have lower population densities, lower areal extent (and lower populations), which means less miles traveled per capita and more scope for mass transit. Hence, it is hardly surprising that their energy intensity is lower than that of the US. (It may also be worthwhile looking at differences in heating and cooling degree days.)”
It would be interesting to try to come up with a model that mimics per-capita energy use and per-capita CO2 emissions from country to country, and within countries (e.g. between states, and even within states in the U.S.).
For example, here’s a very cool (no climate pun intended) map of U.S. per-capita CO2 emissions:
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/16/newvulcan.jpg
Notice that southern Texas has some high areas. Also notice that areas of Colorado, and the San Joaquin valley in California have high emissions. The emissions for all these three places seems to correlate with oil and gas field locations:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/topfields.pdf
But also notice that Maine and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan have high emissions. That may be due to cold weather (heating requirements).
Finally, notice that Florida has some high emission areas; those are probably due to air conditioning requirements.
It would be interesting to construct a model for the U.S. based on these data, then see how well the model predicted for other countries. For example, the model would presumably predict very high per-capita emissions for oil-producing countries in the Middle East. Likewise, it would presumably predict high per-capita emissions for northern countries (e.g. Canada)…but maybe only if those northern countries were sparsely populated. For example, Maine and the Upper Peninsula have high emissions per capita, but not so for Chicago, New York City, Detroit, and other large northern cities.
Likewise, the prediction for southern countries would be high, but apparently only if those countries are pretty humid…e.g., Arizona doesn’t seem to be high-emitting.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
P.S. I see that Arizona *does* have fairly high per-capita emissions (I was going by memory). The per-capita emissions for Arizona are at least as high as Florida. So maybe humidity isn’t so important after all.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Hmmm. Just WHEN did the NYT worry about getting things correct? Maybe back in the 40’s ? No wonder their subscriptions continue to dwindle. More LOL.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Again. No need to decarbonize.
And I really don’t get pointing out the errors in the small details of the agenda pushers, while still accepting the agenda.
Even if we got off of oil and coal, ethanol and other renewables are still carbon based and windmills won’t spin long without petroleum based lubricants and their many polymer based parts. As long as we make everything out of plastic we haven’t decarbonized ANYTHING. Electric trains and cars will still carry a carbon footprint and always will, and we will still pump, refine and produce petroleum products and byproducts. Furthermore, recent study shows that computer and internet use creates a MASSIVE carbon footprint and their disposal is an environmental nightmare, so automation efficiency offers little net gain environmentally.
There exists right now, by current means, NO CARBON FREE FUTURE OR PLAN FOR ONE. FACT.
Roger, you include the word “decarbonization” in everything you write lately. Care to address my assertions?
January 21st, 2009 at 12:52 am
Jim-
“Care to address my assertions?”
Not really, though you have correctly identified that decarbonization of the global economy is a big part of my current research, so please expect to hear more about that here.
If you want to comment here using a fake name that is fine, but please don’t use the name of a real person, otherwise I’ll delete them.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 am
[...] mindset of making sure the underlying maths behind what you are saying makes sense. Roger Pielke Jr applies this mindset to the Times: Today’s New York Times has an editorial in which it claims that: The plain truth [...]