This looks useful:
CO2scorecard.org. From their vision statement:
CO2 Scorecard Group aims to emerge as the world’s leading resource for CO2 emissions data and metrics, and an important node in the overall information architecture to support the climate management goals of countries, cities, corporations and the general public around the world. We are guided by our belief that modern internet technology and the increasing trend of open data initiatives by public and private organizations around the world make it possible to deliver meaningful performance analytics to a wide range of stakeholders who are interested in the inter-generational challenge of climate change.
Have a look, let us know what you think.
4 comments:
An enormous amount of visual bias. Belching stacks, enhanced urban lighting as seen from space, simple charts that enhance the y axis,...
I am on my guard.
The last thing we need is even more obsession on CO2.
Perhaps it is time to reflect more on what Dr. Pielke, Sr. said recently about CO2?
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/update-to-andy-revkins-question-in-2005-is-most-of-the-observed-warming-over-the-last-50-years-likely-to-have-heen-due-to-the-increase-in-greenhouse-gas-concentrations%E2%80%9D/
This is a commendably thorough gathering together of the various relevant databases in common use, most of which are produced by official bodies. Unfortunately, the reliability of many of these estimates is open to serious question, which may be magnified in the case of derived estimates such as energy and emissions intensities by large error margins in both the numerator and denominator of the derived ratios.
Consider, for example, the estimates of CO2 emissions produced by the US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. A press release from ORNL on 24 September 2008 ("CO2 emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report") cited Gregg Marland of the Laboratories' Environmental Sciences Division as emphasising "That these emissions numbers [of national emissions] are subject to some uncertainty - about 5 percent for the United States but probably as much as 20 percent for China."
Estimates of levels and trends in carbon intensities also depend on estimates of national real GDP and their trends over time. According to the official estimates of China's GDP in constant (average 1990) national currency, China's real GDP increased by a factor of 5.89 between 1990 and 2008, representing an average annual rate of growth of 10.3% annually (Data from IMF World Economic Outlook database, April 2010 edition).
The corresponding growth in GDP as estimated by the late Angus Maddison (died 24 April 2010) on his website database (recently updated to incorporate estimates up to 2008) was an increase by a factor of 4.20 over the 18-year period, representing an average annual rate of growth of 8.3% annually.
The difference in the two estimates between 10.3% and 8.3% annual growth in estimated real GDP translates into a difference between 4.0% and 2.0% in average annual growth in carbon intensity, using the CDIAC emissions data in both cases. Obviously a discrepancy of this magnitude makes all the difference in judging whether or not China's emissions target for 2020 is or is not more stringent than usual.
The most urgent need is not for more stylish presentation of the same basic data, but for the various databases to be subjected to in-depth scrutiny (and by independent research institutes, not by bodies such as the World Bank and the International Energy Agency whose statistical arms are of necessity heavily influenced by pressures from national authorities and the policy and politically-oriented leaders of the organisations concerned).
I like this post:
http://www.co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/11
"CO2 intensity" must be the cleverest phrase in climateering since "E.On F.Off". Didn't we used to call this energy efficiency?
Post a Comment