01 July 2010

Decelerating Decarbonization of the Global Economy

Today, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency released new data on estimated 2009 carbon dioxide emissions. Here is how the NEAA characterizes the findings in a press release:
Despite the continued economic crisis, global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, have remained constant in 2009, as strong increases in CO2 emissions from fast-growing developing countries, such as China and India, have completely nullified CO2 emission reductions in the industrialised world.
As readers here know (and as readers of The Climate Fix will learn), a focus on emissions is only part of what matters, as economic growth is an important driver of emissions growth. The variable that matters most for efforts to achieve targets for the stabilization of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic activity. A reduction in this ratio means that the economy has become more energy efficient and/or is transitioning toward carbon neutral energy generation. In other words, decarbonization is a measure of technological progress in energy use and supply.

So with the 2009 data in hand, how are we doing? Not good.

The graph at the top of this post shows the decarbonization of the global economy 1990 to 2009, with 1990 set to 1.0, using emission data from the NEAA and economic data from Angus Maddison (Note: 2009 GDP is estimated based on growth rate found in the IMF data). I also did the same analysis with economic data from the IMF, reaching the same conclusions. I prefer the Maddison data because it allows cross-country comparisons, and it is also the basis of the analyses in The Climate Fix. The data shows a pronounced slowdown in the rate of decarbonization of the global economy, exactly the opposite effect that climate policies are supposed to be having. This can be seen even more dramatically in the following chart, which shows the annual rate of decarbonization, with a trend line super-imposed in green.

This graph shows that the pace of decarbonization has slowed dramatically in recent decades, with important consequences for climate policies. Tom Wigley, Chris Green and I discussed this emerging trend in Nature in 2008 (PDF). To get a sense of what is needed to achieve low stabilization targets (the exact number does not matter, but say 450 ppm), the world would need to achieve annual rates of decarbonization of more than 5-6% for many decades.

The fact that emissions did not increase from 2008 to 2009 is not good news, nor is it a reflection of the positive effects of climate policies. The one-year stabilization occurred because of the dismal state of the economy in North America and Europe, a condition that policy makers are quickly trying to remedy. When economic growth resumes, so too will growth in emissions in these regions. Meanwhile, the world as a whole took a step backwards in terms of decarbonizing the global economy. The world is falling short in terms of energy technology innovation, with consequences that will reach much further than climate policies alone.

16 comments:

Craig 1st said...

"The variable that matters most for efforts to achieve targets for the stabilization of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic activity. A reduction in this ratio means that the economy has become more energy efficient and/or is transitioning toward carbon neutral energy generation."

IMHO, no it does not. If there is some "tipping point" with the consequences of doom beyond the precipice, then spreading the increase over greater units does not arrest arrival at that precipice. If there is no such edge, then what is all the fuss about?

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-1-Craig 1st

You do not appear to be quibbling with this post, but rather with the notion of decarbonization, fair enough?

Are you against decarbonization in general, or just certain justifications in support of decarbonization?

jstults said...

Are you against decarbonization in general, or just certain justifications in support of decarbonization?
Is decarbonization Good or just good?

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-3-jstults

It is good, and also just ;-)

Craig 1st said...

Roger - 2

"Yes" as to your first question.

Your second question misses the mark. IMHO, unless decarbonization is measured in absolute terms, it is meaningless to addressing whatever the knock on effect to an atmospheric build up. It's not contingent upon spreading the concentration over a base number of units of measure. The speed of sound doesn't depend on the number of jets flying in formation at a certain speed.

Tom said...

Roger, it seems to me that our efforts to combat climate change might introduce some confounding variables that make this metric a bit less of an all-in-one statistic to trust.

If we build a windfarm for x dollars, it is more expensive than a coal plant that produces the same energy. We are emitting less carbon but spending more money in the process. Does this not show up badly in our decarbonisation process? As we are likely to spend about $162 billion this year on renewables--mostly wind and solar, mostly more expensive than the energy sources they replace, will that not make this statistic less reliable?

Will not the same logic work for money invested in energy efficiency? It takes time to pay that back...

Am I making an error in logic somewhere?

Frontiers of Faith and Science said...

If the graph shows anything, it shows that the there is a negative relationship between climate hysteria and decarbonization.
A graph of climate catastrophe predictions vs. manifestations pf climate catastrophe would probably look very similar.

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-5-Craig 1st

I don't get your second point. A decarbonization ratio can be made consistent with a stabilization target. For instance, to achieve emissions reductions of , say 80%, by 2050 requires a ratio of <0.10 (for a wide range of economic growth scenarios).

-6-Tom

Since decarbonization explicitly recognizes GDP, then actions that are economically harmful will not help decarbonization. This is an important reason why a focus on decarbonization rather than emissions is more relevant.

Carrick said...

I would think that part of the reason for economically-driven decarbonization is the investment in new, more efficient technologies.

During recessions there is less money available for new investment, and, for that reason, one shouldn't be surprised to see a "minimum" in the growth of decarbonization during periods of extended economic downturn.

zoo said...

Given the lack of current cost competitive, scalable, deployable alternatives, couldn't this graph simply be showing a saturation effect of the small number of niches into which decarbonized solution effictively compete (e.g. remote/off grid, subsidized, etc).

i.e. the tail end of the "low hanging fruit"?

Also, how does this correlate to the $/Quad for carbon-centric sources?

Harrywr2 said...

I find this line from the NEAA report interesting

"In 2009, CO2 emissions jumped by 9% to 8.1 billion tonnes, even though China has doubled its installed wind and solar power capacity for the fifth year in a row."

/sarc on
9 out of 10 environmentalists agree that windmills and solar panels will solve all of the worlds problems...this must be a lie.
/sarc off

jae said...

Don't count on wind for decarbonization!

http://www.masterresource.org/category/windpower/emissions-reduction-wind/

Probably applies equally to solar.

No magic.

Frontiers of Faith and Science said...

Isn't it telling that as the hype and attention, sturm and drang over AGW has increased, the rate of decarbonization has decreased?
This is in a sense the most damning evidence regarding the AGW community yet produced. Billions upon billions spent, and not one thing to show for it beyond the acquisition of power.

charlesahart said...

Want to get serious about decarbonization?

You can see the new LFTR article

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/4/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors

here

http://energyfromthorium.com/

Craig 1st said...

--8-- Roger Pielke, Jr.

Sorry, I've been away. Let me clarify my example. Think of the climate tipping pt. being like the sound barrier. When a certain pt. is reached -- Boom! according to some. A better example is a single jet plane carrying 10 people and another plane carrying 100 people. Spreading the speed over the number of passengers doesn't affect the sound barrier tipping point for the jet.

Peter Lang said...

Craig 1st

I don't understand your analogy with the jests. Analogies seldom work for me. Let's work with the CO2 emissions instead. Consider the first chart on this thread. Emissions intensity of the economy has improved relative to 1990. In 2009 was 0.75 of what it was in 1990.

Roger says this ration needs to get to <0.10 by 2050 to reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels, and this applies for a wide range of GDP growth scenarios.

This seems right to me. If we assume global GDP will double by 2050 in real terms, and energy intensity per GDP will reduce to 10% of what it was in 1990, then the emissions in 2050 will be:

1990 emissions intensity x 2 x 0.10 = 20% of 1990 emissions.

That ism and 80% reduction on 1990 emissions.

And, as Roger says, the result is relatively insensitive to GDP.

Post a Comment