The big mistake the Utility industry made in the 1970s was, they assumed that GDP growth and electricity consumption were joined and the hip and inseparable, that there was absolutely no elasticity or price sensitivity in demand.
Along came the OPEC embargo, oil prices spiked, and between 1973 and 1975, big power users found out they could make huge cuts in energy use and still remain competitive, in fact, even more so. Amory Lovins has been eating out on this concept ever since.(see below)
Throughout the 20th century, the global economy was fueled by burning coal to run factories and power plants, and burning oil to move planes, trains and automobiles. The more coal and oil countries burned — and the more planet-warming carbon dioxide they emitted — the higher the economic growth.
And so it seemed logical that any policy to reduce emissions would also push countries into economic decline.
Now there are signs that G.D.P. growth and carbon emissions need not rise in tandem, and that the era of decoupling could be starting. Last year, for the first time in the 40 years since both metrics have been recorded, global G.D.P. grew but global carbon emissions leveled off. Economists got excited, but they also acknowledged that it could have been an anomalous blip.
But a study released by the International Energy Agency last month found that the trend continued in 2015. In another study published on Tuesday, Nathaniel Aden, a research fellow at the World Resources Institute, a Washington think tank, found that since the start of the 21st century, 21 countries, including the United States, have already fully decoupled their economic growth from carbon emissions. In those countries, while G.D.P. went up over the past 15 years, carbon pollution went down.
“It’s really exciting, and it suggests that countries can sever the historic link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions,” Mr. Aden said.
Of course, even if 21 countries have achieved decoupling, more than 170 countries have not. They continue to follow the traditional economic path of growth directly tied to carbon pollution. Among those are some of the world’s biggest polluters: China, India, Brazil and Indonesia.
And decoupling by just 21 countries is not enough to save the planet as we know it. Over the 15 years that Mr. Aden studied, the decoupled countries lowered emissions about 1 billion tons — but overall global emissions grew about 10 billion tons.
The question is whether what happened in the 21 countries can be a model for the rest of the world. Almost all of them are European, but not all are advanced Group of 20 economies. Bulgaria, Romania and Uzbekistan are among them.
However, it is not enough for global emissions to stall. In the interests of maintaining a planet where global temperature rise stays well below 2C, and preferably below 1.5C, the UN has said that emissions must fall to net zero in the second half of the century.
The IEA’s analysis masks considerable regional variety. The global stalling of emissions in 2014 and 2015 is the product of rising emissions in most countries, accompanied by a reduction in others.
Most of the countries that have cut their emissions have also grown their economies. This means that, for a handful of nations, the process of decoupling emissions from the economy is well underway.
The World Resources Institute, a climate think-tank based in Washington DC, has today released analysis showing which countries have achieved this decoupling, by comparing BP data on emissions to World Bank data on GDP.
The BP data contains emissions statistics from 67 countries. Of these, 21 have succeeded in decreasing their emissions while growing their GDP in the period 2000 to 2014.
Here, a recap of what happened following the jump in oil prices in the 70s, and energy efficiency in general, and a more recent video from Amory Lovins on disrupting the energy and oil industy.
Reblogged this on A Green Road Daily News.
Peter,
The purported failure of this relationship (GDP vs. CO2) is a non-starter, in my opinion; to consider just one factor–a MAJOR one: Who decides what GDP is and how it is measured–especially in the context of “Growth! Growth! Growth!” and the printing of Trillions of $ that went somewhere, had some effect…maybe found their way into that convenient political lump of clay called GDP…
I’ll stop there.
Other than that, thanks for your consistently sensible critique of the worst among us…
understood, but gotta start somewhere. happy to report alternative measures of well being.
It’s time to sign up for Goofy Graph Interpretation 101, folks, because there’s something goofy here.
The first one purports to show “decoupling” of GDP growth and CO2 emissions in the U.S., and it does to some extent, especially if one looks at shorter time segments within the time span. IMO, the key point to be gained is that CO2 emissions have gone down 6% in 14 years. Let’s do a little extrapolating and extend that into the future—-at the 6% decrease per 14 years rate, we get the following decreases relative to 2000 levels:
By 2030—12%
By 2044—18%
By 2058—24%
By 2072—30%
By 2086—36%
By 2100—42%
Swell, that’s not even a 50% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by the 22nd. century. Haven’t people been saying that we need to do MUCH better than that to avoid the 2 degree C rise etc? IMO, it doesn’t matter how much “decoupling” takes place if CO2 isn’t reduced more rapidly—-not much GDP “growth” is likely once the SHTF anyway, so the whole thing is really moot.
The first graph may not tell us much, but the second set of graphs makes no sense at all. Assuming the number %-ages given are correct, the slopes and extents of the graphs don’t add up. Compare the CO2 plots for Germany and the Czech Republic. Or the GDP plots for Finland and France and Ireland and the Netherlands (never mind Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Uzbekistan).
BTW, the total populations of the 20 countries (excluding the U.S.) is about 465,000,000, and the 15 smallest add up to only ~165,000,000. Considering that China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil (the four biggest countries (excluding the U.S.) have ~3,200,000,000 and show no signs of “decoupling”, it seems a bit premature to be getting very excited about this.
The real point, as you state is: that the whole thing is really moot.
Correlating GDP growth to CO² reductions only makes sense if you think that climate change will not be that bad and we can adapt, when in fact our survival is at stake, and if you think GDP statistics are a good measure of prosperity. Remember that climate projections are conservative (based on what we definitely know) and not on what may happen if positive feed-backs or unknowns kick in.
The graph slopes don’t make any sense, but generally support the conclusion that GDP and CO² are not strongly correlated. It seems a priori logical that the effect on an economy of CO² output or even energy input depends on a lot of other factors (value-added, types of industry, normal weather, etc.).
Don’t have scientific proof, but countries and companies (in Western Europe for instance) with energy policies (e.g., taxes on energy) often seem to hold competitive advantages over energy intensive regimes despite the fact that they are paying far more for their energy, incentivizing them to innovate and find better product and production choices and processes. As an example, take computers, where less energy consumption and better materials go hand in hand with better performance. Or Israel, where less consumption of water has boosted agricultural technology and productivity. Or Japanese cars, which did not steal market share by using more fuel.
” it seems a bit premature to be getting very excited about this.”
On the other hand, at least this may be welcome news:
http://www.samefacts.com/2016/04/energy-the-environment/dont-waste-my-time-with-confirmation/
Also, I don’t think it was Peter’s intention to share good news – but rather to skewer the consistent denier talking point that fixing AGW implies harming the economy.
Good link, and one comment is particularly interesting (check the links):
ThorntonHall 2 days ago
James, while you are on the subject of how our otherwise adaptive cognitive processes tend toward error, I think I might have stumbled onto a habit of mind that explains economics.
The question is, how does one explain the persistence of economics? Given this: https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/fundamental…
The answer, I think, is promiscuous teleology, which causes school children to believe in intelligent design until taught otherwise: https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters…
My thinking, in short, is that economics and its Marxist critics both attempt to use Newtonian mechanics as a metaphor to understand a dynamic complex system of the type that we now know is understood through the science of Darwin.
Since both sides are wrong for the same reason, no progress can be made. But why does 200 years of being wrong not cause somebody to break free? Because selection pressures have produced human beings that prefer Newtonian cause and effect that can be translated in the language of purpose (i.e., teleology). The purpose of markets is to spread information. The purpose of wages are to keep the proletariat down, etc, etc.
I post this here because the incentives of academia and publishing make this even more invisible. My only hope is that enough of my fellow blogosphere gadflies can finally get the nudist colony of Emperors to wake up to the world outside the colony
(Gonna have to think a bit more about “promiscuous teleology” once I’m fully awake).
PS As far as “the consistent denier talking point that fixing AGW implies harming the economy”, it all comes down to your definition of “harm”. In the minds of the run-amok free-market capitalists, BAU and full speed ahead on exploiting fossil fuels might have produced 58% growth in GDP instead of 28%, and a lot of Americans might agree with them IF rising employment, rising incomes, and general prosperity were the result (cough, cough, wheeze from the air pollution). All those Repugnant voters and rheir leading candidates Drumpf and Crudz seem to think so.
In Germany the economy has been decoupled from energy usage.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/infogram-gallery-images/2165581_1435053741314.png
More => http://energytransition.de/
On the same subject => 21 Countries That Reduced Carbon Emissions While Growing Their GDP
“…..more information is needed on the potential leakage of carbon emissions to other countries as nations move their industries overseas, factors that enable sustained and absolute decoupling and what’s needed to support larger-scale emissions mitigation”.
In other words, globalization is making it very difficult to come up with any “real” numbers, although the 10 to 1 ratio cited below is “real” enough, and hints at where the real problems can be found (and they’re not with the “21 countries”).
“Over the 14-year period covered here, the aggregate annual CO2 reduction for these 21 countries amounted to slightly more than 1 billion metric tons. Given that total annual global carbon dioxide emissions grew by more than 10 billion metric tons over this period, it’s clear that decoupling needs to be scaled up rapidly to have any chance of limiting average warming this century to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the current international target for preventing the worst impacts of climate change.”
And yet…. the Keeling curve shows not the slightest hint of a slowdown in the upward acceleration of atmospheric CO2. 406ppm as of this month. One problem is relying on a country’s emissions numbers, which especially for some countries, can just plain be lies. But a more serious problem is that none of what I read above takes into account ANYthing of international trade. You think all that made-in-China stuff that you buy now, and lower CO2 emission/GDP in the United States has any possible relation to each other?? There’s nothing here that dissuades me of the strong proportionality between global energy consumption and global summed GDP over all time (Tim Garrett’s work). Only global decarbonization can help, but Garrett’s work shows that the pace of global decarbonization and economic negative growth required is far higher than the happy-story policy people will admit. No one but NO ONE seems to allow the possible truth that global economic growth must end, together with very rapid decarbonization, to prevent a badly crippled future for centuries if not millennia.
Any stories which just lead to complacency that “Top People are Working on It”, and steady as she goes, carry on, we’re on the path.. etc….. is ultimately destructive of the future.
Agree again it’s the Keeling Curve that’s paramount to watch, not statistics based on best estimates and relying on voluntary figures from various international authorities.
There is no shortage of sensible ideas at re-balancing the carbon budget, without the need to look at wacky geoengineering under ocean pipe-workings.
Not surrendering to Guy and the doomer party yet. But let’s hope governments and responsible persons take up the scientific suggestions, at this few minutes to midnight hour.
“The world’s soils could store an extra 8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, helping to limit the impacts of climate change, research suggests.”
My own government still prefer to bury their heads in the sand, but they take a little peek occasionally.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160406133624.htm
The international group of scientists, whose findings are published Wednesday in the journal Nature, argue that carbon sequestration in soil has been under-appreciated and under-utilized, but has vast potential.
Their goal was therefore to synthesize a wealth of knowledge and expertise and bring it to the attention of both the public and policy-makers.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0406/A-surprising-ally-in-the-fight-against-climate-change-dirt
The study says that if all the Earth’s farmers were to manage their fields so the soil stored more carbon, the impacts of the greenhouse gases emitted from burning fossil fuels annually could be cut by between half and 80 percent.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmland-could-help-combat-climate-change/
“. the Keeling curve shows not the slightest hint of a slowdown in the upward acceleration of atmospheric CO2. 406ppm as of this month. One problem is relying on a country’s emissions numbers…”
No need to challenge China’s numbers. The Keeling curve will continue to climb even though CO2 emissions ARE dropping.
Before you can draw a direct link to CO2 and GDP one needs to understand how GDP is calculated and look to see if other factors might be “skewing” the relationship…. (unless you are of the school where you believe everything the government tells you… in which case stop reading…)
It is necessary to do a bit on ‘homework” into just how each county calculates GDP and what is “included” ie the methodology in the calculations…. (this is NOT a transparent number…. and many governments do not supply that information ) further one needs to take into consideration how the calculations etc have changed with time…. After doing this one might draw the conclusion that NO link that can be drawn between Carbon Dioxide emissions and GDP…..
By way of example, this link, to an article in Seeking Alpha, might shed a bit of light on how the US calculates GDP.
More specifically this article is about the change in the methodology that the US implemented in March of 2013…..
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1368001-u-s-governments-new-way-of-calculating-gdp
Im just now reading Naomi Kleins book This changes everything (in swedish) and she writes about the history of trade. Since these graphs only take acount internal CO2 (and not eviation) its not a true value. USA has increased its offshore production of things to China a lot since year 2000. And thats the same with Sweden and Germany. Swedish environment agency (Naturvårdsverket) have a link about co2 emissions both internal and external.
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/Statistik-A-O/Vaxthusgaser-konsumtionsbaserade-utslapp-Sverige-och-andra-lander/
great responses! Such a pleasure to be interacting here (vs. say, WUWT goons). Will follow up on those links.