

First sign that humanity is slowing its carbon surge - d4vlx
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029422.800-first-sign-that-humanity-is-slowing-its-carbon-surge.html#.Unsk7fkqHnF

======
dredmorbius
"We see a decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth"

"The three biggest emitters – China, the US and the European Union – which
account for more than half of global emissions, all show this decoupling
effect."

China's GDP numbers are pretty famously shaky, and a number of alternate
indices have been proposed. For the US, a prolonged depression with some
recovery, but largely in FIRE industries, would tend to create the appearance
of growth. The EU is another mixed bag, though I haven't looked as closely at
it. In all I find the premise highly suspect.

On the positive side: fuel switching (essentially anything but coal), and
efficiency improvements (China's $GDP/bbl is less than half the US's, though
Europe's overall economic output per unit energy is very high), might actually
be starting to show an impact. Though you've got to be very careful for how
you account for both the GDP and emissions sides of the equation here.

The coupling of energy utilization to GDP is so strong, and persists over such
a long period of time (Gail Tverberg has used the Angus Maddison historical
economic dataset to trace it back 2000 years, and I find she's also looked at
the decoupling story), and recent research has shown that the "decoupling"
touted in many "advanced" economies can be shown to actually be a _shifting_
of fundamental inputs to exporting nations.

I've shown that the the growth in the economies of China and India are _very_
strongly linked to growth in energy use from 1980 - 2010:
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx8fcvYBG)

You can see the plots yourself using Wolfram Alpha:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china++GDP+%2F+%28total...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china++GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29)

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india++GDP+%2F+%28total...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india++GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29)

Additional references:

The Long-Term Tie Between Energy Supply, Population, and the Economy

Gail Tverberg, August 29, 2012

[http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-
betwe...](http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-between-
energy-supply-population-and-the-economy/)

 _When a person looks back over history, the impression one gets is that the
economy is a system that transforms resources, especially energy, into food
and other goods that people need. As these goods become available, population
grows. The more energy is consumed, the more the economy grows, and the faster
world population grows. When little energy is added, economic growth proceeds
slowly, and population growth is low._

Is It Really Possible to Decouple GDP Growth from Energy Growth?

Gail Tverberg, November 21, 2011

[http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8615](http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8615)

 _Prior to 2000, world real GDP (based on USDA Economic Research Institute
data) was indeed growing faster than energy use, as measured by BP Statistical
Data. Between 1980 and 2000, world real GDP growth averaged a little under 3%
per year, and world energy growth averaged a little under 2% per year, so GDP
growth increased about 1% more per year than energy use. Since 2000, energy
use has grown approximately as fast as world real GDP–increases for both have
averaged about 2.5% per year growth. This is not what we have been told to
expect._

Study reveals 'true' material cost of development say researchers

Matt McGrath, 2 September 2013

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-23931590](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23931590)

 _Current methods of measuring the full material cost of imported goods are
highly inaccurate say researchers. In a new study, they found that three times
as many raw materials are used to process and export traded goods than are
used in their manufacture. Richer countries who believe they have succeeded in
developing sustainably are mistaken say the authors._

On China's GDP data, two views:

How Reliable Are China's Economic Statistics?

Thomas Orlik, Jul 20, 2011

[http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1732874&seqNu...](http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1732874&seqNum=2)

 _With so much attention on developments in the Chinese economy, the
reliability of China 's economic indicators has been the subject of some
controversy. In the popular imagination, the production of China's economic
data is regarded as a crude political farce: the controlling hand of the
Communist Party intervening arbitrarily to direct the level of key indicators
before they are published. In the past, that image was not too far from the
reality._

Orlik concludes "The system is not perfect. Some data points are more reliable
than others. But neither is it a farce."

FRB research suggests that Chinese data are at least "systematically related"
to alternative indicators, though the norming is based on Chinese government
statistics themselves:

On the Reliability of Chinese Output Figures

[http://www.frbsf.org/economic-
research/publications/economic...](http://www.frbsf.org/economic-
research/publications/economic-letter/2013/march/reliability-chinese-output-
figures/)

 _Conclusion: We found that reported Chinese output data are systematically
related to alternative indicators of Chinese economic activity. These include
alternative indicator indexes of Chinese activity composed of variables that
are less susceptible to official manipulation, as well as externally reported
trade volume measures. Importantly, these models suggest that Chinese growth
has been in the ballpark of what official data have reported. We find no
evidence that recently reported Chinese GDP figures are less reliable than
usual._

------
marvin
This is good - but remember that "emissions" is already the first derivative
of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So what this article is saying is that
the _second_ derivative was ~35% lower than the average through the last
decade.

What we _need_ is to eventually have net zero _emissions_ , after a period of
having emissions low enough to be taken in by oceanic uptake and
reforestation. So obviously we are far, far away from that goal. And there is
very broad scientific consensus that we need to get there.

Negative second derivative is good, since it implies we won't have exponential
runaway in CO2 concentration. But it is just the first step on the way there.

~~~
jol
If we are talking about changing something I the way people in the whole world
acts, it takes a lot of time, the talks started long long ago, finally we see
some result of this. There is a lot of "greener" technologies developed now
and in past 2-3 years that soon will become mainstream, thus making us all
closer to the goal

~~~
marcosdumay
Are we seeing some results or is that just because fossil fuels are harder to
get (read - more expensive) nowadays?

------
smackay
So instead of sprinting off the cliff, we are now merely going to run off it.

There's lot of wishful thinking in the idea that emissions can be decoupled
from GDP - in the same way that we can all return to ever-increasing house
prices to boost personal wealth, without creating bubbles. There has to be a
huge increase in efficiency and a huge decrease in demand for just about
everything to bring this under some degree of control. The latter is probably
unthinkable for most politicians, economists and pundits. It is just possible
we can innovate a way out of this but that's going to need a whole lot of
change in the next 30 years - not impossible but not easy either.

~~~
mcv
While an increase in efficiency would definitely be nice, it's not a
requirement for reducing emissions. If we manage to switch to emission-free
energy (solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever), then the problem is basically
solved. We could be as wasteful as we wanted without increasing CO2 emissions
(though it may still have other costs of course).

And we have the technology required for this. We just lack the political will.

Of course going completely emission-free will still be hard, but if we could
just get rid of all the big coal and oil burning plants, that would already
make a huge difference.

(Disclaimer: I'm no fan of Uranium fission, but it's still much better than
coal. While I'd prefer to switch to something better than Uranium, a switch
from coal to Uranium is still a vast improvement. If that switch is easier,
faster and cheaper to make than a switch to something more durable, I'm all
for it.)

------
csmuk
The first question I'd like to ask: are we sure _we_ actually did this?

The modelling is so variable, incomplete and inconclusive from what I can see,
it's almost down to whoever manages the most statistically significant mistake
to come up with these numbers.

~~~
dredmorbius
That's pretty much exactly where I headed on this.

------
mcv
Finally!

It is good news, I suppose, but we really should have been at this stage a
long time ago. And emissions are still growing, just not as fast. We need to
reduce emissions.

Decoupling emissions from economic growth sounds great, but it's only slightly
decoupled. We still need to get rid of coal as soon as possible.

And the big economies need to have better energy solutions ready so the up-
and-coming economies can use those, instead of their rapid growth sending coal
use through the roof.

------
wyuenho
Can someone explain to me why Reuters is reporting a completely different
result from the WMO?

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/greenhouse-gas-
emis...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/greenhouse-gas-emissions-
highs_n_4223800.html)

~~~
phaemon
They're not. It's the same result. The rate of emissions is growing, but the
rate of increase of the rate of emissions is falling.

It's like you've reduced your acceleration from 10ms^-2 to 5ms^-2 - the
distance you're travelling is still on an upward curve, and you'll still be
hitting higher and higher speeds, but you'll be taking longer to reach them
than you were previously.

~~~
trendoid
basically like global population.

