Jim Prall’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  another new rule

  Don't duck the problem by setting goals for our emissions intensity per unit of GDP (as Bush and Stephen Harper proposed at APEC this month); that may make it sound like you care and are really trying, but it leaves too much room for the economy to grow quickly, thus giving us with emissions that continue to rise even as we reduce our CO2 per dollar.
  So don't just latch on to cute wordplay to sound like you are taking action. Admit that we need targets for cutting CO2 itself. Don't dance around with other measurements.

  What if there were no hypothetical situations?

  On Advice for political leaders on how to deal with climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  intensity times something

  Dr. Dessler said it right - CO2 intensity per GDP has indeed been falling on its own without any dramatic intervention on our part. This is addressed in the work on the so-called Kaya Identity, which parses global CO2 emissions as (by definition) arising from:

  (CO2 intensity per unit energy consumption) times
  (energy intensity per unit GDP) times
  (GDP per capita) times
  population

  We have to accept that population is just going to increase, and GDP per capita is most likely to keep growing quite a lot for quite a while. So the product of the first two terms, which APEC is naming as a single element of CO2 intensity of GDP, is what we have to manage. However, since the population and world GDP are set to keep growing, we can reduce the intensity somewhat without getting any absolute reduction in total CO2 output, and that's just not enough. The only way to cut CO2 is to cut the intensity term by a good bit more than the rate of growth of the economy.
  Unfortunately with the uncertainties around forecasting future GDP, we risk having way higher CO2 emissions if we only commit ourselves to a fixed intensity target instead of a goal for CO2 emissions themselves.
  We have fairly tight bounds on the expected world population growth for the coming century, barring severe catastrophe: somewhere between 9.5 and 10.5 billion population by 2100.
  The value of (GDP per capita) is far more open-ended, with lots of room for either great increases or setbacks due to bad times, energy crises, wars, whatever. However, I'm seeing detailed estimations that foresee vast increases in world GDP per capita over the coming century.

  The energy per unit of economic output is the one that is falling consistently on its own, as a function of technological improvement and rational choices to buy efficiency to limit energy spending  (limited by the low price of fossil fuels and the absence of any cost for emitting CO2).

  CO2 per unit of energy consumption depends mostly on the mix of fuels and energy sources. This is the subject of most current policy interventions such as RPS for electricity, CAFE fleet fuel economy mandates, policies to boost renewables while discouraging coal, trying to develop CO2 sequestration, etc. I don't have any numbers at hand on this factor. The west has been shifting away from coal a bit, but China is going all out for coal-fired electricity, and we may see both tar sands and coal-to-liquids grow rapidly (at high CO2 intensity) to fill the gap as conventional oil supply becomes tight (even if it just hits a long plateau and fails to keep up with big GDP growth).

  What if there were no hypothetical situations?

  On APEC's draft plan to reduce GHG intensity will do nothing to curb emissions posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses