Showing posts with label Geography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Geography. Show all posts

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Chapter 5 and the Summary for Policy Makers

Chapter 5 was one of the main chapters of the Working Group III 5th Assessment Report at the centre of the controversy this week on so-called censorship of the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). The SPM is an executive summary of the report for the IPCC member governments. Those member governments get to dictate what points from the underlying report get included in this summary and how they are "spun". However, there is also a Technical Summary that is written entirely by the researchers responsible for the main report. The material from Chapter 5 that was in the draft SPM but eliminated in the plenary meeting in Berlin referred to emissions from specific groups of countries. This blogpost provides a quick overview of the deleted figures, some of which are still in  the Technical Summary.

The first graph breaks down emissions by broad global regions:

The developed countries are represented by the members of the OECD as it stood in 1990 (since then Mexico, Korea, Czech Republic etc. have joined). Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are designated "Economies in Transition" and the developing world is broken down into Asia (importantly including China and India), Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa. The left-hand panel shows emissions year by year since the Industrial Revolution and also breaks them down into energy and industrial and land use related emissions. The former continue to increase but the latter appear to have peaked. Since the 1970s, the majority of growth in energy and industrial emissions has come from developing countries and particularly Asia. In an attempt to better represent the historical responsibilities of each group of countries the right-hand panel shows the cumulative historical emissions of greenhouse gases by region.* China and particularly India have campaigned to get historical contributions to global warming better-acknowledged. But the results of our analysis show that less than half of the cumulative emissions now come from the developed countries as a whole (more when only energy and industrial emissions are considered). This, presumably, isn't the message that developing country delegates wanted to see.

The next controversial figure breaks down total and per capita greenhouse gas emissions by country income groups:


The leftmost panel shows total emissions which increased everywhere due to population growth. But they particularly increased in upper middle income countries (which includes China). The total emissions from this group are now almost equal to that from the high income countries. On a per capita basis, emissions were flat in the developed world and declining in the poorest countries (as emissions from land use declined). They rose in the middle income countries. The figure does, however, also show that in all developing country groups per capita emissions remain much below those in the developed countries.

The final deleted figure deals with emissions embodied in trade:


Looking at the emissions generated in producing imports and exports, the developed countries and economies in transition ("Annex B") import more "embodied" emissions than they export. The opposite is true of the developing countries ("Non Annex B"). Emissions that include the net emissions embodied in trade are termed "consumption emissions" in contrast to the "production emissions" that are the total emissions emitted within a country and are the usual way of calculating emissions.** These numbers are derived using input-output modelling. The results are often used to argue that developed countries have reduced their emissions by offshoring production to developing countries, which is a controversial question. But properly answering this question is more complicated than this. They are also used to claim that developed countries are responsible for their consumption emissions rather than their production emissions. But both importers and exporters gain from this trade. Because of these controversies I can understand the decision to drop the discussion and figure from the SPM.

* These do not directly correspond to the amounts of gases in the atmosphere. A large fraction of annual carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the ocean, vegetation etc. and methane only survives for an average of 11 years in the atmosphere before being oxidised to carbon dioxide and water. So, I am not very enthusiastic about treating cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases as an indicator of historical responsibility.

** Economists would usually use the term "production emissions" to refer to emissions from production activities  and "consumption emissions" to refer to emissions by consumers. This initially caused some communication problems among researchers from different disciplines in our chapter team.


Sunday, January 29, 2012

Scientific Collaboration Networks



This map is based on 5 years of data from Scopus and maps each joint authorship as a geographical connection. You can see a high resolution image here. This projection onto Google Earth is also pretty cool, though the resolution is no higher.

One thing I found a bit surprising was the prominent position of Brazil on the map. Another interesting thing is how integrated research is in some countries like Turkey where researchers appear to be spread evenly across the country:

Monday, January 3, 2011

Monday, December 13, 2010

Polar View

Some nice maps from GISS showing temperature anomalies for November in the Arctic and Antarctic:



It's clear from these, that though temperatures were low in NW Europe they were much higher than normal across Arctic Canada and Russia. For more information, visit Climate Progress

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Global Map of Forest Canopy Height



NASA has produced a cool map of world forest heights. Woodlands and savannas are not included so the green areas are a very low end estimate of world forest cover.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Blue and Red States and Climate Change


Source: U.S. EPA, Climate Change Indicators in the United States, April 2010.


The map above shows that there has been more climate change on average in "blue states" - those that vote Democratic than in "red states" - those that vote Republican in the US. The colors are neatly reversed (here they are the traditional blue for conservative and red for left wing). Does this partly explain the divide in US politics on climate change? But there is the same divide in Australia and to some degree in Britain. So I don't know if this has anything to do with it.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

World Values Map

I was visiting the World Values Survey website in the process of collecting more data for my EERH project.Thought I'd post this fascinating "map" from their homepage:



Not surprisingly, the English speaking countries (sorry Quebecois) are found grouped together. I found this was also the case for levels of sulfur abatement technology. Similarly the Germanic or Protestant countries occupy a common zone and Japan isn't far removed, ditto. Mediterranean Europe is also tightly grouped (with the exception of Portugal), ditto.

Israel isn't that different to Italy or Greece. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

U.S. Electric Supply and Grid


Some great maps of U.S. electricity supply and grid from NPR's website. The map above shows all power stations by size. Other maps show the share of different power sources by state (e.g. Vermont is the most nuclear state in the Union). Most importantly the transmission lines are mostly not where the best locations for alternative energy are (with the exception of some areas of the southwest near Los Angeles. Not surprisingly the latter are a hotbed of solar investment. Australia's situation is similar from what I have heard.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

George Friedman

If you've been around the investment blogosphere for a while, you've probably come across the writings of George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, a "private global intelligence firm". Today, I heard George Friedman of Stratfor speak here in Australia. I guess it was part of his global book tour. His book - the next 100 years - was on sale. Usually, I don't read the stuff he writes as it seems very boring to me. I often rely on the spin a friend in Hong Kong puts on his stuff (usually negative). It was much better in person in that regard. He started out pretty well talking about the constraints that political leaders like Obama face and the lack of choice they have with some reference to Machiavelli. He then went on to say what one would have liked to predict about the 20th century and that covered three of the major points - decline of European powers, quadrupling of global population and rise of transport and telecommunications technology. After that, the stuff about Turkey or Poland as "great powers" that I've heard mentioned in regard to his book was OK but speculative when conditioned on "only because the US will invest in Poland like in S. Korea". But whenever he talked about my areas of expertise in economics and energy or to some degree about China he made little sense and sounded very clueless or flat out wrong. For example, he stated that space based solar is inevitable because land based solar would need so much land it would be an "ecological disaster". The latter is clearly not true and no-one I know who knows anything about energy thinks that the gains from 24/7 cloudfree solar could overcome the energy costs of launching a satellite. At least not with any current technology for the size of the solar collector. His other stuff about capitalism requiring a rising price of land which can only occur due to population growth made no sense to me either... and so forth. I didn't have a very high opinion of Stratfor going in - most bloggers like John Mauldin think he is great - and this didn't change my opinion.