After the IEA announcement, there has been much celebrating by the usual suspects , the ones who believe that WE CAN HAVE OUR CAKE (achieve more growth) AND EAT IT TOO (decrease energy consumption and emissions).

In the 40 years in which the IEA has been collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions, there have only been three times in which emissions have stood still or fallen compared to the previous year, and all were associated with global economic weakness: the early 1980's; 1992 and 2009. In 2014, however, the global economy expanded by 3%.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide stood at 32.3 billion tonnes in 2014, unchanged from the preceding year. The preliminary IEA data suggest that efforts to mitigate climate change may be having a more pronounced effect on emissions than had previously been thought...

"This gives me even more hope that humankind will be able to work together to combat climate change, the most important threat facing us today," said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, recently named to take over from Maria van der Hoeven as the next IEA Executive Director.

Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014, marking the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.

Let's get some stuff out of the way before I get into the details. First, do we believe the Chinese data on GDP growth, energy consumption and carbon emissions? NO, WE DO NOT. Do we believe that the global economy grew 3% in 2014? MAYBE IT DID, AND MAYBE IT DIDN'T. Certainly the collapse of commodity prices, especially the price of crude oil, argues against it.

But let's carry on as though we do believe all these things.

Second, let's be absolutely clear about what we're talking about here. We are talking about the decreasing carbon intensity of economic growth as discussed in Adventures In Flatland — Part II. Does the IEA "bombshell" invalidate anything I said in that essay? NO, NOT AT ALL.

Fatih Birol has "more hope" now. And the guy at Climate Central started off his report like this—

Solar, wind and other renewables are making such a big difference in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide that global emissions from the energy sector flatlined during a time of economic growth for the first time in 40 years.

Is this true? Are renewables making a difference right now? NO, THEY ARE NOT. That will become clear in this post. Are we saved? Have we begun to turn the climate situation around? NO, NOT AT ALL. Emissions "flatlined" means that emissions were the same in 2014 as they were 2013. Subsequently, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased 2.13 ppmv (parts-per-million-by-volume) in 2014, which was slightly more than the increase in 2013. Moreover, CO2 ppmv seems poised to increase more in 2015 than it did in 2014. And the bottom line here is this: that's all we care about.

SO, NO, WE ARE NOT SAVED.

Let's start off with the IEA's main chart, which I got from an article with the interesting title The conscious decoupling of greenhouse gases and economic growth.

Conscious? If you're not laughing, you have no sense of humor. Anyway, the graphic is self-explanatory.



click to enlarge

Most of the OECD growth since 2010 (7%) came from the United States. This growth was a rebound from the 2009 lows. OECD carbon emissions did not rebound, and have fallen 4% since 2010. This decrease in carbon intensity was mostly a result (in the United States) of switching from the most potent fossil fuel source of CO2, which is coal, to the least potent source, natural gas. Also, U.S. emissions increased 2% in 2013.

I could go on and on about the OECD, and the United States in particular, but the real story here is China. What happens in China has a disproportionately huge effect on global economic growth and emissions.The graphic above indicates that the Chinese economy grew 7.4% since 2013 while emissions fell 1%. That's considered a big deal because most of large spike in emissions we've had in the 21st century came from China. (Remember, we are skeptical, but we are choosing to believe the data today.)

Our first clue about China's coal consumption came in January of this year (The Guardian, January 27, 2015).

State media reported on Monday that coal production fell in 2014 for the first time this century, with production totaling 3.5 billion tons between January and November representing a 2.1% fall on the same period in 2013. The China National Coal Association (CNCA) predicted that full year production will fall 2.5% year-on-year. Meanwhile, Jiang Zhimin vice president at the CNCA, told news agency Xinhua that the sector expected production to decline by a further 2.5% this year. The industry maintains that it has been hit by a number of one-off factors, such as high rainfall leading to high levels of hydro-electric production that has in turn impacted demand for coal. Similarly, government restrictions on the export of low-quality coal hit a market that was already suffering as coal prices fell by around 20%. However, Xinhua acknowledged that much of the pressure on the coal industry is the result of demanding new environmental regulations from the Chinese government and increased investment in renewable energy, that has made China the world’s largest investor in clean technologies. The news agency said that between 2005 and 2013 emissions per unit of GDP fell 29% in China, while new figures suggest a further drop of 4.8% was achieved last year as investment in clean energy infrastructure continued to soar.

The clue we are looking for came in the third paragraph—it rained a lot

So it was good year in China for hydroelectricity in 2014, which is a "renewable'" form of energy. And the 20% drop in Chinese coal prices says a lot about economic conditions there.

Unquestionably, the Chinese government is applying pressure to clean up coal smog and get people to invest in alternative forms of energy, and that pressure will continue in coming years. Bloomberg summed up the current situation in China Carbon Emissions Decline as 2014 Global CO2 Stays Flat.

Total carbon emissions in the world’s second-biggest economy dropped 2 percent in 2014 compared with the previous year, the first drop since 2001, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimate based on preliminary energy demand data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics... The China results show that the country’s battle to rein in pollution is having a tangible effect. The world’s biggest carbon emitter, has poured money into clean energy sources such as solar, wind and hydro developments, while cutting its dependence on coal. China led in renewables last year with investments of $89.5 billion, accounting for almost one out of every three dollars spent on clean energy in the world, according to BNEF figures released in January. Domestic coal production is falling along with consumption. China’s coal consumption fell 2.9 percent in 2014 from the previous year, the first drop in at least a decade, said Tian Miao, a Beijing-based analyst at North Square Blue Oak Ltd., a research company in London with a focus on China. China’s energy consumption growth weakened to 3.8 percent in 2014, the lowest since 1998, as the economy expanded at its slowest pace since 1990.

Note in that last paragraph that energy consumption increased, indicating that the Chinese economy is still growing, albeit at a much subdued pace (see below). And what about the energy mix?

The world’s biggest energy consumer got 11 percent of its primary energy from non-fossil fuels including renewables [including hydro] and nuclear in 2014, up from 9.8 percent a year earlier, the National Energy Administration said on Dec. 31. China is targeting 15 percent of its energy from such fuels by 2020.

Next, we find that the share of coal in China's energy mix fell 1.6% year-over-year.

The proportion of coal fell to 64.2 percent last year from 66 percent in 2013, according to the NEA. Hebei, China’s most polluted province, cut coal consumption by 15 million tons, closed 141 mines and stopped work to improve 478 mines last year, Chen Guoying, head of the provincial environmental protection department, said this week. China plans to cap carbon emissions by 2030 under an agreement reached between U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping in November.

That last paragraph alludes to the Big Picture for Chinese emissions going forward, and I will discuss that below. But first, let's sum up the situation in 2014.

Would China's emissions have decreased in 2014 if their GDP growth rate [The Economist, graph left] hadn't slowed dramatically? Certainly not. Coal went begging in China last year, as we learned in The Guardian story. And it rained a lot, too.

So much for the renewables miracle people like Joe Romm are celebrating. What they should be celebrating is that China's economic growth has decelerated dramatically since 2010, even if we don't clearly know the extent of the slowdown [the graph left cites Chinese government statistics.]

What can we expect from China going forward? There was much fanfare accompanying the announcement in late 2014 that China hopes to peak coal emissions in 2020 and overall emissions by 2030. Joe Romm provided some nice charts detailing future scenarios. Mr. Romm of course does not know what he is looking at.

A peak in coal use in 2020 is also what an analysis by MIT and Beijing’s Tsinghua University finds for a peak in total CO2 emissions sometime from 2025 to 2030. That analysis is a joint project between the MIT Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and the Institute for Energy, Environment and Economy at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Tsinghua and MIT model three scenarios — No Policy, where emissions keep rising for decades Continued Effort, where CO2 plateaus around 2035, and Accelerated Effort, where CO2 peaks around 2025-2030.

Here are the scenarios for future emissions.







And here is the projected energy mix for the accelerated effort scenario.







What Mr. Romm does not understand (and does not mention) is that there is an assumed economic growth rate underlying these scenarios.

And what is that average growth rate? 4%/year? 7%/year? We don't know, although I could consult the original source to find it. Even if we don't know what the specific underlying assumption was in this particular case, that growth rate matters a lot, for it is that growth rate which will drive Chinese energy consumption, which, in turn, will largely determine China's future emissions path.

You will also notice in the energy mix chart that the share coming from "green" renewables (wind, solar, biomass, excluding hydro) is pathetically small, even in the "accelerated effort" scenario. For your amusement, you might read the Romm article I linked-in above to watch him fall all over himself trying to explain away this highly embarrassing assessment of China's energy future.

You will also notice that the oil share grows a bit and does not diminish over time. That is not my subject today; I only point out because somebody will if I don't.

In the wake of China's announcement about its efforts to reach peak coal in 2020 and peak emissions in 2030, I found exactly one (= 1, not 2,3,...,7,8,...) hard-headed, realistic assessment of those goals. It appeared in Science Daily on December 4, 2014 and was called China agrees to enhance its role in global climate change mitigation: Turning the massive 'coal ship' around won’t be easy, experts say.

A rapid process of urbanization and an expanding middle class with increasingly western tastes will keep energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in China at high levels over the next 20 years. However, changes are unfolding in China that offer promise and opportunities for cutting emissions and for promoting sustainable energy and climate policies. This is among the findings of a research project funded by the Academy of Finland and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) under the research programm on climate change FICCA.

Here are the crucial findings relating economic growth to energy consumption & emissions.

"From a global perspective, we're seeing that China is channeling investments into renewable energy. While the growth in renewable energy capacity has been fast, the demand for energy has grown even faster, forcing China to further increase its coal power capacity," says Research Director Jari Kaivo-oja from the Finland Futures Research Centre. Kaivo-oja says that the rapid rise in affluence and changing consumer preferences in China are driving up energy consumption and emissions.

"China has rapidly improved its energy efficiency per GDP unit in its manufacturing and energy systems, but the improvements won't be enough to curb the growth in energy consumption and emissions brought about by rising affluence and consumption." China's increasingly crucial role in world trade has served to further push up the country's emissions. Kaivo-oja feels that international trade issues should be given more weight in studies on climate policy. On the other hand, the rise of the service sector as a driver of economic growth in the Chinese economy is partly driving down energy consumption and emissions thanks to active financial and societal policy-making by the Chinese government.

Regarding the growth of China's non-energy-intensive "services" sector, bear in mind that as China changes its economic growth model over time, other countries (including India, of course) will take over energy-intensive industries, including manufacturing, cement making, aluminum smelting, etc.

There is nothing surprising about China's attempts to reduce the carbon intensity of its economic growth; this is a wholly expected development. History demonstrates that that is what happens as economies mature. Nevertheless, in the global economy, some countries will have to do the heavy lifting.

As I discussed in the second Flatland essay linked-in at the top, the decreases in carbon intensity required to avoid catastrophic climate change can not possibly keep up with the overall demand for more energy accompanying economic growth. And thus emissions will always rise if growth is strong. Apparently, the key word here is "strong." If growth is weak and slowing, as in China, we now know it is possible to get years like 2014 when global growth was tepid (3%) and emissions were flat. That has always been a possible outcome, I guess, though we've never seen it before.

Global CO2 emissions did not decrease in 2014. That's important to remember here. If emissions had actually decreased, that would have been real news, perhaps. And if such a never-observed event happened 5 years in row, we might begin to see some light at the end of the tunnel. To fix global warming, this never-observed event has to happen 35 years in a row.

The IEA announcement is not cause for genuine hope, nor is it part of a guaranteed future trend. As global economic growth rises and falls, so will energy consumption and emissions. History tells us that the 2014 data is most likely an anomalous blip, an outlier, though it could happen again this year if global growth remains anemic.

China's growth has faltered in the last few years, and together with its general efforts to decrease its carbon-intensity and expand its energy supply, the result in one year was some growth and a small emissions drop. That's nice, but it's not a big deal. As I observed above, if China's economic growth hadn't slowed dramatically in the last few years, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

So much for "decoupling" emissions and economic growth. This isn't rocket science, but where humans are concerned, it might as well be.

And regarding Chinese hydro-electric power generation in 2014, did I mention that it rained a lot?