Figure 4 shows that actual CO2 intensity is flat from 2001 to 2005 to 2 significant digits but does fall again in 2006 – not as bad as the erroneous data, but still bad. You are correct for the PPP data shown in Figure 5, although 2005 to 2006 shows a noticeable flattening that makes me curious what will happen when I integrate 2007 EIA data.

First, the economic value attributed to the imports is missing from the U.S. intensity calculation. If we’re responsible for the emissions, we should take credit for the economic value associated with them.

Second, the import and export trade figures are in current dollars. The EIA international intensity numbers are calculated using real (2000) dollars. Pegging the import and export dollar amounts to 2000 makes a significant difference.

When you convert the import/export trade figures to 2000 dollars and include the economic activity from the net imports, the amount of CO2 “outsourced” from the U.S. winds up at about 12% in 2006.

A third issue is whether to use the EIA intensity figures based on market exchange rates (what you used) or purchasing power parity. If you use EIA’s international intensity figures based on PPP instead of MER, the amount outsourced falls to just 7% in 2006.

And I should add that, whether using either the MER or PPP data, when you put the import/export figures into constant dollars and include the economic activity data in the intensity calculations, what you call the “actual” CO2 intensity of the U.S. economy, broadly defined, does not deteriorate after 2001, but continues to improve.

(BTW, the trade stats are avaialable at: TradeStats Express – National Trade Data http://tse.export.gov/MapFrameset.aspx?MapPage=NTDMapDisplay.aspx&UniqueURL=xfgli1urj3gemhmns0ufcz55-2009-1-26-13-42-34. When you go to the download center, it explains that the data are actual values in current U.S. dollars.)

You are correct about the error in my GDP numbers. Given that imports are about 1% of GDP, the offshored GDP not being included in my numbers means that my intensity values have a 1% error. That’s not enough to change the overall conclusion in any significant way, though.

As I try to be accurate and did mess up, I’ll update the numbers and post an update and explanation of the update. I’ll also post a PPP adjusted rate graph, just to see how it works out.

In calculating the emissions intensity numbers, it seems you increased U.S. emissions by the amount “offshored,” but you did not increase U.S. GDP by the amount “offshored.” That’s analytically unsound. Why should the U.S. be attributed the offshored emisssions but not the offshored economic growth that gave rise to them? This means that the real emissions intensity of the U.S., as you define it, is overstated.

That said — the global slowdown will also reduce China’s pollution dramatically. Factories are being abandon (www.ft.com) and contrary to reports from China’s government regarding growth the economy is actually shrinking — see their Electricity usage for Nov (down 9% or so, again FT.com) December will likely be much worse.

The US and UK have both dropped the number of miles driven by 5-6 % YoY and transporation is about 1/3 of Carbon production. Builders, Manufacturers, Railway and Truckers in the US have seen tremendous drops in demand, which corresponds to CO2 output.

So it looks like “Peak Credit” will buy us a bit of time -probably not much though

Excellent work, Brian.

as all libruls, you’re asking the wrong question.. The question is, “didn’t you blow your leaves into your neighbor’s yard in the middle of the night so you could avoid having to actually dispose of them properly?”.

You are coming from a position of “do the right thing first”.. that’s not a right-wing premise.. “what’s best for ME, personally, regardless of the impact to others” is the right-wing premise. Blowing that CO2 into the air while profiting more, regardless of where it gets created was the “idea”, not an unwanted consequence. Therefore, saying we should help clean up our own mess brings you full circle to why they started “blowing leaves in the middle of the night” in the first place.

If you were in their inner circles, they would say “SHHHHHHH!”

I did not use PPP-adjusted GDP, only indexed it to 2000 dollars. I have no idea what adjusting the GDP numbers for purchasing power parity would do, but it would be a relatively easy thing to do (I think…).

I can’t tell from this whether you used PPP-based GDP figures or not – what choice did you make?

Cheers,

–Paul