I’m glad you did this analysis for Canada. I have a couple questions/comments:
1) “Decarbonization ratio” seems like a confusing term to me. I would stick to Pielke’s usage of decarbonization = the (negative) rate of change in the carbon intensity of the economy (C/GDP) or “a reduction in the ratio of emissions to GDP”.
2) Maybe I’ve got myself turned around but isn’t a downward slope in the rate of change of emissions per unit of GDP what we’re aiming for?
First, Pielke's usage is definitely better than my over-simplification.
As to the direction of the trendline, you're asking a scary question, because this is just the kind of thing I could get (embarrassingly) wrong. Now I'm not sure myself. I've been rerunning the numbers and I'll update the article if necessary.
It looks like the GDP measure used is nominal GDP which is influenced by inflation. Since carbon emmissions are caused by real economic activity a more accurate measure would use real GDP.
Another consideration is GDP/capita as one can argue that the only real growth in Canada’s GDP has been from the effects of massive immigration. So if GDP/capita is actually falling, wouldn’t the downward trend in emissions/gdp be at best flat and possibly increasing? Maybe I’m wrong but I’m thinking Dr. Pielke’s ratio assumes GDP is growing although it should correct for GDP decreases.
That's a very interesting thought, and it seems to make sense. Although, to be honest, after having played around with GDP numbers for a while and seen how many ways there are to measure it, I suspect I could trick things out to deliver whatever results I want. My first goal should probably be to understand GDP a lot better (in a way that hopefully doesn't require a graduate degree in economics).
The numbers from a previous article I wrote (https://www.theaudit.ca/p/canadian-co2-emissions-are-dropping) suggest that many emissions generating companies are simply getting a lot better at what they do (i.e., the market is responding to incentives).
I’d love for someone to talk about the pressures of commodity prices and increased land values on the conversion of land from perennial covers to annual covers that are then often trench or tile drained. And overall what gain or loss happens to carbon storage and use when these landscape changes occur. Further, for the benefit or detriment, what role have policies at a variety of levels played?
I have to admit that there are a lot of moving parts to that and I was a bit lost. So I fed it to GPT and I can see that it's an absolutely fascinating set of connecting topics. GPT started me off (I'll paste the output below for other readers), but I'll have to think about how I would attack this myself.
=============
The pressures of commodity prices and increased land values on land use in Canada, especially the conversion of land from perennial to annual covers and the subsequent increase in trench or tile drainage, present a complex interplay of economic, environmental, and policy-driven factors. This transition has significant implications for carbon storage, biodiversity, water quality, and soil health, among other environmental metrics. Here's an exploration of these dynamics and the role of policies in shaping them:
### Economic Pressures: Commodity Prices and Land Values
- **Commodity Prices**: High commodity prices can incentivize farmers to convert perennial lands (such as forests, wetlands, or grasslands) into croplands for annual crops. This is because annual crops like corn, wheat, and soybeans often offer higher immediate financial returns compared to the yields from perennial crops or the economic benefits of maintaining natural ecosystems.
- **Land Values**: Increased land values encourage the conversion of land to uses perceived as more profitable, such as intensive agriculture. Landowners might be compelled to maximize short-term economic gains at the expense of long-term environmental sustainability.
### Environmental Impacts: Carbon Storage and Use
- **Loss of Carbon Storage**: Perennial covers, like forests and grasslands, are significant carbon sinks, storing carbon in their biomass and soil. Converting these lands to annual crop production can release stored carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Trench or tile drainage systems, often installed to make lands more suitable for annual crops, can exacerbate carbon loss by lowering water tables, which increases soil aeration and accelerates the decomposition of organic matter.
- **Alteration of Carbon Use**: The shift to annual crops changes the landscape's carbon dynamics. While annual crops absorb CO2 during their growth, the carbon storage is short-lived, as it is released back into the atmosphere when the crops are harvested or decompose.
### Policies and Their Impacts
- **Beneficial Policies**: Some policies aim to mitigate the environmental impact of agricultural expansion and intensification. These include incentives for sustainable farming practices, conservation easements, and payments for ecosystem services. For instance, programs encouraging the adoption of cover crops, reduced tillage, or the preservation of natural habitats can help maintain or even increase carbon storage in agricultural landscapes.
- **Detrimental Effects**: However, some policies may inadvertently encourage the conversion of perennial lands to annual crops. Subsidies for certain cash crops or biofuels, without adequate consideration for environmental safeguards, can drive land-use changes that reduce carbon storage and harm biodiversity.
- **Policy Integration and Adaptation**: The effectiveness of policies often depends on their integration across different levels of government and their adaptation to local conditions. Policies that balance economic incentives with environmental protection can guide sustainable land-use practices. This requires a holistic approach that considers the economic realities faced by farmers and landowners alongside the need for environmental conservation.
### Conclusion
The conversion of land from perennial to annual covers in Canada, driven by economic pressures like commodity prices and land values, poses challenges for carbon storage and environmental sustainability. While this transition can offer short-term economic benefits, it often results in long-term environmental costs, including reduced carbon storage. Policies play a critical role in shaping these dynamics, with the potential to either exacerbate or mitigate the environmental impacts of land-use changes. Effective policy frameworks must therefore carefully balance economic development with environmental conservation, promoting practices that sustain both the land's productivity and its ecological functions.
I can see the value in using ChatGPT as a form of grounding. I find it disorienting sometimes and we see the day to day, year over year implications in crop choices, land use change, bigger culverts being installed to accommodate shorter, more intense seasonal run off all with the backdrop of a seeming governmental push away from livestock, grasslands etc to alternate proteins. It’s a personal favourite of mine to mull over. Glad to hear it may be of some interest. Thank you for taking the time for a quick ponder.
The five year graph has the year 2020 as quite an outier. That was the same year that COVID hit and the stock market tanked. If you were to statistically "normalize" that year, I suspect the trend line would be more or less flat.
Interesting observation. I just tried normalization (by using the average of 2019 and 2021 for 2020), but the slope of the trendline didn't change enough to make updating the post worthwhile. I also get nervous when playing around with such small datasets...
You're correct of course, but I guess it's a question of proportion. Oxygen is also a good thing, but an environment consisting of 100% oxygen would be highly reactive and dangerous.
I'm a subscriber to Matthew Wielicki. He does some very good historical analysis on atmoshperic CO2 concentrations. I am now more or less of the opinion that we are on the very low end of desirable concentrations. CO2coalition.org has some very good writing on this also. And a pretty impressive roster of scientists to boot.
I think I've run into Matthew Wielicki's site before. I may subscribe.
When it comes to earth sciences, I know that I'm strictly an amateur. But I think I know enough to be able to compare policy expectations with specific outcomes. :)
I’m glad you did this analysis for Canada. I have a couple questions/comments:
1) “Decarbonization ratio” seems like a confusing term to me. I would stick to Pielke’s usage of decarbonization = the (negative) rate of change in the carbon intensity of the economy (C/GDP) or “a reduction in the ratio of emissions to GDP”.
2) Maybe I’ve got myself turned around but isn’t a downward slope in the rate of change of emissions per unit of GDP what we’re aiming for?
First, Pielke's usage is definitely better than my over-simplification.
As to the direction of the trendline, you're asking a scary question, because this is just the kind of thing I could get (embarrassingly) wrong. Now I'm not sure myself. I've been rerunning the numbers and I'll update the article if necessary.
Thanks!
You're right: I'm the one who got turned around. I've updated the article.
It looks like the GDP measure used is nominal GDP which is influenced by inflation. Since carbon emmissions are caused by real economic activity a more accurate measure would use real GDP.
Interesting. If I dive back into those numbers I'll consider using real GDP as well.
Another consideration is GDP/capita as one can argue that the only real growth in Canada’s GDP has been from the effects of massive immigration. So if GDP/capita is actually falling, wouldn’t the downward trend in emissions/gdp be at best flat and possibly increasing? Maybe I’m wrong but I’m thinking Dr. Pielke’s ratio assumes GDP is growing although it should correct for GDP decreases.
That's a very interesting thought, and it seems to make sense. Although, to be honest, after having played around with GDP numbers for a while and seen how many ways there are to measure it, I suspect I could trick things out to deliver whatever results I want. My first goal should probably be to understand GDP a lot better (in a way that hopefully doesn't require a graduate degree in economics).
I re-read Pielke’s article and see that in fact GDP/capita is considered in the equation.
https://substack.com/redirect/99a36de6-c0ce-4dd7-810d-86abf93d0bf9?j=eyJ1IjoiMXFpNnJ1In0.1kkrIOQJUeLU7_6-kVxN7icAoU6oPvyz62KmJfmbY70
I still find it interesting with Canadas slow, ie. barely growing GDP, that emissions are dropping.
The numbers from a previous article I wrote (https://www.theaudit.ca/p/canadian-co2-emissions-are-dropping) suggest that many emissions generating companies are simply getting a lot better at what they do (i.e., the market is responding to incentives).
I’d love for someone to talk about the pressures of commodity prices and increased land values on the conversion of land from perennial covers to annual covers that are then often trench or tile drained. And overall what gain or loss happens to carbon storage and use when these landscape changes occur. Further, for the benefit or detriment, what role have policies at a variety of levels played?
I have to admit that there are a lot of moving parts to that and I was a bit lost. So I fed it to GPT and I can see that it's an absolutely fascinating set of connecting topics. GPT started me off (I'll paste the output below for other readers), but I'll have to think about how I would attack this myself.
=============
The pressures of commodity prices and increased land values on land use in Canada, especially the conversion of land from perennial to annual covers and the subsequent increase in trench or tile drainage, present a complex interplay of economic, environmental, and policy-driven factors. This transition has significant implications for carbon storage, biodiversity, water quality, and soil health, among other environmental metrics. Here's an exploration of these dynamics and the role of policies in shaping them:
### Economic Pressures: Commodity Prices and Land Values
- **Commodity Prices**: High commodity prices can incentivize farmers to convert perennial lands (such as forests, wetlands, or grasslands) into croplands for annual crops. This is because annual crops like corn, wheat, and soybeans often offer higher immediate financial returns compared to the yields from perennial crops or the economic benefits of maintaining natural ecosystems.
- **Land Values**: Increased land values encourage the conversion of land to uses perceived as more profitable, such as intensive agriculture. Landowners might be compelled to maximize short-term economic gains at the expense of long-term environmental sustainability.
### Environmental Impacts: Carbon Storage and Use
- **Loss of Carbon Storage**: Perennial covers, like forests and grasslands, are significant carbon sinks, storing carbon in their biomass and soil. Converting these lands to annual crop production can release stored carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Trench or tile drainage systems, often installed to make lands more suitable for annual crops, can exacerbate carbon loss by lowering water tables, which increases soil aeration and accelerates the decomposition of organic matter.
- **Alteration of Carbon Use**: The shift to annual crops changes the landscape's carbon dynamics. While annual crops absorb CO2 during their growth, the carbon storage is short-lived, as it is released back into the atmosphere when the crops are harvested or decompose.
### Policies and Their Impacts
- **Beneficial Policies**: Some policies aim to mitigate the environmental impact of agricultural expansion and intensification. These include incentives for sustainable farming practices, conservation easements, and payments for ecosystem services. For instance, programs encouraging the adoption of cover crops, reduced tillage, or the preservation of natural habitats can help maintain or even increase carbon storage in agricultural landscapes.
- **Detrimental Effects**: However, some policies may inadvertently encourage the conversion of perennial lands to annual crops. Subsidies for certain cash crops or biofuels, without adequate consideration for environmental safeguards, can drive land-use changes that reduce carbon storage and harm biodiversity.
- **Policy Integration and Adaptation**: The effectiveness of policies often depends on their integration across different levels of government and their adaptation to local conditions. Policies that balance economic incentives with environmental protection can guide sustainable land-use practices. This requires a holistic approach that considers the economic realities faced by farmers and landowners alongside the need for environmental conservation.
### Conclusion
The conversion of land from perennial to annual covers in Canada, driven by economic pressures like commodity prices and land values, poses challenges for carbon storage and environmental sustainability. While this transition can offer short-term economic benefits, it often results in long-term environmental costs, including reduced carbon storage. Policies play a critical role in shaping these dynamics, with the potential to either exacerbate or mitigate the environmental impacts of land-use changes. Effective policy frameworks must therefore carefully balance economic development with environmental conservation, promoting practices that sustain both the land's productivity and its ecological functions.
I can see the value in using ChatGPT as a form of grounding. I find it disorienting sometimes and we see the day to day, year over year implications in crop choices, land use change, bigger culverts being installed to accommodate shorter, more intense seasonal run off all with the backdrop of a seeming governmental push away from livestock, grasslands etc to alternate proteins. It’s a personal favourite of mine to mull over. Glad to hear it may be of some interest. Thank you for taking the time for a quick ponder.
The five year graph has the year 2020 as quite an outier. That was the same year that COVID hit and the stock market tanked. If you were to statistically "normalize" that year, I suspect the trend line would be more or less flat.
Interesting observation. I just tried normalization (by using the average of 2019 and 2021 for 2020), but the slope of the trendline didn't change enough to make updating the post worthwhile. I also get nervous when playing around with such small datasets...
Explain how CO2 is harmful when it enables all plant and ocean life to flourish?
You're correct of course, but I guess it's a question of proportion. Oxygen is also a good thing, but an environment consisting of 100% oxygen would be highly reactive and dangerous.
I'm a subscriber to Matthew Wielicki. He does some very good historical analysis on atmoshperic CO2 concentrations. I am now more or less of the opinion that we are on the very low end of desirable concentrations. CO2coalition.org has some very good writing on this also. And a pretty impressive roster of scientists to boot.
I think I've run into Matthew Wielicki's site before. I may subscribe.
When it comes to earth sciences, I know that I'm strictly an amateur. But I think I know enough to be able to compare policy expectations with specific outcomes. :)