Illarionovs Projections

Slide1: 

Not Even Wrong: The Problem with Dr Illarionov’s Projections Benito Müller presented at ‘Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: Issues and Challenges’ The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London 17 March 2004 Oxford Institute for Energy Studies University of Oxford (Environmental Change Institute, Philosophy Faculty, Queen Elizabeth House) Stockholm Environment Institute (Oxford) Royal Institute of International Affairs (London) benito.muller@oxfordenergy.org www.OxfordEnergy.org www.OxfordClimatePolicy.org For commentary see Notes Pages

The Kyoto Protocol incompatible with economic growth. CO2 emissions are associated with economic growth in the mid-income countries (47 countries),1960-2000: 

The Kyoto Protocol incompatible with economic growth. CO2 emissions are associated with economic growth in the mid-income countries (47 countries),1960-2000 Red components based on: A. Illarionov, THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND RUSSIA: WHAT IS TO BE DONE? National Press Club, Washington, DC, January 30, 2004, © Institute of Economic Analysis http://www.iea.ru/ Kyoto 2012 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 CO2 emissions annual growth rates, % GDP annual growth rates, % Trend Line: y = 0.44 x + 1.17 R2 = 0.71 Trend Elasticity = 1 : 0.44 = 2.3 (‘2.3% CO2 growth per 1% GDP growth’) Zero GDP growth = 72% CO2 reduction by 2050!

Slide4: 

Methodological Requirements There are two fundamental methodological requirements which need to be satisfied in order to apply the sort of ‘Trend Elasticity’ projection method used by Dr Illarionov: I. There has to be a justifiable expectation that the correlation (the ‘trend’) continues to exist during the projection horizon. II. There has to be a justifiable expectation of how the correlation will evolve during the projection horizon.

The Kyoto Protocol is incompatible with wealth accumulation. СО2 emission are associated with economic growth in developed economies, too (38 countries), 1991-2000 : 

The Kyoto Protocol is incompatible with wealth accumulation. СО2 emission are associated with economic growth in developed economies, too (38 countries), 1991-2000 Trend Elasticity = 1: 0.53 = 1.89 Red components based on: A. Illarionov, THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND RUSSIA: WHAT IS TO BE DONE? National Press Club, Washington, DC, January 30, 2004, © Institute of Economic Analysis http://www.iea.ru/ Zero GDP growth = 81% CO2 reduction by 2050!

Slide6: 

Data Sources: GDP: IMF The World Economic Outlook (WEO) Database April 2003; 1970-2000; Local currency, fixed prices CO2: CDIAC; Total Emissions (excluding land-use). y = 0.46x + 0.0207, R2=0.64 CO2 Growth GDP Growth Dr Illarionov’s ‘Developed Country’ Case Revisited Trend Elasticity = 2.2

Slide7: 

Dr Illarionov’s ‘Developed Country’ Case Revisited CO2 Growth GDP Growth y = 0.007x + 0.0207, R2=0.0003 Trend Elasticity = 143

Slide8: 

Correlation Indices R2 Trend Elasticities Trend Periods Dr Illarionov’s ‘Developed Country’ Case Revisited

Slide9: 

CO2 Growth GDP Growth y = –2.91x – 0.095, R2 = 0.71 Russia Czech R. Ukraine Kazakhstan 7.2% GDP p.a. growth (i.e. doubling of GDP) over 10 years = 45% reduction of emissions Correlations: Spurious or Not Spurious? Trend Elasticity: -0.34 ‘–0.34% CO2 growth per 1% GDP growth’ “Green Trend” Countries? (18)

Slide10: 

Conclusions Dr Illarionov’s arguments are fundamentally flawed. (II) Even if he were justified in this assumption, his second assumption that these correlations are constant over time is not justified. (I) They are based on the unjustified assumption that certain current correlations (‘trends’) will continue to exist during his chosen 10 to 50 year projection horizons. His conclusions and projections based on these arguments must therefore be rejected as ill-founded. They are not a matter of a different but justifiable opinion that may or may not be wrong. They are ‘not even wrong’ but simply nonsense. The only reliable way to make projections about GDP or emissions (or anything else) is by way of dynamic methods such as used in economic modelling.

Slide11: 

Statistical Appendix: Frequency of CO2 Elasticities: All Countries, 1980-98, GDP growth between 6% and 8% p.a. A Frequency analysis of the elasticities which have occurred in the context of economic growth between 6% and 8% over the last twenty years reveals that half of them were below 0.8 (the median of the distribution)