Talk:Emission intensity

Intensity targets

You put this on my page:

You wrote: "The U.S. Clear Skies Act, plans to cut carbon intensity by 18% by 2012. This has been criticised by enviromentalists as it can be achieved by increasing the GDP as well as by reducing Carbon output." Can you please clarify what that means and provide citation for the criticism? --Treekids (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentance is the left overs from a pruning session I did on the article. It referes to carbon intensity as the ratio of Carbon to GDP. As this is a single number this means that it can reduced by reducing the denominator (1/3 is less than 2/3) or increasing the numerator (2/4 is less than 2/3). I think it makes sense within the context of the rest of the article (sepecially the sentance afterwards. Feel free to correct it if you find it confusing. Mike Young (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think carbon intensity is a very good measure for placing countries in the scale, nor is it as 'cross-cutting' as per capita emissions.
For example, in some impoverished third world country, USD 1000 would be worth more than in the US. Therefore, to generate USD 1000 worth of GDP, you'll have to work more and do more in the third world country than in US, therefore generate more CO2 for every 1000USD than US.
So while you may be getting more done in the 3rdworldcuntry per every ton of co2 released, it won't show in the GDP since USD1000 can get you more in that country.
In another example, due to inflation, while prices of goods and services go up, USD1000 will get you lesser and lesser. You have to do lesser and lesser to produce USD1000, which means even releasing less co2 per USD1000 made.
Therefore, carbon intensity can be brought down without reducing emissions or increasing real earnings simply due to inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SysZero (talk • contribs) 13:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Economists have standard tools for removing the effect of inflation, such as constant dollars. --Teratornis (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

World map

I take issue with the world map on this page. It shows carbon intensity as a function of GDP. I think a more sensible measure would be carbon intensity per capita. As it is, it is essentially just a map that highlights the poorest countries in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.141.83 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has: List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita. That's a different measure than greenhouse gas intensity. The most sensible measure of greenhouse gas emissions depends on the goals of the person using the measure. If the goal is to prevent dangerous climate change, then the only measure that matters is the total amount of emissions. The climate doesn't care how much money a person made by emitting, or whether emissions are unequal between countries and individuals. If instead the goal is to decide who will cut their emissions and by how much, then people can use various measures that highlight the disproportionate emissions between countries or between individuals and organizations within a country. Emission intensity is an interesting measure because almost everybody would like more wealth (i.e. greed is universal), and everybody who burns fossil fuels seems to make the argument that burning them is essential to generating wealth. If some countries burn far less fossil fuel to generate a unit of wealth than other countries, that puts pressure on the high emitters to explain why they have to burn more fuel to do the same job. --Teratornis (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Emission factor

Resolved

 – Emission factor is a redirect to Emission intensity

I propose merging carbon intensity with emission factor because both are short and cover essentially the same topic, i.e. a factor indicating the average emission rate of carbon dioxide or equivalents relative to the intensity of a specific activity. "Emission factor," "carbon intensity," or "emissions intensity" are all just different words for the same thing, and may apply to an electrical power plant, (g(CO2)/kWh,) a car, (g(CO2)/km,) a furnace, (g(CO2)/BTU,) the economy, (g(CO2)/$GDP,) or any other activity.--Yannick (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emission intensity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025164626/http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf to http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722030340/http://iga.igg.cnr.it/documenti/IGA/Fridleifsson_et_al_IPCC_Geothermal_paper_2008.pdf to http://iga.igg.cnr.it/documenti/IGA/Fridleifsson_et_al_IPCC_Geothermal_paper_2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emission intensity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722030340/http://iga.igg.cnr.it/documenti/IGA/Fridleifsson_et_al_IPCC_Geothermal_paper_2008.pdf to http://iga.igg.cnr.it/documenti/IGA/Fridleifsson_et_al_IPCC_Geothermal_paper_2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929012144/http://www.net.org/reports/rollbacks/warming.vtml to http://www.net.org/reports/rollbacks/warming.vtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707144526/http://www.naei.org.uk/emissions/index.php to http://www.naei.org.uk/emissions/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904125610/http://files.harc.edu/Projects/AirQuality/Projects/H005.2002/H5FinalReport.pdf to http://files.harc.edu/Projects/AirQuality/Projects/H005.2002/H5FinalReport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emission intensity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104202934/http://www.seai.ie/Archive1/Files_Misc/IEABioenergyAgreementTask38CaseStudy.pdf to http://www.seai.ie/Archive1/Files_Misc/IEABioenergyAgreementTask38CaseStudy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707134451/http://www.imcg.net/imcgnl/nl0702/kap05.htm to http://www.imcg.net/imcgnl/nl0702/kap05.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315073635/http://tfeip-secretariat.org/unece.htm to http://tfeip-secretariat.org/unece.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2005_report/tdm-toc_eng.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Definition of Emissions Intensity -- A proposal

Hello,

I believe that "An emission intensity (also carbon intensity or C.I.) is the emission rate " in the first line should be replaced with "An emission intensity (also carbon intensity or C.I.) is an emission rate ".

"The emission rate" implies that there is a single well defined quantity. This is the case if you are burning fuel in the presence of a good supply of oxygen, but not if you are one of millions of consumers using a service provided by a network of infrastructure providers. Many sustainability reports now use at least two distinct carbon intensity measure for power, a "location based" approach which is defined by the average of all power stations in a geographic area, and a market based value associated with a particular supplier. Using "an emission rate" will accurately convey this. The fact that multiple values are possible is already reflected in the section on Methodologies.

Mnjuckes (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)