FEEDBACK

Send us your letters and comments via hard

copy or e-mail memag@asme.org (use
subject line "Letters and Comments"). Please
include full name, address and phone num-
ber. We reserve the right to edit for clarity,
style, and length. We regret that unpublished
letters cannot be acknowledged or returned.
COMMENTS MECHANICAL ENGINEERING | NOVEMBER 2013 | P.08
NOT CURBING EMISSIONS
,

BUT OUTSOURCING THEM
Y
ou see, I admit to having a hate-love relationship with the field of
economics. I enjoy insights into the human condition that economics
provides, and I enjoy the poetry of economics, a poetry revealed by
phrases such as dismal science, creative destruction, or animal spirits.
As this colorful language portrays, much of economics is not based on strong
science, hypotheses that can be tested in repeatable experiments. That said,
practicing engineers are accustomed to assumptions in the design process.
So I can manage soft theories. My problem with economics, my distaste, is
common errors due to applying these soft economic approaches to policy.
The plot below is from my presentation at the IEEE Sustainability Technology
Conference on August 2. I plotted American electric energy use from 1985 to pres-
ent. However I made the x axis percent of GDP trade with China. Please note that
there was very little trade in 1985. I separated the before and after
permanent normalized trade relations (PNTR) with China. The use of PNTR
originates from an approach in a remarkable recent article by Dr. Justin Pierce
(Federal Reserve) and Dr. Peter Shott (Yale) explaining massive job losses in
manufacturing. What you see is a dramatic change in national electric demand
after PNTR. This change is not due to a sudden improvement in efficiency or
technology. It is due to rapid outsourcing of manufacturing to China.
The plots provided in Winterss article are confounded both by including
transportation, residential, and industrial sector contributions to greenhouse
gases combined, and by including all the greenhouse gases (not just carbon
dioxide) together. I am not saying this agglomeration is incorrect, just that the
combination obscures cause and effect. Moreover, the introduction of widespread
I have taken interest in observing the changes under way
in the profession of engineering and in explaining why
these changes occur. Jeffrey Winters article on green-
house gases (By the Numbers: Cutting Carbon State
by State, September) fits into this complex tapestry of
cause and effect, technology and economics.
fracking brought gas prices down after
2005. Utilities and manufacturers are
compelled to use the lower price fuel as
their equipment allows. Generation of
electricity using the newer natural gas
combined cycle is significantly more
efficient. But that price change might
only explain the last four years.
I have begun to sort through the EPA
detailed reports (http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport.html), because it
should be possible to reconstruct the
EPA summary charts based on the green-
house gases contribution by species and
by sector.
The EPA data does not show that the
United States is becoming more efficient.
It shows that current policies are out-
sourcing carbon-intensive manufacturing.
We might point to the long-term finan-
cialization of our economy and claim that
banking and marketing are more valuable
than manufacturing or engineering. But
I bet engineers would disagree that such
a view of the future will end well due to
technology transfer, loss of innovative
capability, loss of middle class jobs, and
other deleterious outcomes. ME
DANIEL N. DONAHOE operates 1000 Kilometers PLLC, a
professional engineering consulting services firm based
in Bountiful, Utah.
R
2
= 0.94
0.00
0
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
R
2
= 0.92
y = 1,567.41x + 2,614.18 y = 325.51x + 3,514.85
BEFORE AND AFTER PNTR 19852011
NET TRADE WITH CHINA AS RATIO OF US GDP (%)
T
O
T
A
L

G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
O
N

(
B
I
L
L
I
O
N

k
W
h
)