Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Co2 In Europe

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Co2 In Europe

    The EU has decided to reduce by 20% the emissions of greenhouse gases in 2020.

    What was the situation in 2003 (supposed not to be very different from today)?

    CO2 emissions per capita in the EU and in developing countries
    tonnes


    Source: European Environment Agency (EEA) for EU countries and International Energy Agency (IEA) for DAC countries



    2003

    LATVIA 3.0
    LITHUANIA 3.2
    ROMANIA 4.5
    Portugal 5.5
    SWEDEN 5.6
    HUNGARY 5.7
    SWITZERLAND 5.7
    ICELAND 6.2
    MALTA 6.2
    BULGARIA 6.3
    France 6.4
    SPAIN 7.2
    SLOVAKIA 7.4
    SLOVENIA 7.5
    NORWAY 7.6
    ITALY 7.9
    POLAND 8.1
    AUSTRIA 8.3
    EU 25 8.5
    EU 15 8.6
    CYPRUS 8.8
    UNITED KINGDOM 9.1
    GREECE 9.2
    GERMANY 10.2
    NETHERLANDS 10.4
    IRELAND 10.5
    DENMARK 10.6
    BELGIUM 11.2
    CZECH REPUBLIC 11.3
    FINLAND 13.5
    ESTONIA 13.9
    Luxembourg 22.1
    Serious differences around the average

    Now, what has changed since Kyoto

    % 1992 2003 Diff

    LITHUANIA -61.90 8.4 3.2 -5.2
    LATVIA -40.00 5.0 3.0 -2.0
    Luxembourg -18.45 27.1 22.1 -5.0
    ESTONIA -17.26 16.8 13.9 -2.9
    CZECH REPUBLIC -14.39 13.2 11.3 -1.9
    SLOVAKIA -13.95 8.6 7.4 -1.2
    POLAND -13.83 9.4 8.1 -1.3
    ROMANIA -10.00 5.0 4.5 -0.5
    GERMANY -8.93 11.2 10.2 -1.0
    SWITZERLAND -8.06 6.2 5.7 -0.5
    ICELAND -7.46 6.7 6.2 -0.5
    UNITED KINGDOM -6.19 9.7 9.1 -0.6
    BULGARIA -5.97 6.7 6.3 -0.4
    SWEDEN -5.08 5.9 5.6 -0.3
    France -4.48 6.7 6.4 -0.3
    These countries have reduced their CO2 per capita, despite a continuous (although limited) growth.

    % 1992 2003 Diff

    DENMARK -0.93 10.7 10.6 -0.1
    HUNGARY 0.00 5.7 5.7 0.0
    BELGIUM 0.00 11.2 11.2 0.0
    MALTA 1.64 6.1 6.2 0.1
    These countries have not significantly moved.

    % 1992 2003 Diff

    NETHERLANDS 4.00 10.0 10.4 0.4
    ITALY 12.86 7.0 7.9 0.9
    CYPRUS 14.29 7.7 8.8 1.1
    SLOVENIA 17.19 6.4 7.5 1.1
    IRELAND 20.69 8.7 10.5 1.8
    Portugal 22.22 4.5 5.5 1.0
    GREECE 22.67 7.5 9.2 1.7
    AUSTRIA 23.88 6.7 8.3 1.6
    SPAIN 26.32 5.7 7.2 1.5
    NORWAY 26.67 6.0 7.6 1.6
    FINLAND 29.81 10.4 13.5 3.1
    Netherlands, Ireland and Finland, above EU average in 92 have still increased their figures in 2003.

    Situation of the most populated countries (above 40 millions)
    % 1992 2003 Diff Pop

    POLAND -13.83 9.4 8.1 -1.3 40.00
    GERMANY -8.93 11.2 10.2 -1.0 80.00
    UNITED KINGDOM -6.19 9.7 9.1 -0.6 60.00
    France -4.48 6.7 6.4 -0.3 60.00
    ITALY 12.86 7.0 7.9 0.9 60.00
    SPAIN 26.32 5.7 7.2 1.5 40.00
    340.00

    What is your opinion about the 20% reduction in 2020?
    Last edited by DAVOUT; March 27, 2007, 05:29.
    Statistical anomaly.
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Eastern Europe is an interesting case, given the economic situation there at that time. Poland surprises me to an extent, because I thought that they were ramping up their use of coal in recent years (hidden by the fact the figures you show are 2003)
    One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

    Comment

    • #3
      I thought it was well-known that the communist countries were some of the worst polluters (in comparison to what they produced). I assumed that was because they were using old/inefficient technologies. Modernizing their facilities could've resulted in lowering emissions, right? Also, their economies may have transitioned away from industry to other sectors. Just a guess.

      -Arrian
      grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

      The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

      Comment

      • #4
        I would assume it's to do with the use of coal rapidly declining.

        My interest lies in the fact that 1992-ish is an abnormal period to be using given the change in economies and the way they were run. It's a bit like using 1930 as a baseline for US economic activity in the 1930s. If you use 1929 and you see a different picture.

        i.e I think using a base year or a percentage target is not the way to go about things, in and of itself.
        One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by Arrian
          I thought it was well-known that the communist countries were some of the worst polluters (in comparison to what they produced). I assumed that was because they were using old/inefficient technologies. Modernizing their facilities could've resulted in lowering emissions, right? Also, their economies may have transitioned away from industry to other sectors. Just a guess.

          -Arrian
          Your guess is supported by the large amount of investments made in Poland during this period, particularly by "Old Europe".
          Statistical anomaly.
          The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by Dauphin
            I would assume it's to do with the use of coal rapidly declining.

            My interest lies in the fact that 1992-ish is an abnormal period to be using given the change in economies and the way they were run. It's a bit like using 1930 as a baseline for US economic activity in the 1930s. If you use 1929 and you see a different picture.

            i.e I think using a base year or a percentage target is not the way to go about things, in and of itself.
            You are certainly right, generally speaking, but in this particular case, I observe :
            1. The additions of 15 and 25 countries does not show a significant difference, which is likely due to the small economic weight of the last ten countries;
            2. The percentage target can hardly be avoided when you need to built an agreement between 25 countries.
            Statistical anomaly.
            The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Co2 In Europe

              Originally posted by DAVOUT
              The EU has decided to reduce by 20% the emissions of greenhouse gases in 2020.
              Have fun freezing to death in the coming ice age while all of us in North America are kept warm by our CO2

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Co2 In Europe

                Originally posted by DAVOUT

                What is your opinion about the 20% reduction in 2020?
                We gradually stopped farting, do you expect us to start sucking them back? Old europe
                Originally posted by Serb:Please, remind me, how exactly and when exactly, Russia bullied its neighbors?
                Originally posted by Ted Striker:Go Serb !
                Originally posted by Pekka:If it was possible to capture the essentials of Sepultura in a dildo, I'd attach it to a bicycle and ride it up your azzes.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Whatch out for those smug emmissions, fellas...

                  -Arrian
                  grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                  The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Well, up north here, it's pretty cold. Maybe you can come and warm our houses with your communism.
                    In da butt.
                    "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
                    THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
                    "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DAVOUT


                      You are certainly right, generally speaking, but in this particular case, I observe :
                      1. The additions of 15 and 25 countries does not show a significant difference, which is likely due to the small economic weight of the last ten countries;
                      2. The percentage target can hardly be avoided when you need to built an agreement between 25 countries.
                      Set targets, but I find it odd that one would set a target and then see if it can be acheived, rather than see what can be acheived and set a motivational minimum target based on it. That is, unless you are a government body. Once you do that you would hopefully see that 20% is not going to be applicable to all countries and that the methodology employed is not going to acheive desired results.

                      i.e the statistics you have in the OP, whilst having a use, are not good in setting future objectives.
                      One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dauphin


                        Set targets, but I find it odd that one would set a target and then see if it can be acheived, rather than see what can be acheived and set a motivational minimum target based on it. That is, unless you are a government body. Once you do that you would hopefully see that 20% is not going to be applicable to all countries and that the methodology employed is not going to acheive desired results.

                        i.e the statistics you have in the OP, whilst having a use, are not good in setting future objectives.
                        It is permissible to hope that the European Evironment Agency has more detailed objectives. I would like to see them but not yet found.
                        Statistical anomaly.
                        The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          You know for this kind of thing that the government sets these targets and when they fail to meet them they have the ultimate cop out: that the economy has been doing so well under their administration that they couldn't possibly have met the targets and are sorry, but not really
                          Speaking of Erith:

                          "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            These targets will be laughed at in 2020, if anyone is still interested in CO2 then.
                            www.my-piano.blogspot

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              I agree with Doddler.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X