Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday September 01 2019, @10:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the they-said-it-couldn't-be-done dept.

In March 2007, the EU set itself some ambitious climate targets.

By 2020, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be 20 percent below 1990 levels, renewable energy should make up 20% of the energy mix, and the share of it in the transport sector should be up by 10 percent.

A briefing [PDF] to the EU Parliament now shows those targets are about to be beaten, by a margin.

GHG emissions, including those of air traffic, had already decreased 22 percent by 2017. The share of renewable energy sources had risen, by 2016, to 17%.

Interestingly, the drop in GHG emission intensity, the ratio of GHG emissions to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is even more pronounced. One euro in GDP, in 2017, compared to 315g carbon dioxide: half the level of 1990. Between 1990 and 2017, the combined GDP of the EU increased by 58% while total GHG emissions fell by 22%.

The figures mentioned do not include GHG emissions through land use. According to the briefing, the EU's land absorbs more carbon than it emits; member states are bound by regulation to at least preserve this situation. Of the 28 member states, 25 now have developed climate change adaptation plans, including measures like using less water, adapting building regulations, building flood defenses, developing crops that cope better in drought conditions etcetera.

For the period 2014-2020, the EU had vowed to spend at least 20% (€206 billion) of its budget to climate change measures. That target was already reached in 2017. For the 2021-2027 period, the European Commission proposed to increase that level to 25% of a €1134,6 billion overall budget.

Under current trends, the EU's GHG emission levels will have dropped by 30% by 2030. The new target set by the European Commission, though, is a drop of at least 40 percent, while the share of renewable energy should be 32%. Combined with a 32% increase in overall energy efficiency, this should result in a 45% drop in GHG emissions. Parliament itself proposes an even more ambitious target of 55 percent GHG emission reductions by 2030.

Under the 2011 Energy Roadmap, the 2050 target was a reduction of 80% in GHG emission levels compared to 1990. In November 2018, that target was changed to zero percent GHG emissions, through a socially fair transition in a cost-efficient manner.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by NickM on Monday September 02 2019, @04:41PM (3 children)

    by NickM (2867) on Monday September 02 2019, @04:41PM (#888877) Journal
    I read it and the number before the ETS credits are not there. I am unable to find the raw number and I searched . I am ready to concede that the EU system is working if you can find those numbers and if they also show a reduction in CO2.
    --
    I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Monday September 02 2019, @08:53PM (1 child)

    by quietus (6328) on Monday September 02 2019, @08:53PM (#888971) Journal

    Valid point, if I understand you correctly: you want the raw data, separated from the carbon credit system, and see whether they actually show a decrease, and how much, correct?

    The report on which the briefing was, in all probability, based, came from the EEA (European Environmental Agency): here [europa.eu]. (It might be that page will redirect you to a more recent (2018) version: just follow along).

    That report gives a graphical overview of the data, and adds some background. That background makes clear that the EU makes a distinction between two large sectors in the economy: those that fall under the ETS trading scheme (including, since 2013, commercial air traffic), and those that fall under the so-called Effort Sharing Decision regulation.

    A further distinction seems to be made between projections, which are based on a calculation which includes ETS data, and historical GHG emission data. This last type of data is based on National Inventory Reports, as prescribed by the United Nations' IPCC (description here [unfccc.int], guidance and reporting rules here [iges.or.jp]). The EU also has its own MMR reporting rules on top of that, here [europa.eu] (warning:legalese, but if you want to know what AAU, ERU or tCER means...).

    Immediately under Figure 1, you'll find a link National emissions reported to the UNFCCC and to the EU Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Mechanism [europa.eu]. To the right of the page you'll see links to download the raw data either as an ASCII (csv) or Access file.

    You'll find the 2018 EEA compilation here [europa.eu]. From page 66 on you'll find the methodology. Notice also figures 2.3 and 2.4, showing the trend for the ETS, respectively non-ETS (ESD) industries.

    • (Score: 1) by NickM on Monday September 02 2019, @10:20PM

      by NickM (2867) on Monday September 02 2019, @10:20PM (#889002) Journal

      Thanks, it seems like I have a lot of reading to do.

      And most importantly according to the data from Table 1.1 of the 2018 AGI report. I must conceed that they managed to get a raw 22% reduction in CO2 emission from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2016 while Canada manged to get a 21% increase and the USA a 6% increase.

      To my surprise, the collectivist approach used by the EU is a valid approach to greenhouse emission reduction even tough I found it quite costly and I wonder why do to they need to massage the presented numbers when the raw data support the result they present.

      Ps. I don't oppose environmental mesure. In fact I consider that tar sand extraction is a blight upon Canada. It is a blight mostly because of the enormous quantity of water irreversibly polluted, up to 3 barrels of water by barrel of crude oil. The industry says it is a negligible amount but I consider that 7% of the water used by Alberta to be a considerable amount of water considering that it cannot be cleaned with current technology and must be contained in open air sludge ponds. Ponds that kills untold amount of wildlife. Yet most of my compatriots are fixated on CO2 when there are more pressing environmental issues, and yes I am aware that addressing them will make our greenhouse gases decrease. (I speak as a selfish Canadian, if I was from India I would have a different discourse because they stand to loose a lot from climate change)

      --
      I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @09:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @09:01PM (#888973)

    Nature don't care if you believe the article.