Personal tools

Sign up now!
Get notifications on new reports and products. Currently we have 56893 subscribers. Frequency: 3-4 emails / month.
Follow us
Twitter icon Twitter
Facebook icon Facebook
YouTube icon YouTube channel
RSS logo RSS Feeds
Notifications archive

Write to us Write to us

For the public:


For media and journalists:

Contact EEA staff
Contact the web team
FAQ

Call us Call us

Reception:

Phone: (+45) 33 36 71 00
Fax: (+45) 33 36 71 99


next
previous
items

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sound and independent information
on the environment

18 items matching your search terms.
Filter the results.
Item type


















































































New items since



Sort by relevance · date (newest first) · alphabetically
EEAFigure Intended (2008–2012) and actual (2008–2011) average annual use of the Kyoto mechanisms
Positive values indicate net acquisition of Kyoto units, while negative values indicate net sales. The actual use of Kyoto mechanisms is based on the delivery of units according to the SEF table. Countries might have acquired more units than are recorded in the SEF tables, e.g. due to delivery dates later in the commitment period. For the United Kingdom, SEF tables include the overseas territories and the crown dependencies of the United Kingdom. For the purposes of the implementation of Article 4 of the KP and as they are not part of the EC, the overseas territories and the crown dependencies of the United Kingdom were excluded from the initial assigned amount of the United Kingdom under the EC. In consequence, the trade of AAUs is slightly overestimated for the United Kingdom, as SEF tables for the geographical coverage of the United Kingdom under the EC only are not available. For Denmark, Greenland is included in the SEF tables. For the purposes of the implementation of Article 4 of the KP and as Greenland is not part of the EC, Greenland was excluded from the initial assigned amount of Denmark under the EC. In consequence, the trade of AAUs is slightly overestimated for Denmark, as SEF tables for the geographical coverage of Denmark under the EC only are not available. For Germany and France, corrections for allocated allowances have been included. Germany distributed an additional 8.1 Mt in 2008 to finance its auctioning mechanism, and in 2009 and 2010, Germany received 4 Mt from operators due to back requirements that are not included in the CITL. Allocations by France to new entrants in 2008 and 2009 were not recorded as allocation in the CITL; these 9.4 Mt are included in the calculations of the report with exception of the Chapter 4 on the EU ETS.
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
EEAFigure National 2020 GHG emission limits under the ESD relative to 2005 emissions levels
-
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
EEAFigure Perspective of the EU ETS cap up to 2050
-
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
Indicator Assessment Progress to greenhouse gas emission targets (CSI 011) - Assessment published Oct 2012
At the end of 2011, almost all European countries were on track towards their Kyoto targets for 2008–2012. The EU‑15 is on track towards this 8 % reduction target, compared to base-year levels under the Kyoto Protocol. Projections from EU Member States indicate that their emissions outside the EU ETS will be lower than their national targets set under the Climate and Energy Package. Total EU emissions are projected to fall slightly until 2020. With the current set of national domestic measures in place, Member States are expected to reach a level in 2020 which is 19 % below 1990 levels and close to the 20 % reduction target.
Located in Data and maps Indicators Progress to greenhouse gas emission targets
EEAFigure Projected gaps between 2020 GHG emissions and national targets in sectors not covered by the EU ETS
Progress calculated based on domestic emissions only, without accounting for possible use of flexibility options. The 2020 targets and 2005 non‑ETS emissions are all consistent with 2013–2020 ETS scope, i.e. they take into account the extension of the ETS scope in 2013 and the unilateral inclusion of installation in 2008–2012. Relative gaps are calculated as a ratio between the difference (projected non‑ETS 2020 emissions – estimates of 2020 targets under the ESD) and EEA estimates of 2005 non‑ETS emissions consistent with 2013–2020 ETS scope
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
EEAFigure Sectoral trends and projections of EU GHG emissions
Solid lines represent historic emissions up to 2011 and WEM projections from 2011 onwards. Dashed lines represent WAM projections. The gaps observed between the end of historic trends and the start of projected trends are due to the fact that absolute projection data were not calibrated on the latest 2011 GHG proxy inventory data.
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
EEAFigure Total, ETS and non‑ETS emission trends in the EU‑15 compared to their respective targets, 2008–2011
-
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
EEAFigure Trends and projections of EU total GHG emissions, 1990–2030
PRIMES/GAINS projections recalibrated by EEA, based on 2010 GHG emissions. Member State projections do not include international aviation, while the PRIMES/GAINS scenarios do. 2025 and 2030 projections are based on information provided by 12 Member States. For other Member States, 2030 projections were gap filled using the 2020–2025 and 2020–2030 relative trends available from the Commission's scenarios based on the PRIMES and GAINS models. The gaps observed between the end of historic trends and the start of projected trends are due to the fact that the absolute projection data was not calibrated on the latest 2011 GHG proxy inventory data.
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
European Environment Agency (EEA)
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Phone: +45 3336 7100