-
Comparison of average verified emissions and free allocation for all 30 countries participating in the EU ETS, 2008–2011
-
-
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
-
Absolute and relative gaps between average 2008–2011 non‑ETS emissions and Kyoto target for non‑ETS sectors (AAU initial - ETS issued) (with and without the use of carbon sinks and flexible mechanisms)
-
'EU‑15 (no overachievement)' corresponds to the situation of the EU‑15 where all surplus AAUs from target overachievement in the EU‑15 are not taken into account, to reflect the possibility that Member States with a surplus could use any remaining allowances for their own purposes and not necessarily make them available to compensate for Member States with a shortfall.
Subsequent to the effect of allocation of allowances to the EU ETS, the target and annual emissions are those of the sectors not covered by the EU ETS.
For each country, the top bar represents the gap between domestic emissions and the Kyoto target, while the bar below includes the planned effect of Kyoto mechanisms and carbon sinks.
A positive value indicates a country for which average 2008–2011 non‑ETS emissions were lower than the annual target.
The assessment is based on average 2008–2011 emissions and the planned use of flexible mechanisms, as well as the expected effect of LULUCF activities.
EU‑15 values are the sum of the gaps/surplus for the 15 EU Member States party to Burden-Sharing Agreement.
For Croatia, Iceland and Switzerland, total emissions are used as they have currently no installations under the EU ETS.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
-
Credits from CDM and JI surrendered in 2008–2011
-
-
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
-
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
-
Gap between average non‑ETS 2008–2011 emissions and Kyoto targets without the use of carbon sinks and flexible mechanisms
-
A positive value indicates that average 2008-to-2011 emissions in the non‑ETS sectors were lower than the average annual target, taking into account the effect of allowances attributed to the EU ETS and without use of carbon sinks and Kyoto mechanisms.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
-
Perspective of the EU ETS cap up to 2050
-
-
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
-
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
-
Historic GHG trends and emission projections in EEA member countries that are not EU Member States, and Croatia, 1990–2020
-
2012 information on GHG projections available from Switzerland, 2011 information on GHG projections available from Norway, 2010 information available from Croatia and Liechtenstein, 2007 information available from Turkey and 2006 information available for Iceland.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube channel
RSS Feeds
Write to us
Call us
Upcoming environmental events around the world
