Personal tools

next
previous
items

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sound and independent information
on the environment

You are here: Home / Media / Audiovisuals
357 items matching your search terms.
Filter the results.
Item type























































































New items since



Sort by relevance · date (newest first) · alphabetically
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure 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
Figure D source code Breakdown of current progress achieved by European countries towards their Kyoto targets by the end of 2011
The assessment is based on emissions and the targets of the sectors not covered under the EU ETS, the planned use of flexible mechanisms as well as the expected effect of LULUCF activities. A positive sign signifies a favourable contribution towards target achievement. EU‑15* includes all overachievements but those of the United Kingdom, which will be cancelled following the Carbon Accounting Regulations (Statutory instruments, 2009. No 1257). '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. For Switzerland: carbon sequestration from LULUCF is expected to be in the range of – 0.4 Mt CO2-equivalent to – 1.8 Mt CO2‑equivalent.
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
Figure Gaps between average total 2008–2011 emissions and Kyoto targets without the use of carbon sinks and flexible mechanisms
Each bar represents the percentage change of domestic emissions compared to base‑year emissions; the yellow line represents the Kyoto or burden-sharing target in relation to base‑year emissions. The numbers represent the gap between emissions and targets, expressed in percentage of base‑year emissions. A positive value (and black arrow pointing up) indicates that total emissions were lower than the Kyoto or burden-sharing target. A negative value (and orange arrow pointing down) indicates that total emissions were higher than the Kyoto or burden-sharing target. For Liechtenstein, Croatia and Iceland, the comparison is based on average total 2008–2010 emissions, due to the unavailability of approximated 2011 GHG emission estimates.
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
Figure text/texmacs Comparison of available emission units and verified emissions in all 30 EU ETS countries, 2005–2011
The 'change in scope/coverage' concerns the correction from 2005 through 2007, to 2008 through 2012. The large corrections for 2005 and 2006 are related to Bulgaria and Romania, which only entered the scheme in 2007
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
Figure text/texmacs Perspective of the EU ETS cap up to 2050
-
Located in Data and maps Maps and graphs
Figure 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
Figure 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
Publication Fluorinated greenhouse gases 2011
Aggregated data reported by companies on the production, import and export of fluorinated greenhouse gases in the European Union — Summary
Located in Publications
European Environment Agency (EEA)
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Phone: +45 3336 7100