-
EUA future prices 2008–2012
-
The EUA prices reflect daily over-the-counter (OTC) closing prices for EUAs to be delivered at the end of 2012
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
-
Development of sectoral emissions 2008–2011 compared to 2008 levels
-
The ETS sector category '99. Other activities opted-in' is not included, as it is heterogeneous and includes installations with unclear sector definition. Figures for the sector are reported in Table 4.4 in the report
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
-
National 2020 GHG emission limits under the ESD relative to 2005 emissions levels
-
-
Located in
Data and maps
›
Maps and graphs
-
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
-
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
-
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
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube channel
RSS Feeds
Write to us
Call us
Upcoming environmental events around the world
