Skip to content

Europe’s Trend Of CO2 Reductions Seems To Have Stopped

May 5, 2017
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood


From euobserver:



The EU’s statistical agency Eurostat announced Thursday (4 May) that CO2 emissions resulting from the EU’s energy use have "slightly decreased" in 2016, compared to the year before.

But Eurostat’s press release did not mention that the small decrease has not made up for the small increase in CO2 emissions the year before, and that more CO2 was emitted in 2016 than in 2014.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions account for around 80 percent of all of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to potentially disastrous climate change.

In 2016, carbon emissions dropped by 0.4 percent compared to 2015, Eurostat said in a press release.

But in 2015, CO2 emissions had increased by 0.7 percent compared to 2014.

In other words, last year’s CO2 emissions increased by 0.29 percent compared to 2014, which means that for the second consecutive year the EU’s carbon emissions are higher than in 2014, albeit very slightly.


The flatlining contrasts with figures from 2014, when emissions dropped by 5 percent compared to the year before. In the two years before, the year-on-year decrease had also been at least 2 percent.

It was in 2014 that the EU had reached its long-term target: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent compared to 1990 – it had achieved a 22.9 percent reduction.

If the EU does not increase its CO emissions significantly, it will achieve its goal, but critics say that is not enough to help reduce the risk of global warming.

In any case, EU citizens still have a much larger carbon footprint that is 2.5 times that of inhabitants in the developing world.

Within the EU, most of the CO2 is emitted by its largest member. Last year, Germany accounted for 22.9 percent of the EU’s CO2 emissions. Germany’s CO2 emissions had increased by 0.7 percent compared to the year before.

And guess which mugs are taking it seriously?

  1. Broadlands permalink
    May 5, 2017 3:15 pm

    How will we ever get to zero emissions if this keeps up, never mind getting back to 350 ppm after that?

    • HAR-OLD permalink
      May 5, 2017 8:00 pm

      we will not: and it does not matter

  2. Joe Public permalink
    May 5, 2017 3:35 pm

    According to that chart, Germany is performing very slightly better than France.

    According to this chart, we can see reality:

  3. May 5, 2017 3:37 pm

    It’s a good job they have Malta to make it look not quite so bad. Without Malta they could have used a better scale.

  4. May 5, 2017 3:48 pm

    And now they are worried about CO emissions as well!

  5. Tim Hammond permalink
    May 5, 2017 3:50 pm

    Once again the UK shows what a bad European it is.

    Honestly, growing its economy and reducing emissions.

  6. John F. Hultquist permalink
    May 5, 2017 3:56 pm

    Whether a person is trying to lose weight, cut spending, increase productivity, or cut emissions – the first 10% is the easiest to do. EU should go for Nukes and stop burning trees from North America – and its own forests.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


    Of course the world is not going to get to zero emissions but if such a miracle happens getting back to 350 ppm becomes predictable.

    Currently there is an estimate of enough carbon based fuel used to raise the CO2 level about 4 ppm per year. Only 2 ppm shows up. Earth is using the rest in a multiple of ways, often called sinks. The Earth processes using up CO2 would continue and take about 2 ppm out of the atmosphere each year.

    So, starting today, if we emit none and lose 2, after 25 years the amount would return to 350 in 2042. I’d wager that as the buildup in the atmosphere, say from 300 to 400, occurred, then the take up by Earth processes has increased. These will continue at the higher level for awhile and then begin to slow (ex.: vegetative growth).

    Earth’s atmosphere might get back to 350 ppm by 2040 and then keep going in a slowing manner to 300 or lower before natural processes stabilized at a new lower level, or not.

    I’m in favor a slow increase. 600 to 800 seems like a nice range. Likely, that won’t happen either, unless Earth, itself, does something unexpected.

  7. The Old Bloke permalink
    May 5, 2017 4:19 pm

    The thing is, these emissions are only estimates anyway:

  8. Jack Broughton permalink
    May 5, 2017 6:40 pm

    Could the “mugs who are taking it seriously” have passed a Climate Change Act as an act of self-harm?

  9. May 5, 2017 10:49 pm

    Again, nobody notice the picture leading the article? Cooling towers belching water vapor – many times the Gerbil Worming gas than that nasty ol’ CO2! A 1000 MW nuclear or conventional steam plant w/”air cooling” (independent of fuel type) puts out 3 million tons of water vapor per year. (Half that much if GT combined cycle.)

    • May 6, 2017 6:41 pm

      Those kind of trick pictures are just a handy guarantee that everything in the associated report is biased towards alarmism, and should not be taken too seriously – if at all.

  10. mikewaite permalink
    May 6, 2017 7:43 am

    Off topic , for which I apologise , but I could not resist pointing out that a front page item in today’s Telegraph is about the incompatibility of smart meters with the IT system .

    Now is that exactly what was predicted here some months ago ?
    It seems that the energy firms and the civil servants and politicians have known of this problem for a long time , but still the TV campaign continues .
    This just straightforward fraud and deception and the article makes the point that all electricity customers will have to pay the cost , of £ billions, to correct the problem.

  11. Dung permalink
    May 6, 2017 11:14 am

    Changing our CO2 emissions makes no bloody difference at all! If you add CO2 to the atmosphere then vegetation will eat it and new vegetation will grow where none existed before (greening of the desert). There are slight time lags in this process but not much. As Salby says; our emissions are bloody irrelevant.

  12. May 6, 2017 4:34 pm

    Do you think it worth waiting for a studied, level headed and factual response to this from the likes of the Bibulous JunketMan, Tusk, Merkel and Co ?
    Breath holding would, I fear, prove fatal in this case.

  13. May 6, 2017 6:34 pm

    One big factor is that Germany is replacing its nuclear power largely with coal, because any over-reliance on renewables would be fatal to its industrial economy.

    Intermittency and night-time shred the credibility of wind and solar power.

  14. markl permalink
    May 8, 2017 3:01 am

    Reality is bludgeoning the Climate Change narrative. No matter how terrible the alarmists can predict a future world with CO2 the present demands it. Fossil fuel use will continue to increase until we encounter peak. Eventually…. ? …. people will realize CO2 is not driving our climate and move on and peak oil will drive the movement to another form of energy that is safe, economical, and abundant. Something like oil.:-)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: