Skip to content

EU CO2 Emissions Rose By 1.8% Last Year

May 8, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Joe Public

 

Joe sent me this while I was on holiday, so it is a few days old, but still highly relevant:

 

EU CO2

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8869789/8-04052018-BP-EN.pdf/e7891594-5ee1-4cb0-a530-c4a631efec19

 

While some of the larger increases in percentage terms are from small countries, such as Malta and Estonia, in absolute terms the increases in countries like France, Italy Spain, Poland and Netherlands are significant, as they account for 43% of EU emissions.

 

It will no doubt have Claire Perry bursting with pride!

25 Comments
  1. John Palmer permalink
    May 8, 2018 8:54 am

    Yup! She’ll be real proud that we’re one of the leading Lemmings.
    …. and the cliff-edge approaches.

  2. Bloke down the pub permalink
    May 8, 2018 9:15 am

    Surprising that they claim Germany’s emissions have dropped, unless the increased burning of brown coal had already been factored in previously.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      May 8, 2018 10:45 am

      Perhaps lignite (being sort of not quite coal more like peat. Sort of) doesn’t emit “real” CO2. Sort of like wood.

      • Jack Broughton permalink
        May 8, 2018 1:16 pm

        So far as I can see, the enormous wood-burn occurring in the UK and Germany is CO2 free: clever things are trees!.

  3. quaesoveritas permalink
    May 8, 2018 9:37 am

    I wonder what the excuse is for a little country like Malta, having the largest percentage increase?
    Does this include emissions from the use of motor vehicles?

  4. Phoenix44 permalink
    May 8, 2018 9:52 am

    Once again the UK showing what a bad European we are….

  5. May 8, 2018 11:05 am

    With Germany and France closing nuclear power stations the EU CO2 numbers are unlikely to drop much, if at all.

  6. dave permalink
    May 8, 2018 11:20 am

    They huff and they puff (with a little on the side for expenses) and what comes out is more CO2.

  7. Colin Brooks permalink
    May 8, 2018 1:41 pm

    The graph shows what a waste of time it is for us to reduce emissions and yet Mrs Perry can not see it. The EU has to be the most climate phobic group on the planet so if they are increasing emissions what is the bloody point in us trying!

    • Colin Brooks permalink
      May 8, 2018 1:43 pm

      er um, to reduce them hehe

    • Charles Wardrop, permalink
      May 8, 2018 6:45 pm

      Yes, while the big emitters, China, USA and India do not join in the wildgoose chase of decabonisation, for the European nations to stick to that is a complete waste.
      AGW is speculatively based anyway, and, unacceptably, hits the already poor, worldwide by trying to ban carbon-based fuels. .

      • Gerry, England permalink
        May 9, 2018 12:49 pm

        With great irony, the USA has reduced its emissions by using more gas.

  8. Broadlands permalink
    May 8, 2018 1:54 pm

    Has anyone done a per-capita cost?

  9. Tom Anderson permalink
    May 8, 2018 2:47 pm

    There is a question about CO2’s “heat trapping” characteristic that no one every asks: “What temperature is that heat?” This seemingly threshold variable never makes it into the debate, yet it strikes me that it ought to matter. From my own inquiry, which is hardly well qualified, the “heat” at which CO2 is active is on the Kelvin scale is not what most if not all of us would consider hot, warm, or even a danger. There is a century-old well established formula for getting the answer, if you will indulge my taking up a bit of space:

    As I understand it, soon after Max Planck developed black-body radiation theory, there was an Einstein-Planck formula relating the temperature of radiation to frequency. It is

    E = vh,
    where
    v is the frequency and
    h the Planck constant of proportionality.

    Slightly before Planck’s comprehensive formulation, the physicist Wilhelm Wien proposed a “displacement law,” also known as the Wien approximation, which related peak wavelength (λ) to temperature. It is,

    λ = b/T, with
    T in Kelvin degrees, and
    b the displacement constant (b ≈ 2900×K).

    Wien’s law is, I understand, still valid as modified for quantum mechanics. According to what I have read, the Earth emits directly to space its highest-energy IR photons, at 8 μm to 12 μm wavelengths through a window e without interacting with any gases. Wien’s law shows that 8 μm photons exit the atmospheric window at 89°C and 12 μm photons exit at -31.7°C, spanning a temperature drop of 120.7 Celsius degrees.

    By comparison, in its interaction with radiant energy, CO2’s absorption/emission peaks at ~15μm wavelength (within a spread from 13.5 to 17 μm) at a temperature of -80°C (range -58°C to -170°C). It raises the question how much a gas that is radiation-active at minus 80 degrees Celsius warms the atmosphere. Unless that calculation, no less than my understanding of it, is wrong, shouldn’t CO2’s forcing of equilibrium climate sensitivity first take into account the temperature of absorption/emission that is supposedly causing the warming (no less than that the gas is a gray body)?

    • dave permalink
      May 9, 2018 7:18 am

      Careful radiative transport calculations do take account of the temperature drop as you go up in the atmosphere. Of course, radiative transport of heat is only a small part of the story in the troposphere (where we live) and in the sea (which is the ultimate controller of everything climatic) since in these places convective mixing (movement of heated matter) dominates.

      Considerable confusion is evident in your reference to the equation:

      E = v*h

      E stands for the Energy of a photon, not Temperature; (and not HEAT Energy, either*)

      *The phrase ‘radiative transport of heat’ is misleading because there is no actual heat in electro-magnetic waves. The phrase started in the middle of the 19th Century when no-one knew what heat or light actually was. And a forteriori there is no temperature associated to EM waves regarded as entities in themselves.

      Actually, the word ‘wave’ is itself wrongly used 99.9% of the time. It is never a noun. It is always part of a noun-phrase. Even a ripple in a pond is not ‘a wave.’ As the ripple passes, there is first ‘a travelling wave of starting activity,’ then ‘a time when the water in that place is agitated,’ and finally ‘a travelling wave of stopping activity.’ Kinetic Energy will have been passed along and through the water’s surface layer – and will be somewhere else from now on.

  10. Colin Brooks permalink
    May 8, 2018 6:02 pm

    For me science is no guide here, it changes every day or at least a new (always unproven) theory emerges every day. For me facts and logic are my guide and the facts are that we never had dangerous warming even when CO2 levels were way higher than today, that temperatures are right now as low as they get without having a full blown ice age and like the fact that without CO2 all living things on the surface will die out, simples hehe.

    • dave permalink
      May 9, 2018 7:28 am

      True science does not change ‘every day.’ Dip into any middle-level textbook of physics or chemistry, written one hundred years ago. Almost nothing in it will be wrong. Incomplete, yes. but never silly or arrogant or unnecessarily speculative. Those are the faults of the modern academic priest-hood – or at least of its popes and cardinals.

    • Colin Brooks permalink
      May 9, 2018 11:25 am

      I have no problem with anything you say dave but you have missed the word HERE in my comment. In climate change (which is what I was referring to) new theories do indeed come thick and fast. However unlike the science in the textbooks you refer to, the new theories have not been tested and proven correct and should therefore be ignored until that happens.

      • May 9, 2018 11:47 am

        Absolutely correct. Any scientific hypothesis has to be tested and the results made public. Methods must also be revealed in order for others to test the hypothesis. And they should be able to come to basically the same conclusion. If not……”Houston, we have a problem.”

      • dave permalink
        May 11, 2018 7:10 am

        “…HERE…”

        O.K.

        But it also seems to me relevant that most pontificators seem to naturally over-estimate the importance of Man in the scheme of things. I like, in this context, the monologue that Tommy Cooper used to give about the Lion who went about boasting that he was the King of the Jungle. At the end, he goes up to the Elephant, and confronts him…

        ‘ “Oi, Big Ears, who’s the King of the Jungle,then?”

        The Elephant picked ‘im up with his trunk and tossed him in the air…whoosh…and then he caught ‘im on the way down…and bashed ‘im against a tree…and then against another tree…and another tree. The Lion got up, and then he sank down…sank down…just like that he did…and finally he said “No need to get mad…just because you don’t know the answer!” ‘

      • dave permalink
        May 11, 2018 7:22 am

        Actually, I rather think that the science “here” is quite definite and unchanging:

        The Weather

        The wind it listeth where it will.

        The Climate

        Stable, on various scales of space and time, which is reflected in mean-reverting time-series – with excursions and cycles.

      • dave permalink
        May 11, 2018 8:04 am

        “Any scientific hypothesis has to be tested.”

        Like this?

      • nigel permalink
        May 11, 2018 8:33 am

        In the Chart from ClimateBet, there is no evidence of “feed-back causing a run away.” And that is surely the pertinent question, not whether there is a small trend one way or the other.

        If one allows for the fact that modest La Nina conditions were often present in the earlier period (2007-2011) – probably depressing the numbers – and strong El Nino conditions in the later period (2015-2017) – probably bumping up the numbers – the residual movement is “sideways” – to my eye anyway.

  11. Max Sawyer permalink
    May 11, 2018 4:37 pm

    The UK produces at most 1.5% of global CO2, so we could eliminate that completely or double it. No-one would notice the difference – and the world certainly wouldn’t. Such a pity that we remain in the grip of expensively pointless virtue-signalling.

    • dave permalink
      May 13, 2018 7:31 am

      “The UK produces at most 1.50% of global CO2…”

      Actually 1.1%

      China never really got with the plan, did it?

      Their rate of emissions is nearer ELEVEN billion tons a year now – roughly one-third of the global totals. How they must scoff at our “advanced-world,” silliness!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: