Uh oh, Europe’s Trend Of CO2 Reductions Seems To Have Stopped

From the 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.

source: Eurostat

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.

Full story

h/t to The GWPF

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 5, 2017 7:33 am

…does this mean we’ve reached peak CO2?
(so help me, If I need a /snark tag for this….someone needs help and it’s not me)

Reply to  Latitude
May 5, 2017 7:45 am

What you need is a laugh track.

Reply to  Marv
May 6, 2017 5:28 am

I think a high speed film of EU legislators at work accompanied by “Yakkity Sax” would do nicely.

Reply to  Latitude
May 5, 2017 8:06 am

Perhaps we have reached peak stupid.
Nah, I still think we have a ways to go yet [(cough) Bill Nye].
Producing a few more bold, social-justice music videos should help get us there, except the next wave of these need to include references to catastrophic climate, as well as references to sentient female anatomy. Simply groundbreaking !

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 5, 2017 5:37 pm

RE: “Perhaps we have reached peak stupid.”
As Einstein so eloquently pointed out, there is no “peak stupid.” It’s an infinite quantity, as a few of the local trolls around here so ably confirm.

son of mulder
Reply to  Latitude
May 5, 2017 2:10 pm

In the UK we’ve reached peak EU and we’re getting out of the madhouse.

Reply to  Latitude
May 5, 2017 4:54 pm

One thing you learn studying a broad range of earth science and biological disciplines in college is that all these systems tend to be strongly linked to bell curves in terms of behavior over time. There is an initiation, rise, acceleration, peak, and then decline. For CO2 to not be a bell curve in terms of production would be highly unusual. I have not yet seen a runaway system of any kind from biological to geological to cultural to bacterial, much less CO2 for planet earth.

May 5, 2017 7:44 am

Gadzooks!! Wind-happy Denmark is increasing CO2 at an “alarming rate.” More windmills, please.
I’m not sure there is any land or ocean area left to install any more windmills in Denmark.

May 5, 2017 7:49 am

Too lazy to look into this further (or maybe just too apathetic)…but I bet if you looked at actual CO2 values instead of % change for each country, you’d find an interesting story. Meaning, for example, Malta’s seemingly large % decrease is probably an insignificant absolute value as compared to, say, Germany’s “tiny” increase. Again…in absolute values, not percent changes.

Reply to  ripshin
May 5, 2017 7:08 pm

I agree. Numbers again and again. Need to get the correct evaluation, just not numbers.

Reply to  ripshin
May 5, 2017 7:48 pm

As they say in business ‘You don’t put percentages in the bank’. If I make a nickel one year and a dime the next I’ve increased annual profit by 100% but I’ll probably starve to death too.

Reply to  ripshin
May 6, 2017 3:42 am

ripshin, rd50 and chilemike:
What part of

more CO2 was emitted in 2016 than in 2014.

do you not understand?

Green Sand
May 5, 2017 7:50 am

Going to look worse when the UK reduction can no longer be counted as ‘EU’

Reply to  Green Sand
May 5, 2017 8:18 am

May actually look better, as industry migrates back to the UK from the continent after the UK starts dumping many of the EU mandates.

Green Sand
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 8:23 am

Tis true!

Gerry, England
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 12:14 pm

That’s very unlikely with the way things are heading at the moment. A no deal Brexit looks by far the likely outcome – unless May can be brought back to Planet Earth – and that will bring a shattering economic crash that only very few can see coming.

Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 12:42 pm

As we pay some 10 billion a year for membership and have a 70 billion a year trade deficit with the EU it is difficult to see why you think we can end up with a worse deal than at present. If we revert to WTO rules we will make An 8 billion profit. More jobs in the EU rely on the UK than vice versa.

Leo Smith
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2017 12:01 am

A no deal may crash the EU, but it will barely dent the UK
I was going to make a list of countries that dont ‘have a deal with the EU’, but realised it would be larger than the screen on most peoples computers.

James Bull
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2017 12:55 am

We just need to get parliament to ditch the Climate change act once we’re free of the EU and we’ll be on our way to a truly growing economy.
James Bull

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2017 3:59 pm

Gerry, England May 5, 2017 at 12:14 pm “and that will bring a shattering economic crash that only very few can see coming.”
There’s a reason very few can see it coming, Gerry.
See if you can guess what it is!

May 5, 2017 7:51 am

Dare we say a “Pause”?

May 5, 2017 7:53 am

It’s a direct result of EU hyperventilation over Brexit.

Reply to  cephus0
May 6, 2017 4:53 am

Good one, cephus0.

May 5, 2017 7:54 am

To late for CO2 to warm things enough to save the wine grapes from a 40% freeze out.

May 5, 2017 7:56 am

And these are the folks that are really trying hard to reduce CO2 emissions. Can you imagine the impossibility of dropping them by 20 or 30 percent? Or even (shudder) eliminating CO2 emissions altogether?

Reply to  Trebla
May 5, 2017 8:03 am

Precisely. They have failed and failed. ETS, DRAX, Energiewende, diesel cars… and pretend they haven’t. Green madness. Warmunism as a cargo cult religion.

Reply to  Trebla
May 5, 2017 8:26 am

Well yes I can…
for example:
The UK, France and other countries have set end dates for coal power plants… even the Germans have a few small ones listed for closure… All EU countries except Poland and Greece have agreed on no new coal power beyond 2020.
Germany has slowed down renewable roll out until it completes its grid upgrade, but it is still going (set a new record over the Mayday holiday)
Europe has done all the easy stuff on CO2 reduction and is now moving on to heating and transport.

Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 9:01 am

If a politician says something, it must be true and it will happen. Even if physically impossible.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 11:00 am

Griff on May 5, 2017 at 8:26 a
even the Germans have a few small ones listed for closure…
Are these part of the 27 new coal-fired power stations currently being built in Germany and coming on line one-by-one?

Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 11:43 am

If a politician says something, it must be true and it will happen. Even if physically impossible.

It is good for a human to believe in something, isn’t it.

Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 12:45 pm

As we have seen over the last couple of Years there is one set of rules for the EU 27 and no rules for gemany.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 12:51 pm

jeez Griff,Tell your handlers you need better material. These tin foil weapons they send you here with just fold up before you even finish typing them, No wonder you won’t use a real name or tell us who you work for. Pathetic!

Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 2:41 am

Everything G.. has ever said about Germany was wrong or misleading. He is not ehrlich (honest).

ferd berple
Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 5:34 am

have agreed on no new coal power beyond 2020.
if you or i break our promises we end up in court. when politicians do it only griff is surprised.

Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 4:05 pm

Still spewing your paid-for “Green” propaganda on behalf of the ‘Unreliables’ spivs like ‘Sir’ Reg Sheffield, Chris Huhne and John Gummer, Skanky?
They make billions, screw up the lives of millions and slip you the price of a few pints to lie on their behalf. Have you no shame?
Oh, and have you apologised to you-know-who yet for lying about her professional qualifications to attempt to discredit her?

Reply to  Trebla
May 5, 2017 9:40 am

Not if they just redirected every single dime spent on reducing emissions and studying climate change to building nuclear and gas reactors. . .

Reply to  Nathanael C. Love
May 5, 2017 11:07 am

Griff was on record for claiming that the fact that China has dropped the number of coal plants it is planning on building from 2100 to 2000, is proof that China has given up on coal power.

May 5, 2017 8:07 am

The elimination of CO2 emissions altogether will be a product of time and the fundamental laws of nature and alternative energy sources will be adopted in response to the elimination rather than be a cause of the elimination. But then the additional methane that will be produced by all of the additional horses (and oxen?) that are being used for transportation will more than compensate for the reduced CO2 where the greenhouse effect is concerned.
Could reindeer adapt to warmer climates?

Neil Jordan
Reply to  ThomasJK
May 5, 2017 11:10 am

They already have, and seem to be enjoying it:
“At the San Diego Zoo, the reindeer are fed alfalfa hay, acacia browse, and low-starch, high-fiber biscuits.”
Also, the polar bears at the zoo are doing nicely. There is a bear-cam to verify that:
The bears don’t seem to be as pudgy as the ones up north, maybe because the ones at the zoo don’t have to chase seals and can spend their time at the beach surfing. There is an Internet image of a bear surfing, with the title, “Could global warming bring surfing to the Arctic?”

Reply to  ThomasJK
May 5, 2017 6:18 pm

In my oven, they do just great !

May 5, 2017 8:10 am

I take it that these figures are from electricity generated and don’t take into account the CO2 emitted in the USA to make the fuel pellets from trees that are then shipped across the Atlantic? Also I take it that the CO2 emitted in the manufacture of wind turbines is not counted, because a lot of that is historical? We all know where this is going to lead; mankind has created the “Pause” by reducing CO2 emissions.

Reply to  andrewmharding
May 5, 2017 8:27 am

Wind turbines save all CO2 from their total lifespan withing months of starting operation. google it…

Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 9:02 am

Not true, but if you believe hard enough, you can make the impossible happen.

Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 9:21 am

Griff what about the specially strengthened roads that have to be built, to erect, and service them, that serve no other purpose? What about the 800 tons of concrete used in their foundations, the pylons and cables also in remote places? Sorry I find this completely unbelievable, especially as the lifetime of these things does not appear to be anything like the manufacturers optimistic claims.

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 10:00 am

When all the energy required in the manufacture of wind turbines and siting thereof, including the mining for raw materials, the steel furnaces, the transport, the making of the cement, coupling to the grid etc, comes exclusively from energy generated by wind turbines and none of it from fossil fuel, then we will know that wind turbines may have a future.
Until then it is just p1ssing in the wind. Dream on.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 11:55 am

That IS part of the sales pitch. Complete crap, of course.

Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 12:50 pm

We will treat that as nonsense unless you can provide a serious link confirming it.As Andrew Harding says , there are numerous aspects of creating windmills that are very heavy on c02 without even mentioning the actual processes of making the pylons, turbines and blades.

Reply to  Griff
May 5, 2017 8:15 pm

One downside of the internet is that you can find a Google result for literally anything. It provides cover for stupid and incompetence.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 12:04 am

Overall, wind turbines when analysed holistically, as part of a real world grid operating under real world conditions, save almost no CO2 at all.

Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 4:02 am

You assert this laughable nonsense

Wind turbines save all CO2 from their total lifespan withing months of starting operation. google it…

Actually, the use of wind powered subsidy farms INCREASES CO2 emissions from power generation unless the displaced grid supply is from hydro or nuclear sources.
The increase to emissions is because windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power so they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. The reduced efficiency increases the emissions from power stations although the power stations reduce their electricity output.
In 2003 David Tolley (then Head of Networks and Ancillary Services, Innogy, a subsidiary of the German
energy consortium RWE) said of windfarms in the UK,

When [thermal] plant is deloaded
to balance the system, it results in a significant proportion of deloaded plant which operates relatively inefficiently. … Coal plant will be part-loaded such that the loss of a generating unit can swiftly be replaced by bringing other units on to full load. In addition to increased costs of holding reserve in this manner, it has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions from the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part-loaded plant under NETA.

(NETA is the New Electricity Trading Arrangements, the UK’s deregulated power market.)
People wanting details of this can read this.

Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 5:44 am

Wind turbines save all CO2
if that was true the payback on turbines would be months not years if ever.

Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 7:08 am

Who pays for the grid expansion to connect these remote locations and who pays for repairs?

Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 4:12 pm

“Wind turbines save all CO2 from their total lifespan withing months of starting operation.”,
No they don’t, not even close.
Why do you keep posting the same old debunked lies over and over again, despite making yourself look a total pill0ck?
Heh, don’t bother answering that, we all know anyway.
In your dishonest trade a post’s a post, and doesn’t have to be credible for you to get paid for it, right?

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  andrewmharding
May 5, 2017 8:35 am

No, they are from all energy use.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
May 5, 2017 8:41 am

They still don’t include energy used to make the stuff shipped to Europe.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
May 8, 2017 11:35 am

I love the sight of diesel trucks hauling straw bales around the country to feed biomass stations. What kind of sense does that make?

May 5, 2017 8:25 am

And why did “wind happy” Denmark’s emissions go up in spite of ever increasing renewables? Could it be that the fossil fuels are needed more than ever to compensate for wind/solar variability?

Leo Smith
Reply to  oeman50
May 6, 2017 12:05 am

Broadly, yes.
They also closed some CHP plant because of windmills, then found they needed to burn something else to heat the houses

May 5, 2017 8:29 am

I just imagined a renewable enrgy version of the spoofs on the Last Days of the Third Reich, in the bunker, when Hitler is told all the wind farms and solar panels have failed, and he laments how he could have won the war to exterminate maximum CO2 if he had only kept nuclear and gas and not wasted so much effort and treasure on windmills and papering Bavaria with solar panels. This harks to my favourite version when he is told they have bought him a BMW GS (Bavarian Tractor) to replace his technologically sophisticated Honda VFR that another general has crashed in a local accident. Possibly the best motcycle related rant ever, if you know bikes… https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hitler%27s+new+bike&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=BZoMWYfmIbHHXs2It2g

Leo Smith
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 6, 2017 12:10 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23AoPqG6RzY is obviously what you were thinking of…

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 6, 2017 9:31 am

Except it is reverse of the facts energy wise, renewbles are the undeliverable CO2 ineffective at decarbonising disaster in energy fact, of course….

May 5, 2017 8:30 am

If I wanted to go ploughing, I could have bought myself a proper tractor…… I needed a laugh today.

May 5, 2017 8:40 am

I just ran across this chart and post showing just how marginal wind and solar in Germany were for 2016:comment image
The 2.1% for wind and 1.2% for solar seem kind of small. The chart is for all energy consumption and not just electricity. I suspect another reason the wind and solar numbers are so small is that a lot of it is produced in peak periods and has to be sold to other countries.

Reply to  Canman
May 5, 2017 8:43 am

I didn’t realize Germany had an sites suitable for geothermal.

Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 8:47 am

Baden-Baden has a number of famous hot spring spas.

Ron Williams
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 12:26 pm

I think they are referring to Iceland, which is also in Europe/EU and create the majority of it’s electricity and domestic heating thru geothermal. Which makes Iceland 100% renewable for electricity with it’s base load hydro and geothermal.

Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 12:31 pm

Iceland is not in the EU, but just part of the Nordic countries.

Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 12:58 pm

We have stayed in the house of friends in Switzerland and their house is heated by geo thermal. Germany, Austria and other parts of Europe have plenty of hot springs.

Ron Williams
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 2:53 pm

I stand corrected, and see this stat was about Germany anyway. Interesting…I knew they had geothermal hot springs, but didn’t know they had enough to generate electricity from. I will have to research this a bit more to educate myself.

Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 8:18 pm

Could just be heat pumps.

Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 10:11 pm

The pie chart is for energy consumption, not electricity consumption. The geothermal energy might mean heat and not electricity.

Ron Williams
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 11:14 pm

Yes, I see now that the graph says including heat and motor fuel, not just electricity. This is what happens when you get old…my 2nd mistake in one sub-thread. Better quit while I am ahead.
So must be geothermal heat pumps. That means the Germans went hog wild on heat pumps too. .4% of all renewables were geothermal, probably drilled well or ground loop geothermal. As compared to solar at 1.2 % and wind at 2.1 % out of the 12.6% renewable pie. What does surprise me is that biomass and waste are 8.5%. I wonder what they are burning, besides the garbage?
Probably makes more sense than rooftop solar in so far as energy efficiency is concerned at that latitude. At least you get some waste heat out of the electric heat pump motor.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2017 2:47 am

Development of geothermal energy suffered huge setbacks in Germany and Switzerland (Bale) recently due to small induced earthquakes and many damages on buildings. The potential is there in some regions, but the risk seems quite high.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2017 4:28 am

Yes. It’s geothermal heat pumps for Germany and Switzerland as well.
Can’t speak for anywhere else, but in Switzerland they are just plain crazy about this. Soon almost each and every home is fitted with geothermal heat pumps. Huge business. I’m waiting for the first numbers to appear when someone realises that too many of these installations on too little room sort of steal their neighbor’s “heat”. Not sure if this actually COULD happen, because I don’t understand enough about it, but it has crossed my mind that maybe…

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Canman
May 5, 2017 9:13 am

Does the 7.5% “Biomass” include WOOD burning?

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
May 5, 2017 9:42 am

If by “include” you mean that the 7.5% from “Biomass” IS wood burning then yes.
There isn’t non-wood biomass.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
May 5, 2017 10:02 am

Dung, or de-watered sewage would qualify. Not that I’m trying to encourage anything.

Bryan A
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
May 5, 2017 11:37 am

Guess what Greenies, if you burn it, it releases its stored carbon as CO2

Reply to  Canman
May 5, 2017 11:29 am

I guess they count the power from wind, solar and hydro as 100 percent primary. For coal, you’ll need 2.5 units in primary energy to create 1 unit in electricity. This could explain why the numbers for renewables are so low.

Reply to  Michel3
May 5, 2017 10:13 pm

That makes sense.

J Mac
May 5, 2017 8:45 am

Everyone in Malta was holding their breath, waiting for this news…

Reply to  J Mac
May 5, 2017 3:28 pm

They are a small country.
They are pretty far south, for Europe, about 36 or 37 North, if I remember correctly [I may be wrong, but not wildly, I think], so may have increased solar, or put an interlink to Italy and/or Tunisia.
Isn’t Interlink energy guilt-free??
Auto, remembering the Grand Harbour at Valetta as an awesome place in the twilight.

Tom Halla
May 5, 2017 8:50 am

Despite all that money spent on green prayer wheels, Europe did nor reduce CO2 emissions, and Gaia punished them with a late freeze./s

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 5, 2017 11:32 am

Today, +20C. Tomorrow, colder. Next week, icy air from the Spitzbergen. I thought the Arctic was superhot, but it appears I was mislead.

Reply to  Hugs
May 5, 2017 8:20 pm


May 5, 2017 9:03 am

Was it not during the Winter of 2010 that Denmark’s wind turbines took out more energy than it contributed to their National Grid? This due to an area of high pressure (not uncommon over Europe in Winter) and light/no winds.The gearbox oil on the turbines needed to be heated to stop them freezing solid.

Reasonable Skeptic
May 5, 2017 9:08 am

Looks like they have gotten all of the low hanging fruit and now they need to start making the tough decisions that will be required.
I think that French cuisine needs to seriously consider going to insect protein only for example.

Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
May 5, 2017 3:32 pm

Another monitor saved – just.
Auto; I am English, so a confirmed Francophile; I drink their wine, support their Rugby XV [after England], and think their roads, paid for by us Brits, I expect, are wonderful.

michael hart
May 5, 2017 9:29 am

The EU’s statistical agency Eurostat announced…

…is probably about as far as you need to read. The EU accounts have not been agreed by official auditors as being in order for something like 20 years. To think they are better at counting CO2 than they are at counting money is a bit of a stretch.

Reply to  michael hart
May 5, 2017 10:40 am

Note that the heading on the graph says “(estimated)”. Something akin to truth in advertising?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 5, 2017 11:29 am

Yes. Serving suggestion. Estimate means two things in here.
(a) all states don’t have comparable statistics available, the data is not ready, or was not used for this graph
(b) the results are politically built for a purpose, so there is a human component
The (b) can mean both underestimated or overestimated numbers, depending on the goal of the estimator. None will be held accountable and it is usually very hard to check these numbers and if you check and find an error, even large one, no one is interested since the stats serve for transient use only.

May 5, 2017 9:54 am

How about some error bars? How about a chart that adjusts for size of the various countries’ economies?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Dave Magill
May 5, 2017 10:07 am

How about a chart that adjusts for size of the various countries’ economies?

Since national targets are all normalized, it suits their needs to report the simple percentages.

Reply to  Dave Magill
May 5, 2017 3:37 pm

I assume you are a decidedly precocious three year-old, and so still wonderfully innocent.
Out of the mouths of babes . . . . . .
Politically motivated, for sure.
Cui Bono? – who benefits? – follow the money.
No – nothing to do with the Irish philanthropist, naescent unicorn farmer, and musician.

May 5, 2017 10:07 am

this is just a sign of economic growth.
It’s the economy, stupid!

richard verney
May 5, 2017 10:12 am

Germany has not significantly reduced CO2 emissions this century. This is notwithstanding that it has greatly scaled back on the heavy polluting industries in the former Eastern bloc.
If Germany cannot reduce its CO2 emissions over the past 17 years, there is no hope for the rest of Europe.
Indeed, the migrant crisis also means that it will be impossible to reduce CO2 emissions over the next 10 years since it will mean that all the infrastructure required to house say 10 to 20 million more people will be required to be built.
There needs to be a massive building program for housing, schools, hospitals, shops, public transport, more roads, more cars, more electricity, more reservoirs etc. Europe over the next 10 years is taking say 10 to 20 million people who presently produce about 3.5mt CO2 per head annually, and putting them into a lifestyle where they will be producing about 14mt per head annually. And those figures do not include the CO2 incidental to the infrastructure that needs to be built to accommodate 20 million more people.
Europe greatly underestimates the task ahead.

Reply to  richard verney
May 5, 2017 11:19 am

Not ‘Europe’. The EU bureaucrats maybe pretend they are solving something they actually make worse. If it matters. I don’t think it actually matters, but I’d still like to not do extra stupid things like pay taxes to do to things that make the said goals further away.
The illegal immigration and asylum abuse is something that, with current balance of forces, can’t be limited. Social justice(tm) appears to have priority over climate change ™.

Reply to  richard verney
May 5, 2017 2:03 pm

You can fix the illegal migrant crisis by simply closing your borders, and sending the illegals home.
That takes politicians with a backbone though, and those are in short supply.

Reply to  Felflames
May 5, 2017 3:38 pm

+ Lots.

May 5, 2017 10:14 am

That tends to happen when you go from basket case economy to limited growth. I guess perpetual stimulus is bad for the environment and sovereign debt.

May 5, 2017 10:19 am

I notice that the socialist countries are all on the plus side. Go figure.

Reply to  DCA
May 5, 2017 11:12 am

It’s because they don’t have ‘socialism’ any more and the result is some economic growth. Germany, on the other hand, is doing Energiewende with a small increase in emissions. Really revolutionary!

May 5, 2017 10:46 am

Finland is leading. Why? Because CO2 makes trees grow and Finland is covered by boreal forest, which is a good source of pulp. Making pulp creates a lot of CO2 – but it is all completely sustainable in Finland. The forest grows more than has been logged – thanks to CO2 fertilization and good forestry. There’s no illegal logging in Finland, and if there is a problem, it is the government-owned forest (one quarter) which can be brutally logged once it reaches full maturity.
The change itself comes from the market changes since recession in 2010. The forests are a massive net sink, but increasing logging is counted as CO2 emissions. It is genuine intelligence how you turn a net sink into CO2 emissions. Leftist intelligence.
The data on forest growth: https://www.forestindustries.fi/statistics/roundwood-markets-and-forest-resources/45-Forest%20Resources%20and%20Wood%20Raw%20Material/
(And I’m not a shill paid by the industry. If you say I am, I’m asking where’s my paycheck, please)

Reply to  Hugs
May 5, 2017 11:00 am

Hmm, probably the recession was a little bit earlier. I don’t want to open more powerpoints, so I just glanced at the small graph. But anyway, we have ugly green people in the government that negotiated with EU on CO2 emission goals, and those people on purpose read the statistics so that the forest sink appears as CO2 emissions.
They also try to prevent increasing use of wood, which is stupid because if you dont use it, it will just rot in the forest. The economic loss is huge, and the CO2 emissions will ultimately be larger. Why? Because young forest binds more CO2 than mature forest. And in order to keep the forest growing, it needs to be logged several times to keep it spacy enough for the trees to continue to grow.

Reply to  Hugs
May 6, 2017 4:48 am

The EU also penalises the Irish for using turf. they use the satellites and make sure those horrible Irish peasants don’t use too much of the stuff that they have used forever to heat their homes. And turf fires are so much nicer than any alternative.

May 5, 2017 11:57 am

This just shows what we’ve been trying to explain all along. Yeah, grabbing the low hanging fruit is easy and doesn’t cost much. Every percentage point beyond that requires an exponential increase in money and effort to achieve. So, in effect, yes – we have reached peak CO2.

Reply to  dragineez
May 5, 2017 12:14 pm

Peak CO2 reduction. I don’t see CO2 levels leveling off, much less dropping for a long, long time.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 5, 2017 12:07 pm

So these folks have totted up how much coal, oil, gas etc has been burned.
How much dirt has been burned? (growing stuff, stuff that we eat)
I ask because a few comments here have mentioned wood, forests and how we may as well burn the stuff as let it rot in the ground.
Again, this is really really simple elementary school science that says such things and sadly what government policy is based on also.
For peeps who say that, I ask “Where does dirt come from?” And I mean, good quality dirt with a high humic, carbon or organic content. That organic content is constantly rotting away, as you say, but must be replaced. That replacement has to be an ‘accretion’ process otherwise there wouldn’t be any anywhere. Would there?
Scientist types have measured it as best they can and if you’re REALLY lucky, subsoil turns into topsoil at a rate of 1 inch per century. 1 inch per millennium if you’re not so lucky and gets to be a maximum of about 2 feet deep.
Now think about it. How long has all that fertile soil been building under forests?
We know from actual experience in esp S America, cutting rainforest. At first the newly acquired dirt grows tobacco & cotton- really hungry crops. Then it grows sugar cane, then it becomes cow pasture at 1 cow per acre, then 1 cow per 10 acre then 1 cow per 100 acres (get the drift?), then sheep pasture, then goat grazing and then desert. The best definition of such a thing being ‘A place with very low carbon soil)
And it doesn’t recover. No amount of CO2 fertilation will do that – again, its really basic primary school science that says the planet is greening because of the extra fossil fuel being burned.
Planetary greening comes from extra nitrogen fertiliser being used, irrigation projects, the increase in coniferous (evergreen forest at the expense of deciduous) and farmers planting autumn sown cereals instead of spring planted crops. That alone makes fields appear (as seen by satellites) greener for an extra 7 or 8 months per year
All that CO2 in the sky did not come from burning fossil fuel. It came from burning dirt and the process of doing so (like my S America example) is what can/will change the climate.
Deserts have different climates from rainforests and plenty folks in Brazil will attest to that AND how it came about.

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 5, 2017 12:44 pm

Boreal forest is not a rainforest, its biology is totally different. Basically a pine forest grows on gravel with little top soil. You’re welcome to look how the forest grows, the issue is not how to make it grow, more of what to do with trees pushing up all around.

How long has all that fertile soil been building under forests?

Maybe 10000 years, after continental ice melted away. But the thing is, the trunks have little to give to podzol. It is leaves and needles, and the mushrooms that work with the trees. Mushrooms collect water and stuff, the tree creates sugar for them. Bacteria that are symbionts may create nitrous compounds in such manner alders don’t need to save the green of their leaves but just drop them down. People from outside the boreal zone don’t necessarily get this, and in the history humans coming from the North did not understand that the rainforest may work in a different manner.

Reply to  Hugs
May 5, 2017 12:50 pm

To clarify, there was time when our forests were overlogged. That was centuries ago. The forests did recover, the only thing needed was to stop abuse and slash-and-burn. The wood content has been growing for a long time now, and certainly good forestry and CO2 fertilization are the biggest parts. Some can be assigned to reducing field capacity, which is caused by a low wheat market price. Efficiency in wheat production elsewhere leads to forest growth in Finland.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 5, 2017 5:13 pm

I am trying to grok this idea of dirt being “burned”. Nope, still doesn’t make sense. And I’m pretty sure the increase in CO2 did (mostly) come from burning fossil fuels. Still, food for thought.

Ron Williams
May 5, 2017 12:39 pm

And to think if Europe had done nothing to curtail CO2 over what it would have been had it done nothing to scale back CO2, that China and India emitted Euroland’s share in a few weeks making all that effort meaningless on a global scale.
I wonder how long it will take the green bureaucrats, politicians, raving environmentalists and MSM to walk back the whole AGW premise once it becomes abundantly clear that CO2 has nothing to do with driving long term climate?

Reply to  Ron Williams
May 5, 2017 12:58 pm

I doesn’t take too long once temps start go down. I’m not confident they will soon do that.

May 5, 2017 12:55 pm

I wonder if anyone has counted the number of smudge pot fires lit in an effort to protect vineyards and orchards during the recent cold snap in Europe in order to quantify their impact on CO2 levels? If not I’ll undertake the study when I’m provided with an appropriate grant, say a couple of million Euros or $ equivalent. I’ve got a theory that cold snaps are a side effect of CAGW. It could also be a plot by Big Grape (a front for Big Oil) to significantly inflate the wholesale price of grapes.

Reply to  JustAnOldGuy
May 5, 2017 1:15 pm

The phrase is “not inconsistent with”, to emphasize that no result is a positive result. Time to go to bed. Nice Friday night (Frinight?)

Bruce Cobb
May 5, 2017 2:10 pm

Carbon accounting, like all accounting, can be a creative endeavor. Sooner or later though, the numbers come home to roost.

May 5, 2017 2:37 pm

How much of it has been exported, or is accounting fiction such as biomass burning?

May 5, 2017 3:24 pm

Has no-one noticed the photo/picture? Belching tons of water vapor from cooling towers – stuff many times more Global Warming-effective than CO2 !!! (Doesn’t count, I guess.)

May 5, 2017 6:30 pm

I hope all the Europeans in the EU realize, with Trump in charge for the next 8 years, nobody is coming to save your @ss for a third time !

Leo Smith
May 5, 2017 11:58 pm

Looking at that, looks like the more renewable energy they have, the more emissions have increased.

May 6, 2017 1:01 am

Lets be clear – this is the change compared to 2015.
so we look at Denmark and find in 2015 it had record low emissions…
This isn’t emissions going up or stalling – it is some states not achieving as much as record years with high wind

Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 6:53 am

From the link you provided:
“Thanks to more wind power and large imports of electricity from Norway and Sweden, CO2 emissions from Danish power consumption were reduced by a third in 2015, according to Energinet.dk’s environmental impact report for electricity 2015.”

Reply to  rd50
May 8, 2017 7:54 am

yes… western Europe has a shared electricity market/grid

May 6, 2017 1:03 am

Here’s the EU total figures to 2014…
Looks like a continued drop to me

Reply to  Griff
May 6, 2017 9:15 am

Did you look at the title to that graph. It is

Data viewer on greenhouse gas emissions and removals, sent by countries to UNFCCC and the EU Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Mechanism (EU Member States).

You say you believe those numbers so I have to ask, do you also believe in Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny?

Grey Lensman
May 6, 2017 3:23 am

U.K. TO scrap diesels, lol
BBC blames diesel makers for misleading the Government
You really cannot make this stuff up.

Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2017 6:50 am

Double uh-oh. Germany’s increase of .7% is a particular embarassment given that the UNFCC COP 23 in November will be in Bonn. Germany will have some ‘splainin’ to do.

Pat Lane
May 6, 2017 6:14 pm

There’s the assumption that CO2 emissions can be measured to within tenths of a percent. I’d love to see the error bars.
Climate science seems to be the realm of hiding: “Hiding the decline” and “Hiding the uncertainty”.

Reply to  Pat Lane
May 7, 2017 1:30 pm

“I’d love to see the error bars.”
With a few honourable exceptions, most self-proclaimed “climate scientists” wouldn’t recognise an error bar if you whacked them over the head with it.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights