Climate change in Europe describes the climate change related issues in Europe. This includes the climate politics, contribution in the global warming and the influence of the global warming in Europe. According to international climate experts global temperature rise should not exceed 2 °C to prevent the most dangerous consequences of the climate change. It is estimated to demand at least 80-85 % emission reductions in the EU during 2008-2050 with reductions as soon as technically possible. It is estimated that from the now living persons alive are 70 % in the year 2050. Emission reduction means development and implementation of new energy technology solutions. Some people consider that the technology revolution has already started in Europe since the markets of the renewable technology have annually grown.[1]
Europe Union climate chief is Connie Hedegaard since 10 February 2010.
Contents |
Climate change affects both people and the environment in the world and Europe. Human-induced climate change has the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extreme weather as storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and cold waves. These extreme weather changes may increase the severity of the diseases for animals and humans. The heat waves will increase the forest fires. Experts have warned that the climate change may increase the number of global climate refugees from 150 million in 2008 to 800 million in future. International agreement of refugees does not recognize the climate change refugees.
The annual CO2 emissions from coal were in the OECD Europe during 2005-2008 average equal to the year 2000. There are however country specific differences. During 1990-2008 emissions from coal were the highest in Europe in Russia, Germany, Poland, Ukraine and United Kingdom. Among the top20 coal emission countries only four countries have increased their annual average emissions from coal during 2005-2008 compared to the year 1990, namely Turkey (181 %), Finland ( 121 %), Italy (115 %) and Greece (108 %).
Turkey, Italy and Greece have no dangerous nuclear energy (2011). Nuclear energy demand natural resources like cooling water, may produce carbon dioxide much more than wind energy and solar energy, demand fuel, fuel mining, fuel processing and produce nuclear waste left for the future generations in high conflict with the sustainable society principles. Many environmental organizations consider as sustainable alternatives to the fossil fuels including coal energy saving and renewable energy.
Many East European countries, including ex East Germany, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Estonia and Hungary, and also United Kingdom, declined significantly their coal dependency from 1990 to 2000. However, the statistics of IEA gives no evidence of decline of coal dependency during 2000-2008 in Europe. Among the top 20 Belgium is the only European country that has clearly declined its climate change emissions from coal during 2000-2008.
| Annual CO2 emissions from coal in Europe (Mt) (IAE) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | 1990 | 2000 | 2000-4 | 2005-8= # | # / 2000 | # / 1990 | # / capita | ||
| 1 | Russia | 141.8 | 687 | 441 | 427 | 421 | 95 % | 61 % | 3.0 |
| 2 | Germany | 82.1 | 505 | 337 | 342 | 337 | 100 % | 67 % | 4.1 |
| 3 | Poland | 38.1 | 287 | 217 | 211 | 210 | 97 % | 73 % | 5.5 |
| 4 | Ukraine | 46.3 | 283 | 116 | 127 | 139 | 120 % | 49 % | 3.0 |
| 5 | UK | 61.4 | 238 | 138 | 144 | 147 | 106 % | 62 % | 2.4 |
| 6 | Turkey | 71.1 | 58 | 89 | 80 | 105 | 118 % | 181 % | 1.5 |
| 7 | Kazakhstan | 15.7 | 153 | 80 | 90 | 108 | 135 % | 71 % | 6.9 |
| 8 | Czech | 10.4 | 121 | 84 | 80 | 77 | 92 % | 64 % | 7.4 |
| 9 | Italy | 59.9 | 55 | 43 | 54 | 63 | 146 % | 115 % | 1.1 |
| 10 | Spain | 45.6 | 74 | 81 | 79 | 70 | 86 % | 95 % | 1.5 |
| 11 | France | 64.1 | 74 | 58 | 50 | 52 | 90 % | 70 % | 0.8 |
| 12 | Romania | 21.5 | 50 | 29 | 32 | 35 | 123 % | 71 % | 1.6 |
| 13 | Greece | 11.2 | 33 | 37 | 38 | 36 | 96 % | 108 % | 3.2 |
| 14 | Serbia | 7.4 | 41 | 35 | 37 | 33 | 94 % | 79 % | 4.5 |
| 15 | Bulgaria | 7.6 | 37 | 25 | 28 | 29 | 116 % | 80 % | 3.9 |
| 16 | Netherlands | 16.4 | 32 | 29 | 32 | 30 | 103 % | 95 % | 1.8 |
| 17 | Finland | 5.3 | 21 | 21 | 29 | 25 | 122 % | 121 % | 4.8 |
| 18 | Belgium | 10.7 | 39 | 29 | 23 | 18 | 61 % | 45 % | 1.6 |
| 19 | Denmark | 5.5 | 24 | 15 | 18 | 18 | 114 % | 74 % | 3.2 |
| 20 | Austria | 8.3 | 16 | 14 | 16 | 16 | 108 % | 97 % | 1.9 |
| TOP 20 | 730.4 | 2,827 | 1,920 | 1,935 | 1,970 | 103 % | 70 % | ||
| Mt = million tonnes of CO2 # = 2005-2008 Top 20 countries and the number order based on emissions in 2008 |
|||||||||
There is in place national legislation, international agreements and the EU directives. The EU directive 2001/77/EU promotes renewable energy in the electricity production.
British government and economist Nicholas Stern published in 2006 the Stern report. The Review states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The Review provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. The Stern Review's main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting.[2] The Review points to the potential impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and the environment. According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more.
No-one can predict the consequences of climate change with complete certainty; but we now know enough to understand the risks. The review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.[3]
In the end of 2008 the parliament of EU approved the climate and energy plan including[1]: - 20 % emission cut of climate gases from 1990 to 2020 - 20 % increase in the share of renewable energy from 1990 to 2020 - 20 % increase of the energy efficiency 20 % from 1990 to 2020.
The critics includes that European companies, like in the other OECD countries, have moved the energy intensive, polluting and climate gas emitting industry in Asia and South America. In respect to climate change there are no harmless areas. Carbon emissions from are countries are equal. The agreements exclude significant factors like deforestation, air aviation and tourism, the actual end consumption of energy and the historical of emissions. Negotiations are country oriented but the economical interests are in conflict between the energy producers, consumers and the environment.
Among the Forbes list of the energy billioners of the world in March 2011 were persons from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. This list excluded e.g. the oil palm plantations, sugar cane plantations or forest based earnings. The main business of billioners in the developed countries is most often oil and in China, Russia and Indonesia, Australia and Czech Republic Coal. This is derived a part from excluding the real cost of energy. In this respect the nationality is less important than the ownership of the energy resources.
|
||||||||||||||