Despite serial pleas like those from Sen. John McCain that Europe is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, the truth has long been readily available that they are increasing their emissions — they are up since Kyoto was agreed, and rising, not down and dropping as promised. Europe’s rate of emissions increase since Kyoto or say since 2000 was also much faster than the US’s — twice as fast and three times as fast, respectively.

All of which makes one raise an eyebrow at the claim just made by the European Environment Agency, in the face of escalating commentary about Europe’s reality here in their target market, the US, that Europe actually reduced its emissions, year-over-year (2005 over 2004).

The report will, as always, be produced in late June. In IPCC fashion, however, they want to tell you what it’s going to say now before it is written. This announced reduction, if true, is just one year and it leaves Europe still far, far away from where it still morally and loudly preens about most certainly being beginning just next year (the announced reduction would still be nowhere near enough to get them on track, which requires another full 6% or so by 2008, to begin the promised 5 years of averaging 8%-below -1990 (2008-2012)). At least as important, however, is that it also begs several questions, particularly in light of Europe’s sketchy behavior regarding its Kyoto data (see, e.g., but by no means only here). Hopefully the June report will answer them.

We do know that Spain, for example, recently announced — and, like the above notice, will not provide details of — an actual reduction in emissions year-over-year, 2004-2005. An April article in the Spanish regional press did note, however, a possible indicator of things to watch for: remember, the above-cited report covers a times when GHG credit prices skyrocketed under Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme, to nearly 100 times where they are now (about $40 vs. $0.40). In Galicia, a ceramics company announced that it “equilibriated” its operations…that is, went into the business of making nothing, which is less energy-intensive (and less labor-intensive) than making, say, ceramics…and made more money selling credits that it decided to not use than it made from selling ceramics.

So what we might see here is a drop in emissions which is purely due to people seizing a runaway credit market, pre-collapse, by idling operations a bit to sell instead of use up GHG credits (over-)allocated (for free) by their Member States. We just don’t know from this, and may not even from the report issued in June.

In Spain’s case given their emissions trajectory of recent years I am inclined to believe that this claim (also?) represents some now-common (in the EU, in this context) trickery, that is suddenly including LULUCF (carbon “sinks”), or projects under Kyoto’s “Clean Development Mechasnims” (which would of course be purely an accounting gimmick taking credit for inked deals, not an accrual of actual reductions).

Back to the pan-EU picture, while we do not yet know (and might not any time soon), if you read through that announcement, the preponderance of what is mentioned is the reduction in the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. Given their “oft-often” careful wording, to me, this means they somehow ramped up their nuke generation, presumably from existing capacity (were any planned new reactors, e.g., Finnish, on-line by 2005?) . If it were from reduced electricity use they would say so.

My question to chase down, in advance of reviewing the details and possible gimmicks, is: How did the EU-15 economies perform in 2005 compared to other recent years, when emissions rose? (see last June’s report, at http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/GHG2006-en, scroll down for chart).