It would be interesting to know how much of the transportation sector GHG emmission is due to industrial use and how much from domestic use. This would give a better idea of what has driven elevations. Changes in industrial production and goods transport or just the movement of people for whatever reason.

The industrial sector tends to be better able to manage longer term capital investments and returns generally if the investments are mainstream technology and the regulatory environment is predictable. Not that they are angels. Even in the US, the consumption of energy in the industrial sector has dropped between 1973 and 2005. The main incease between the periods has been in the transportation sector.

http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/USBSFC.pdf

With consumers' much shorter payback period demands, it suggests that some sort of intervention is necessary to get the consumer to adopt better technologies.

At least the 2004-2005 period showed a decrease in co2 production which is good. This study would be best in conjunction with industrial and infrastructure numbers as well as import/export numbers but that would expand beyond what i'm willing to search for at least for now.

Progress despite the great increase in personal vehicles.

OTOH much of the low hanging fruit is gone. Consider that figure for the heavily polluted nations that joined after the Cold War: down 27.8% over 15 years but only 0.3% in the last year.

Transport will obviously attract the hammer for the next few years. If all goes well hybrids, improved diesels, and electrics will arrive and help in reductions.

The enormous capital cost of airliners and airports probably precludes changing them quickly. So we can expect more taxes on air transport and using the revenue to buy CO2 reduction elsewhere.

They write: "excluding emission and removals from land-use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF)"

I suspect LULUCF is quite hard to measure. But the EU bureaus don't retreat from such challenges.

Rhapsody: By coincidence I am retired from a major airline and am reasonably well acquainted with ground and flight operations. (but that doesn't mean I will be right, only that I might know where obstacles and opportunities live).

Taxi operations have been greatly improved at many airports. You are right, much more can be done. The days of thirty planes, engines running, queued for the same runway, should be history.

Operations tend to go to Hell during bad weather. Ice, snow, local wind shear, tornado warnings, etc. (Fog and visibility are much less important than they used to be.) Perfect weather prediction could help a lot at busy airports and in the air.

When events are messing up operations the tendency is to get the job done. So there will be more waste in queues, planes will be taxied rather than wait for tows, etc.

Towing planes to save fuel is a winner. However undercarriages are relatively delicate and one must not operate too vigorously. It varies by plane and weight and whether the fuel tanks are full and the plane is loaded. Even so all these concerns can be overcome.

Traffic control and routing is mostly a technical problem. Better collision avoidance devices, better computer displays, etc. allow reduction of separation and better decisions about every part of the flight. All of which keeps operations closer to schedule and running optimally. But the matter is so complex that operations research and simulations are needed to reveal, assess, and prioritize paybacks. Not work for amateurs.

OTOH, you may have been referring to limiting flights. That works. And on some routes I would advocate it.

Airlines have done a lot to limit flights on their own. It drives up load factors which increases profit. It also irritates travelers and doubly irritates flight attendents and ground agents. So you get less CO2 along with less civility - a win, win solution.

In a Big Brother World charging passengers by weight would ultimately improve matters more than anything. The fat would fume and perhaps stay home. Others might diet. And many would take less baggage. Every pound a plane carries is held aloft by CO2 production.

This shows transport as an area of concern probably related to behaviour, that needs much work.
All sectors however will be in for massive efficiency audits in light of the ongoing understanding and upgrading of risk assessments.

As other readers have alluded to, greenhouse emissions attributable to a country or region are distorted when the carbon content of imported goods is not accounted for. Under the accounting methods used, countries can happily import virtually everything and be considered to have made great progress in reducing their emissions. This lets countries and regions off the hook for the impacts of their consumer behavior and fails to address the way those goods are produced in countries like India and China.

Germany can blanket the whole country with solar panels, but if it does not address the consequences of its consumer behavior, all is lost. In fact, the accounting methods used tend to punish domestic industries that are attempting to adhere to environmental and carbon standards.

If accounting standards were changed to take into account the carbon content of imported goods, the next step would be to include that content in the overall co2 caps that the countries or regions have set for themselves as required by Kyoto or other international agreements. Goods from countries who refuse to set their own carbon caps as required by Kyoto or otherwise should be taxed accordingly in order to create an equal playing field with carbon constrained domestic producers. As long as China and the United States, for example continue their plans for hundred of new coal fired power plants, there is no chance of reducing global carbon emissions.

Many argue against carbon caps because China and India won't play ball. Carbon import taxes are a way to obtain their compliance in spite of whatever failed negotiations are occurring.

Hi Tom...Agree with much of your statement. That is why I have tempered my enthusiasm for EVs & renewable energy sources(altho I still think they are the best way). If EVs & renewable sources ARE implemented, people's unexpected greater comsumptions can unravel all the good of tech advances.

Classic case is your statement that China & the U.S. plan 100 more coal-fired power plants which is breath-taking.....they are now talking about 1000 coal-fired powerplants!!...........!!!!

Never underestimate the weasilyness of a politician.

This is a big fat Euro political lie. Only last couple of years they missed their pollution standards, moving upwards. In fact, America beat them the last several years.

So if that is the case, we must be doing far better by their own standards.

Something smells like political weasels.

Stan,

unless you have something to back up your usual bs political based rant then stuff it.

As for reforestation. It has been continuous decreasing in the states for the past 40-50 years, not increasing. Also if you're going to count it, are you going to count the massive deforestation from fires and drought? If your going to try to use it as this great positive thing at least try to make it seem like its reasonable instead of just weaseling.