Hello,
First, congratulations for this good idea to allow us to evaluate ourselves with respect to the protocol of kyoto. I started last month to test myself, and I get a -50% of emission on the month of January 2006. It seems hugely low, but that's not my concern.
I do not understand something. The protocol asks to lower 8% emissions compared to 1990. Knowing that for the month of January 1990, the amount of Co2 issued per capita was 175.20, if I take 8% on it, I get 161.184. So why is France's goal 165.18? Maybe I did not understand everything :) Thank you for enlightening my lantern.
A question about the calculations
Thank you for sharing your result. I myself found that it was very easy to make a good score (low) if we do not have a big shack and if we do a little attention ... Conversely if we do not pay too much attention, the CO2 climbs fast !!
For your question, I do not have the figures in front of you, but certainly you forgot to take into account the evolution of the population. Indeed we are more numerous today, so for the same absolute volume of CO2 issued by France, it takes a saving effort of each additional (the objective of Kyoto is fixed for the whole of each country, no not per capita).
The population figures are in the "data" tab. (I do not remember them) In 1990, we had to be around 56-57 million, and at the 2004 census we were around 62 million ...
Do your calculations again by taking the population variation into account, it should work ...
I hope that answers your question.
For your question, I do not have the figures in front of you, but certainly you forgot to take into account the evolution of the population. Indeed we are more numerous today, so for the same absolute volume of CO2 issued by France, it takes a saving effort of each additional (the objective of Kyoto is fixed for the whole of each country, no not per capita).
The population figures are in the "data" tab. (I do not remember them) In 1990, we had to be around 56-57 million, and at the 2004 census we were around 62 million ...
Do your calculations again by taking the population variation into account, it should work ...
I hope that answers your question.
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79111
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10972
Rulian wrote: it was very easy to make a good score (low) if we do not have a big shack and if we do a little attention ...
And especially if you heat with electricity!
Nuclear rejecting very little CO2, this heating mode will give the best results (after the wood = 0) with the current calculation mode ... which is just obviously.
Yet nuclear heating is not really econological (2 / 3 calories from the fission leaving in "steam" at the plant) ... but the method of calculation is done well ....
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
I agree with you Christophe ... but I can not invent CO2 where there is not ... (in addition to the figures are JM Jancovici, it is a source little questionable. Even the ademe agrees).
It was thought to indicate the weight of radioactive waste generated but since Kyot'Home is not intended to set foot in a stormy debate like this one, we preferred to abstain.
It was thought to indicate the weight of radioactive waste generated but since Kyot'Home is not intended to set foot in a stormy debate like this one, we preferred to abstain.
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79111
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10972
No lol, it's very good like that and we must set criteria ... in this case the CO2 in the case of KH.
And it's good to put CO2 on the nuclear ... EdF was not at all a moment!
It does not prevent a German kyot-home (for example) with exactly the same domestic consumption would give very different results on the CO2 impact of electricity.
And it's good to put CO2 on the nuclear ... EdF was not at all a moment!
It does not prevent a German kyot-home (for example) with exactly the same domestic consumption would give very different results on the CO2 impact of electricity.
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 37 Replies
- 18529 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
22/01/21, 10:41A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 1 Replies
- 2721 views
-
Last message by sen-no-sen
View the latest post
06/01/20, 20:40A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 5 Replies
- 10047 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
11/10/11, 22:04A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 4 Replies
- 3756 views
-
Last message by Ahmed
View the latest post
29/06/11, 21:13A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 1 Replies
- 4778 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
28/01/11, 18:19A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 147 guests