Search results

International audience ; In the context of climate change mitigation and the Paris Agreement, it is critical to monitor and understand the dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions over different regions of the world. In this study, we quantify the contributions of different drivers behind the observed emission decrease in Europe between 2009 and 2014. To this end, we build a novel dataset of deflated input-output tables for each of the 28 EU countries. This dataset enables us to conduct the first Structural Decomposition Analysis of emissions in European countries since the economic crisis. Our results show that the largest drivers of emissions have been the improvement in carbon intensity (−394 MtCO 2 e), largely offset by the economic recovery (+285 MtCO 2 e). However, other less intuitive drivers also played a significant role in the emission decline: changes in the production system (−104 MtCO 2 e), mostly driven by an increase in imports; the evolution of final demand patterns (−101 MtCO 2 e); a decrease in emissions due to household heating (−83 MtCO 2 e) and private transport (−24 MtCO 2 e), with a small offset from population growth (+39 MtCO 2 e). However, these aggregate figures mask significant variations between EU countries which we also document. This study highlights the importance of including changes in consumption patterns, trade and temperature anomalies in tracking and fostering progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.

International audience ; In the context of climate change mitigation and the Paris Agreement, it is critical to monitor and understand the dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions over different regions of the world. In this study, we quantify the contributions of different drivers behind the observed emission decrease in Europe between 2009 and 2014. To this end, we build a novel dataset of deflated input-output tables for each of the 28 EU countries. This dataset enables us to conduct the first Structural Decomposition Analysis of emissions in European countries since the economic crisis. Our results show that the largest drivers of emissions have been the improvement in carbon intensity (−394 MtCO 2 e), largely offset by the economic recovery (+285 MtCO 2 e). However, other less intuitive drivers also played a significant role in the emission decline: changes in the production system (−104 MtCO 2 e), mostly driven by an increase in imports; the evolution of final demand patterns (−101 MtCO 2 e); a decrease in emissions due to household heating (−83 MtCO 2 e) and private transport (−24 MtCO 2 e), with a small offset from population growth (+39 MtCO 2 e). However, these aggregate figures mask significant variations between EU countries which we also document. This study highlights the importance of including changes in consumption patterns, trade and temperature anomalies in tracking and fostering progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.

International audience ; In the context of climate change mitigation and the Paris Agreement, it is critical to monitor and understand the dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions over different regions of the world. In this study, we quantify the contributions of different drivers behind the observed emission decrease in Europe between 2009 and 2014. To this end, we build a novel dataset of deflated input-output tables for each of the 28 EU countries. This dataset enables us to conduct the first Structural Decomposition Analysis of emissions in European countries since the economic crisis. Our results show that the largest drivers of emissions have been the improvement in carbon intensity (−394 MtCO 2 e), largely offset by the economic recovery (+285 MtCO 2 e). However, other less intuitive drivers also played a significant role in the emission decline: changes in the production system (−104 MtCO 2 e), mostly driven by an increase in imports; the evolution of final demand patterns (−101 MtCO 2 e); a decrease in emissions due to household heating (−83 MtCO 2 e) and private transport (−24 MtCO 2 e), with a small offset from population growth (+39 MtCO 2 e). However, these aggregate figures mask significant variations between EU countries which we also document. This study highlights the importance of including changes in consumption patterns, trade and temperature anomalies in tracking and fostering progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.

International audience ; In the context of climate change mitigation and the Paris Agreement, it is critical to monitor and understand the dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions over different regions of the world. In this study, we quantify the contributions of different drivers behind the observed emission decrease in Europe between 2009 and 2014. To this end, we build a novel dataset of deflated input-output tables for each of the 28 EU countries. This dataset enables us to conduct the first Structural Decomposition Analysis of emissions in European countries since the economic crisis. Our results show that the largest drivers of emissions have been the improvement in carbon intensity (−394 MtCO 2 e), largely offset by the economic recovery (+285 MtCO 2 e). However, other less intuitive drivers also played a significant role in the emission decline: changes in the production system (−104 MtCO 2 e), mostly driven by an increase in imports; the evolution of final demand patterns (−101 MtCO 2 e); a decrease in emissions due to household heating (−83 MtCO 2 e) and private transport (−24 MtCO 2 e), with a small offset from population growth (+39 MtCO 2 e). However, these aggregate figures mask significant variations between EU countries which we also document. This study highlights the importance of including changes in consumption patterns, trade and temperature anomalies in tracking and fostering progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.

International audience ; In the context of climate change mitigation and the Paris Agreement, it is critical to monitor and understand the dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions over different regions of the world. In this study, we quantify the contributions of different drivers behind the observed emission decrease in Europe between 2009 and 2014. To this end, we build a novel dataset of deflated input-output tables for each of the 28 EU countries. This dataset enables us to conduct the first Structural Decomposition Analysis of emissions in European countries since the economic crisis. Our results show that the largest drivers of emissions have been the improvement in carbon intensity (−394 MtCO 2 e), largely offset by the economic recovery (+285 MtCO 2 e). However, other less intuitive drivers also played a significant role in the emission decline: changes in the production system (−104 MtCO 2 e), mostly driven by an increase in imports; the evolution of final demand patterns (−101 MtCO 2 e); a decrease in emissions due to household heating (−83 MtCO 2 e) and private transport (−24 MtCO 2 e), with a small offset from population growth (+39 MtCO 2 e). However, these aggregate figures mask significant variations between EU countries which we also document. This study highlights the importance of including changes in consumption patterns, trade and temperature anomalies in tracking and fostering progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.

International audience ; In the context of climate change mitigation and the Paris Agreement, it is critical to monitor and understand the dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions over different regions of the world. In this study, we quantify the contributions of different drivers behind the observed emission decrease in Europe between 2009 and 2014. To this end, we build a novel dataset of deflated input-output tables for each of the 28 EU countries. This dataset enables us to conduct the first Structural Decomposition Analysis of emissions in European countries since the economic crisis. Our results show that the largest drivers of emissions have been the improvement in carbon intensity (−394 MtCO 2 e), largely offset by the economic recovery (+285 MtCO 2 e). However, other less intuitive drivers also played a significant role in the emission decline: changes in the production system (−104 MtCO 2 e), mostly driven by an increase in imports; the evolution of final demand patterns (−101 MtCO 2 e); a decrease in emissions due to household heating (−83 MtCO 2 e) and private transport (−24 MtCO 2 e), with a small offset from population growth (+39 MtCO 2 e). However, these aggregate figures mask significant variations between EU countries which we also document. This study highlights the importance of including changes in consumption patterns, trade and temperature anomalies in tracking and fostering progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.

International audience In the context of climate change mitigation and the Paris Agreement, it is critical to monitor and understand the dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions over different regions of the world. In this study, we quantify the contributions of different drivers behind the observed emission decrease in Europe between 2009 and 2014. To this end, we build a novel dataset of deflated input-output tables for each of the 28 EU countries. This dataset enables us to conduct the first Structural Decomposition Analysis of emissions in European countries since the economic crisis. Our results show that the largest drivers of emissions have been the improvement in carbon intensity (−394 MtCO 2 e), largely offset by the economic recovery (+285 MtCO 2 e). However, other less intuitive drivers also played a significant role in the emission decline: changes in the production system (−104 MtCO 2 e), mostly driven by an increase in imports; the evolution of final demand patterns (−101 MtCO 2 e); a decrease in emissions due to household heating (−83 MtCO 2 e) and private transport (−24 MtCO 2 e), with a small offset from population growth (+39 MtCO 2 e). However, these aggregate figures mask significant variations between EU countries which we also document. This study highlights the importance of including changes in consumption patterns, trade and temperature anomalies in tracking and fostering progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.

International audience ; In the context of climate change mitigation and the Paris Agreement, it is critical to monitor and understand the dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions over different regions of the world. In this study, we quantify the contributions of different drivers behind the observed emission decrease in Europe between 2009 and 2014. To this end, we build a novel dataset of deflated input-output tables for each of the 28 EU countries. This dataset enables us to conduct the first Structural Decomposition Analysis of emissions in European countries since the economic crisis. Our results show that the largest drivers of emissions have been the improvement in carbon intensity (−394 MtCO 2 e), largely offset by the economic recovery (+285 MtCO 2 e). However, other less intuitive drivers also played a significant role in the emission decline: changes in the production system (−104 MtCO 2 e), mostly driven by an increase in imports; the evolution of final demand patterns (−101 MtCO 2 e); a decrease in emissions due to household heating (−83 MtCO 2 e) and private transport (−24 MtCO 2 e), with a small offset from population growth (+39 MtCO 2 e). However, these aggregate figures mask significant variations between EU countries which we also document. This study highlights the importance of including changes in consumption patterns, trade and temperature anomalies in tracking and fostering progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.

The event-related potential (ERP) P3b, a cognitive electrophysiological measure that has been linked to working memory processing in many experimental paradigms, was measured in Inuit children from Nunavik (Arctic Québec, Canada) to assess lead (Pb) neurotoxicity. Visual and auditory oddball paradigms were administered at 5 (N=27) and 11 (N=110) years of age, respectively, to elicit this ERP component. Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the associations between Pb levels and P3b parameters (peak latency and amplitude). Greater prenatal Pb exposure was related to a decrease in P3b amplitude at 5 years of age, and early childhood Pb exposure was associated with delayed P3b latency at 5 years. No significant association was observed at 11 years. These results, in line with those from previous neurobehavioral studies, suggest that Pb exposure affects cognitive processing in children even though the Pb levels measured in a large majority of our sample were below the threshold value for public health intervention used by federal agencies. This study strengthens the arguments for reducing sources of Pb exposure in Nunavik and for lowering the blood Pb concentrations considered "acceptable" in governmental policies.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.

International audience ; The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (of short-lived climate agents and long-lived greenhouse gases, abbreviated AER, territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial or trans-boundary removal of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate and environmental modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic and political viewpoints. Whilst some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change.