The submission of enquiries to the Forum is closed from July 6th to August 31st 2017. We look forward to receiving your enquiry in September. If your enquiry is related to the right of access to documents as outlined in Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, please contact access.to.documents@eea.europa.eu or see access to documents. We apologise for any inconvenience
Please login or register to participate.
.
 
+

Simmen Hello there,

first of all let me thank you for your support.

I am interested in up-to-date data regarding CO2 point sources in Europe. I need the location (coordinates would be perfect), the industry and the quantity. Therefore I downloaded the E-PRTR dataset (on this page:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/d[…]gister-e-prtr-regulation-13). I imported the data to python and used pandas in order to perform some operations on the raw data. To get what I am looking for I merged the FACILITYREPORT with the POLLUTANTRELEASE regarding the FacilityReportID. Now, I don’t know the reporting years yet. For that I filter my data to an exact value of PollutantReleaseAndTransferReportID. As of my understanding this filter gives me not only a specific year but also a specific country. For instance if I need all CO2 emissions regarding Germany in the year 2014 the PollutantReleaseAndTransferReportID would be equal to 1081. If I apply that filter I get an empty dataframe. To check if I did something wrong while merging I also applied that filter to ONLY the FACILITYREPORT and get… an empty dataframe. Could it be, that the Access Database does not contain up-to-date data?

If the database cannot help me I would need to use the website. When I check for Pollutant Releases on the website and specify for CO2 emissions for the year 2014 for Germany I’ll get a list of results. BUT I cannot download the list. The download button seems to be broken. I’ve tried this with Firefox and Internet Explorer.

What would be the preferable route to get the data I am looking for, favorably in a csv file in order to work on the data in python??

Thank you all very much.

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jul 12, 2017 09:33 AM
+

mthomas Hi,

I'm a PhD student and I'm doing a project into the the trend of annual means of NO2 over time in the EEA. I seem to be having a problem with your files for extracting data.

I thought that initially I would have to add the Airbase v8 to the new data to get a full range from 2010-2015, but then I found a file that you have produced that merges them together. When I look at the two ways of obtaining a dataset then the number of monitors changes considerably as follows

1) If I use the 'Air quality annual statistics calculated by the EEA (2013 – 2015)' on
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/aqereporting-2 and I look for (NO2, annual means, DataCoverage >= 75) and add it to the AirBase v8 (pre2013 ones) I get the following numbers: 2010 (2856 GMs) 2011 (2842 GMs) 2012 (2791 GMs) 2013 (1811 GMs), 2014 (2211 GMs) 2015 (2155 GMs)

2) If I use the merged data with previous Airbase 'AQerep_StatsMerge_ForPublishing_20170329' on https://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/aqereporting-2#tab-additional-information and I look for (NO2, annual means 'P1Y', DataCoverage >= 75) I get the following numbers: 2010 (2849 GMs) 2011 (2833 GMs) 2012 (2789 GMs) 2013 (2665 GMs), 2014 (2772 GMs) 2015 (2635 GMs)

I'm not so concerned about the numbers pre2013 as things update and they are only slightly different. Could someone explain why the numbers seems to differ quite considerably between the two methods for 2013 onwards? What should I be using for my analysis?

Best,
Matthew

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jul 06, 2017 01:39 PM
+

parncutt I am writing on behalf of a Graz NGO called Rettet die Mur (save the river Mur).

The City of Graz plans to fell about 10,000 (ten thousand) trees along the river Mur in October 2017 to enable construction of a disputed sewage/rainwater storage pipe. Further information:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en[…]rees_for_sustainable_energy

In the past decade, the European Union has repeatedly warned the City of Graz about particulate matter pollution levels. Graz is surrounded by hills so there is relatively little wind. Although some progress has been made, felling 10,000 trees near the city centre is likely to cause particulate pollution levels to increase.

Is it possible for the EEA or another European institution to intervene on this basis?

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jul 05, 2017 09:39 AM
+

hurbutun Hello,

For a publication in my PhD research I was checking CO2 intensity of electricity production in Europe and I found the following figures:
2013
https://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/assessment
2014
https://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/#write-to-us

There is a huge difference between these 2 plots. Could you please tell me what is the reason for that? Which data is more reliable?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Best,

Hur

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jun 26, 2017 11:34 AM
+

danieln Hi, I am using the National emissions data reported to the UNFCCC for doing some research(https://www.eea.europa.eu/d[…]gas-monitoring-mechanism-13)

However, it seems that this dataset doe not cover all countries which it should be. In particular, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK are missing. It would be great, if this could be fixed.

Thanks in advance.

Best,
Daniel

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jun 20, 2017 01:50 PM
+

pietrooo Dear EEA,
with this I would like to bring a major environmental topic to your attention. As an independent researcher (www.havasi.sk), I have come across to an official study discussing an environmental disaster that takes place in Bratislava the capital of Slovakia - European Union.

In the 1960's a chemical industry called of Georgi Dimitrov Chemical plant has deposited more than 90,000 cubic meters of toxic waste (among heavy metals and derivates of chemical weapons) in the north part of Bratislava called Podunajske Biskupice. However in the 1990's with the launch of Gabcikovo dam the ground water level increased and with it the burried waste became flooded. After 20 years, the steel barells rusted away and the contaminated material started to leak out into the ground water and spread across the area.

The official authorities are ignoring the severity of the situation and nobody is searching for effective solutions in remove the toxic waste and stop further contamination. The toxic leakage is spreading south-west towards Hungary with the speed of approximately 1m/day. If no steps are made, Europe is facing another environmental catastrophy of global dimensions. Today the Georgi Dimitrov Chemical plant is deserted, and may also contain an unknown amount of deposited chemicals.

Please find attached an official study discussing the details of this environmental accident. An OCR translation software was used to translate the documents from Slovak to English.

If you have any questions or difficulties translating the study, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I am looking forward to your reply,

With Best Regards,
Peter Havasi
www.havasi.sk
00421 944 495 285

Further Reference:
Article: It's a toxic lake under Bratislava, ignoring it for 20 years
https://translate.google.co[…]gnorovali%2F&edit-text=
Article: Toxic waste from the former Dimitrovka can pollute the sources of drinking water!
https://translate.google.co[…]tnej-vody%2F&edit-text=
Article: Toxic dump after Dimitrov is 50 years old
https://translate.google.sk[…]o-vrakuni%2F&edit-text=
Article: The landfill in Vrakuni will be rehabilitated, but the toxins in the country will remain
https://translate.google.sk[…]k-zostanu%2F&edit-text=

Contact details:
Bratislava City West Mayor: JUDr. Ing. Martin Kuruc
http://www.vrakuna.sk/starosta/
Bratislava City North Mayor: Mgr. Rudolf Kusý
http://www.banm.sk/2197-sk/starosta/
Bratislava's Environmental Protection Agency: Ing. Miroslava Gregorová
http://www.minv.sk/?odbor-s[…]osti-o-zivotne-prostredie-1

Rating
+1
Last discussed by EEA
Jun 19, 2017 11:31 AM
+

OIKOSOS SIGNIFICANCE - LABELING OF GEOLOGICAL, ECOLOGICAL AND HEALTHY RISK


On our island in Zakynthos, Greece, we are facing a serious problem with waste management. The local Landfill Site has been shut down after the fines imposed by the European Union and the waste management and landfill solution still remains on the island ...
..there are, of course, approved studies and licenses issued at central and regional level and related decisions that have been taken, but they are guided by a new waste management solution that puts at risk a highly sensitive area in the Livas of Mount Brahionas.
The mountainous inbred area is above the main aquifer of the island, within a zone that has been designated a Wildlife Refuge and belongs to the National Network of Protected Areas and is also located above the most sensitive seismological zone of Zakynthos…

Therefore, we consider that the choice of the Liva area in the mountainous Braxionas for waste management (a final or intermediate-transitory solution as the islanders call it) constitutes a social and ecological crime because of the multiple risks we have described ... no environmental term as strict as it is no matter how faithful it is, it does not reduce the risk .

Focusing on all of these elements, many of which we believe are part of the activities / competencies of your Agency, we are in principle asking for information on the European wildlife and groundwater bodies and the European bodies that we could address by asking for their synergies and their co-ordination to prevent the encroachment and disruption of these sensitive ecological and geological regions.
We also ask you for your assistance regarding the legal actions that can be taken to prevent the intermediate or even final settlement of these areas in order to prevent the perturbation and disturbance of these sensitive ecological and geological areas ...
... waiting for your response and assistance –contribution…

Eco-initiative of Zakynthos
=======================================


ANAΦΟΡΑ - ΕΠΙΣΗΜΑΝΣΗ ΓΕΩΛΟΓΙΚΟΥ ΟΙΚΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΥΓΕΙOΝΟΜΙΚΟΥ ΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ


Στον νησί μας την Ζάκυνθο, στην Ελλάδα, αντιμετωπίζουμε σοβαρό πρόβλημα με την διαχείριση των απορριμάτων….ο τοπικός Χωρος Υγειονομικής Ταφης έχει κλείσει μετά από τα πρόστιμα που επιβλήθηκαν από Ευρωπαική Ενωση και στο νησί παραμένει ακόμη μετέωρη η λύση διαχείρισης των απορριμάτων και χωροθέτησης τους …βέβαια υπάρχουν μελέτες που έχουν εγκριθεί και άδειες που έχουν δοθεί σε κεντρικό και περιφερειακό επίπεδο και σχετικές αποφάσεις που έχουν ληφθεί που όμως είναι προσαντολισμένες σε μια λύση νέας χωροθέτησης της διαχείρισης των απορριμάτων που βάζει σε κίνδυνο μια άκρως ευαίσθητη περιοχή την περιοχή Λίβας του όρους Βραχιωνας .. η ορεινή αυτή δύσβατη περιοχή βρίσκεται πάνω από τον κεντρικό υδροφόρο ορίζοντα του νησιού, μέσα σε μια ζώνη που έχει χαρακτηριστεί Καταφύγιο Αγριας Ζωής κι ανήκει στο Εθνικό Δίκτυο Προστατευόμεων Περιοχών και επιπλέον βρίσκεται πάνω από την πιο ευαίσθητη σεισμολογικά της ζώνη της Ζακύνθου.
Η Ζάκυνθος είναι ένα νησί από τα πλέον σεισμογενή της Ελλάδας με γεωλογικό υπόβαθρο που αποτελείται από εύθραστα ιζηματογενή πετρώματα που φέρουν πολλαπλά ρήγματα διασχίζοντας από άκρη σε άκρη το νησί όπως εξάλλου κι όλο το Ιόνιο και τα νησιά του που βρίσκονται πλησίον των ορίων καταβύθισης λιθοσφαιρκών πλακών …
Θεωρούμε λοιπόν ότι η επιλογή της περιοχής Λίβας στο ορεινό Βραχίωνα για διαχείριση απορριμάτων ( τελική ή ενδιάμεση-παροδική λύση όπως τις αποκαλούν οι αρμόδιοι στο νησί ) αποτελέι οικολογικό και κοινωνικό έγκλημα εξαιτίας των πολλαπλών κινδύνων που περιγράψαμε … κανένας περιβαλλοντικός όρος όσο αυστηρός κι αν είναι κι όσο πιστά κι αν εφαρμοστεί δεν μειώνει τον κίνδυνο .
Εστιάζοντας σε όλα αυτά τα στοιχεία πολλά από τα οποία πιστεύουμε ότι εντάσσονται στα πλαίσια των δραστηριοτήτων /αρμοδιοτήτων του Ευρωπαικού Οργανισμού Περιβάλλοντος ζητούμε καταρχήν πληροφόρηση για τις ευρωπαικές οργανώσεις προστασίας της άγριας ζωής αλλά και των υπόγειων υδάτων και τα ευρωπαικά όργανα στα οποία θα μπορούσαμε να απευθυνθούμε ζητώντας την συνεργία και συμπαραταξή τους για την αποτροπή της καταπάτησης και διατάραξης των ευαίσθητων αυτών οικολογικά και γεωλογικά περιοχών …
….επιπλέον ζητούμε τη συνδρομή σας σχετικά με τις νόμιμες ενέργειες που μπορούν να γίνουν, για την αποτροπή της χωροθέτησης ενδιάμεσης ή και τελικής λύσης στις συγκεκριμένες περιοχές ώστε να αποτρέψουμε την καταπάτηση και διατάραξη των ευαίσθητων αυτών οικολογικά και γεωλογικά περιοχών …
…περιμένουμε την ανταπόκριση και συνδρομή σας…

Oικολογική Πρωτοβουλία Ζακύνθου

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jun 15, 2017 02:39 PM
+

mariajo I am a researcher at the University of Oviedo (Asturias, Spain), involved in a project beginning at the moment, dealing with an update of the available digital vegetation cartography of the region, using the habitat classification system provided by EUNIS. We are still in the first stages, but we foresee that certain habitat types in the region might not be included in the current online version of the classification (which I assume is the latest accepted). Just to work in the right direction from the very beginning, and searching through EUNIS webpage,

I found some indications in this sense in this document, available online: Moss D (2008) EUNIS habitat classification - a guide for users, and specifically in page 26: "Adding new habitat types to the EUNIS habitat classification". I paste below:
"An undertaking such as the development of a pan-European habitat classification will never be complete, since new research, inclusion of new reference material or extension of the geographical area covered will reveal more detailed habitat types which are not included in the current version of the classification. For this reason it is important for users to cite the EUNIS version date when the classification is used in their project. As mentioned above, the classification is designed to allow flexibility in admitting new habitat types, but it is also hoped that there should be stability in the existing classification, at least to level 3. The developers of the classification at the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity have set out a number of principles which should be respected when the classification is expanded. These are available on request (email
ctecninf@mnhn.fr with ‘EUNIS habitats’ as the subject). Users are strongly recommended to consult the Topic Centre when they wish to add new habitat types for use in their own particular applications. For example, in the study for the Veliko ratno ostrvo island near Belgrade illustrated above, the authors have included F9.4 [Amorpha fruticosa] scrub (this is an alien invasive plant). However a search of the EUNIS website will show only three level three habitats in F9 Riverine and fen scrubs: F9.4 was added by the authors of this study. It would be quite possible for researchers working on different riverine systems in another part of Europe also to add their own new F9.4 – and confusion would soon result. The preferred action would be to discuss the new habitat type with the Topic Centre’s experts who would then advise on how to code the new habitat type, and include it in the next published version."

Following these indications, I wrote a message to that email address last week, asking for the the principles which should be respected in case the classification is expanded, and asking some additional questions. I didn't get any answer, but since that document is several years old, I wonder if the contact email is not the same now, or if I should contact with somebody else among the developers of EUNIS to discuss these topics. Could you help me with this?

Thanks very much in advance for your attention!
All the best,

Mariajo Bañuelos
University of Oviedo - Spain

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jun 09, 2017 02:59 PM
 
Loading