Please note that this forum is no longer in use and has been replaced by an online contact us form.

Be assured that the information service rendered by the EEA remains similar. Note that the content of this forum will remain publicly available until the end of 2020. After that we will archive it for internal use for a max retention period of 3 years. Any personal data will be deleted after this retention period.

With kind regards,
EEA Enquiry Service

Please login to participate.

Moon Hi, I am searching for the average CO2 emission by large manufacturers in Europe ([…]-manufacturer-5#tab-chart_2). It seems like EEA does not provide 2018 figures I found a raw data which turned out to have around 15mn rows and, thus, cannot be analyzed using Excel.

When does EEA plan to provide average CO2 emission by large manufacturers in 2018? Or is there a way for me to know this information?

Last discussed by EEA
Jul 30, 2019 02:54 PM

ant Dear all,

I have some questions regarding the consistency of the data published in (Monitoring of CO2 emissions from passenger cars,[…]/co2-cars-emission-16).
I know the data is marked as "provisional", but nonetheless I'd like to do some analysis with it. I apologize if there is any better place to ask these questions and I’d be thankful for any relating hints.

1) Several entries of the field Mh (Manufacturer name EU standard denomination) contain the word "Duplicate". Does this mean that the corresponding data row should be omitted in the analysis (e.g. when calculating average CO2 emissions)? If so, why are they published?
For example, see data row 6747 (ID 14555502). All entries are identical to the preceding row except for the fields Mh, Mp, VFN, Ewltp and Vf.

2) As in the previous example, emission data originating from apparently identical vehicle types may differ significantly. For example, the data in row 1749 and 1750 (ID 14560585/6) only differ in the NEDC and WLTP emission figures, i.e. 149 vs 160g/km and 173 vs 184g/km, respectively. What may cause this discrepancy?

Last discussed by ant
Jul 19, 2019 03:09 PM

Ferrario70 I can't understand the difference between this 2 maps:
MAP 1 -
MAP 2 -[…]/up-to-date-air-quality-data
In MAP2 you have NOT data of PM10, how you can calculate, for the same time and date the AQI in MAP1 ???
Please let me understand the difference.
Best regards, Max Ferrario

Last discussed by EEA
Jul 18, 2019 03:42 PM

rdubbeldeman Dear EEA,

I have an information request.
Could you please tell me what would be the correct EU ESD emissions for the year 2016. I found two different numbers on the EEA website on pages that have been updated around the same time.
The first source :
• ETS, ESD, LULUCF and aviation emission trends and projections, 1990-2035 (Last modified 30 Nov 2018)[…]viation-1#tab-based-on-data
• Displayed ESD emissions 2016: 2.540,71 mt
The second source:
• Greenhouse gas emissions under the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) last modified 23 Nov 2019
• Displayed ESD emissions 2016: 2.554,99 mt
Both source seem to be updated fairly recently. So I would very much appreciate it if you could explain the difference and tell me what would be the correct ESD emission data for the EU.
Also, could you tell me when the ESD emission for the year 2017 will be known and published (not the proxy)?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards,

Last discussed by EEA
Jul 15, 2019 04:25 PM

janissuipe Deliberate ketazine spill. ~1000 tons. How dangerous is this?
During April and May approximately 500 to 1000 metric tons of chemical waste was spilled in 20 places, mostly onto rural dirt roads, on the side of wheat fields or in a ditch next to dirt roads.
This fact was made public at the end of May, the delay was so that the police could catch the truck driver. They did, he's under arrest. The preliminary analysis of the VVD (Our EPA) stated that the pollutant is possibly ketazine a byproduct of POROFOR (AZODICARBONAMIDE) manufacturing.
Here are some videos of the spill:
The videos contain the info I have laid out here.[…]ideos%2F2215514648544196%2F[…]e_ffjpdPrmgWMAWDUnTWRr1ryKI
Map of the spills:[…]/bilde%20Evita%20gatava.png
The pollutant is brownish and when evaporates makes brownish crystals. During these past two months it has evaporated or seeped into the ground leaving scorched dead plants and small animals. The VVD say that this stuff is a localized pollution that does not affect the groundwater or anything else and most of it must have "harmlessly evaporated". No cleanup has been made and there was only a plea from the gov. VVD to the alleged polluting factory to clean it up. At first they had no comment then they started to deny everything. Considering that they are the ONLY factory with ketazine as byproduct in this country and possibly the neighboring too, it may be pretty obvious who's the guilty one.
These are the "alleged" polluters and their production portfolio.
Our VVD ir understaffed and underpaid (what a shocker) and possibly corrupt. Tomorrow is the press conference fortunately with lab results determining exactly which chemical it is and I'm planing on attending it and asking some tough questions, with your help of course.
So if you could chime in with your expertise on some of the official version.
1) Is ketazine really a waste product and not something that has value or application?
2) Is ketazine a byproduct of POROFOR (AZODICARBONAMIDE) manufacturing?
3) How cancerous/dangerous is it?
4) What cleanup should have been made?
5) What measurements and controls should be done to check soil, groundwater.
6) This is in EU, which agency has cleanup guidelines or to whom can we complain.
7) How to get the polluter by the balls.
Deliberate ketazine spill. How dangerous is this? Cleanup guidelines.

It would mean a lot if You could answer any of these questions or point to the right direction. Thanks.

Last discussed by EEA
Jul 01, 2019 11:48 AM

alexib  [Monitoring of CO2 emissions from passenger cars – Regulation (EC) No 443/2009]
I have a question concerning the provisional 2018 CO2 data of passenger cars which I downloaded from here:[…]/co2-emissions-cars-2018-provisional

As a total average CO2 value I get 120.6 g CO2/km NEDC when I discard the cells without CO2 value (Enedc (g/km)). In the press release it says the average CO2 value is 120.4 g CO2/km:[…]/average-co2-emissions-from-new

Including the empty CO2 cells - which are then counted as Zeroes - I get an average of 117.5 g/km.

Is there an explanation why there is a difference? By the way the total new registrations in the file (including Iceland) amount to 15,273,273 units. Without the empty CO2 fields the total is only 14,876,238.

When I look at the petrol registrations, they amount to (excl. empty CO2 fields) 8,847,862 units and the average CO2 value is 123.6 g CO2/km, in the press release it is only 123.4 g CO2/km.

The Diesel average CO2 is 121.5 g CO2/km in the press release and in my calculation using the file.

Do you have any explanation for this?

Thank you.

Last discussed by EEA
Jun 28, 2019 10:27 AM