* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Proposal on synthetic air pollution pressure indicators
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Clean Air Act (United States) wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Ministry of Environment (South Korea) wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme Session C-Pa 6b Proposal on Synthetic Air Pollution Pressure Indicators Casilda LASSO DE LA VEGA Ana Marta URRUTIA Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme Proposal on Synthetic Air Pollution Pressure Indicators Casilda LASSO DE LA VEGA1 Faculy of Economics, Basque Country University Av. Lehendakari Aguirre 83 48015 Bilbao, Spain T. + 34 9 460 13 688 F. + 34 9 460 17 028 [email protected] Ana Marta URRUTIA Faculy of Economics, Basque Country University Av. Lehendakari Aguirre 83 48015 Bilbao, Spain T. + 34 9 460 13 694 F. + 34 9 460 17 028 [email protected] ABSTRACT Proposal on Synthetic Air Pollution Pressure Indicators The environment is changing under the influence of human activity. There are now evident signs of imbalance in the situation of the air, water and soil. In economic and social matters many indicators exist, but in most countries and indeed internationally there is an evident lack of environmental indicators. The purpose of this study is to develop environmental pressure indicators which can provide measurements on an international level of impact in terms of climate change, increased ozone levels in the troposphere and acidification, taking particular account of the pollutant emissions which directly or indirectly influence these problems. An indicator is also proposed which shows the overall pressure in terms of air pollution. The levels of these indicators are worked out for some industrialised countries for 1990-97, results are presented and changes over that period are studied. The indicators proposed are not intended to replace the wealth of initial information, but rather to supplement the information provided by existing environmental and economic indicators. They are intended as an aid in decision-making in matters of environmental protection and improvement, and in monitoring environmental factors in terms of sustainable development. RESUME Proposition concernant les indicateurs de pression de la pollution synthétique de l’air L’environnement change sous l’influence de l’activité humaine. Aujourd’hui, on trouve des signes évidents de déséquilibre dans la situation de l’air, de l’eau et du sol. En affaires économiques et sociales, il existe de nombreux indicateurs mais dans la plupart des pays et dans le 1 This research has been supported by U.P.V.-E.H.U., under the project UPV.036.321-HA138/99. 2 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme monde entier en fait, il y a un manque évident d’indicateurs écologiques. Le but de cette étude est de développer des indicateurs de pression écologiques pouvant fournir des mesures à un niveau international de l’impact en termes de changement climatique, d’augmentation du niveau d’ozone dans la troposphère et d’acidification, en tenant particulièrement compte des émissions polluantes qui influencent directement ou indirectement ces problèmes. Un indicateur est aussi proposé et montre la pression globale en termes de pollution de l’air. Le niveau de ces indicateurs est analysé pour certains pays industrialisés pour la période 1990-97, les résultats sont présentés et les changements au cours de cette période sont étudiés. Les indicateurs proposés n’ont pas pour but de remplacer la richesse des informations initiales, mais plutôt de compléter les informations fournies par les indicateurs écologiques et économiques existants. Ils sont considérés comme un moyen permettant de prendre des décisions en matière de protection et d’amélioration de l’environnement et de surveiller des facteurs écologiques en termes de développement durable 1. The Need for Environmental Air Pollution Pressure Indicators The environment is changing under the influence of human activity. There are now evident signs of imbalance in the situation of the air, water and soil. In some countries, major efforts have been made to compile data on the environmental situation, and a great deal of information is now available concerning the complex matter of the changes in and effects on the environment caused by human activity. But for all the information available, there is still a need for a measuring system which can sum up the situation of the environment in just a few indicators. In economic and social matters many indicators exist, but in most countries there is an evident lack of environmental indicators which could illustrate trends, measure the suitability of particular actions in certain areas and encourage public awareness of environmental problems. All environmental indicators should provide information on the status of the environment and reflect changes over time in a comprehensible, reproducible manner. Whenever possible they should be worked out in the same terms as the political objectives and goals to which they are linked. A widely used framework for environmental indicators arises from a simple set of questions: What is happening to the state of the environment or natural resources? Why is it happening? What are we doing about it? Indicators of changes or trends in the physical or biological state of the natural world, state indicators, answer the first question, indicators of stresses or pressures from human activities that cause environmental change, pressure indicators, answer the second, and measures of the policy adopted in response to environmental problems, response indicators, answer the third. Within this framework of pressure, state and response indicators, pressure indicators measure the effectiveness of measures carried out, i.e. whether emissions increase or decrease and whether the adverse conditions to which human beings are exposed get better or worse. They are not therefore used only to measure the pressure which each country exerts on the environment, but also to set specific targets for improvement. This study looks at the problem of climate change, the increase of ozone in the troposphere and acidification. These are three of the four problems (the fourth being the reduction of ozone in the stratosphere) directly linked to air pollution on the list of the 12 major environmental problems highlighted by the European Environment Agency in the Dobris Report as being of special relevance to Europe. On the basis of the air pollutant emissions associated with each of these problems, synthetic indicators are developed which measure the pressure exerted by each problem. An indicator is also proposed which shows the overall pressure in terms of air pollution. The levels of these indicators are worked out for some industrialised countries for 1990-97, results are presented and changes 3 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme over that period are studied. A permanent source of conflict for environmental indicators is that they must collect more and more information on a complex situation and present it in a manageable number of parameters suited to decision-making and public information processes. The fact that they present a synthesis means that the indicators drawn up can only be rough approximations. But it is also clear that there needs to be one measurement, albeit on the same level of roughness as many economic indicators such as the GDP, which although it is only a number represents a measurement which brings home environmental points which have hitherto not been widely considered, and which provides some overall knowledge. The synthetic indicators proposed here can be used to check the efficacy of policies implemented. The possibility is also left open of incorporating into the study the goals set at the various summits in terms of reducing pollutant emissions: the synthetic indicators devised could be used to measure how far each country is from achieving these goals. They are not intended to replace the wealth of initial information, but rather to supplement the information provided by existing economic indicators. They can be combined with other indicators of human development to draw up indicators of sustainable development, and can help increase interest in environmental variables by reflecting them in a more effective, more global manner. 2. Devising Synthetic Pressure Indicators to Assess Different Air Pollution Problems In this section we draw up synthetic pressure indicators based on emissions of pollutant gases directly or indirectly associated with the problems mentioned above, with a view to assessing and classifying countries in terms of the pressure exerted on the environment by air pollution in relation to climate change. We also devise a synthetic indicator for overall air pollution pressure, and relate all indicators to population figures. There is no way to measure the pressure exerted in each of these problems directly. It can however be estimated from pollutant emissions linked to each problem. Thus, to estimate the pressure related to climate change in each country the reference taken is the level of emission of greenhouse gases, i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). For tropospheric ozone the emissions considered are those of nitrogen oxides (NOx), non methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO) for each country. The emissions considered in regard to acidification are those of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (NH3). 2.1 Synthetic Climate Change Pressure Indicator The contribution of greenhouse gases to global warming depends on their atmospheric concentration, their residence time in the atmosphere and their effectiveness in trapping radiation. To compare the impact of different gases the global warming potential (GWP) relative to CO2 is often used, with CO2 having a value of 1. GWP values are strongly dependent on the time horizon considered. Examples of GWP values over a 100-year period are 21 for CH4, 310 for N2O and several thousand for a number of halogenated compounds (IPCC 1996). The units for emissions taking into account GWP values are called "CO2 equivalents". These units have been adopted by the international community to assess the impact of these gases on potential global warming. Taking these GWP values as a reference, the synthetic climate change indicator (CCI) considered for each country is the sum of emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O, measured in millions of tonnes of "CO2 equivalents", i.e.: (1) CCI = ( 1 * CO2 ) + ( 21 * CH4 ) + ( 310 * N2O ) 4 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme 2.2 Synthetic Pressure Indicators for Increases in Tropospheric Ozone and Acidification As in the previous subsection, we consider here how to weight the emissions of each gas responsible for part of the tropospheric ozone, and each gas which contributes to acidification. Unlike the case of climate change, in these two cases there are many factors apart from emissions which do not arise from human activity which directly affect potential increases in tropospheric ozone and acidification. Many of these factors depend on geographical location, e.g. sunlight, wind and rain. It is not therefore possible to establish internationally the weight of each emission in each problem under consideration. Nevertheless, in an international context there is a need for indicators to compare the pressure exerted by each country on the atmosphere in regard to these problems. But a pressure indicator which is defined differently in each country is of little use, so it is important not to give up the idea of obtaining synthetic indicators which can provide a mechanism for international comparisons and assessments over time of the pressure exerted by each country in terms of air pollution. With this in mind, the relationship between the different emissions affecting each problem in the increase of tropospheric ozone and in acidification was investigated for the period from 1990 to 19972. In all cases the correlations between emissions were observed to be high. The high levels of correlation between emissions of NMVOC, CO, NOx and CH4, which are the precursors of tropospheric ozone, indicate that there is a relationship between the different emissions: there are countries where emission levels are high and countries where they are low. In other words there are some countries which exert great pressure in terms of increasing ozone levels in the troposphere and others which exert less. This must obviously be reflected in any pressure indicator devised in regard to tropospheric ozone. The same applies to measurements of pressure in regard to acidification. In the absence of any better criterion by which to set the weights allocated to the different emissions in the pressure indicators for each of the problems considered, it was decided that the indicator which provided most information on initial emissions should be taken. In this context, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a statistical method which enables large amounts of information with a set of linearly related variables to be reflected in a small number of factors. In all cases and for all the years from 1990 to 1997 this method was found to be appropriate: it resulted in high levels of correlation between emissions, a determinant close to 0 for the respective correlation matrices and good results for other sample suitability measurements. In terms of the emissions responsible for the increase in ozone levels in the troposphere, the first factor of PCA explains over 99% of the information for 1991, '92, '93, '95, '96 and '97, 93& for 1990 and 95% for 1994. For emissions related to acidification the first factor of PCA explains around 88% of the initial information. The percentage of information included in a single factor for each problem is very high in all cases, which means that a single indicator can be used to represent a very large amount of the initial emission information. This method has the advantage of providing linear indicators which give a great deal of the information in the initial data but depend on the specific data to which the analysis is applied, so that the resulting factors do not allow comparisons to be made over time. Keeping in mind the goal of devising indicators which will allow international comparisons and assessment over time, our studies of the coefficients of the first factors obtained for the various analyses run lead us to propose the following synthetic indicators, which we have called TOI (tropospheric ozone indicator) and ACI (acidification indicator) respectively: (2) 2 TOI = ( 90 * NMVOC ) + ( 20 * CO ) + ( 80 * NOx ) + ( 50 * CH4 ) Data from the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (2000) and European Environment Agency (2000). 5 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme (3) ACI = ( 100 * SO2 ) + ( 150 * NOx ) + ( 450 * NH3 ) Emissions of all the gases involved are incorporated in calculating the respective indicators, measured in millions of tonnes. The synthetic indicators proposed are pressure indicators which enable the pollutant emissions associated with the problems to be assessed over time. Little information is lost in terms of the initial emission data: the percentages of variability explained by these synthetic indicators for all the years considered differ by less than one point from those explained by the factors obtained by PCA. This slight information loss seems clearly worthwhile when set against the possibility of making comparisons over time. The correlation between the factors obtained by PCA and by the synthetic indicators proposed for each problem (TOI and ACI) calculated for each pair of indicators is 1.000. We can therefore state that the synthetic indicators and the respective factors are statistically indistinguishable at a significance level of 99%. 2.3 Synthetic Pressure Indicators for Assessing Overall Air Pollution Once synthetic indicators are devised which allow climate change, the increase in tropospheric ozone and acidification to be evaluated, the possibility is opened up of devising a single overall air pollution pressure indicator. This would mean that each country could be represented by a single number indicating the pressure exerted in terms of air pollution as a result of the problems mentioned above. The linear indicator which reflects the highest proportion of the information in the initial data is always the first factor obtained after PCA so, after a check to ensure that the assumptions of sample suitability for this method are met for all the years involved, this same method was applied to the synthetic indicators proposed above in regard to the calculations made for 1990-1997. The variance explained by the first factor of PCA is over 96% for every year involved. This figure is high enough to suggest that a single factor can validly be used to reflect a very high proportion of the information in the synthetic indicators CCI, TOI and ACI, and that the factors obtained by PCA can be considered as pressure indicators for overall air pollution in all these years. In order to draw up a single indicator which will enable assessments to be made over time, the coefficients of the first factor obtained for each year from 1990 to 1997 were studied. The average of the figures for CCI, TOI and ACI is proposed as this single pressure indicator for air pollution. This indicator is referred to here as PI. (4) PI = ( CCI + TOI + ACI ) / 3 The percentages of variability explained by this synthetic indicator for the period between 190 and 1997 differ by less than one point from those explained by the factors obtained via PCA, and their correlation with those factors is 1.000 in all cases. We can therefore state that the synthetic indicators and the pollution factors obtained via PCA are statistically indistinguishable at a significance level of 99%. The figures for synthetic indicators CCI, TOI, ACI and PI for 1997 and 1990 are presented in Table1, which also shows the rates of change for each figure from 1990 to 19973. 2.4 Synthetic Indicators for Per Capita Pressure in Regard to Air Pollution The data used to calculate all these synthetic indicators are the overall emission figures for 3 Data from the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (2000) and European Environment Agency (2000). 6 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme each country. These can be broken down according to different criteria, e.g. population, GDP or surface area of the country of reference. The criterion considered here is population. It is logical that countries with more inhabitants should have higher levels of pollutant emissions. To relate the data to population figures4 per capita synthetic indicators were drawn up for overall pollution, climate change, tropospheric ozone and acidification by simply dividing the relevant indicator in each case by the population of the country involved, expressed in millions of persons. Per capita indicators for 1997 and 1990 are presented in Table 2, which also shows the rates of change from 1990 to 1997. 4 Data from the World Bank. 7 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme Table 1. Synthetic Indicators for Air Pollution and Rates of Change for Some Industrialised Countries 1997 COUNTRIE S Australi a Austri a Belgiu m Bulgari a Canad aCzech Rep. Denmar k Estoni a Finlan d France German yGreec eHungar y Icelan d Irelan d Italy Japan Latvia Lithuani a Luxembour g Netherland sNew Zealand Norwa y Poland Portuga l Romani a Russian Fed. Slovak Rep. Sloveni a Spain Swede n Switzerlan d Ukrain eUnit. Kingdom U.S.A . Mean PI 73.8 126.9 121.4 144.1 81.1 22.1 66.3 619.2 785.7 128.5 98.6 5.3 75.3 597.4 CCI 444.3 77.6 151.9 84.5 674.7 157.8 83.5 23.1 76.2 550.3 1035.8 110.7 79.1 2.7 59.7 542.3 Synthetic indicators TOI 962.4 78.7 111.2 74.8 831.7 104.5 65.9 11.6 58.5 657.4 612.6 116.3 87.0 5.0 71.5 645.2 1280.4 481.0 19.1 16.0 22.6 34.6 8.0 10.2 6.5 175.1 232.1 145.1 75.4 127.2 60.9 53.7 81.0 447.4 426.2 366.8 112.0 72.6 121.4 195.8 164.0 184.9 2111.4 1597.0 53.0 55.1 42.7 425.7 79.5 50.6 601.9 1990 ACI PI 65.3 117.8 204.9 80.6 126.8 188.1 170.0 94.0 31.7 64.3 649.9 708.9 158.6 129.6 8.2 94.5 235.4 87.4 35.5 73.1 677.2 1163.4 121.3 132.9 9.6 74.4 604.9 CCI 410.8 73.7 138.9 123.4 590.6 189.8 71.7 40.7 72.5 553.6 1201.1 103.8 86.6 2.6 56.9 609.7 532.9 1175.0 39.7 35.7 63.2 51.5 10.0 13.4 198.2 208.3 71.9 58.0 47.1 459.0 103.8 68.4 270.4 229.1 2998.8 83.8 72.5 26.5 19.2 420.5 301.4 88.9 69.5 60.0 53.7 919.2 809.8 726.6 5903.0 18.8 32.0 7.3 148.2 48.0 549.3 142.0 238.5 61.2 32.6 325.5 407.1 544.4 69.3 91.5 77.7 51.7 46.9 53.3 466.5 657.4 560.3 588.2 6513.9 6314.0 199.0 507.1 458.3 201.6 TOI 1125.5 95.7 111.2 117.6 147.4 75.3 17.4 60.2 795.6 1009.9 109.6 101.5 5.1 74.5 Growth rate % 1990ACI PI CCI 1997TOI ACI 8 -14 72.4 -8 5 -18 -10 130.5 0 9 0 -10 323.2 -35 -32 -36 -37 14 369.1 -39 -17 -29 -54 115.4 -7 17 -13 -19 48.5 -38 -43 -33 -35 86.8 -9 5 -3 -26 682.6 -9 -1 -17 -5 1279.1 -32 -14 -39 -45 150.5 6 7 6 5 210.5 -26 -9 -14 -38 21.0 -45 5 -2 -61 91.8 1 5 -4 3 630.8 665.5 -2 2 2 475.6 9 1 37.8 45.7 -52 -55 -40 54.5 83.7 -37 8.3 8.1 -20 -24 -23 177.4 208.9 -12 11 -18 124.0 5 3 78.6 48.4 5 14 3 601.8 -7 110.5 132.5 8 6 10 234.1 348.0 -28 -28 -21 2270.1 -30 -30 62.9 116.0 -37 -24 -32 20.7 39.5 397.9 562.0 1 8 2 111.7 85.6 -11 0 -18 64.7 61.6 -16 -4 -28 -49 776.8 925.9 -26 -10 -28 6520.4 10 -3 216.6 504.9 500.1 268.4 -12 8 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 -5 -9 -59 -62 -10 -29 -1 -9 7 -31 -47 -18 -3 -9 -13 -36 -5 -25 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme Table 2. Per capita synthetic indicators for air pollution and rates of change for some industrialised countries. Per capita synthetic indicators 1997 Growth rate 1990 % 1990-1997 COUNTRIES PI Australia CCI TOI 24.3 52.6 ACI PI CCI TOI 24.1 66.0 ACI PI CCI TOI ACI 1 -20 Austria 9.1 9.6 9.7 8.1 10.4 9.5 12.4 9.4 -13 0 -22 -14 Belgium 12.6 15.0 11.0 11.7 12.7 13.9 11.2 13.1 -1 8 -1 -11 Bulgaria 14.4 10.1 8.9 24.4 21.6 14.2 13.5 37.1 -33 -29 -34 -34 22.3 27.5 -16 -29 -54 Canada 21.2 5 Czech Rep. 14.0 15.3 10.1 16.5 22.7 18.3 14.2 35.6 -38 Denmark 15.3 15.8 12.4 17.7 17.0 13.9 14.6 22.5 -10 13 -15 -21 Estonia 15.8 16.5 8.3 22.6 22.6 25.9 11.1 30.8 -30 -36 -25 -27 Finland 13.0 14.9 11.5 12.6 14.7 14.5 12.1 17.4 -11 3 -5 -28 France 10.6 9.4 11.2 11.1 11.9 9.8 14.0 12.0 -11 -4 -20 -8 9.6 12.6 7.5 8.6 14.6 15.1 12.7 16.1 -35 -17 -41 -46 12.1 10.4 11.0 15.0 11.9 10.2 10.8 14.8 2 2 2 1 Hungary 9.7 7.8 8.5 12.7 12.8 8.4 9.8 20.3 -25 -7 -13 -37 Iceland 17.7 9.0 16.7 27.3 37.5 10.1 20.1 82.4 -53 -11 -17 -67 Ireland 20.3 16.1 19.3 25.5 21.2 16.2 21.3 26.2 -4 0 -9 -2 Italy 10.4 9.4 11.2 10.5 10.8 9.4 11.1 11.7 -3 1 1 -10 10.2 3.8 9.5 3.8 7 -1 6.4 9.1 7.5 14.8 13.3 14.1 17.0 -52 -36 -56 9.3 8.6 16.9 13.8 14.6 22.4 -36 -61 Germany Greece Japan Latvia 7.7 Lithuania -48 Luxembourg 19.9 25.6 16.1 18.1 26.1 35.2 21.8 21.2 -24 -27 -26 -15 Netherlands 11.2 14.9 9.3 9.5 13.3 13.9 11.9 14.0 -15 7 -22 -32 19.8 33.5 21.4 36.9 -7 -9 11.1 18.5 10 -1 New Zealand Norway 13.8 12.2 18.4 10.9 Poland 11.6 11.0 9.5 14.2 Portugal 11.3 7.3 12.3 14.3 10.5 Romania 8.7 10.6 11.7 Russian Fed. Slovak Rep. 9.8 7.3 8.2 14.3 10.8 10.2 7.9 Slovenia Spain 13.7 12.0 11.4 1 15.8 -9 -4 -10 6.9 11.2 13.4 8 6 10 7 15.0 -25 -26 -19 -29 -29 -29 -26 -34 9.9 10.1 20.2 15.3 11.3 15.9 13.7 11.9 21.9 16.3 13.3 9.6 10.4 19.8 -38 -48 -18 10.7 8.2 10.3 13.7 10.8 7.8 10.2 14.5 -1 6 0 -5 Sweden 8.9 7.8 10.3 8.7 10.4 8.1 13.1 10.0 -14 -4 -21 -13 Switzerland 6.9 7.1 6.4 7.3 8.9 8.0 9.6 9.2 -22 -12 -33 -20 10.3 11.2 9.6 10.1 14.1 12.6 13.5 16.1 -27 -11 -29 -37 24.0 23.2 23.7 26.1 1 -11 14.8 13.9 15.8 16.1 -6 -14 Ukraine Unit. Kingdom 9.1 U.S.A. Mean 10.7 17.7 11.5 13.5 9 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 -48 15.8 -21 -27 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme 3. Situation of Some Industrialised Countries in Regard to Air Pollution Pressure in 1997 This section uses the figures calculated for the synthetic indicators proposed above (PI, CCI, TOI and ACI) for 1997 and 1990 as presented in Table 1, and the per capita indicators in Table 2 in a analysis comparing various industrialised countries in regard to overall air pollution pressure. Biplot graphs are then given showing the indicators for 1997. These graphs show the countries for which data are available for all the indicators calculated. Figure1 shows the various countries with their PI, CCI, TOI and ACI. This figure reflects over 99% of the information on CCI, TOI and ACI. The points represent countries and the arrows represent the indicators. The correlation between TOI and ACI is 1.000. All the indicators are strongly correlated. 5 Germany Rotated factor2 (43,7%) 4 3 2 United Kingdom 1 Netherlands CCI PI TOI/ACI Belgium Poland 0 Sweden Romania Luxembourg Portugal Italy France Spain -1 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Rotated factor1 (55,4%) Figure 1. Biplot of Some Industrialised Countries and Synthetic Indicators for ressure in Regard to Air Contamination A large group of countries is observed, including Iceland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia, Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal and The Netherlands, whose pollution pressure indicator is lower than average. The opposite is true of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and Spain. Distinctions can also be drawn among the members of the latter group. The case of Germany is particularly noteworthy, as its climate change pressure indicator is far higher than for the other countries. Figure 2 shows the countries with the per capita figures for PI, CCI, TOI and ACI. This figure covers over 83% of the information on the per capita figures of CCI, TOI and ACI. Once again the points represent the countries and the arrows the indicators. The correlation between per capital figures of TOI and ACI is high, but that of CCI is low. The way in which countries are grouped for per capita figures is very different from the previous figure. The countries which stand out clearly in terms of per capita figures are Ireland, 10 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme Luxembourg and Iceland. Iceland and Ireland stand out for their high per capita pressure indicators for acidification, while Luxembourg stands out for its per capita pressure indicator for climate change. They are followed by Estonia, Denmark, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. 4 Luxembourg Rotated factor 2 (34,7%) 3 2 Netherlands Belgium CCI Denmark 1 Germany TOI United Kingdom 0 Austria Switzerland -1 Latvia Ireland PI ACI France Greece Sweden Bulgaria Hungary Portugal Iceland -2 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Rotated factor 1 (48,8%) Figure 2. Biplot of Some Industrialised Countries and Synthetic Indicators for Per Capita Pressure in Regard to Aair Contamination The lowest per capita figures for pressure in regard to pollution are those of Switzerland, Latvia, Romania, Sweden, Austria, Germany and Hungary. It is noteworthy that all the countries which in absolute terms pollute most, i.e. Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and Spain, are below average in terms of per capita figures. 7000 2500 U.S.A. 6000 2000 5000 Russian Fed 1500 TOI TOI 4000 3000 2000 1000 Australia Canada 1000 France United KingdomGermany Russian Fed. 500 Poland Spain New Zealand Netherlands Luxembourg 0 Australia Germany Spain Japan 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 CCI 500 Japan 1000 1500 2000 2500 CCI Figure 3. SomeIindustrialised Countries Shown According to the Synthetic Indicator for Pressure in Regard to Climate Change and Tropospheric Ozone 11 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Russian Federation and the U.S.A. are not included in the figures given above as no data are available on their NH3 emissions, and the acidification pressure indicator cannot be worked out. The figures below show the situation of these countries for those indicators which can be calculated, i.e. CCI and TOI. Figure 3 gives overall indicators and Figure 4 per capita figures. As shown by Figure 3, in absolute terms the highest figures are those of the U.S.A., followed by the Russian Federation. Canada and Japan are higher than average for both indicators, as are Germany, Italy, France and United Kingdom. New Zealand is well below the average for both indicators. 60 Australia 50 40 TOIpc New Zealand 30 Canada U.S.A. 20 Iceland Norway Ireland Luxembourg Portugal France Latvia Germany Estonia Switzerland Japan 10 0 0 10 20 30 CCIpc Figure 4. Some Industrialised Ccountries Shown According to the Synthetic Indicator for Per Capita Pressure in Regard to Climate Change and Tropospheric Ozone In per capita terms the picture is very different: the highest figures are those of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S.A.. Japan and Russian Federation are below average for both indicators. 4. Changes in Air Pollution Pressure in Some Industrialised Countries between 1990 and 1997 To analyse the changes in the environmental pressure in terms of air pollution exerted by these countries in recent years, we studied the rates of change in the synthetic pressure indicators for pollution, climate change, tropospheric ozone levels and acidification over the period from 1990 to 1997. The first point to be made is that the trend was downward in most countries, so that a considerable drop in the pressure exerted by each country in regard to the various pollution problems is observed. Exceptions to this trend are the U.S.A., Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Greece and Norway. As shown by Figure 5, those countries which have undergone the biggest drop in pressure in regard to overall pollution since 1990 are mostly Eastern European countries and members of the Community of Independent States, though Iceland, Germany, the United Kingdom and Luxembourg have all experienced drops of over 20%. Increases in the overall pollution indicator 12 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme are observed in Portugal, Greece, Norway, Spain and Ireland. The 30% drop in climate change and tropospheric ozone pressure indicators in the Russian Federation is particularly noteworthy. Taking all the countries shown as a whole, the overall pressure on the environment in regard to pollution is down by 12%. Pressure in regard to acidification is down by 25%, while the drop for climate change and tropospheric ozone levels is only 5%. 1400 20 1200 10 0 1000 -10 800 -20 600 -30 400 -40 -50 0 -60 La t v Ic ia e Cz la ec nd h Re Es p. t Sl ov onia ak R Bu ep. lg G aria er m Ro any m an U Hu ia ni t. nga K i ry Lu ngd xe om m Sw bou itz rg N erla et he nd rla n Sw ds ed e Fi n nl an Fr d an c A e us D tria en m ar k Ita Be ly lg iu m Ire la nd Sp a N in or w a G y re e Po ce rtu ga l 200 PI97 PI90 Growth rate Figure 5. Rate of Change in the Synthetic Indicator for Air Pollution for Some Industrialised Countries These results for the different countries are maintained when emissions are considered in relation to their populations, as shown by the rates of change in the synthetic indicators for per capita pressure presented in Table 2. 5. Conclusions This study has looked at emissions of pollutant gases associated with the problems of climate change, increases in tropospheric ozone levels and acidification with a view to devising synthetic pressure indicators for each of these problems, and a synthetic indicator reflecting the overall pressure on the environment in terms of air pollution. These indicators allow comparisons to be made between the pressure exerted on the air by different countries, and enable changes over time to be analysed so that these indicators can be used to check the efficacy of policies implemented. The possibility is also left open of incorporating into the study the goals set at the various summits in terms of reducing pollutant emissions: the synthetic indicators devised could be used to measure how far each country is from achieving these goals. It is hoped that these indicators can supplement the information provided by existing environmental and economic indicators. They are intended as an aid in decision-making in matters of environmental protection and improvement, and in monitoring environmental factors in terms of sustainable development. 13 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000 Statistique, Développement et Droits de l‘Homme REFERENCES European Environment Agency. (1995). Medio Ambiente en Europa: El Informe Dobris. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid European Environment Agency. (1998). Europe's Environment: The Second Assessment. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg. European Environment Agency. (2000). Website: http: //www.eea.int.eu. Internet. Eurostat, European Commission, The European Environment Agency, United Nations, O.E.C.D., World Health Organization. (1995). Europe's Environment: Statistical Compendium for the Dobris Assessment. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg. Eurostat, European Commission, The European Environment Agency. (1998). Europe's Environment: Statistical Compendium for the Second Assessment. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg. Hammond, A. Adriaanse, A. Rodenburg, E. Bryant, D. Woodward, R. (1995). Environmental Indicators. World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C. IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Eds: J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. United Nations Framework on Climate Change (2000). Website: http://www.unfccc.de/resources/. Internet. 14 Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000