<p>My answer will not be complete, but consider one factor: population.</p>
<p>Belgium population per year:</p>
<p>1990    9,967,000</p>
<p>2000    10,251,000 (+10.2%)</p>
<p>2009    10,796,000 (+5.3%)</p>
<p>2018    11,376,070 (+5.4%)</p>
<p>On top of that, you are considering countries with relatively small population increasing significantly (Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands). Most of the population increase is from immigration and high fertility rate of the new population (see the CO2eq impact of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378008001003" rel="nofollow noreferrer">about 9tons per capita on the parents due to a new born</a>), with industrial powerhouses like Germany and Italy where a lot of the production has been delocalized in the same time period (check CO2 of Romania or Spain)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-15T12:44:51.917Z
I'm skeptic if the whole Brexit thing substantially alters the numbers significantly (e.g. it feels like an increased demand for flats in Amsterdam) for an increase on side of The Netherlands vs. a decrease for the UK.  For the numbers about Belgium, the yearly increase of capita you report look higher than the reports e.g., by [worldbank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=BE), [worldometer](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/belgium-population/), or [worldpopulationreview.com](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries). What are the sources of your data?
Buttonwood
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-15T13:23:20.557Z
@Buttonwood population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Belgium#Vital_statistics_from_1900
regarding moving people: there must be a short-term net increase, because of the moving. 
Then I do not know, it depends on how CO2eq intensive is the lifestyle of the median Belgian, if the moving person will adapt to that lifestyle, if he will insist on buying pickles sourced from the UK, etcetc ... LCA assessment on people, in short.
Where is Brexit mentioned?
EarlGrey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-28T13:59:58.077Z
The numbers in the question are per capita, and it's not obvious (at least not to me) why an increase in population will also increase emissions per person. There might be more complicated effects that proportionally more new infrastructure (housing etc) has to be build for the new population, but I'm not sure if the population effect is so easy, I think economic factors might be more relevant.
uUnwY
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-28T14:12:23.697Z
@StephanMatthiesen there are a number of studies pointing at immigrants (and their offsprings) increased fertility, even looking at detailed aspects, such as this study ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/26332183 ) . If the new population is not due to immigration, but to increased fertility, there is a marked increase in CO2eq per capita, both due to "infrastructure" and to personal changeas in parents attitudes/lifestyle https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32294098/

Please do avoid doublecounting:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-020-09345-z
EarlGrey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-11T08:26:03.163Z
2021-01-11T08:26:03.163Z
EarlGrey
<p>Because Europe's infinite wisdom. Jokes aside,
Their anti co2 nonsense has revoked utilization of cheap and clean natural gas.
Instead Europe to satiate it's energy demands now burns wood and trash.
Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes; it was the prdominant energy source for humanity. Even if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland we could have made 1.25 million tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown. If Europe shuts down their nuclear plants it will not be water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel and imported wood chips to run their industrial society.</p>
<p>Nuclear's biggest advantage besides the fact it doesn't atmospherically pollute. A kilowatt-hour worth of coal fired electricity produces about 2.07 lbs of CO2 or over a million tons per terawatt-hour. The nuclear plant in my home state produces 14.9 Terawatt-hours per year; preventing over 15 million tons of CO2 per year or over half a billion tons over the last 40 years. The US nuclear industry keeps 830 million tons of CO2 out of the air annually. The other thing is the power density and 24/7 reliability a Nuclear reactor takes up a few acres of land and on it's size produces about 10-20 terawatt-hours per year; a wind farm or solar farm covers hundreds of thousands of acres. Were 7 billion people; were gonna be 9 billion by 2050 and they're moving to cities from the villages, the world is now 50% urban, up from 14% in 1900, it's gonna be 60% urban people by 2030, and 80% urban by 2050 that's 7 BILLION people living in cities and with it a appetite for city living means 24/7 power demand And they cant rely on combustion for heating, cooking, light and transportation they'll need electric power and that's either gonna come from FOSSIL or Nuclear. Your choice. A GRAM of uranium produces 17 times more energy than a ton of wood.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-24T00:59:12.540Z
Only 2% of earth scientists would label it as nonsense. The US wildfire nonsense and ocean acidification rising sea level myth wasnt on topic either. Note that a nuclear station costs as much as wind and solar plus 2000miles of 10 gigawatt power lines. https://www.google.com/search?q=percent+of+scientists+who+believe+in+climate+change&oq=prrcent+of+scientists+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13j0i22i30l3.12362j0j9&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
bandybabboon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-09T19:50:30.973Z
2021-01-10T08:49:50.657Z
2021-01-10T08:49:50.657Z
LazyReader
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Consumption-based emissions reflect the consumption and lifestyle
choices of a country’s citizens.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Via this article <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2</a> I see that Belgium's <strong>consumption-based CO<sub>2</sub> emissions per capita</strong> in 2018 is still above the level of 1990.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/vKCOw.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/vKCOw.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>I wonder why?</p>
<p>Why are Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Norway still above their CO<sub>2</sub> consumption levels, while many other neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Ireland, ... did manage to get their levels down?</p>
<p>Further more, I am wondering how they can correctly estimate the CO<sub>2</sub> of all consumption? I believe this is not known for all brands/products?</p>
<p>P.S.: In 'Sources' we can read:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Consumption-based emissions are national or regional emissions which
have been adjusted for trade (i.e. territorial/production emissions
minus emissions embedded in exports, plus emissions embedded in
imports). If a country's consumption-based emissions are higher than
its production emissions it is a net importer of carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>The underlying source is an updated version of the paper by &quot;Peters et
al. (2011). Growth in emission transfers via international trade from
1990 to 2008.&quot;</p>
<p>► (Updated to 2014) Peters, GP, Minx, JC, Weber, CL and Edenhofer, O 2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 8903-8908: <a href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/9/3247/2012/bg-9-3247-2012.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/9/3247/2012/bg-9-3247-2012.html</a></p>
<p>This updated data is available in the latest version of
the Global Carbon Budget.</p>
<p>► <a href="https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget/2019" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget/2019</a> via <a href="https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget</a></p>
<p>Our World in Data has calculated several additional metrics based on
the following metrics:</p>
<p>► Energy consumption data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy: <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html</a></p>
<p>► Long-term GDP data from Maddison Project Database: <a href="https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2018" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2018</a></p>
<p>► Population data from the UN World Population Prospects and
Gapminder: <a href="https://www.gapminder.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.gapminder.org/</a> <a href="https://population.un.org/wpp/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://population.un.org/wpp/</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-11T05:28:59.030Z
I suspect that it may be due to nuclear energy use by other rnations. Belgium has not built any nuclear reactors since the 1970's and perhaps put some out of service. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_centrales_nucl%C3%A9aires_en_Belgique Another reason may be industry type, with some heavy industries supported by fossil fuel factories. perhaps there's a trend related to central heating energy type or something.
bandybabboon
<co2>
Why is Belgium (and Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Norway) still above consumption CO2 levels per capita of 1990? While many others did go down
O0123
# Why is Belgium (and Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Norway) still above consumption CO2 levels per capita of 1990? While many others did go down

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-01-08)

> "Consumption-based emissions reflect the consumption and lifestyle
> choices of a country’s citizens."

Via this article <https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2> I see that Belgium's **consumption-based CO2 emissions per capita** in 2018 is still above the level of 1990.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/vKCOw.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/vKCOw.jpg)

I wonder why?

Why are Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Norway still above their CO2 consumption levels, while many other neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Ireland, ... did manage to get their levels down?

Further more, I am wondering how they can correctly estimate the CO2 of all consumption? I believe this is not known for all brands/products?

P.S.: In 'Sources' we can read:

> Consumption-based emissions are national or regional emissions which
> have been adjusted for trade (i.e. territorial/production emissions
> minus emissions embedded in exports, plus emissions embedded in
> imports). If a country's consumption-based emissions are higher than
> its production emissions it is a net importer of carbon dioxide.
>
> The underlying source is an updated version of the paper by "Peters et
> al. (2011). Growth in emission transfers via international trade from
> 1990 to 2008."
>
> ► (Updated to 2014) Peters, GP, Minx, JC, Weber, CL and Edenhofer, O 2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 8903-8908: <https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/9/3247/2012/bg-9-3247-2012.html>
>
> This updated data is available in the latest version of
> the Global Carbon Budget.
>
> ► <https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget/2019> via <https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget>
>
> Our World in Data has calculated several additional metrics based on
> the following metrics:
>
> ► Energy consumption data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy: <https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html>
>
> ► Long-term GDP data from Maddison Project Database: <https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2018>
>
> ► Population data from the UN World Population Prospects and
> Gapminder: <https://www.gapminder.org/> <https://population.un.org/wpp/>

**Tags:** co2

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I suspect that it may be due to nuclear energy use by other rnations. Belgium has not built any nuclear reactors since the 1970's and perhaps put some out of service. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_centrales_nucl%C3%A9aires_en_Belgique Another reason may be industry type, with some heavy industries supported by fossil fuel factories. perhaps there's a trend related to central heating energy type or something.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-01-11. Score: -1

My answer will not be complete, but consider one factor: population.

Belgium population per year:

1990 9,967,000

2000 10,251,000 (+10.2%)

2009 10,796,000 (+5.3%)

2018 11,376,070 (+5.4%)

On top of that, you are considering countries with relatively small population increasing significantly (Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands). Most of the population increase is from immigration and high fertility rate of the new population (see the CO2eq impact of [about 9tons per capita on the parents due to a new born](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378008001003)), with industrial powerhouses like Germany and Italy where a lot of the production has been delocalized in the same time period (check CO2 of Romania or Spain)

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: I'm skeptic if the whole Brexit thing substantially alters the numbers significantly (e.g. it feels like an increased demand for flats in Amsterdam) for an increase on side of The Netherlands vs. a decrease for the UK.  For the numbers about Belgium, the yearly increase of capita you report look higher than the reports e.g., by [worldbank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=BE), [worldometer](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/belgium-population/), or [worldpopulationreview.com](https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries). What are the sources of your data?  
> **username_2**: @username_3 population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Belgium#Vital_statistics_from_1900 regarding moving people: there must be a short-term net increase, because of the moving.  Then I do not know, it depends on how CO2eq intensive is the lifestyle of the median Belgian, if the moving person will adapt to that lifestyle, if he will insist on buying pickles sourced from the UK, etcetc ... LCA assessment on people, in short. Where is Brexit mentioned?  
> **username_4**: The numbers in the question are per capita, and it's not obvious (at least not to me) why an increase in population will also increase emissions per person. There might be more complicated effects that proportionally more new infrastructure (housing etc) has to be build for the new population, but I'm not sure if the population effect is so easy, I think economic factors might be more relevant.  
> **username_2**: @StephanMatthiesen there are a number of studies pointing at immigrants (and their offsprings) increased fertility, even looking at detailed aspects, such as this study ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/26332183 ) . If the new population is not due to immigration, but to increased fertility, there is a marked increase in CO2eq per capita, both due to "infrastructure" and to personal changeas in parents attitudes/lifestyle https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32294098/  Please do avoid doublecounting:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-020-09345-z  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-01-09. Score: -9

Because Europe's infinite wisdom. Jokes aside,
Their anti co2 nonsense has revoked utilization of cheap and clean natural gas.
Instead Europe to satiate it's energy demands now burns wood and trash.
Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes; it was the prdominant energy source for humanity. Even if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland we could have made 1.25 million tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown. If Europe shuts down their nuclear plants it will not be water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel and imported wood chips to run their industrial society.

Nuclear's biggest advantage besides the fact it doesn't atmospherically pollute. A kilowatt-hour worth of coal fired electricity produces about 2.07 lbs of CO2 or over a million tons per terawatt-hour. The nuclear plant in my home state produces 14.9 Terawatt-hours per year; preventing over 15 million tons of CO2 per year or over half a billion tons over the last 40 years. The US nuclear industry keeps 830 million tons of CO2 out of the air annually. The other thing is the power density and 24/7 reliability a Nuclear reactor takes up a few acres of land and on it's size produces about 10-20 terawatt-hours per year; a wind farm or solar farm covers hundreds of thousands of acres. Were 7 billion people; were gonna be 9 billion by 2050 and they're moving to cities from the villages, the world is now 50% urban, up from 14% in 1900, it's gonna be 60% urban people by 2030, and 80% urban by 2050 that's 7 BILLION people living in cities and with it a appetite for city living means 24/7 power demand And they cant rely on combustion for heating, cooking, light and transportation they'll need electric power and that's either gonna come from FOSSIL or Nuclear. Your choice. A GRAM of uranium produces 17 times more energy than a ton of wood.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Only 2% of earth scientists would label it as nonsense. The US wildfire nonsense and ocean acidification rising sea level myth wasnt on topic either. Note that a nuclear station costs as much as wind and solar plus 2000miles of 10 gigawatt power lines. https://www.google.com/search?q=percent+of+scientists+who+believe+in+climate+change&oq=prrcent+of+scientists+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13j0i22i30l3.12362j0j9&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8  

---

