Skip to content

EU Plans For Energy Efficiency

December 5, 2016

By Paul Homewood 


h/t Philip Bratby/Joe Public 




Matt McGrath is getting rather excited about the EU’s latest plans:


The European Commission says that it plans to cut energy use across the bloc by 30% by 2030.

The proposal is at the heart of a new package unveiled by the Commission to help meet its commitments to cut carbon under the Paris agreement.

The plans also seek to boost renewables and give greater power to consumers to sell any electricity they produce.

But green groups have criticised the measures saying they keep the door open for subsidies to coal.

Under the Paris Climate Agreement the EU promised to cut emissions of CO2 by 40% by 2030.

Today’s plans to cut waste and make better use of renewables are a key part of that promise.

The Commission’s ideas for a 30% binding target on energy efficiency will see new incentives for smart metering and innovative design. Energy suppliers and distributors will have to save 1.5% each year from 2021 to 2030.

There will also be a big focus on renovating older buildings. This sector accounts for 40% of Europe’s energy consumption and the proposal aims to create a building renovation market with a value of up to 120bn euros by 2030.

The EU says that their Smart Finance for Smart Building initiative will allow member states to unlock an additional 10bn euros in public and private funds until 2020.

"I’m particularly proud of the binding 30% energy efficiency target," said EU climate commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete.

"It will reduce our dependency on energy imports, create jobs and cut more emissions."

While welcoming the move on efficiency, campaigners believe the EU could have gone even further.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Renovating older buildings to be more energy efficient will be a priority under the new proposals

"It is good to see this commitment from the EU," said Brook Riley from Friends of the Earth.

"It is a real achievement and it will lift millions of people out of energy poverty and increase emissions cuts, but all of these elements are better with higher ambition. Why stop at 30%? Why not go further and meet the EU’s full potential?"

The Commission also re-iterated its policy of having renewables make up at least 27% of final energy consumption by 2030, including a 50% share of electricity production.

However, in markets where they already have a 15% share, green energy producers will no longer have priority to sell their power to the grid over traditional producers such as coal and gas – a negative development according to many environmental campaigners.

The Commission’s plan also aim to encourage individual consumers and community groups to produce their own power.

Small-scale renewable installations will still have priority on the grid – but there will be a limit on the size of the community or individual power supply.

"It is scandalous to cap the size of renewable energy cooperatives and bias market access in favour of inflexible fossil fuel giants," said Tara Connolly from Greenpeace

"Europe will only meet its climate responsibilities if it enables its citizens to accelerate the transition to 100% renewables."

Image copyright EU Image caption EU climate commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete greets his Chinese counterpart at recent climate talks in Marrakech

Another contentious issue is the proposal to limit subsidies for fossil fuels in what are called capacity mechanisms, reserve supplies of power that member states keep on tap to prevent blackouts.

These are often coal or gas fired plants but the Commission wants to impose a limit of 550 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour, which would rule out older coal plants but not newer, more efficient ones.

"The CO2 limit proposed for capacity markets is a bad joke, said Christian Schaible from the European Environmental Bureau.

"It impacts practically none of the existing EU coal fleet and fails to address the toxic health and other environmental impacts of coal."

Supporters point out that these capacity mechanisms will now have to be open to cross border competition and will include schemes which cut demand as a way of ensuring more power is available.

One area where the Commission is making a sharp U-turn is on the use of crop-based biofuels in transport. Instead the EU wants to see newer fuels made from agriculture or forestry waste take up a much bigger share.

Today’s proposals will now need to be approved by member states and the European Parliament.

For the UK, it is not yet known if the new proposals will become law before Brexit. Sources say that the opportunities to bid from some of the funding available under the schemes and to supply energy to neighbouring markets will be the subject of negotiations as part of the UK’s exit.


If you thought that we would all be using 30% less energy in 2030, think again! (Well, it is the BBC we are talking about – you did not actually believe them, did you?)


The first thing to appreciate is that this new proposal is an extension to the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive. And, as the latest plan reminds us, whilst it is binding at the EU level, there are no national binding targets for the Member States (see page 8).

[I am not quite sure what happens if the EU misses its own binding target – does it fine itself?]


The second thing to realise is that the “30%” claim is not based on a reduction from now, or even an earlier year, but only from what energy consumption is projected to be in 2030. In other words, a Business as Usual case.

Again, as the plan explains, this means that primary energy consumption should be reduced by 23%  in the Union compared to 2005 levels. (Page 11).


And what about the progress so far?

When the 2012 Directive was introduced, setting a 20% energy efficiency target by 2020, energy consumption was already 8% lower than 2005, largely because of the financial crisis in 2008, from which the EU has struggled to recover.




Since 2012, little has been achieved, and energy consumption actually went back up last year.

There is little to suggest that the 2020 targets will be achieved, less still the 2030 ones.

The whole thing a classic case of the EU believing it can control events by issuing directives. We all end up with burdensome and meddlesome regulations and bureaucracy.

In the meantime, the rest of the world passes us by.

But don’t expect the BBC to mention this anytime soon! 




The EC’s Proposal for amending the 2012 Directive is here:

  1. December 5, 2016 11:52 am

    Yet again the first ports of call of the BBC for comment are its favourite greenblobs, namely Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Can anybody remember when was the last time that the BBC asked for comment from somebody who actually knows what they are talking about?

    • December 5, 2016 2:57 pm

      I stopped listening and watching. I have been so much more relaxed since.

      The writing is on the wall for the BBC – it just cannot be impartial – not just on climate but almost every issue under the sun.

      Even the SNP (ardent nutters on the climate) are saying the BBC are biased .

      • December 5, 2016 3:03 pm

        However …. I’m going to be watching the BBC for a while after Trump’s inauguration …. purely as a fact gathering exercise …. to learn about the finer details of Trumps policies on the clmate from the experts at the BBC.

  2. December 5, 2016 11:56 am

    Cloud cuckoo land, but it does seem that the cuckoos have now total control of the nest so that we will all fall out unless they are trumped soon.

  3. Joe Public permalink
    December 5, 2016 12:13 pm

    One way to improve efficiency is to ‘Shop Local’ as this reduces ‘transportation miles’.

    A plank of one of Friends of the Earth:

    If only we had a readily available, local, supply of natural gas to save foreigners having to source, compress & ship the stuff all the way from the USA, Algeria & Qatar.

  4. Keitho permalink
    December 5, 2016 12:34 pm

    Ah yes, smart meters = rationing. The last resort of the left.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 5, 2016 3:31 pm

      There was a reader’s letter in the Daily Mail the other day about having a smart meter installed. Apparently the meter kept cutting supply to the house. It did so on at least two occasions and the installers couldn’t figure it out, even when a new meter was installed. The user also had the problem that his current supplier of gas/electric could not access the meter’s hub so couldn’t read the meter anyway. Personally, I think the chance of the meter being disconnected by, say, a hacker or poor infrastructure, is quite high. It’s a good enough reason for me to refuse to have one.

      • CheshireRed permalink
        December 5, 2016 5:39 pm

        On the plus side if a digital meter can be hacked it can also be hacked by someone intent on, shall we say, ‘adjusting’ the meter reading. (Obviously ‘I don’t condone’….)

        Hey, if Gavin can adjust global temps what’s a meter reading between friends?

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      December 5, 2016 6:12 pm

      Smart meter: a meter smarter than the consumer.

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      December 6, 2016 10:37 am

      I too am against “smart meters”, it is just to ration energy, pure and simple! Do our weird government have any reason to bring in rationing? I do not see how they can legally do this. They are going to kill a lot of their own people, what happened to ‘elf’nd’safety. We voted for a conservative government but seem to have a staunch socialist one instead. Will the real CONSERVATIVES PLEASE STAND UP!!!!

  5. Green Sand permalink
    December 5, 2016 12:36 pm

    Starting to see the light down under?

    ‘Dash for Gas: “Green” South Australian Government Throws in the Towel on Renewables’

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      December 5, 2016 9:46 pm

      Koutsantonis waffles and those who need a reliable electricity supply are rushing to buy generators. This government is the mob who wanted to reduce emissions so allowed lots of wind farms. That eliminated the coal fired plants and shut down most of the CCGT capacity – hence the State wide blackout.
      This latest blackout was due to a failure in the interconnector but at least they had much of the gas fired capacity going because the supply from wind was pathetic. Why not build another interconnector? They took office in 2002 with that as policy. Don’t expect action as the latest ’emergency plan’ for one from NSW estimated 18 months building it AFTER TWO YEARS planning aprovals.
      The only way they will have an adequate supply from gas fired on hot days when the turbines shut down is when the remaining industry has shut down or moved interstate. Fortunately ? that is happening quite quickly.

  6. Russ Wood permalink
    December 5, 2016 1:20 pm

    There’s an old saw “You can’t MAKE money by saving”. This also applies to power – no amount of inconvenient power ‘saving’ by switching off users can make up for not having enough power in the first place.
    Writing as a South African who went through a year of “load shedding” – just make sure that your government understands what it WILL be like in the dark! Oh, by the way, area power outages mean that traffic lights go out – and traffic jams (with resultant CO2 and fume output, as well as fuming) become the order of the day.

    • December 5, 2016 5:18 pm

      And ‘Many service stations can’t pump fuel during a power failure’

      • Dave Ward permalink
        December 5, 2016 8:53 pm

        “Oh, by the way, area power outages mean that traffic lights go out – and traffic jams become the order of the day”

        We’ve got so many lights at most junctions that having them all fail often IMPROVES traffic flow! A UK speciality is to put traffic lights on roundabouts – ostensibly to help in rush-hour periods -, but once installed they are normally left on 24/7/365. Very occasionally a council might be persuaded to turn some off to see what happens – even more occasionally they leave them off. Our “highway engineers” hate to be shown up as incompetent…

        “Many service stations can’t pump fuel during a power failure”

        I doubt than ANY can these days. I was a small boy (back in the 1960’s) when I last saw a hand cranked petrol pump at a rural filling station. It’s not just getting the petrol or diesel into your tank – these days all the tills are fully computerised, and most folk pay by credit/debit cards. At least my local fish & chip shop has a sign saying they have a generator, and will still be frying in the event of a power cut! I’ve reminded the proprietor to test it regularly…

      • December 5, 2016 9:46 pm

        @Dave Ward

        check out the Portishead traffic light removal

        Not popular with most council officials and The Highways Agency.

  7. David Richardson permalink
    December 5, 2016 1:29 pm

    One easily see a way of saving 30% of our energy by whenever you like. Just go back to living like our great grandparents did. 14 hours a day in the fields, no radio, no TV, no PC – can’t even afford a candle. A lot will die of the cold, but when you have a planet to save?

    Oh!! wait a minute that is the Friends of the Earth/Greenpeace plan isn’t it.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 5, 2016 2:05 pm

      Exactly, dead people don’t use electricity. With no industry, that will be another saving. But people with no jobs will use power at home all day, except that they won’t be able to afford it so back to point number one.

      • richard verney permalink
        December 5, 2016 8:00 pm

        But dead people use a lot of gas, especially with obesity!

  8. Gamecock permalink
    December 5, 2016 2:17 pm

    Easy peasy. Cut production of electricity 30%.

    ‘The European Commission says that it plans to cut energy use across the bloc by 30% by 2030.’

    Next problem?

    • December 5, 2016 3:54 pm

      Good idea, fossil-free days, no transport via petrol/diesel allowed, all fossil power stations turned off for a day, we will then see the reality behind the hype about the energy “transition”.

  9. Dung permalink
    December 5, 2016 3:20 pm

    Governments around the world need to ask themselves a question, what is the prime responsibility of a national government?
    The answer is of course: The Defence of the Realm. You might argue about what the threats are of course but whatever you decide, the answer will always demand a strong economy. Right now spending on climate change is costing a huge amount of money plus it is destroying large parts of our economy. Fighting Climate Change represents a clear and present danger to the realm and our ability to defend it.

  10. December 5, 2016 3:24 pm

    Does anyone seriously think, for one moment, that the EU will exist in 2030? Not a snowball in hell’s chance.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      December 5, 2016 7:11 pm


    • December 6, 2016 9:37 am

      Well, I see from the posts on FB from Remaniacs that they clearly have no idea that the EU is in its death throes.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 6, 2016 2:16 pm

      No, it has been dying a slow death ever since the euro crisis began and despite the sticking plasters it has not been resolved. Then there is the unemployment and lack of growth, to which you can add the migrants who are not needed if there is high unemployment and low growth of course. That’s why they want to come here and not stay on the continent.

  11. Athelstan permalink
    December 5, 2016 3:31 pm

    The EU says that their Smart Finance for Smart Building initiative will allow member states to unlock an additional 10bn euros in public and private funds until 2020.

    “I’m particularly proud of the binding 30% energy efficiency target,” said EU climate commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete.

    “It will reduce our dependency on energy imports, create jobs and cut more emissions.”

    Miguel Arias Canete was a minor functionary who majored in Law, and who began a politicking, then Rajoy sent him off to Brussels to became a slightly more important s*** stirrer but nevertheless still an officious back office, er…………. functionary.

    Some other clown, a non entity from luxembourg via the offices of Der Fuhren in Berlin was installed into the Brussels Politburo and it was drunckard who and he in turn bestowed jobs to a lot of other eejit shadowy men. Unlike the UK, Spain being a “favoured nation” got the climate change brief and Canete was elevated – somewhat to the astonishment of most right thinking people residing not only in the EU but the wider world too – if they had been looking.

    What seems to be beyond the ken of most of these Marxist fools running the shop [Brussels Mafia] is, financial literacy, or financial illiteracy would be a better way of putting it.

    Spain tried it.

    To arrive somehow at that credulous nostrum, that by, spending vast amounts of other peoples money, yer know that specious argument [we are so fond of over here too – ask George, Phil, Dave and Theresa Jezza and bloomberg/Goldman Sachs: their advisers].

    Yer know like; building airports, roads, railways, more airports, roads, railways and polishing tur8s too, constructing civic buildings the scale of which would have embarrassed even the grand vizier of Andalus.

    Maracas it was!….. bye, bye to all fiscal-monetary prudence!

    The Spanish government were, pouring money down a black hole and at the same time throwing money at the green madness of ruinables in a fury of misguided belief that ruinables would re-conjure the Spanish golden era and conveniently forgetting about that age – through stripping and pillaging of south America. Cramba! – free power!! was just too good to be true and………….. it was!

    Vast sums borrowed, vast sums embezzled they were all at it and so was the incumbent PM Rajoy! So much money, so much went into a property building boom and ruinables marched across the skyline – yippee.

    It couldn’t last, it didn’t, the €zone didn’t help much either when the proverbial hit the fan in 2008 and now Spain is crocked, busted, banks in massive debt and a property market on life support with the green agenda binned forever.

    It was reckoned that, in Spain for every #’green job’ created, out in the real economy 3½ jobs were forfeited.

    3½:1 how’s that for a MULTIPLIER EFFECT?!

    Now, this amnesiac office boy Arias Canete is blithely advocating a EU wide experiment – along the lines of the Spanish effort.

    There needs to be an inquistion, red hot irons liberally applied [natch!] would do – for starters.

    cago en todo lo que se verde, is what they should have said.

  12. Harry Passfield permalink
    December 5, 2016 3:33 pm

    I wonder if the 30% reduction is part of the same fart-brain’s plan who came up with low powered kettles and toasters – on the basis that surely, that would save power. Doh!

    • Athelstan permalink
      December 5, 2016 3:57 pm

      that’s just the way their brains function – HP.

  13. tom0mason permalink
    December 5, 2016 4:43 pm

    So where’s this bloody BREXIT!

    • mikewaite permalink
      December 5, 2016 6:30 pm

      I am sorry to have to tell you that it has gone , before we had a chance to get acquainted with it .
      It was destroyed by a combination of a pathetic PM who would have difficulty running the cake stall at the WI fete, the BBC who put out antiBrexit propaganda at every opportunity , but above all by the massive financial interests that have no loyalty to Britain.
      For me it has been more painful to have hopes raised and then see them slowly and systematically destroyed than if the referendum had been lost in the first place.

      • tom0mason permalink
        December 6, 2016 3:11 am

        What is strange is that the UK Supreme Court appears to think that the referendum said —

        Should Britain leave the EU?

        Yes*– [ ]
        No — [ ] (That’s the one, really!)

        *Vote to allow MP decide whether or not you really want to leave.”

    • December 6, 2016 9:41 am

      Good question; it had better turn up soon or I’m going to be very, very disappointed.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 6, 2016 2:13 pm

      A lot of people have unrealistic expectations of the timescale based on ignorance which is hardly helped by the legacy media or the idiot MPs. Anybody who thinks that unraveling 40 odd years of integration can be unwound in even the 2 years of Article 50 knows next to nothing about what is involved. The government have set out the timetable which is Article 50 notification in March and conclude the succession treaty in 2 years. The Supreme Court is really a nonsense and it seems that the government put little effort into the High Court for the simple reason it was a waste of time as the decision was always going to be made by the Supreme Court. As to what they are examining is the wording of 50(2) whereby a member state (government) must inform the EU they are leaving. The key point is that the ECA 1972 means that under UK the government must give this notice – not parliament. It will be a shock if they don’t rule this.

      • tom0mason permalink
        December 6, 2016 2:55 pm

        Exactly, that was what the referendum was about. It was never about whether or not parliament should re-interpret what the people meant in the vote.

        Hopefully Mrs May pulls the plug at a surprisingly early date like new year or St Valentine’s Day. 🙂

      • 3x2 permalink
        December 6, 2016 2:57 pm

        Anybody who thinks that unraveling 40 odd years of integration can be unwound in even the 2 years of Article 50 knows next to nothing about what is involved.

        As Richard North has been known to point out from time to time…

  14. Tim Hammond permalink
    December 5, 2016 4:53 pm

    Aside from all the usual nonsense, why do these fools not understand that “creating jobs” is not a good thing? It is a cost, not a benefit.

    What we want to do is to reduce the number of jobs that are needed to do something because that means we are making it cheaper and more efficient. That then frees up people to do something else and frees up money for people to spend on additional things – or getting richer as economists should call it to make sure we understand the concept.

    It is incredibly easy to “create jobs” – just make everything less efficient and people less productive. But that would be dumb. Except where the EU and/or Green initiatives are concerned….

    • Dave Ward permalink
      December 5, 2016 8:59 pm

      “What we want to do is to reduce the number of jobs that are needed to do something”

      Starting with the House Of Commons and the Lords, and closely followed by local & health authority management. The problem is none of these people have ever done a proper job, and will become unemployable overnight. That could be a large burden on society…

      • December 5, 2016 10:04 pm

        The public sector as a whole needs a shakeup.

        I recall listening to Adam Crozier detailing the removal of layers of redundant “management” at Royal Mail and the workforce’s relative relief at the removal of a constipated tier of self serving jobsworths.

        While a lot of people do sterling service – their efforts are diluted unacceptably by a significant quantity of piss-taking wastrels and jobsworths out there who simply arrange things for their own convenience and whims – since nobody (at present) is going to call them out….

  15. Curious George permalink
    December 5, 2016 6:23 pm

    In California you have to use water-saving flushers for your toilet. Usually the flush does not clean the bowl completely and you have to flush again.

    I suspect that EU limits on vacuum power and tea-kettle power will have a similar effect. Just like biofuels and ethanol. And solar power in sunny Germany.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      December 5, 2016 7:18 pm

      Fill a 2 L. can with tap water. Pour half in the bowl, flush, and near the end of the swirl pour the other L. to finish. Works better than getting a clog on the first flush and then having the second flush back-up in the bowl. I have a well that uses electricity but don’t have to pay for the water.

  16. John F. Hultquist permalink
    December 5, 2016 7:11 pm

    … the EU wants to see newer fuels made from agriculture or forestry waste …

    The folks that come up with these ideas do not get out much.
    Waste in these industries has been reduced quite a lot. For example, wheat once had long stalks and so there was much straw. New varieties have larger heads and shortened stalks. Harvest involves removing the seeds and chipping the stalks, so no straw is left. What is distributed over the field helps sustain the soil. There is nothing left for an alternative fuel, unless the agricultural practices are inefficient. Modern forestry is much the same. There is almost no waste, unless the leaves and twigs are considered waste rather than useful conditioners and protectors of the soil.
    Fruits and veggies that are not taken from the fields might be considered waste if viewed through an “it’s fuel” filter, but it serves a use left where it falls, and could not be “harvested” (collected, stored, transported, processed, used) in any reasonable manner.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      December 5, 2016 8:02 pm

      Around me apples are harvested by a two stage process. First a tractor proceeds tree by tree, grabbing the trunk with a hydraulic arm and clamp about a foot above the ground, which is then vibrated at a fundamental frequency of the tree, shaking the apples to the ground in a few seconds per tree. Next, a pair of tractors proceed in alternate rows: one has a large blower attached to its rear with its nozzle directed at ground level to blow apples through to the adjoining row, where a second tractor has an arrangement of rotating brush bars that sweep the apples in its path to one side, and then onto the conveyor belt at the rear of the tractor and thence into the trailer it is pulling. The efficiency of this process is very high, with only a few apples left behind in the occasional rabbit hole.

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        December 5, 2016 9:53 pm

        Can they redesign the eqipment slightly — to deal with EU bureaucrats?

      • John F. Hultquist permalink
        December 6, 2016 2:10 am

        You don’t say where this harvest method is used, nor the use to which the apples go. Perhaps Somerset Cider Brandy or Calvados?
        I live in the central Washington State fruit growing region. Some apples go for juice but most are hand picked and go to retail markets — shipped out in cardboard boxes:

  17. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    December 5, 2016 11:50 pm

    Don’t look at what we have achieved, you have to look forward and we have a great plan.
    No matter how the former plan went, it is history, and now focus on the bright furture we promise you.Even the weather will stop changing, and you shall have briliant weather all the time.
    And now we offer some money for energy renovation, pity you can not afford to get the money, because the energy bills have taken the money you needed to do your part of the work.

  18. golf charlie permalink
    December 6, 2016 1:03 am

    If the EU ceases to require power, the problem would go away

    • Athelstan permalink
      December 6, 2016 6:12 am

      We hope and vehemently at that, the EU disappears up its own black safe space, its fundament.

      Brussels, it appears to be trying to achieve the impossible – existing on fiat money and promises of a brighter future sometimes or, the Twelfth of never and whichever is sooner. Plus, one super-Mario Draghi is portrayed as, some sort of latter day redeemer, he [Goldman Sachs alumnus, Supra-Internationalist Mario] will reap his ill gotten rewards no doubt. But in doing so shall, the Whirlwind Draghi seeded, lay waste to EUrope……..

      And that’s our [Britain’s] big problem – Gina Miller all the remoaniacs think that, the EU is so cool and that, we should be firmly lashed to the mast of a sinking tub.

      Insofar as Britain is concerned, to take ourselves away from the massive screws of this sinking hulk……………….we need to bail and last year, last week, it would not be soon enough.

      • John Palmer permalink
        December 6, 2016 7:14 pm

        To the lifeboats!!

  19. NeilC permalink
    December 6, 2016 10:18 am

    Why is it, remainers wishing to adhere to EU directives and AGWarmers “saving the planet”, continue to use their electronic forms of communications so heavily.

    In fact their high use of electricity (think BBC/Grauniad) in these propagandist trivialities detracts from giving poor people to right to heat their homes and cook their food.

    Brexit and CAGW are certainly focusing the minds of normal people (the majority or populists as the BBC name them). The current government might be in for a major shock at the next GE.

  20. Dung permalink
    December 6, 2016 6:29 pm

    Off Topic:

    Today the BBC reporter who had been freezing his gonads off outside the Supreme Court all day apparently missed an open goal provided by the lawyer who brought the original case to court ^.^
    The Beeb guy was Ben Brown whom I actually quite like and he asked said lawyer about the fact that Cameron sent all voters a letter telling them that their referendum decision would be
    carried out by the government, how would that sit with a decision that it must be parliament that activated Article 50. The lawyer aanswered that politically, yes that was a problem but he must limit himself to the law and legally Cameron could not invoke article 50!
    So er um can we sue Cameron now please?

  21. manicbeancounter permalink
    December 6, 2016 6:41 pm

    A 30% reduction is quite possible. After all EU energy usage will fall by 12% when the UK leaves.
    The UK leaving will not help. As a whole the EU’s emissions were about 11% lower in 2015 than in 2005, but the UK’s were 16.5%.
    A starting point for emissions reductions would be to follow the examples of those who have achieved the biggest reductions. That would be Hungary (21%), Greece (20%), Romania (19%) & Italy (18%). A good bit of economic collapse seems to be a good way of reducing energy usage. The leaders in renewables Denmark (5.6%) and Germany (3.5%) have got tiny reductions by comparison. The other leader in renewables was Spain, at least for solar. It has achieved an 11.8% reduction in a decade, but has had a deeper depression than Italy.

    All the figures are from the Excel download at the BP link above.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: