EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 8.3.2011 
SEC(2011) 287 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
EVALUATION OF THE ONLINE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  
 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMI TTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 
 
A Roadmap for moving to a compet itive low carbon economy in 2050 
   
{COM(2011) 112 final} 
{SEC(2011) 288 final} {SEC(2011) 289 final} 
 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Summary Highlights .................................................................................................... 3 
2. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 4 
3. Basic Quantitative Description (Evaluation of Question 1)......................................... 4 
4. Evaluation of Question 2.............................................................................................. 6 5. Evaluation of Questions 3 and 4 .................................................................................. 7 6. Evaluation of Question 5............................................................................................ 11 7. Evaluation of Question 6............................................................................................ 15 8. Evaluation of Questions 7 and 8 ................................................................................ 19 9. Evaluation of Question 9............................................................................................ 23 10. Evaluation of Question 10.......................................................................................... 24 11. Evaluation of Question 11.......................................................................................... 25 12. Evaluation of Question 12.......................................................................................... 27 13. Evaluation of Question 13.......................................................................................... 28 14. Evaluation of Question 14.......................................................................................... 29 15. Evaluation of Question 15.......................................................................................... 30 16. Annex: Received Written Contributions.................................................................... 31 
 
 
EN 3   EN 1. SUMMARY HIGHLIGHTS  
In total, almost 300 responses have been subm itted via the online questionnaire. The fact that 
the online consultation was availa ble only in English did not limit the diversity of countries of 
origin of the respondents. Around half of the re sponses have been submitted from organized 
stakeholders, with very active participation fr om companies and professional associations. 
According to estimations, the implementation of  the climate and energy package, which will 
lead to 20% greenhouse gas (GHG) emissi ons reduction by 2020, w ill cost an average 
household approximately 12€ month. One of the key results of the online consultation is that 
most of the respondents indicated that they  are ready to pay 12€ or more than 12€ on a 
monthly basis. 
The daily choices that consumer s make have impact on the clim ate and changing some habits 
and preferences could lead to reducing GHG emi ssions. According to the results of the online 
consultation, all respondents are willing to re duce waste, recycle and reuse as well as buy 
locally produced food. The least popular options are to buy carbon offsets and to use biofuels. 
The main obstacles to reducing the EU's GH G emissions identified by respondents are the 
subsidies that support the obtaining and using of fossil fuels such as mining. Furthermore 
many organised stakeholders claim that we st ill do not have the technologies ready to reduce 
emissions in all sectors and that  it is too risky to invest a lot of money in new low-carbon 
technologies that may not work or  may not pay off in the long run. 
In the context of helping developing countries  to cope with the ch allenges resulting from 
climate change, most of the organised stakehol ders prioritise supportin g the countries that 
generate the most pollution, while individuals bring forward the need  to support countries 
most likely to suffer from climate change. Most of the respondent s choose the Emission 
Trading System (ETS) as the most effective EU legislation in terms of delivering emission reductions by 2020 and beyond, although it has been also extensively cri ticized by others.  
 
EN 4   EN 2. INTRODUCTION  
The Climate Action Directorate-General of the European Commission launched a public 
consultation as part of its preparation of  a Roadmap for a low carbon economy by 2050. The 
consultation was opened from 27 October 2010  to 8 December 2010. It was conducted online 
through an interactive questionn aire which was posted on the website of DG Climate Action 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/ consultations/0005/index_en.htm  together with additional 
documents as required in the stakeholder cons ultation guidelines (bac kground note, protection 
of personal information note and specific priv acy statement). This document accompanies the 
Impact Assessment and includes detaile d evaluation of responses received.  
3. BASIC QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTION (EVALUATION OF QUESTION 1) 
In total, 281 responses have been submitted via the online questionnaire. In addition, 7 
answers have been sent by email and were also included in this analysis, which resulted in 
288 evaluated responses in total. 
In total 132 citizens have answered to the quest ionnaire. The fact that the questionnaire was 
available only in English did not limit the divers ity of countries of origin of the respondents: 
submissions from every single Member State have been delivered. Most answers have been 
received from France, followed by Poland and the UK. 
Figure 1: Received responses from citizens by count ry of origin indicated  in the questionnaire 
051015202530
AT — Austria
BE — Belgium
BG — Bulgaria
CZ — Czech Republic
DE — Germany
DK — Denmark
EL — Greece
ES — Spain
FI — Finland
FR — France
IE — Ireland
IT — Italy
NL — Netherlands
PL — Poland
PT — Portugal
SE — Sweden
SK — Slovak RepublicUK — United Kingdom
Other / Not indicated
 
 
EN 5   EN In total 156 organized stakeholders have an swered to the questionnaire. Most of the 
contributions have been received form comp anies / professional asso ciations, followed by 
NGOs and associations of NGOs. Slightly less than 13% of all responses received from 
stakeholders indicated that their contribution should be treated as anonymous (confidential).  
Although the organised stakeholders could be separated in subgroups – academic 
organisation, company/professional a ssociation, non-governmental organisation 
(NGO)/association of NGOs, public  authority/public administ ration, think-tank, trade union 
and others, in the evaluation of the online questionnaire it became clear that in terms of their 
positions and preferences they can not be divided under certain categories. There are 
differences of opinion among every subgroup, but ne vertheless there are some broad lines that 
could be reproduced. 
The highest number of respondents positi oned themselves as company/professional 
association (96), followed by NGOs  (32), public authority (9) a nd finally think thank (5) and 
trade union (5) – see figure below. 
Figure 2: Received responses from stakeholders by affiliation 
0102030405060708090100
academic
organisation /
association of
academic
organisations
company /
professional
association
non-
governmental
organisation /
association of
NGOs
public authority /
public
administration
think-tank
trade union
other type of
organisation
 
Individuals (citizens) mostly answered questions 2-6, while or ganized stakeholders focused 
on questions 7-15. However some individuals al so responded to questions 7-15 and some 
stakeholders answered questions 2-6. Th erefore results are shown for both groups. 
 
EN 6   EN 4. EVALUATION OF QUESTION 2 
Question 2: 
Implementing the climate and energy package (achieving a 20% reducti on in greenhouse gas 
emissions and 20% renewable in energy in 2020)  has been estimated to cost an average 
household in the EU approximately 12€ per month in 2020. Avoiding dangerous climate 
change requires investments, by you as a consumer, by firms, and by governments. How 
much extra (on the total of your household cost s) would you be prepared  to pay on a monthly 
basis to build the future lo w-carbon society? (optional)  
O I am prepared to pay 12 € per month  
O I am willing to pay more than 12 € per month  
O I am not ready to pay 12 € per month  
O don’t know/no opinion 
Figure 3: Responses to Question 2 
0102030405060
I am willing to pay more than 12 €
per monthI am prepared to pay 12 € per
monthI am not ready to pay 12 € per
month
Citizens Organized Stakeholders 
Three quarters of all citiz ens that answered this question indi cated that they are willing to pay 
12 € per month or more to build the future  low-carbon society. Although not all organized 
stakeholders answered this question and thus th e result might not be statistically significant or 
representative, those that answered this questio n and specified that they are not ready to pay 
12 € per month represent nearly half of the answers received. 
 
EN 7   EN 5. EVALUATION OF QUESTIONS 3 AND 4 
Question 3: 
Reducing emissions and saving energy is possibl e through your daily choi ces as a consumer. 
What do you already do to re duce greenhouse gas emissions? 
• Reductions to your energy bil l: roof insulation, window re placement, maintainance or 
upgrading of heating or air conditioning systems  
• Choosing the most efficient appliances — w ith energy labels A(+) when replacing your 
fridge, dishwasher, washi ng machine, TV, computers 
• An energy audit of your house or company 
• Switching to a provider of renewable electric ity or installing your own renewable energy 
generation system 
• Checking your real-time CO 2 consumption with an IT application 
• Commute to work on foot, cycling or by public transport (bus, train, metro) 
• Using electric cars (optional) 
• Using biofuel-blended petrol or diesel 
• Diversify your weekly diet to reduce emissi ons in food production (e .g. replace meat for 
some meals) 
• Buy locally-produced food and seasonal fresh products more often 
• Encourage actions that reduce deforestation worldwide (e.g. buying products from certified 
forests…) 
• Check your holiday plans and opt for the best  transport connections which would reduce 
your CO 2 emissions 
• Compensating for your greenhouse gas emissions  by buying carbon offsets, i.e. financing 
projects to reduce emissions somewhere else in the world 
• Get your neighbourhood / friends / family to make a pledge / take part  in local challenges 
to reduce emissions 
• Create or invest in a company putting new low carbon or energy-efficient product and 
services on the market 
• Develop your skills so that you can get a job requiring knowledge  or know-how about 
reducing emissions 
• Find out what your local government  does to save energy and money 
• Reduce waste, recycle and reuse 
Question 4: 
What else do you think you could do? 
 
EN 8   EN Figure 4: Responses to Question 3 from individuals: 
66%78%19%31%11%69%14%61%74%56%39%14%24%14%48%40%96%
31%22%58%53%59%9%75%48%20%26%40%40%39%50%55%37%52%
23%17%30%21%22%38%19%22%46%26%31%15%8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Reductions to your energy bill: roof insulation, window
replacement, maintainance or upgrading of heating or air
conditioning systemsChoosing the most efficient appliances — with energy
labels A(+) when replacing your fridge, dishwasher,
washing machine, TV, computersAn energy audit of your house or companySwitching to a provider of renewable electricity or
installing your own renewable energy generation systemChecking your real-time CO2 consumption with an IT
applicationCommute to work on foot, cycling or by public transport
(bus, train, metro)Using electric carsUsing biofuel-blended petrol or dieselDiversify your weekly diet to reduce emissions in food
production (e.g. replace meat for some meals)Buy locally-produced food and seasonal fresh products
more oftenEncourage actions that reduce deforestation worldwide
(e.g. buying products from certified forests…)Check your holiday plans and opt for the best transport
connections which would reduce your CO2 emissionsCompensating for your greenhouse gas emissions by
buying carbon offsets, i.e. financing projects to reduce
emissions somewhere else in the worldGet your neighbourhood / friends / family to make a
pledge / take part in local challenges to reduce emissionsCreate or invest in a company putting new low carbon or
energy-efficient product and services on the marketDevelop your skills so that you can get a job requiring
knowledge or know-how about reducing emissionsFind out what your local government does to save energy
and moneyReduce waste, recycle and reuse
I have already done this I could do this, it is interesting I won’t do this
 
 
EN 9   EN Figure 5: Responses to Question 3 from stakeholders: 
69%88%21%26%10%53%19%46%74%43%47%23%37%33%45%53%90%
26%12%44%50%66%20%73%50%23%26%50%26%40%37%40%45%38%
36%24%24%28%23%31%31%26%38%26%28%10%10%
5%7%
8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Reductions to your energy bill: roof insulation, window
replacement, maintainance or upgrading of heating or air
conditioning systemsChoosing the most efficient appliances — with energy
labels A(+) when replacing your fridge, dishwasher,
washing machine, TV, computersAn energy audit of your house or companySwitching to a provider of renewable electricity or
installing your own renewable energy generation systemChecking your real-time CO2 consumption with an IT
applicationCommute to work on foot, cycling or by public transport
(bus, train, metro)Using electric carsUsing biofuel-blended petrol or dieselDiversify your weekly diet to reduce emissions in food
production (e.g. replace meat for some meals)Buy locally-produced food and seasonal fresh products
more oftenEncourage actions that reduce deforestation worldwide
(e.g. buying products from certified forests…)Check your holiday plans and opt for the best transport
connections which would reduce your CO2 emissionsCompensating for your greenhouse gas emissions by
buying carbon offsets, i.e. financing projects to reduce
emissions somewhere else in the worldGet your neighbourhood / friends / family to make a
pledge / take part in local challenges to reduce emissionsCreate or invest in a company putting new low carbon or
energy-efficient product and services on the marketDevelop your skills so that you can get a job requiring
knowledge or know-how about reducing emissionsFind out what your local government does to save energy
and moneyReduce waste, recycle and reuse
I have already done this I could do this, it is interesting I won’t do this
 
 
EN 10   EN Reduction of waste, recycling and reuse is a co mmon daily practice of individuals 96% of the 
responses indicated that  people are alread y doing this. Purchase of most efficient household 
appliances is also one of the things already done by vast majority of individuals (78%). 
Another daily practice is the purchase of locally  produced food and fresh seasonal products 
(74% indicated that they  are already doing this). 
There are only 2 options that ab solutely no respondent opposed doing: "Reduce waste, recycle 
and reuse" and "Buy locally-produced food and seasonal fresh products more often". It is 
important to highlight this result since the in centives for these actio ns are not linked to 
financial benefits and include some additional effort that individuals are willing to make. 
Reflecting on reality, the answer s are probably not representative of the whole society due to 
the amount of waste produced, appliances sold and international imports  of "fresh" food. This 
might be due to the fact that climate sceptics probably did not participate in the consultations 
on climate change as much as individuals which are interested in the subject. 
There are only very few daily ac tions that individuals are not already doing or do not consider 
interesting as an option for GHG reductions. Indi viduals are most relu ctant to reduce GHG 
emissions by buying carbon offsets (i.e. financi ng projects to reduce emissions somewhere 
else in the world): 46% of res pondents will not do it. This is  followed by reluctance to use 
biofuels-blended petrol  and diesel (38%). 
Stakeholders give most support to the same options as indivi duals: "Reduce wa ste, recycle 
and reuse" and "Buy locally-produced food a nd seasonal fresh products more often". –
Furthermore likewise individua ls, stakeholders are also most reluctant to reduce GHG 
emissions by buying carbon offsets (i.e. financi ng projects to reduce emissions somewhere 
else in the world): 38% of respondents will not do it. Energy  audit also does not seem to be 
preferred option for stakeholders, closely followe d by the options of using biofuel blends and 
diet diversification.  
In general, most of the options presented se em very attractive to both stakeholders and 
individuals, and in fact every single option has received more than 50% of positive response 
("I have done this" + "I could do this"). 
In their responses to Question 4 many individual s underline the need for behavioural changes. 
These changes affect housing (limit the use of  heating and air-conditioning, rational use of 
water, energy efficient lighting, insulation, bette r waste recycling etc), daily activities (avoid 
travelling by plane and replace driving a car thro ugh public transport, cycling or walking; buy 
second hand clothes and furniture) and nutr ition (avoid food products with excessive 
packaging, eat less red meat etc). 
Individuals are aware of the f act that they can raise the aw areness about climate change 
through engaging in civil activities, lobbying  local MPs and government agencies and 
becoming a member of a NGO. They stress also how important is the targeted education for 
children and the detailed informa tion about the impact of daily activities on the climate. In 
this context some citizens propose the creation of consumer guide that gives information about the carbon footprin t of different products. 
 
EN 11   EN 6. EVALUATION OF QUESTION 5 
Question 5: 
What do you think are the main obstacles to  reducing the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions? 
You can pick up to three of the options below.  
□ We do not have the technologies ready to reduce emissions in all sectors  
□ It is too complicated to upgrade all European energy and transport infrastructures  
□ International carbon markets are yet not fully  developed, currently only EU producers and 
consumers pay a price for CO 2 emissions.  
□ There are still subsidies available that s upport mining and other means of obtaining and 
using fossil fuels at global level.  
□ It costs too much to replace high energy-c onsuming equipment and buildings. We will just 
have to wait until they wear out and are replaced.  
□ There are no tax advantages fo r companies and households that make an effort to cut their 
harmful emissions and save ener gy, so why should they bother?  
□ I/my company or organisation would like to invest in more modern, low-carbon 
technologies, but the banks will not lend money to help us do this; or if they do, the loans are 
too expensive.  
□ Markets are dominated by strongly established fi rms, so newcomers find it hard to break in 
with low-carbon innovations.  
□ It is too risky to invest a lot of money in new low-carbon t echnologies that may not work, 
or which may only pay off in the long run.  
□ It is a challenge to make sure that those who work in traditional energy sector jobs (oil, 
mining etc) develop new skills so th at they stay in employment.  
□ Other, please specify 
 
EN 12   EN Figure 6: Responses to Question 5 [absolute numbers] 
31
14
29
59
18
45
48
21
21
3719
6
9
15
8
14
14
12
16
3
1023
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 0We do not have the technologies ready to reduce
emissions in all sectors.
It is too complicated to upgrade all European energy
and transport infrastructures.
International carbon markets are yet not fully
developed, currently only EU producers and
consumers pay a price for CO2 emissions.
There are still subsidies available that support
mining and other means of obtaining and using fossil
fuels at global level.
It costs too much to replace high energy-consuming
equipment and buildings. We will just have to wait
until they wear out and are replaced.
There are no tax advantages for companies and
households that make an effort to cut their harmful
emissions and save energy, so why should they
bother?
I/my company or organisation would like to invest in
more modern, low-carbon technologies, but the
banks will not lend money to help us do this; or if
they do, the loans are too expensive.
Markets are dominated by strongly established
firms, so newcomers find it hard to break in with low-
carbon innovations.
It is too risky to invest a lot of money in new low-
carbon technologies that may not work, or which
may only pay off in the long run.
It is a challenge to make sure that those who work in
traditional energy sector jobs (oil, mining etc)
develop new skills so that they stay in employment.
Other, please specify.
Citizens Organized Stakeholders
 
 
EN 13   EN Figure 7: Responses to Question 5 [percentages] 
9%
4%
8%
17%
5%
13%
14%
6%
6%
11%15%
5%
7%
12%
6%
11%
11%
10%
13%
2%
8%7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%We do not have the technologies ready to reduce
emissions in all sectors.
It is too complicated to upgrade all European energy
and transport infrastructures.
International carbon markets are yet not fully
developed, currently only EU producers and
consumers pay a price for CO2 emissions.
There are still subsidies available that support
mining and other means of obtaining and using fossil
fuels at global level.
It costs too much to replace high energy-consuming
equipment and buildings. We will just have to wait
until they wear out and are replaced.
There are no tax advantages for companies and
households that make an effort to cut their harmful
emissions and save energy, so why should they
bother?
I/my company or organisation would like to invest in
more modern, low-carbon technologies, but the
banks will not lend money to help us do this; or if
they do, the loans are too expensive.
Markets are dominated by strongly established
firms, so newcomers find it hard to break in with low-
carbon innovations.
It is too risky to invest a lot of money in new low-
carbon technologies that may not work, or which
may only pay off in the long run.
It is a challenge to make sure that those who work in
traditional energy sector jobs (oil, mining etc)
develop new skills so that they stay in employment.
Other, please specify.
Citizens Organized Stakeholders
 
 
EN 14   EN Individuals and organised stakeh olders identify different obstacles that impede the reduction 
of EU's greenhouse gas emissions. As the most severe problem individu als see the subsidies 
still available in suppo rt of mining and other means of obtaining and using fossil fuels at 
global level (17%) followed by markets dominated  by strongly established firms (14%) and 
the lack of tax advantages for companies and households that ma ke an effort to cut emissions 
and save energy (13%). Least im portance is given to the options that it is too expensive to 
replace high-energy consuming equipment and bu ildings (5%) and that it is too complicated 
to upgrade all European energy and transport infrastructures (4%). 
Organised stakeholders on the other hand suggest that the main obstacle for cutting GHG 
emissions is that we still do not have the techno logies ready to reduce emissions in all sectors 
(15%) followed by the argument that it is too risk y to invest a lot of money in new low-carbon 
technologies that may not work or which may onl y pay off in a long run (13%). Only 2% of 
organised stakeholders considered  as a hurdle the challenge to ma ke sure that those who work 
in traditional energy sector jobs  (oil, mining etc) develop new sk ills so that they stay in 
employment.  
By identifying the impediments for the mitigat ion of GHG emissions, obvi ously for organised 
stakeholders such as companies and public authorities the decisive factors are the cost-efficiency of mitigation measures and the retu rns on investment in new technologies. As main 
hindrance individuals see the position of public authorities that still subsidise traditional 
industries and do not provide enough incentives  for companies and households to optimise 
their energy use. 
As other major obstacle most of the respondents to the online consultation see the reluctance 
of consumers to change their lifestyle and behaviour. Other hindrances are the lack of 
information and awareness about the problem of climate change, the difficulties to align 27 member states around a common objective, the lack of political will, the lobby power of 
industry as well as the low CO
2 price. 
 
EN 15   EN 7. EVALUATION OF QUESTION 6 
Question 6: 
Rich and poor countries have to act together to avoid dangerous climate change. Developing 
countries want us to help them with two th ings: cutting their greenhouse gas emissions and 
adapting to climate change (e.g. building be tter flood defences and switching to more 
drought-resistant crops). What do you think the priorities shoul d be for helping developing 
countries with these challenges? If we support them, what should the terms be?  
□ support the poores t countries  
□ support the countries that generate the most pollution by helping them to develop or buy 
climate-friendly technology  
□ support countries most likely to suffer from climate change  
□ support the development of tec hnologies poorer countries can us e, and launch pilot projects 
to see if they work there  
□ make sure that if we support poorer countries, we get them to show clearly what difference 
our funding makes in achieving improvements  
□ make sure developing countries work out an  ambitious action programme in line with our 
aims before we give any funding  
□ helping developing countries fight climate cha nge should not be a priority for the EU. We 
have plenty to do at home as it is.  
□ others, please specify  
 
EN 16   EN Figure 8: Responses to Question 6 [absolute numbers] 
47
58
64
65
30
28
1612
25
21
22
9
17
12
614
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 0Support the poorest
countries.
Support the countries that
generate the most
pollution by helping them
to develop or buy climate-
friendly technology.
Support countries most
likely to suffer from
climate change.
Support the development
of technologies poorer
countries can use, and
launch pilot projects to
see if they work there.
Make sure that if we
support poorer countries,
we get them to show
clearly what difference
our funding makes in
achieving improvements.
Make sure developing
countries work out an
ambitious action
programme in line with
our aims before we give
any funding.
Helping developing
countries fight climate
change should not be a
priority for the EU. We
have plenty to do at home
as it is.
Other, please specify
Citizens Organized Stakeholders
 
 
EN 17   EN Figure 9: Responses to Question 6 [percentages] 
15%
18%
20%
20%
9%
9%
5%10%
20%
17%
18%
7%
14%
10%
5%4%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%Support the poorest
countries.
Support the countries that
generate the most
pollution by helping them
to develop or buy climate-
friendly technology.
Support countries most
likely to suffer from
climate change.
Support the development
of technologies poorer
countries can use, and
launch pilot projects to
see if they work there.
Make sure that if we
support poorer countries,
we get them to show
clearly what difference
our funding makes in
achieving improvements.
Make sure developing
countries work out an
ambitious action
programme in line with
our aims before we give
any funding.
Helping developing
countries fight climate
change should not be a
priority for the EU. We
have plenty to do at home
as it is.
Other, please specify
Citizens Organized Stakeholders
 
 
EN 18   EN Although there is no considerable difference in th e way that individuals and stakeholders have 
set their priorities regarding th e question what should be the pr iorities for helping developing 
countries to cut GHG emissions and to adapt to climate change, there are some interesting observations to make. According to indivi duals the focus should be on supporting the 
development of technologies poorer  countries can use and launch pi lot projects to  see if they 
work there (favoured by 20% of the responded i ndividuals) and support countries most likely 
to suffer from climate change (20% of the individuals responded to that question that 
correspond to 64 people). At the same time most  organised stakeholders  chose as their first 
option the support to countries that generate th e most pollution by helping them to develop or 
buy climate friendly technology (20% of the res ponded stakeholders that correspond to 25 
organisations). 
One could draw the conclusion th at individuals are slightly more concerned about climate 
action in least developed countries (the poores t countries) while organi sed stakeholders are 
more interested in initiatives in countries su ch as China, US, Indi a and others, which are 
generating currently the most pollution. 
Organised stakeholders tend to be more de manding regarding developing countries – while 
only 9% individuals think that it  is important to make sure th at developing countries work out 
an ambitious action programme in line with th e EU's aims before th ey receive any funding, 
14% stakeholders consider this essential. This difference become s evident also in the answers 
to the option that helping deve loping countries should not be a priority for the EU, which was 
chosen by 10% of the stakeholders and only 4% of the individuals.  
The respondents to this question specify that  the terms for helping developing countries 
should be the establishment of international rules on measurem ent, reporting and verification 
of GHG mitigation and adaptati on measures. In addition technology transfer has to observe 
the international standards and rules on internat ional property rights. Other respondents hold 
the view that the EU's support s hould be rather unc onditional and as generous as possible, but 
with efficient management of resources. Their argument is that developing countries are not 
responsible for climate change and should not b ear the negative consequences resulting from 
it.  
Furthermore many respondents stress the importan ce of education and training on all levels in 
developing countries so that th ey change their behaviour and do not contribute extensively to 
further pollution. Some respondents underline that differentiation between least developed 
countries and developing countries like China and India is essential and that priority should be 
given to the poorest countries that are most likel y to suffer from the impacts of climate change 
and do not possess the resources to adapt.  
 
EN 19   EN 8. EVALUATION OF QUESTIONS 7 AND 8 
Question 7: 
The EU has put in place a regulatory framewor k related to climate and energy. Which of the 
following EU legislations you expect to be the most effective in terms of delivering emission 
reductions by 2020 and beyond? (select maximum 4)  
□ EU ETS (European Emission Trading Scheme) Directive  
□ Effort Sharing Decision  
□ Renewable Energy Directive  
□ Eco-design of energy-us ing products Directive  
□ Energy Labelling of products Directive  
□ Directive on Coge neration (CHP)  
□ Directive on end-use energy efficiency and energy efficiency services (ESD)  
□ Recast Energy performance of Buildings Directive  
□ Fuel quality directive  
□ Regulation to reduce CO2 emi ssions from passenger cars  
□ Proposal for a Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from vans  
□ Proposal for a revised Eurovignette Directive  
□ Proposal for a Car Labelling Directive  
□ Aviation in EU ETS Directive  
□ CCS Directive  
□ Regulation on substances that  deplete the ozone layer  
□ Waste Framework Directive 
Question 8: 
Do you have any comments on the policies evalua ted in the previous question? Do you have 
any comments on any other policies? 
 
EN 20   EN Figure 10: Responses to Question 7[absolute numbers] 
29
12
45
9
22
4
21
2
24
11
2
4
9
8
11
1682
36
72
32
30
11
32
58
6
49
15
9
3
11
23
7
1012
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0EU ETS (European Emission Trading Scheme)
Directive
Effort Sharing Decision
Renewable Energy Directive
Eco-design of energy-using products Directive
Energy Labelling of products Directive
Directive on Cogeneration (CHP)
Directive on end-use energy efficiency and energy
efficiency services (ESD)
Recast Energy performance of Buildings Directive 
Fuel quality directive 
Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from
passenger cars 
Proposal for a Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions
from vans 
Proposal for a revised Eurovignette Directive
Proposal for a Car Labelling Directive 
Aviation in EU ETS Directive
CCS Directive 
Regulation on substances that deplete the ozone
layer
Waste Framework Directive
Citizens Organized Stakeholders
 
 
EN 21   EN Figure 11: Responses to Question 7 [percentages] 
12%
5%
19%
4%
9%
2%
9%
1%
10%
5%
1%
2%
4%
3%
5%
7%17%
7%
15%
7%
6%
2%
7%
12%
1%
10%
3%
2%
1%
2%
5%
1%
2%5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%EU ETS (European Emission Trading Scheme)
Directive
Effort Sharing Decision
Renewable Energy Directive
Eco-design of energy-using products Directive
Energy Labelling of products Directive
Directive on Cogeneration (CHP)
Directive on end-use energy efficiency and energy
efficiency services (ESD)
Recast Energy performance of Buildings Directive 
Fuel quality directive 
Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger
cars 
Proposal for a Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions
from vans 
Proposal for a revised Eurovignette Directive
Proposal for a Car Labelling Directive 
Aviation in EU ETS Directive
CCS Directive 
Regulation on substances that deplete the ozone
layer
Waste Framework Directive
Citizens Organized Stakeholders
 
 
EN 22   EN In response to Question 7 individuals and stakeh olders have presented different views about 
the most effective EU legislation in term s of delivering emissi on reductions by 2020 and 
beyond. The preferred option for organised stake holders is clearly the EU ETS Directive – 
17% which corresponds to 82 stak eholders chose this regulat ory framework. Individuals on 
the other hand gave their prefer ence for the Renewable Energy Di rective – 19% of all answers 
which are equal 82 respondents indicated that c hoice. The third most favoured option for all 
respondents is the Recast Ener gy performance of Buildings Directive which would not only 
be beneficial for the climate, but would re duce also energy bills through energy savings.  
According to the respondents, the least effec tive EU legislations in terms of delivering 
emissions reduction have been the Fuel Qua lity Directive (only 1%  individuals and 1% 
stakeholders), The Proposal for a Car Labelling Directive (2% of all the answered individuals 
and 1% of the stakeholders) and the Propos al for revised Eurovignette Directive (1% 
individuals and 2% stakeholders).  This result can be explained with the fact that while these 
legislations refer to very specific issues and have just a minor impact on the environment, 
regulatory frameworks such as  the ETS Directive and the Re newable Energy Directive are 
much more comprehensive and encompass different sectors. 
Interestingly, the Carbon Capture and Storage (C CS) Directive has not been evaluated as very 
efficient – only 3% of the individuals and 5% of  the stakeholders have given their preference 
for them. Similarly the Aviation in EU ETS Directive received only 2% from organised 
stakeholders and 4% of the responses from individuals. 
In response to Question 8, many respondents made additional comments on the EU 
legislations evaluated in Questi on 7 and proposed other policies. 
Support for CCS and nuclear is one of the cont roversial issues, since most environmental 
NGOs and some companies consider them unsaf e and expensive. Some stakeholders argue 
that nuclear continues to pose unacceptable risks for the environment, while CCS implies further dependence on fossil fuels. Business as sociations and most companies on the other 
hand favour a varied energy mix, where all energy sources play their role. They argue that 
nuclear is the best commercially available low CO
2 energy source to cove r growing electricity 
demand and that coal in combination with CCS provides security of electricity supply 
throughout Europe. 
Although according to stakeholders the Rene wable Energy Directive provides the correct 
framework to boost renewable energy, some en vironmental NGOs would like to have more 
ambitious targets for solar and wind energy. In add ition, strict sustainability criteria should be 
developed for all biomass. Many respondents ho ld the view that the 2020 energy efficiency 
target should be made compulsory. 
Regarding the European Emission Trading Scheme  (ETS) Directive the opinions differ. Some 
individuals consider the ETS ineffective due to lax targets and inefficient market mechanisms. 
In addition, the ETS has not driven the neces sary investment on energy efficiency in the 
covered industry sectors. In order to improve , the total emissions allowances in the ETS 
should be reduced and emissions cutting should be allowed only within the EU. Some citizens 
suggest that the ETS should be replaced with other policies such as taxation (carbon tax), regulations, subsidies etc. 
 
EN 23   EN As other useful policies stakeholders point out the Strategic Ener gy Technology (SET) plan 
that promotes the deployment of low-carbon technologies. Other resp ondents underline that 
attention should be given not on ly to technological solutions, but also to energy saving and 
changes in consumption patterns. In this contex t energy labelling could play an important role 
raising consumer awareness and should be expand ed to a wide range of products and services. 
Many individuals indicated that they do not feel  familiar with the EU’s regulatory framework 
on climate and energy and find it difficult to  compare the effectiveness of different 
legislations, without knowing all of them in de tail. Moreover individua ls are concerned that 
ambitious climate legislation is jeopardised th rough support for other sectors such as energy, 
agriculture, transport, industry, etc: "EU policie s have been like drivi ng a car while with one 
foot on the gas throttle and the other one on the break". 
9. EVALUATION OF QUESTION 9 
Question 9: 
The EU will need a diverse po rtfolio of technologies to build a low-carbon future. Some 
examples of potential technologies and energy efficiency solutions are carbon capture and 
storage, renewable energy technolog ies, electric vehicles, fuel cells, smart grids, heat pumps, 
cogeneration, next generati on nuclear power, zero emissi on buildings, etc. Which 
technologies do you think will be the most impo rtant in achieving a low carbon economy by 
2050 and how can the EU foster their development and deployment? 
Organised stakeholders have di fferent preferences regarding th e portfolio of technologies to 
build a low-carbon future. Respondents consid er energy efficiency (of houses, products, 
industry and transport), renewable energy (sol ar heat and power, wave power, geothermal, 
biomass) as well as cogeneration, heat pumps a nd smart grid as the most important solutions. 
In addition electrification or  fuel cells are seen as a key technology, enabling for a 
decarbonised European energy and transport system. Some stakeholders point out other 
innovative technologies such as magnesium oxide  cement clinker and coke free steelmaking.  
Most of the NGOs are critical about nuclear energy and CCS, as they see them as risky and 
expensive solutions that would slow down a transition to low-carbon economy. Nevertheless 
there are some environmental NGOs that consider  also these options, also in relationship with 
process emissions from industry. Business a ssociations and companies on the other hand 
mostly support the development of CCS and th e further use of nuclear. Not all of the 
stakeholders that responded to the questionnai re are convinced by biofuels, since they are 
linked to issues of land use, deforestation and biodiversity.  
The EU could foster the development and depl oyment of this technologies portfolio through 
more investments in research and developm ent (R&D) and awareness-raising. Furthermore 
the EU could provide financial support, develo p facilitating regulations, codes and standards 
and ensure coherence among all its policy areas.  Many stakeholders underline that a more 
ambitious emissions reduction target for 2020 would also accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies. More amb itious and binding targets for the use of 
renewables would play  important role too. 
 
EN 24   EN Citizens acknowledge that  one single technology would not solve all the problems connected 
to CO 2 emissions. Most of the citizens suggest keeping all technologi cal options open and 
select technologies according to their econom ic efficiency and commercial readiness. 
As preferred technologies to build a low-carbon future, i ndividuals point out improving 
energy efficiency, renewable en ergy technologies, smart grid s, zero emission buildings, 
cogeneration and electrical vehi cles. According to most of the individuals the biggest 
potential lies by improving energy efficiency. 
Least preferred options for individuals turn out to be CCS and nuclear power. CCS is a 
problem because it is too expensive and has limited availability of underground storage 
volume. Furthermore it would continue the depe ndence on fossil fuels. Nuclear is contentious 
because of security reasons and its radioactive waste. Biomass is also seen as problematic, 
since it might result in competition for land that could be used for forests or agriculture instead. 
Nevertheless, there are individuals that consider  all types of fuel including coal and nuclear 
with the argument that excluding some fuel w ould damage the EU’s competitiveness, if the 
rest of the world still uses it.  
Individuals give some proposals on how the EU could foster the development and deployment 
of new technologies. Firstly, they underline th at even if we have all the technologies 
available, only the political will could bring a change. In this context some citizens suggest 
the introduction of strict re gulations and standards. Secondly, communication, awareness 
raising and education about c limate change issues would i nduce behavioural  change and 
foster the deployment of new technologies. Thir dly, the EU should invest more in research 
and development, so that it can s upport the development of innovations. 
10. E
VALUATION OF QUESTION 10 
Question 10: 
What are in your opinion the most important ini tiatives the EU should purs ue in the next five 
to 10 years to secure a successful trans ition towards a low carbon economy by 2050?  
Many NGOs suggest that the most important initi ative for the next 5-10 years is to adopt a 
clear and credible timeline with interim emissions reduc tion targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050. 
Furthermore most of the NGOs insist on a more  ambitious reduction target for 2020 - their 
proposals vary from - 30 to - 40% compared to 1990. Some stakeholders propose to introduce 
legally binding primary energy savings targets, to  which all sectors will have to contribute. 
Many business associations on the other hand claim that the economic crisis made the 
achievement of reduction targets more difficult, because economic actors lack capital to invest in costly low-carbon technologies. Furthermore in the absence of  international deal ensuring 
equally strong action from  other economies, moving beyond 20% by 2020 would be 
counterproductive.  
In addition, several stakeholders have indicated that the ETS system needs to be revised in 
order to limit the allowances carried over from the 2008-12 pe riod into the post 2012 period, 
reduce the number of industries that are eligible fo r free allowances and implement much 
stricter rules for allowances from  CDM projects in the EU-ETS.  
 
EN 25   EN Several stakeholders propose to  use structural funds and othe r EU-funding more efficiently to 
support the transition to sustaina ble energy. In the next 5-10 years a lot could be done to 
improve the energy efficiency in the housing s ector, which would bri ng benefits also to 
homeowners. 
Furthermore many stakeholders indicated that th e network infrastructure and especially the 
energy grids have to be adapted to allow flexib ility for high levels of  renewables generation, 
including decentralised sources. Professional associations recommend also to create positive feedback effects for equipment suppliers an d industries through technically meaningful 
benchmark systems and R&D support.  
Another recommendation from several stakeholders  for the next 5-10 y ears is that the EU 
fulfils its ambition to support the building of CCS demonstra tion plants. In the transport 
sector, stakeholders recommend to remove unsus tainable first generation biofuels from the 
EU targets for transport fuels. 
The opinions of individuals regard ing the most important initiativ es that the EU should pursue 
in the next five to ten years in order to s ecure a successful transition towards a low carbon 
economy by 2050 differ. Somme fo cus on the EU's emissions reduction target  by 2020 and 
claim that it should be increased significantly, even in the absence of  international climate 
agreement. Others look at the energy sector an d suggest that the EU should invest much more 
in energy efficiency technologies and renewabl e energy. A mandatory energy savings target is 
expected to push down production costs and lead to more efficient and competitive products. 
Moreover individuals propose the creation of a competitive internal EU energy market. This 
will optimize the costs of power generation and CO
2 emissions reductions and will ensure 
security of supply.  
Regarding the EU ETS, individuals assume that tougher offsetting standards should be 
implemented in order to ensure that companies ar e not able to trade and offset their emissions 
but rather change their business models. Al so in the non-ETS sector tougher GHG reduction 
targets should be set.  
As to transport, individuals ha ve proposed to introduce taxes on kerosene for fli ghts in the EU 
and make train prices comparable to low-cost  flights. Furthermore some citizens suggested 
the internalisation of externalities in transport.  
Additional proposals refer to i nvestments of zero emissions bu ildings, fiscal changes to 
encourage climate friendly behaviour (i.e. no ta xation for "home-grown" energy), labelling of 
products regarding their carbon footprint, limiting intensive livestock farming, tax on the border for carbon intensive goods, EU wide plan for future land use and others. 
11. E
VALUATION OF QUESTION 11 
Question 11: 
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is a central element of EU climate policy. The EU wants 
to foster international climat e action by reinforcing interna tional carbon mark ets, e.g. by 
making links among emissions trading systems a nd by further developing crediting systems. 
What elements do you think should go into the EU low-carbon roadmap? (e.g. bilateral 
agreements to recognise international allowan ces and credits, sectoral crediting systems, 
 
EN 26   EN separate financing mechanism for the purchas e of international cr edits from developing 
countries, etc.) 
European business stakeholders expect the ETS to set a clear direction for companies and 
support long-term confidence in th e value of low-carbon investment s, especially in the power 
sector. At the same time however, the compet itiveness of European industry should be 
protected. European business favours an ETS that contributes to emissions reduction but also 
provides adequate measures to mitigate compe titiveness distortions and to prevent carbon and 
job leakage. As appropriate measures in this co ntext are considered free allowances based on 
achievable benchmarks, compensation for indirect cost effects, ensured future use of offset 
credits and no imposition of border adjustment measures. 
Some NGOs claim that marked based solutio ns such as ETS and CDM have not been 
effective in reducing emissions. In order to ma ke the ETS deliver real emissions reductions, 
firstly the cap should be tightened. Furthermor e the EU should not allow that credits from 
action overseas become an alternative to do mestic emissions abatement. Stakeholders 
underline that a carbon market can only be an inst rument for emissions reduction if the stress 
is on the cap. Some stakeholders propose to use the ETS auctioning revenues to pay for 
emissions reductions in developing countries, while others prefer using these funds for 
financing the development of new energy technologies. 
Some stakeholders consider th e linking of different carbon ma rkets as questionable proposal, 
as the modalities in the different markets va ry. Consequently through linking them one could 
import the weaknesses of poor performing market s into originally be tter markets (as it 
happened with the linkage EU- ETS with the Kyoto Protocol  through CDM). Instead some 
professional associations advise against bilate ral crediting schemes, because they would dry 
up the CDM project pipeline. Other organisations highlight  that linking carbon markets 
should not undermine domestic early action require d until 2020 to stay on  track with the 2050 
targets. Some NGOs stress the fact that ther e are also other ways to  foster international 
climate action, e.g. by co-operation with deve loping countries on t echnology transfer and 
sustainable forestry.  
As to sectoral crediting systems, several stak eholders have focussed on the transport sector. 
Some stakeholders favour the in clusion of transport in the ETS or the creation of a new 
trading scheme especially for transport. Other organisations don’t approve of such a measure, 
since they see more effective solutions for th is sector such as vehicle standards. Many 
respondents consider the inclusion of avia tion in the ETS from 2012 onwards as an 
improvement. 
Individuals see the po tential of intern ational carbon markets as  a measure to reduce CO 2 
emissions differently. Some of them perceive the EU ETS as a very useful tool that could be 
extended also to other countries such as the USA, China and Indi a. Others hold the view that 
CO 2 trading schemes are extremely expensive, mostly inefficient and prone to corruption. 
They claim that the instability of carbon ma rkets deters actors from making long-term 
investment plans and that a carbon tax w ould provide more adequate condition for 
investments instead. Some individuals stress th at the EU should rath er focus on bilateral 
agreements with China and the USA, because multilateral agreements are not likely to bring any positive outcomes any time soon. 
 
EN 27   EN 12. EVALUATION OF QUESTION 12 
Question 12: 
Achieving a low-carbon future m eans investing in the medium to long-term. How can the EU 
roadmap help to create a stable environm ent to encourage investment in low carbon 
technologies? Would it be a good idea to consid er a mid-term objective for 2030 and, if so, in 
what form?  
Some stakeholders argue that a stable envir onment must be based on stable prices for GHG 
emissions, while others claim that investment s cannot rely only on price signals. European 
Business suggests that most new technologies will require both "push" of R&D support and 
the "pull" of market development and conse quently technology innovation should be pursued 
through a number of policies. Se veral industry stakeholders cons ider the EU Strategic Energy 
Technology (SET) Plan provides th e right framing for a low-carbon and secure energy future, 
but that it still lacks financial resources. In addition, the EU should take responsibility about 
key improvements needed in the public sector: subsidies, tax credits and when necessary 
public sector financing. The EU should adopt appropriate legislati on that encourages 
investments in renewabl es and energy saving. 
Professional associations warn about the risk of carbon and job leakage, if the EU decides 
unilaterally to pursue ambitious climate policies.  In order to ensure a fair international 
competition, some respondents suggest that a tax on imported energy intensive goods should 
be implemented, which is opposed by others. In addition, it is key to encourage well-working 
national support mechanisms such as the nation al feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. Some 
NGOs stress that public funding a nd a stable political environment are also very important for 
reducing the financial ri sk of investors.  
Also in the context of creating a stable envir onment that encourages investments, many NGOs 
bring forward the argument of adopting legally binding midterm objectives for 2030, 2040 
and 2050, which would show the way forward. Th e midterm targets assumed by NGOs vary 
from -40 to -70% CO 2 emissions cut by 2030. Also severa l business associations find the 
defining of interim targets useful, because this  would provide European  business with much 
needed predictability. Some organisations fa vour also the introductio n of legally binding 
targets for the share of renewables in the ener gy mix. Nevertheless, othe r stakeholders advise 
against mid-targets. Some organisations a dopt middle ground position and state that the 
debate on 2030 targets can  start only after scien tifically consistent 2020 and 2050 targets are 
set.  
Individuals give different propos als on how the EU can encourag e investment in low carbon 
technologies. Some individuals state that the Commission should firstly increase and meet its 
2020 targets before looking ahead to 2030. There ar e suggestions that the 20% energy savings 
target for 2020 should become mandatory to  deliver its major socio-economic and 
environmental benefits. As a key recommendation individuals point out to the need for stable 
policy environment that will prov ide investors with certainty.  
As to mid-term objective, the opinions diffe r. Some individuals claim that since the 
investments in the power-sector are long-term, there is no need to introduce any mid-goals 
which could only disrupt the investment proce ss. Other individuals consider intermediate 
targets as very helpful. They propose regular interim reporting on a thr ee years basis and also 
 
EN 28   EN sanctions in case of non-compliance. As very e fficient means to encourage investments some 
individuals state also EU-wide carbon ta x with compensation at external borders. 
13. EVALUATION OF QUESTION 13 
Question 13: 
We want to cut emissions in the EU by 80% to  95% by 2050. Some of th e measures needed to 
achieve this could bring about more sustainabl e growth, extra jobs, acc elerated innovation, 
cleaner air, increased energy security and lo wering our vulnerability  to external energy 
shocks. Which of these do you think should be top of the list? What should the EU do to 
maximise the benefits you think should be de livered in priority by future climate action? 
For organised stakeholders the creation of new jobs is the top priority when it comes to 
additional benefits resulting from measures to  cut emissions. Nevertheless some stakeholders 
are concerned that the new green jobs could be at the expense of existing positions. Professional associations look at the broader context and put emphasis on sustainable 
economic growth including maintaining manufactur ing skills and technol ogical excellence in 
the EU. The list of advantages resulting fr om pursuing low-carbon ec onomy includes also 
energy security (less vulnerabil ity of price shocks), cleaner air (important for health and 
biodiversity) and avoiding of humanitarian , social and economic catastrophe. Another 
advantage highlighted by stakeholders is the saving of costs – the sooner the EU takes on 
clear emissions reduction pathway, the ch eaper it would be to meet them.  
In order to maximise the benefits resulting fr om climate action the EU should go for solutions 
that clearly combine climate action with meas ures encouraging employment, security of 
energy supply and cleaner environment. Many of the already existi ng measures tackle 
successfully more than just climate change – e. g. renovation of houses, sustainable biomass 
from local sources, increased use of public tr ansport, renewable energy produced in the EU. 
Energy efficiency and savings are recognised as  bringing many benefits while being the most 
cost-effective and fastest means of meeting EU's climate objectives. NGOs underline that 
nuclear power and CCS lead to less employme nt and less improvement of security supply 
compared to other measures. The EU could ma ximise the benefits resulting from climate 
action also through binding targets and standa rds to support energy savings and renewable 
energy, stronger carbon and ener gy taxation and appropriate policy framework. Investments 
in innovation are recognised as very important  for maximising the additional benefits from 
climate action. 
As top priority for most of the individuals is  the security of ener gy supply, that should be 
considered by future climate action. For most of  the individuals it is important to lower the 
vulnerability of the EU to external energy shoc ks. Other individuals re fer to the creation of 
new jobs that would result from the deploymen t of green technologies.  In addition, health 
benefits of a climate-friendly future such as cleaner air, healthier food and more movement 
(due to walking and cycling) are very important  for some citizens. Some individuals stress 
that even if co-benefits might be substantial, an emissions re duction strategy should focus on 
emissions reduction, because chasing other goa ls would only reduce its effectiveness. 
 
EN 29   EN 14. EVALUATION OF QUESTION 14 
Question 14: 
What sectors do you think may be most vulnerabl e to the negative impact s of climate change, 
and what policies do you think th e EU should pursue to help them  to adapt? Do you have any 
suggestions on the integration of adaptation pol icies in the Common Agriculture Policy, civil 
protection, environment, energy, transport,  research and development policies? 
According to NGOs agriculture an d forestry are the sectors mo st vulnerable to the negative 
impacts of climate change. Professional associ ations and companies on the other hand focus 
on the impacts for energy-intensive industries. Mo re concretely stakeholde rs point out that the 
most vulnerable industries are electro-intensive industries w ith international commodity 
markets. Other affected areas mentioned by stakeholders are biodiversity, environment (coastal and river-flood-prone areas), peop le with low income, the public sector (as 
immigration from threatened regions could rise).  
In order to adapt, the CAP must be chan ged towards sustainable practices, such as 
preservation of natural resources and the limit of red meat consumption. Special focus should 
go to reducing total water consumption as well as  pollution of water res ources through taxes, 
charges and regulatory measures . As to energy-intensive industry, companies insist on 
protective measures – particularly in the form of effective support for th e high costs that these 
industries have to carry.  
Housing and transport should be adapted in order to ensure safety by extreme weather 
conditions. Stakeholders focus in particular on the need for infrastructure development, which 
would contribute to the creati on of jobs. The EU structural  funds should play a more 
important role in steering sust ainable development in the most  vulnerable to climate change 
regions. 
Most of the individuals highlight agriculture as the sector that will be most vulnerable to the 
negative impacts of climate change. Extreme w eather events such as floods and heat waves 
would threaten the agricultural production. Furt hermore unsustainable farming practices and 
mono-crop production make EU agriculture vulnerable.  
The energy sector is also considered by indivi duals as vulnerable to climate change. It is 
heavily dependent on CO
2 intensive fossil fuels and makes high transformation losses in 
electricity production. The energy sector would have to both mitigate its CO 2 emissions and 
adapt to climate change by improving effici ency and switching towards more renewable 
sources.  
As other vulnerable sectors individuals have  listed housing, forestry, fishery, biodiversity, 
health, fresh water supply and industry (esp ecially oil and gas companies and automobile 
industry). Moreover people with low incomes w ill generally be most affected by climate 
change due to lack of resources to adapt.  
As adaptation measures individuals  refer to the creation of speci al funds dealing with climate 
related events. Furthermore species endangere d by climate change should be protected. In 
addition, individuals propose to restructure the industry, so that skills and knowledge from 
undergoing industries can be  re-used elsewhere. 
 
EN 30   EN 15. EVALUATION OF QUESTION 15 
Question 15: 
Do you have success stories that could lead to new initiatives for steering EU transition to a 
low-carbon economy you wish to highlight? Please add other further comments or 
suggestions here if you wish. 
Organised stakeholders point out  a number of success stories1. Some NGOs made a detailed 
analysis of best practices across the whole EU  and argue that both su ccesses and failures can 
be found in every EU member state. Highlig hts are for example the binding 2050 Climate 
Change Act legislation in the UK, the almost fo ssil-free electricity production in Sweden, the 
steady frameworks for renewable energy inve stments in Denmark and Germany or the 
ambitious forestry policies in Latvia. Other positive examples presented by NGOs are heavy 
urban vehicles running on bio-methane, free park ing for methane vehicles in Swedish cities, 
efficient Combined Heat and Power and distri ct heating used in Finland, programmes to 
increase the efficiency of governmental  buildings in Catalonia and others.  
Trade sectors inform about the initiative "Retailers Environmental Action Programme" that 
enables stakeholders to excha nge good practices on subjects su ch as energy efficiency of 
stores and marketing campaigns. The electricity sector report s about "The Energy Wisdom 
Programme" – an initiative of el ectricity companies for reporti ng innovative projects aimed at 
reducing carbon emissions and improving energy efficiency. As another positive example 
industries point out that in several EU Member States, th e food and drink sector is 
participating in Long Term Agreements (LTAs)  on energy efficiency between government 
and industry. 
Companies highlight also some other initiatives such as: "FREE" – Future of Rural Energy in 
Europe – that brings together various stakehol ders to address energy issues affecting rural 
areas, including their high carbon footprint and connected poor energy efficiency; an energy 
efficiency campaign "Save more than fuel" wh ere petroleum industry in collaboration with 
the European Commission informed cons umers how to save energy and reduce CO 2 
emissions; a project called CHANGE – Chambe rs promoting intelligent energy for SMEs, 
which helps SMEs to optimize their energy use and the EU coalition initiative where 30 companies have worked together to analyze th e potential of different power-trains in road 
vehicles;  
Some representatives from business mention al so the co-processing of waste in the cement 
industry as a success story, because currently it leads to the equivalent of over 4 million tones of coal saved every year in the EU. Other comp anies highlight demonstration projects of so 
called "Zero Emissions Villages" which are 100% renewable energy villages in rural areas. Other companies inform about the training programme "European Energy Manager" whose 
aim is to promote energy efficiency in Europe.  
Individuals point out several exam ples that they consider success stories in the context of the 
EU's transition to low-carbon economy. One example is the Energy Service Company 
(ESCO) which offers a broad range of energy solutions and in partic ular energy saving 
                                                
 
1 The examples of success stories have been provided by the respondents to the questionnaire on a 
voluntary basis and have not been verified by the Commission. 
 
EN 31   EN projects. Often the savings in energy costs are us ed to pay back the investments of the project 
over the period of several years and if the i nvestment doesn't pay off, ESCO is often 
responsible to pay the difference. A second example is the initiative of the Danish 
Government to offer local communities the chance to co-invest in wind farm development. Since feed-in tariffs ensured mo re stable return th an banks or stock markets, the public 
response on them was very positive.  
16. A
NNEX : RECEIVED WRITTEN CONTRIBUTIONS  
Please visit our website to see the specific co ntributions and position papers received. Only 
contributions from stakeholders which indicate d that their contributi on should not be treated 
as confidential are shown. All contributions ha ve not been edited and are shown as submitted. 
They do not represent the opini ons and views of the Europ ean Commission and are sole 
responsibility of those submitting the comments. 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/c onsultations/0005/index_en.htm