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 COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050    {COM(2011) 112 final} {SEC(2011) 288 final} {SEC(2011) 289 final}
Date: 2011-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: climate change, environmental protection, innovation, investment promotion, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy

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 COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 

A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 

{COM(2011) 112 final} 
{SEC(2011) 288 final} 
{SEC(2011) 289 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

Summary Highlights .................................................................................................... 3 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

Basic Quantitative Description (Evaluation of Question 1)......................................... 4 

Evaluation of Question 2.............................................................................................. 6 

Evaluation of Questions 3 and 4 .................................................................................. 7 

Evaluation of Question 5............................................................................................ 11 

Evaluation of Question 6............................................................................................ 15 

Evaluation of Questions 7 and 8 ................................................................................ 19 

Evaluation of Question 9............................................................................................ 23 

Evaluation of Question 10.......................................................................................... 24 

Evaluation of Question 11.......................................................................................... 25 

Evaluation of Question 12.......................................................................................... 27 

Evaluation of Question 13.......................................................................................... 28 

Evaluation of Question 14.......................................................................................... 29 

Evaluation of Question 15.......................................................................................... 30 

Annex: Received Written Contributions.................................................................... 31 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

SUMMARY HIGHLIGHTS 

In total, almost 300 responses have been submitted via the online questionnaire. The fact that 
the online consultation was available only in English did not limit the diversity of countries of 
origin of the respondents. Around half of the responses have been submitted from organized 
stakeholders, with very active participation from companies and professional associations. 

According to estimations, the implementation of the climate and energy package, which will 
lead  to  20%  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  reduction  by  2020,  will  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 consumers make have impact on the climate and changing some habits 
and preferences could lead to reducing GHG emissions. According to the results of the online 
consultation,  all  respondents  are  willing  to  reduce  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  GHG  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 still 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  challenges  resulting  from 
climate  change,  most  of  the  organised  stakeholders  prioritise  supporting  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  respondents  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 criticized by others.  

EN 

3 

   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 questionnaire which was posted on the website of DG Climate Action 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/0005/index_en.htm 
additional 
documents as required in the stakeholder consultation guidelines (background note, protection 
of personal information note and specific privacy statement). This document accompanies the 
Impact Assessment and includes detailed evaluation of responses received. 

together 

with 

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 questionnaire. The fact that the questionnaire was 
available only in English did not limit the diversity 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 country of origin indicated in the questionnaire 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A
—
T
A

EN 

i

l

m
u
g
e
B
—
E
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B
—
G
B

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C
—
Z
C

l

y
a
t
I

—
T

I

e
c
n
a
r
F
—
R
F

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

—
E

I

l

d
n
a
o
P
—
L
P

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P
—
T
P

n
e
d
e
w
S
—
E
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N
—
L
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G
—
E
D

k
r
a
m
n
e
D
—
K
D

e
c
e
e
r
G
—
L
E

i

n
a
p
S
—
S
E

l

d
n
a
n
F
—

i

I

F

4 

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S
—
K
S

l

d
e
t
a
c
d
n

i

i

t
o
N

/

r
e
h
t
O

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U
—
K
U

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  total  156  organized  stakeholders  have  answered  to  the  questionnaire.  Most  of  the 
contributions  have  been  received  form  companies  /  professional  associations,  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).  

company/professional 

Although  the  organised  stakeholders  could  be  separated  in  subgroups  –  academic 
organisation, 
organisation 
(NGO)/association  of  NGOs,  public  authority/public  administration,  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 nevertheless there are some broad lines that 
could be reproduced. 

non-governmental 

association, 

The  highest  number  of  respondents  positioned  themselves  as  company/professional 
association (96), followed by NGOs (32), public authority (9) and finally think thank (5) and 
trade union (5) – see figure below. 

Figure 2: Received responses from stakeholders by affiliation 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

i

c
m
e
d
a
c
a

/

n
o
i
t
a
s
n
a
g
r
o

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
c
o
s
s
a

i

i

c
m
e
d
a
c
a

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
n
a
g
r
o

i

/

y
n
a
p
m
o
c

l

i

a
n
o
s
s
e
f
o
r
p

i

n
o
i
t
a
c
o
s
s
a

-
n
o
n

l

a
t
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
g

/

n
o
i
t
a
s
n
a
g
r
o

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
c
o
s
s
a

i

s
O
G
N

/

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a

c

i
l

b
u
p

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
a

i

i

k
n
a
t
-
k
n
h
t

i

n
o
n
u

i

e
d
a
r
t

f
o

e
p
y
t

r
e
h
t
o

n
o
i
t
a
s
n
a
g
r
o

i

c

i
l

b
u
p

Individuals  (citizens)  mostly  answered  questions  2-6,  while  organized  stakeholders  focused 
on  questions  7-15.  However  some  individuals  also  responded  to  questions  7-15  and  some 
stakeholders answered questions 2-6. Therefore results are shown for both groups. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

EVALUATION OF QUESTION 2 

Question 2: 

Implementing the climate and energy package (achieving a 20% reduction 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 costs) would you be prepared to pay on a monthly 
basis to build the future low-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 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

I am willing to pay more than 12 €
per month

I am prepared to pay 12 € per
month

I am not ready to pay 12 € per
month

Citizens

Organized Stakeholders

Three quarters of all citizens that answered this question indicated 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 the result might not be statistically significant or 
representative, those that answered this question and specified that they are not ready to pay 
12 € per month represent nearly half of the answers received. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
5. 

EVALUATION OF QUESTIONS 3 AND 4 

Question 3: 

Reducing emissions and saving energy is possible through your daily choices as a consumer. 
What do you already do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 

•  Reductions  to  your  energy  bill:  roof  insulation,  window  replacement,  maintainance  or 

upgrading of heating or air conditioning systems  

•  Choosing  the  most  efficient  appliances  —  with  energy  labels  A(+)  when  replacing  your 

fridge, dishwasher, washing machine, TV, computers 

•  An energy audit of your house or company 

•  Switching to a provider of renewable electricity or installing your own renewable energy 

generation system 

•  Checking your real-time CO2 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 emissions  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 CO2 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 

7 

   EN 

 
Figure 4: Responses to Question 3 from individuals: 

Reduce waste, recycle and reuse

96%

Find out what your local government does to save energy
and money

40%

52%

8%

Develop your skills so that you can get a job requiring
knowledge or know-how about reducing emissions

48%

37%

15%

Create or invest in a company putting new low carbon or
energy-efficient product and services on the market

14%

55%

31%

Get your neighbourhood / friends / family to make a
pledge / take part in local challenges to reduce emissions

24%

50%

26%

Compensating for your greenhouse gas emissions by
buying carbon offsets, i.e. financing projects to reduce
emissions somewhere else in the world

Check your holiday plans and opt for the best transport
connections which would reduce your CO2 emissions

14%

39%

46%

39%

40%

22%

Encourage actions that reduce deforestation worldwide
(e.g. buying products from certified forests…)

56%

40%

Buy locally-produced food and seasonal fresh products
more often

74%

26%

Diversify your weekly diet to reduce emissions in food
production (e.g. replace meat for some meals)

61%

20%

19%

Using biofuel-blended petrol or diesel

14%

48%

38%

Using electric cars

75%

22%

Commute to work on foot, cycling or by public transport
(bus, train, metro)

69%

9%

21%

Checking your real-time CO2 consumption with an IT
application

11%

59%

30%

Switching to a provider of renewable electricity or
installing your own renewable energy generation system

31%

53%

17%

An energy audit of your house or company

19%

58%

78%

23%

22%

Choosing the most efficient appliances — with energy
labels A(+) when replacing your fridge, dishwasher,
washing machine, TV, computers

Reductions to your energy bill: roof insulation, window
replacement, maintainance or upgrading of heating or air
conditioning systems

66%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I have already done this

I could do this, it is interesting

I won’t do this

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 5: Responses to Question 3 from stakeholders: 

Reduce waste, recycle and reuse

90%

7%

Find out what your local government does to save energy
and money

53%

38%

10%

Develop your skills so that you can get a job requiring
knowledge or know-how about reducing emissions

45%

45%

10%

Create or invest in a company putting new low carbon or
energy-efficient product and services on the market

33%

40%

28%

Get your neighbourhood / friends / family to make a
pledge / take part in local challenges to reduce emissions

37%

37%

26%

Compensating for your greenhouse gas emissions by
buying carbon offsets, i.e. financing projects to reduce
emissions somewhere else in the world

Check your holiday plans and opt for the best transport
connections which would reduce your CO2 emissions

23%

40%

38%

47%

26%

26%

Encourage actions that reduce deforestation worldwide
(e.g. buying products from certified forests…)

43%

50%

8%

Buy locally-produced food and seasonal fresh products
more often

74%

26%

Diversify your weekly diet to reduce emissions in food
production (e.g. replace meat for some meals)

46%

23%

31%

Using biofuel-blended petrol or diesel

19%

50%

31%

Using electric cars

5%

73%

23%

Commute to work on foot, cycling or by public transport
(bus, train, metro)

53%

20%

28%

Checking your real-time CO2 consumption with an IT
application

10%

66%

Switching to a provider of renewable electricity or
installing your own renewable energy generation system

26%

50%

24%

24%

An energy audit of your house or company

21%

44%

36%

Choosing the most efficient appliances — with energy
labels A(+) when replacing your fridge, dishwasher,
washing machine, TV, computers

Reductions to your energy bill: roof insulation, window
replacement, maintainance or upgrading of heating or air
conditioning systems

88%

12%

69%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I have already done this

I could do this, it is interesting

I won’t do this

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
Reduction of waste, recycling and reuse is a common daily practice of individuals 96% of the 
responses indicated that people are already 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 absolutely 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  incentives  for  these  actions  are  not  linked  to 
financial benefits and include some additional effort that individuals are willing to make. 

Reflecting on reality, the answers 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 actions that individuals are not already doing or do not consider 
interesting  as  an  option  for  GHG  reductions.  Individuals  are  most  reluctant  to  reduce  GHG 
emissions  by  buying  carbon  offsets  (i.e.  financing  projects  to  reduce  emissions  somewhere 
else  in  the  world):  46%  of  respondents  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  individuals:  "Reduce  waste,  recycle 
and  reuse"  and  "Buy  locally-produced  food  and  seasonal  fresh  products  more  often".  –
Furthermore  likewise  individuals,  stakeholders  are  also  most  reluctant  to  reduce  GHG 
emissions  by  buying  carbon  offsets  (i.e.  financing  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 followed by the options of using biofuel blends and 
diet diversification.  

In  general,  most  of  the  options  presented  seem  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 individuals 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, better waste recycling etc), daily activities (avoid 
travelling by plane and replace driving a car through public transport, cycling or walking; buy 
second  hand  clothes  and  furniture)  and  nutrition  (avoid  food  products  with  excessive 
packaging, eat less red meat etc). 

Individuals  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  they  can  raise  the  awareness  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  information  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 footprint of different products. 

EN 

10 

   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 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 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Figure 6: Responses to Question 5 [absolute numbers] 

We do not have the technologies ready to reduce
emissions in all sectors.

31

19

It is too complicated to upgrade all European energy
and transport infrastructures.

14

6

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.

3

29

9

8

15

18

23

14

14

12

16

21

21

59

45

48

Other, please specify.

10

37

Citizens

Organized Stakeholders

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 7: Responses to Question 5 [percentages] 

We do not have the technologies ready to reduce
emissions in all sectors.

9%

15%

It is too complicated to upgrade all European energy
and transport infrastructures.

4%

5%

International carbon markets are yet not fully
developed, currently only EU producers and
consumers pay a price for CO2 emissions.

8%

7%

There are still subsidies available that support
mining and other means of obtaining and using fossil
fuels at global level.

17%

12%

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.

5%

6%

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.

2%

13%

11%

7%

11%

14%

10%

13%

6%

6%

Other, please specify.

11%

8%

Citizens

Organized Stakeholders

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
Individuals and organised stakeholders identify different obstacles that impede the reduction 
of EU's greenhouse gas emissions. As the most severe problem individuals see the subsidies 
still  available  in  support  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 make an effort to cut emissions 
and  save  energy  (13%).  Least  importance  is  given  to  the  options  that  it  is  too  expensive  to 
replace high-energy consuming equipment and buildings (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 technologies ready to reduce emissions in all sectors 
(15%) followed by the argument that 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 a long run (13%). Only 2% of 
organised stakeholders considered as a hurdle the 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.  

By identifying the impediments for the mitigation of GHG emissions, obviously for organised 
stakeholders  such  as  companies  and  public  authorities  the  decisive  factors  are  the  cost-
efficiency of mitigation measures and the returns 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 CO2 price. 

EN 

14 

   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 things: cutting  their  greenhouse gas emissions and 
adapting  to  climate  change  (e.g.  building  better  flood  defences  and  switching  to  more 
drought-resistant  crops).  What  do  you  think  the  priorities  should  be  for  helping  developing 
countries with these challenges? If we support them, what should the terms be?  

□ 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.  
□ others, please specify  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
47

58

64

65

Figure 8: Responses to Question 6 [absolute numbers] 

Support the poorest
countries.

12

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.

25

21

22

30

28

9

17

14

12

16

Other, please specify

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Citizens

Organized Stakeholders

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 9: Responses to Question 6 [percentages] 

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

15%

10%

18%

20%

20%

17%

20%

18%

9%

7%

9%

14%

10%

4%

5%

5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Citizens

Organized Stakeholders

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
Although there is no considerable difference in the way that individuals and stakeholders have 
set their priorities regarding the question what should be the priorities for helping developing 
countries  to  cut  GHG  emissions  and  to  adapt  to  climate  change,  there  are  some  interesting 
observations  to  make.  According  to  individuals  the  focus  should  be  on  supporting  the 
development of technologies poorer countries can use and launch pilot projects to see if they 
work there (favoured by 20% of the responded individuals) 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 the most pollution by helping them to develop or 
buy  climate  friendly  technology  (20%  of  the  responded  stakeholders  that  correspond  to  25 
organisations). 

One  could  draw  the  conclusion  that  individuals  are  slightly  more  concerned  about  climate 
action  in  least  developed  countries  (the  poorest  countries)  while  organised  stakeholders  are 
more  interested  in  initiatives  in  countries  such  as  China,  US,  India  and  others,  which  are 
generating currently the most pollution. 

Organised  stakeholders  tend  to  be  more  demanding  regarding  developing  countries  –  while 
only 9% individuals think that it is important to make sure that developing countries work out 
an ambitious action programme in line with the EU's aims before they receive any funding, 
14% stakeholders consider this essential. This difference becomes evident also in the answers 
to the option that helping developing 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 measurement, reporting and verification 
of  GHG  mitigation  and  adaptation  measures.  In  addition  technology  transfer  has  to  observe 
the international standards and rules on international property rights. Other respondents hold 
the view that the EU's support should be rather unconditional 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 bear the negative consequences resulting from 
it.  

Furthermore many respondents stress the importance of education and training on all levels in 
developing countries so that they 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 likely to suffer from the impacts of climate change 
and do not possess the resources to adapt.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
8. 

EVALUATION OF QUESTIONS 7 AND 8 

Question 7: 

The EU has put in place a regulatory framework 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-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 

Question 8: 

Do you have any comments on the policies evaluated in the previous question? Do you have 
any comments on any other policies? 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
36

45

82

72

Figure 10: Responses to Question 7[absolute numbers] 

EU ETS (European Emission Trading Scheme)
Directive

29

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 

12

9

4

11

12

Fuel quality directive 

2

6

32

22

30

32

21

58

Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from
passenger cars 

24

49

Proposal for a Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions
from vans 

11

15

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

9

2

4
3

23

9

11

8

11

7

16

10

Citizens

Organized Stakeholders

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 11: Responses to Question 7 [percentages] 

EU ETS (European Emission Trading Scheme)
Directive

12%

17%

Effort Sharing Decision

5%

7%

Renewable Energy Directive

19%

15%

Eco-design of energy-using products Directive

Energy Labelling of products Directive

Directive on Cogeneration (CHP)

2%

2%

4%

7%

6%

9%

Directive on end-use energy efficiency and energy
efficiency services (ESD)

5%

7%

Recast Energy performance of Buildings Directive 

9%

12%

Fuel quality directive 

1%
1%

Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger
cars 

10%
10%

Proposal for a Regulation to reduce CO2 emissions
from vans 

5%

3%

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

1%

2%

2%

1%

4%

2%

3%

5%

5%

1%

2%

7%

Citizens

Organized Stakeholders

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
In response to Question 7 individuals and stakeholders have presented different views about 
the  most  effective  EU  legislation  in  terms  of  delivering  emission  reductions  by  2020  and 
beyond.  The  preferred  option  for  organised  stakeholders  is  clearly  the  EU  ETS  Directive  – 
17%  which  corresponds  to  82  stakeholders  chose  this  regulatory  framework.  Individuals  on 
the other hand gave their preference for the Renewable Energy Directive – 19% of all answers 
which are equal 82 respondents indicated that choice. The third most favoured option for all 
respondents is the Recast Energy performance of Buildings Directive which would not only 
be beneficial for the climate, but would reduce also energy bills through energy savings.  

According  to  the  respondents,  the  least  effective  EU  legislations  in  terms  of  delivering 
emissions  reduction  have  been  the  Fuel  Quality  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  Proposal  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  Renewable  Energy  Directive  are 
much more comprehensive and encompass different sectors. 

Interestingly, the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) 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 Question 7 and proposed other policies. 

Support  for  CCS  and  nuclear  is  one  of  the  controversial  issues,  since  most  environmental 
NGOs  and  some  companies  consider  them  unsafe  and  expensive.  Some  stakeholders  argue 
that  nuclear  continues  to  pose  unacceptable  risks  for  the  environment,  while  CCS  implies 
further  dependence  on  fossil  fuels.  Business  associations  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 CO2 energy source to cover growing electricity 
demand  and  that  coal  in  combination  with  CCS  provides  security  of  electricity  supply 
throughout Europe. 

Although  according  to  stakeholders  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive  provides  the  correct 
framework to  boost  renewable  energy, some  environmental  NGOs  would  like  to  have  more 
ambitious targets for solar and wind energy. In addition, strict sustainability criteria should be 
developed for all biomass. Many respondents hold 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  necessary  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 

22 

   EN 

 
As other useful policies stakeholders point out the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) plan 
that  promotes  the  deployment  of  low-carbon  technologies.  Other  respondents  underline  that 
attention  should  be  given  not  only  to  technological  solutions,  but  also  to  energy  saving  and 
changes in consumption patterns. In this context energy labelling could play an important role 
raising consumer awareness and should be expanded 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 detail. Moreover individuals are concerned that 
ambitious climate legislation is jeopardised through support for other sectors such as energy, 
agriculture, transport, industry, etc: "EU policies have been like driving 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  portfolio  of  technologies  to  build  a  low-carbon  future.  Some 
examples  of  potential  technologies  and  energy  efficiency  solutions  are  carbon  capture  and 
storage, renewable energy technologies, electric vehicles, fuel cells, smart grids, heat pumps, 
cogeneration,  next  generation  nuclear  power,  zero  emission  buildings,  etc.  Which 
technologies do you think will be the most important in achieving a low carbon economy by 
2050 and how can the EU foster their development and deployment? 

Organised  stakeholders  have  different  preferences  regarding  the  portfolio  of  technologies to 
build  a  low-carbon  future.  Respondents  consider  energy  efficiency  (of  houses,  products, 
industry  and  transport),  renewable  energy  (solar  heat  and  power,  wave  power,  geothermal, 
biomass) as well as cogeneration, heat pumps and 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  associations  and  companies  on  the  other  hand 
mostly  support  the  development  of  CCS  and  the  further  use  of  nuclear.  Not  all  of  the 
stakeholders  that  responded  to  the  questionnaire  are  convinced  by  biofuels,  since  they  are 
linked to issues of land use, deforestation and biodiversity.  

The EU could foster the development and deployment of this technologies portfolio through 
more  investments  in  research  and  development  (R&D)  and  awareness-raising.  Furthermore 
the EU could provide financial support, develop 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  ambitious  and  binding  targets  for  the  use  of 
renewables would play important role too. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Citizens acknowledge that one single technology would not solve all the problems connected 
to  CO2  emissions.  Most  of  the  citizens  suggest  keeping  all  technological  options  open  and 
select technologies according to their economic efficiency and commercial readiness. 

As  preferred  technologies  to  build  a  low-carbon  future,  individuals  point  out  improving 
energy  efficiency,  renewable  energy  technologies,  smart  grids,  zero  emission  buildings, 
cogeneration  and  electrical  vehicles.  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 dependence 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 would 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  that  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  regulations  and  standards.  Secondly,  communication,  awareness 
raising  and  education  about  climate  change  issues  would  induce  behavioural  change  and 
foster  the  deployment  of  new  technologies.  Thirdly,  the  EU  should  invest  more  in  research 
and development, so that it can support the development of innovations. 

10. 

EVALUATION OF QUESTION 10 

Question 10: 

What are in your opinion the most important initiatives the EU should pursue in the next five 
to 10 years to secure a successful transition towards a low carbon economy by 2050?  

Many  NGOs  suggest  that  the  most  important  initiative  for the next 5-10 years is to adopt a 
clear and credible timeline with interim emissions reduction 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 period into the post 2012 period, 
reduce  the  number  of  industries  that  are  eligible  for  free  allowances  and  implement  much 
stricter rules for allowances from CDM projects in the EU-ETS.  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
Several stakeholders propose to use structural funds and other EU-funding more efficiently to 
support  the  transition  to  sustainable  energy.  In  the  next  5-10  years  a  lot  could  be  done  to 
improve  the  energy  efficiency  in  the  housing  sector,  which  would  bring  benefits  also  to 
homeowners. 

Furthermore  many  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  network  infrastructure  and  especially  the 
energy grids have to be adapted to allow flexibility for high levels of renewables generation, 
including decentralised sources. Professional associations recommend also to create positive 
feedback  effects  for  equipment  suppliers  and  industries  through  technically  meaningful 
benchmark systems and R&D support.  

Another  recommendation  from  several  stakeholders  for  the  next  5-10  years  is  that  the  EU 
fulfils  its  ambition  to  support  the  building  of  CCS  demonstration  plants.  In  the  transport 
sector,  stakeholders  recommend  to  remove  unsustainable  first  generation  biofuels  from  the 
EU targets for transport fuels. 

The opinions of individuals regarding the most important initiatives that the EU should pursue 
in  the  next  five  to  ten  years  in  order  to  secure  a  successful  transition  towards  a  low  carbon 
economy by 2050 differ.  Somme  focus 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 and suggest that the EU should invest much more 
in energy efficiency technologies and renewable 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  CO2  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 are not able to trade and offset their emissions 
but rather change their business models. Also in the non-ETS sector tougher GHG reduction 
targets should be set.  

As to transport, individuals have proposed to introduce taxes on kerosene for flights 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  investments  of  zero  emissions  buildings,  fiscal  changes  to 
encourage climate friendly behaviour (i.e. no taxation 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. 

EVALUATION OF QUESTION 11 

Question 11: 

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is a central element of EU climate policy. The EU wants 
to  foster  international  climate  action  by  reinforcing  international  carbon  markets,  e.g.  by 
making links among emissions trading systems and 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  allowances  and  credits,  sectoral  crediting  systems, 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
separate  financing  mechanism  for  the  purchase  of  international  credits  from  developing 
countries, etc.) 

European  business  stakeholders  expect  the  ETS  to  set  a  clear  direction  for  companies  and 
support long-term confidence in the value of low-carbon investments, especially in the power 
sector.  At  the  same  time  however,  the  competitiveness  of  European  industry  should  be 
protected. European business favours an ETS that contributes to emissions reduction but also 
provides adequate measures to mitigate competitiveness distortions and to prevent carbon and 
job leakage. As appropriate measures in this context 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  solutions  such  as  ETS  and  CDM  have  not  been 
effective in reducing emissions. In order to make the ETS deliver real emissions reductions, 
firstly  the  cap  should  be  tightened.  Furthermore  the  EU  should  not  allow  that  credits  from 
action  overseas  become  an  alternative  to  domestic  emissions  abatement.  Stakeholders 
underline that a carbon market can only be an instrument 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 the linking of different carbon markets as questionable proposal, 
as the modalities in the different markets vary. Consequently through linking them one could 
import  the  weaknesses  of  poor  performing  markets  into  originally  better  markets  (as  it 
happened  with  the  linkage  EU-ETS  with  the  Kyoto  Protocol  through  CDM).  Instead  some 
professional  associations advise against  bilateral crediting  schemes, because  they would dry 
up  the  CDM  project  pipeline.  Other  organisations  highlight  that  linking  carbon  markets 
should not undermine domestic early action required until 2020 to stay on track with the 2050 
targets.  Some  NGOs  stress  the  fact  that  there  are  also  other  ways  to  foster  international 
climate  action,  e.g.  by  co-operation  with  developing  countries  on  technology  transfer  and 
sustainable forestry.  

As to sectoral crediting systems, several stakeholders have focussed on the transport sector. 
Some  stakeholders  favour  the  inclusion  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  this  sector  such  as  vehicle  standards.  Many 
respondents  consider  the  inclusion  of  aviation  in  the  ETS  from  2012  onwards  as  an 
improvement. 

Individuals  see  the  potential  of  international  carbon  markets  as  a  measure  to  reduce  CO2 
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 India. Others hold the view that 
CO2  trading  schemes  are  extremely  expensive,  mostly  inefficient  and  prone  to  corruption. 
They  claim  that  the  instability  of  carbon  markets  deters  actors  from  making  long-term 
investment  plans  and  that  a  carbon  tax  would  provide  more  adequate  condition  for 
investments  instead.  Some  individuals  stress  that  the  EU  should  rather  focus  on  bilateral 
agreements with China and the USA, because multilateral agreements are not likely to bring 
any positive outcomes any time soon. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
12. 

EVALUATION OF QUESTION 12 

Question 12: 

Achieving a low-carbon future means investing in the medium to long-term. How can the EU 
roadmap  help  to  create  a  stable  environment  to  encourage  investment  in  low  carbon 
technologies? Would it be a good idea to consider a mid-term objective for 2030 and, if so, in 
what form?  

Some stakeholders argue that a stable environment must be based on stable prices for GHG 
emissions,  while  others  claim  that  investments  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 consequently technology innovation should be pursued 
through a number of policies. Several industry stakeholders consider the EU Strategic Energy 
Technology (SET) Plan provides the 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  legislation  that  encourages 
investments in renewables 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 national feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. Some 
NGOs stress that public funding and a stable political environment are also very important for 
reducing the financial risk of investors.  

Also in the context of creating a stable environment 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. The midterm targets assumed by NGOs vary 
from  -40  to  -70%  CO2  emissions  cut  by  2030.  Also  several  business  associations  find  the 
defining of interim targets useful, because this would provide European business with much 
needed  predictability.  Some  organisations  favour  also  the  introduction  of  legally  binding 
targets for the share of renewables in the energy mix. Nevertheless, other stakeholders advise 
against  mid-targets.  Some  organisations  adopt  middle  ground  position  and  state  that  the 
debate on 2030 targets can start only after scientifically consistent 2020 and 2050 targets are 
set.  

Individuals give different proposals on how the EU can encourage 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 are 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 provide investors with certainty.  

As  to  mid-term  objective,  the  opinions  differ.  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  process.  Other  individuals  consider  intermediate 
targets as very helpful. They propose regular interim reporting on a three years basis and also 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
sanctions in case of non-compliance. As very efficient means to encourage investments some 
individuals state also EU-wide carbon tax 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 the measures needed to 
achieve  this  could  bring  about  more  sustainable  growth,  extra  jobs,  accelerated  innovation, 
cleaner  air,  increased  energy  security  and  lowering  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 delivered 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 manufacturing skills and technological excellence in 
the  EU.  The  list  of  advantages  resulting  from  pursuing  low-carbon  economy  includes  also 
energy  security  (less  vulnerability  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 cheaper it would be to meet them.  

In order to maximise the benefits resulting from climate action the EU should go for solutions 
that  clearly  combine  climate  action  with  measures  encouraging  employment,  security  of 
energy  supply  and  cleaner  environment.  Many  of  the  already  existing  measures  tackle 
successfully more than just  climate change – e.g. renovation of houses, sustainable biomass 
from local sources, increased use of public transport, 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  employment  and  less  improvement  of  security  supply 
compared  to  other  measures.  The  EU  could  maximise  the  benefits  resulting  from  climate 
action  also  through  binding  targets  and  standards  to  support  energy  savings  and  renewable 
energy, stronger carbon and energy 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  energy  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  shocks.  Other  individuals  refer  to  the  creation  of 
new  jobs  that  would  result  from  the  deployment  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 reduction strategy should focus on 
emissions reduction, because chasing other goals would only reduce its effectiveness. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
14. 

EVALUATION OF QUESTION 14 

Question 14: 

What sectors do you think may be most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change, 
and what policies do you think the EU should pursue to help them to adapt? Do you have any 
suggestions on the integration of adaptation policies in the Common Agriculture Policy, civil 
protection, environment, energy, transport, research and development policies? 

According  to  NGOs  agriculture  and  forestry  are  the  sectors  most  vulnerable  to  the  negative 
impacts of climate change. Professional associations and companies on the other hand focus 
on the impacts for energy-intensive industries. More concretely stakeholders point out that the 
most  vulnerable  industries  are  electro-intensive  industries  with  international  commodity 
markets.  Other  affected  areas  mentioned  by  stakeholders  are  biodiversity,  environment 
(coastal  and  river-flood-prone  areas),  people  with  low  income,  the  public  sector  (as 
immigration from threatened regions could rise).  

In  order  to  adapt,  the  CAP  must  be  changed  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 resources through taxes, 
charges  and  regulatory  measures.  As  to  energy-intensive  industry,  companies  insist  on 
protective measures – particularly in the form of effective support for the 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  creation  of  jobs.  The  EU  structural  funds  should  play  a  more 
important role in steering sustainable 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  weather events such as floods and heat waves 
would threaten the agricultural production. Furthermore unsustainable farming practices and 
mono-crop production make EU agriculture vulnerable.  

The  energy  sector  is  also  considered  by  individuals  as  vulnerable  to  climate  change.  It  is 
heavily  dependent  on  CO2  intensive  fossil  fuels  and  makes  high  transformation  losses  in 
electricity production. The energy sector would have to both mitigate its CO2 emissions and 
adapt  to  climate  change  by  improving  efficiency  and  switching  towards  more  renewable 
sources.  

As  other  vulnerable  sectors  individuals  have  listed  housing,  forestry,  fishery,  biodiversity, 
health,  fresh  water  supply  and  industry  (especially  oil  and  gas  companies  and  automobile 
industry).  Moreover  people  with  low  incomes  will  generally  be  most  affected  by  climate 
change due to lack of resources to adapt.  

As adaptation measures individuals refer to the creation of special funds dealing with climate 
related  events.  Furthermore  species  endangered  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 

29 

   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 successes and failures can 
be  found  in  every  EU  member  state.  Highlights  are  for  example  the  binding  2050  Climate 
Change Act legislation in the UK, the almost fossil-free electricity production in Sweden, the 
steady  frameworks  for  renewable  energy  investments  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 parking for methane vehicles in Swedish cities, 
efficient  Combined  Heat  and  Power  and  district  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  exchange  good  practices  on  subjects  such  as  energy  efficiency  of 
stores  and  marketing  campaigns.  The  electricity  sector  reports  about  "The  Energy  Wisdom 
Programme" – an initiative of electricity companies for reporting innovative projects aimed at 
reducing  carbon  emissions  and  improving  energy  efficiency.  As  another  positive  example 
industries  point  out  that  in  several  EU  Member  States,  the  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  stakeholders  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"  where  petroleum  industry  in  collaboration  with 
the  European  Commission  informed  consumers  how  to  save  energy  and  reduce  CO2 
emissions;  a  project  called  CHANGE  –  Chambers  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  the  potential  of  different  power-trains  in  road 
vehicles;  

Some  representatives  from  business  mention  also  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 companies 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 examples 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  particular  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 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
projects. Often the savings in energy costs are used to pay back the investments of the project 
over  the  period  of  several  years  and  if  the  investment  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  more  stable  return  than  banks  or  stock  markets,  the  public 
response on them was very positive.  

16. 

ANNEX: RECEIVED WRITTEN CONTRIBUTIONS  

Please visit our website to see the specific contributions  and position  papers received. Only 
contributions from stakeholders which indicated that their contribution should not be treated 
as confidential are shown. All contributions have not been edited and are shown as submitted. 
They  do  not  represent  the  opinions  and  views  of  the  European  Commission  and  are  sole 
responsibility of those submitting the comments. 

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/0005/index_en.htm  

EN 

31 

   EN