In his eceee column reacting to the Commission’s 2030 climate and energy policy framework, presented on January 22nd, Hans Nilsson provides us with a quote within a quote:
. . . it is worth being reminded of the words of the Danish professor Noergaard when he said that “it might not be cost-effective to save the world – but it could be a good idea anyway”.
Hans also provides an important second quote from the Commission’s own impact assessment that accompanied the policy framework:
“A single GHG target would in principle treat options for GHG reductions in a nondiscriminatory and technology neutral way. However, higher efforts geared towards energy efficiency and renewable energy beyond what is needed to achieve a GHG target would result in higher benefits relating to e.g., improvements in fuel efficiency, security of supply, reduction of the negative trade balance for fossil fuels, environmental impacts and health. A single GHG target is also expected to result in lower GDP and employment compared to a framework based on more ambitious targets for also renewables and energy efficiency, while macro-economic benefits associated with the recycling of auctioning revenues into lower labour costs would increase.”
It makes you wonder . . .
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 
EiD is reminded of one final quote this week – the final sentence of the eceee’s press release [http://www.eceee.org/all-news/press/2014/00commissions-new-climate-and-energy-policy-framework-lacks-ambition] on the 2030 policy framework:
“eceee calls on EU institutions and Member States to show true leadership by reconsidering the priority that energy efficiency deserves.”
It is official European Commission policy that all new proposals must be capable of being justified via the accompanying economic impact assessment. It is clear from the paragraph quoted above that the decision by European Commissioners this week to prefer having a single target, rather than three complimentary targets, for 2030 has been taken in complete defiance of this impact assessment. My question is simple : Why?
The closest I come in explaining is that it has a resemblance to a famous Bishop in Sweden (Brask) who took part in the inquisition and sentenced another bishop for heresy. When later confronted with this he could show that in his seal to the sentence he had stuck a paper with the words: “ I have been forced to do this” .
I get the same impression reading paragraphs 85-86 in http://ec.europa.eu/energy/doc/2030/20140122_impact_assessment_summary.pdf.
Some in the commission will at a later time (now?) be able to tell that the decision is based on unjustified reasons.
Thanks for the two comments today. Somehow I feel we have not come to the end of this story.