Europe is making some progress in the direction of reducing emissions, but it is absolutely not enough. An Enel study it rejects without appeal the efficiency of European officials. According to this study, Europe is lagging behind in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
A delay that, said bluntly, if it continues at its current pace will make it fail all objectives.
Emissions, dangerous slowness
In its intentions, the European Union wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 55% by 2030. The Enel study shows a completely different perspective: according to reports, with this pace and without substantial changes, the European Union will have to wait until 2051. It will take twenty-one more years.
That's not all: always according to the study also relaunched by Reuters, the continent will not reach its 40% renewable energy target (also set for 2030) until 2043.
How can these predictions be "denied"?
To avoid this bad score and hit the emissions target in 2030, says Enel, the EU should invest around 3,6 trillion euros (just under 4,3 trillion dollars). European officials should also establish governance more suited to the challenge, with the ability to quickly turn plans into 'concrete actions'. This would obviously include closer coordination between EU Member States and a more precise strategy to promote better market integration.
There was no doubt that the Union should have rethought its strategy. And there was no doubt that Europe's most serious problem is coordination, even communication between the various member states.
Hand to wallet
I am aware that raising the bar was a nice gesture. Bringing the goal of reducing emissions from 40% to 55% was important, but it risks remaining a dream book if it is not accompanied by concrete, decisive, rapid actions.
Enel has a strong incentive on this point: an additional expense would probably help the renewable energy business. Increasing this sector with greater determination could help quantify how much work needs to be done.
What do you think? Is this just a way to get money, or should the EU listen to a major energy supplier calling for more aggressive adoption of clean energy? If in doubt, check out my article on the greenwashing.