Europe, "there is no energy democracy and the choices are not understood by the citizens". Alberto Clo speaks

The European Union has started 2023 with a clash on thethe energy. Everything happened at the least opportune moment both for the consequences of the war in Ukraine, both for the first objectives of environmental sustainability to 2030. The debate, the divisions and the measures on nuclear power, on buildings to be made efficient or those on cars with engines running on e fuel, are the living representation of changes affecting the lives of millions of people. The energy turnaround remains a priority, although the scenarios change week after week. On these issues we have heard the opinion of Prof. Alberto Clo, economist, leading energy expert, director of Energy magazine, former Minister of Industry and Foreign Trade in the 90s.

Professor Clò, with regard to energy events in Europe you wrote that the main confrontation is between the Commission and the European Parliament. Can you explain us better?

“The clash is immediately perceived because the proposals of the Parliament or of the Commission are often in contradiction with each other. The absence of energy democracy stands out as well as the problem of costs falling on citizens and the inconstancy of public opinion towards environmentalist policies. Whether it's efficient housing, cars or something else”.

What exactly do you mean by energy democracy?

“The lack of participation and intervention of the population on decisions. The choices that are made rest on people's shoulders. Something is not convincing in Brussels and Strasbourg. People are faced with solutions they know little or nothing about. Things often come to light overnight. Yet it is the citizens who will have to support those decisions”.

He is saying that the political forces are not doing their job well ?

“I say that confrontation with parties or institutions is non-existent. Knowing well what happens in the European Parliament, who is in favor and who is against a specific provision, helps everyone. And then we forget that citizens are also voters”.

Does it refer to anything in particular?

“Take the example of the electric car. The Left and the Greens, in particular, have supported these choices, but sooner or later they will be asked to explain why. They are consistent with their ideas, but the electric car can lead to the reduction of 600 jobs”.

The electric car does not convince you?

"This is not the problem. I think that its diffusion is difficult and that in the end it will not make a great contribution to CO2 reduction. We must not only consider the exhaust from the car when he travels, but his whole life as a whole”.

Electric cars also have higher costs.

"Exact. People are free to buy what they want, of course. But I also think that electric cars are mainly accessible to wealthy people”.

Let's move on to the energy renovation of buildings. This is also a hotly debated and divisive issue. In Italy we have had the experience of bonuses. What did you think?

“Let's start with the costs. Europe introduces rules that become obligations for citizens. As I have already had the opportunity to explain, I don't understand where is the certainty that energy bills will drop. You have to calculate the real costs of making a house green. The same goes for jobs and growth. I don't see all this security."

I would also add the pre-established times to carry out the work.

"Certainly. We are facing proposals with projects to be closed by 2033. And why not in 2034 or 2032? Secondly, I recall that the European building stock absorbs 40% of energy consumption and discharges 32% of emissions. It goes without saying that we need to intervene, but the way and times are another matter”.

Am I wrong or did you also say that it is a "class" issue?

"Yes. Tell me how do 25 million homeowners in Italy bear the enormous costs of renovating their homes? Maybe we need help from the state, but the government has substantially abolished the Superbonus which has cost more than 60 billion euros for 360 buildings. The least efficient houses, then, are those inhabited by less well-off people who cannot afford the costs of an energy renovation".

On the Superbonus, Italy is divided between those who support its validity and those who see it as a generalized waste in the energy sector. Furthermore, in Europe there are differences from country to country.

"I know well. This is why I maintain that the Commission's and Parliament's proposals lack a impact assessment on individual countries. Indeed, each country can adapt the rules as it deems: I don't think it's a good thing".

Are there negotiating spaces between the Commission, Parliament and individual governments?

“I hope so and this in order to arrive at a defined and clear regulation”.

Overall, I understand that you are not very happy with what Europe is doing to give substance to the energy transition. It is a mandatory course, but the obstacles are growing rather than decreasing and citizens are often confused.

“We are in front of the one that in a mine article recently, I defined a temporal asymmetry. Today we pay certain and high costs for uncertain long-term benefits. This does not favor the decisions that the individual citizen has to make. Especially those on low incomes."

Are these all the defects of origin that he spoke of at the beginning?

"Yes. The total absence of energy democracy, the fact that every proposal entails costs for citizens, the peremptoriness and obligations deriving from decisions".

What should we expect, Professor Clò?

“More coordinated actions that arise from good analysis of the problems and go in a plurality of directions, as Professor Luigi Pellizzoni also says. It doesn't seem to me that Europe is doing this”.