13 CoNCLUSIoN: CoMPARING HoUSEHoLD ENERGY …
139
and Slovenia (8.6) see their consumption below the European average, whereas Denmark (9.3), Finland (11.1), Germany (11.4),
the Netherlands (12.2) and Ireland (13.5) are above (EEA 2016).
Nevertheless, all countries have signed the Paris Agreement based among
other factors on a drastic decrease of greenhouse gas emissions, which varies based on country size and energy resources, highlighting the different
challenges that these countries are facing towards decarbonisation, and
more broadly, towards climate change and pollution mitigation. While
there is a common policy agenda around general decarbonisation, there
is less consensus around specifics such as nuclear phase out, with opposition movements promoting the increase of nuclear capacity. Some countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, are engaging in policies away
from nuclear, while others, such as Hungary, Finland and the United
Kingdom, still consider atomic energy as an important part of their
energy portfolio.
Energy efficiency is now promoted in all national policies and different
ways to achieve efficiencies are put forward and implemented with varying degrees of effectiveness. The material presented in previous chapters
of this collection show similarities and differences in the policies of the
various states under study. For example, policy documents in Hungary
stress the necessity to improve energy efficiency with a strong focus on
the household sector and the building stock, but effective policy support
has been volatile. Similarly, there is a strong rhetoric supporting energy
efficiency in Finland, but actual measures have been relatively limited
until recent years. Retrofitting buildings is a widely shared approach to
enhance energy efficiency and lower carbon emissions across Europe, but
the nature of renewables used between the countries is far from homogenous—which is understandable, given the different natural resources
and historical developments. Depending on the climate and the resources
available (oil, gas, wood, peat, etc.), different energy portfolios and interests are at stake. There is also an important divide between countries opting for a nuclear phase-out and those in opposition who are working on
the expansion of their nuclear capacity. These differences in energy production and management have led to the formation of ‘energy islands’,
with the European Union expressing concerns about the so-called ‘fragmentation’ of energy policy (Genus and Iskandarova 2018).
The European Union have highlighted some unilateral measures
taken by member states, which affect the prices of energy and threaten
internal markets. There is thus a call for integration, materialised by the
139
and Slovenia (8.6) see their consumption below the European average, whereas Denmark (9.3), Finland (11.1), Germany (11.4),
the Netherlands (12.2) and Ireland (13.5) are above (EEA 2016).
Nevertheless, all countries have signed the Paris Agreement based among
other factors on a drastic decrease of greenhouse gas emissions, which varies based on country size and energy resources, highlighting the different
challenges that these countries are facing towards decarbonisation, and
more broadly, towards climate change and pollution mitigation. While
there is a common policy agenda around general decarbonisation, there
is less consensus around specifics such as nuclear phase out, with opposition movements promoting the increase of nuclear capacity. Some countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, are engaging in policies away
from nuclear, while others, such as Hungary, Finland and the United
Kingdom, still consider atomic energy as an important part of their
energy portfolio.
Energy efficiency is now promoted in all national policies and different
ways to achieve efficiencies are put forward and implemented with varying degrees of effectiveness. The material presented in previous chapters
of this collection show similarities and differences in the policies of the
various states under study. For example, policy documents in Hungary
stress the necessity to improve energy efficiency with a strong focus on
the household sector and the building stock, but effective policy support
has been volatile. Similarly, there is a strong rhetoric supporting energy
efficiency in Finland, but actual measures have been relatively limited
until recent years. Retrofitting buildings is a widely shared approach to
enhance energy efficiency and lower carbon emissions across Europe, but
the nature of renewables used between the countries is far from homogenous—which is understandable, given the different natural resources
and historical developments. Depending on the climate and the resources
available (oil, gas, wood, peat, etc.), different energy portfolios and interests are at stake. There is also an important divide between countries opting for a nuclear phase-out and those in opposition who are working on
the expansion of their nuclear capacity. These differences in energy production and management have led to the formation of ‘energy islands’,
with the European Union expressing concerns about the so-called ‘fragmentation’ of energy policy (Genus and Iskandarova 2018).
The European Union have highlighted some unilateral measures
taken by member states, which affect the prices of energy and threaten
internal markets. There is thus a call for integration, materialised by the