Expect a lot of wrangling over the details, watering down and demands for opt-outs. The EU's member states jealously guard their prerogatives and generally resent having "Brussels" telling them how to run their countries. Any decisions will require the approval of both the EU parliament and the Council of Ministers, i.e. representatives of the 27 national governments. Some aspects can be decided by majority voting but others will probably require unanimity.

In nuts and bolts terms, 0.5% of GDP by 2020 is actually quite a bit of money relative to discretionary spending by national governments. The EU's own budget currently amounts to roughly 1% of the combined GDP of the 27 member states. Of that, roughly 40% is spent on farm subsidies, most of the rest on infrastructure projects in the poorer member states.

Even though it is unlikely the proposal will be adopted as is, the EU Commission is at least trying to show some leadership wrt sustainable energy security - especially in relation to the transportation sector - and by extension, wrt global warming.

Note that the proposed emissions trading system will exempt certain energy-intensive industries (e.g. cement production). Electricity generators et. al. will have to purchase their emissions certificates at auctions beginning in 2013, when the current Kyoto-related certificates expire. It's not immediately clear if the proceeds from these auctions will accrue to the EU, to member states or to individual regions.

Although the objectives expressed by EU commission are not trivial to achieve, especially for EU estates with more energy intensity, but they are achievable with strong commitment. Being Portuguese, Mr. Barroso maybe felt encouraged by some developments in his country. For example, Portugal during 2007, derived 20% of its electricity from wind, 15% from solar and hydro. That was done with huge capital investments from private companies (90%) and some government help through interesting tariffs for renewable sources, especially solar. The result: three of the world biggest PV solar power stations where built in the last years. It is planned to build the largest PV solar power station in an urban environment with an output of 6MWe near my home in Lisbon. The total amount of investment for this project is around 30M€. The transport sector it is a much harder one, the 5% biofuel incorporation is being hardly met, even with the help of Brazilian feedstock imports. Don’t ask me how many acres of rain forest are being destroyed for those 5%.

Typical blowhard watermelon Greens.

If you don't meet your previous blowhard promises, ( that you cynically never meant to do anyway), what do you do?

Expand the promises even more!! The gullible fools will once again, cheer for you...

“Expect a lot of wrangling over the details, watering down and demands for opt-outs.”

Fortunately, the emergency is gradually being called off. Each new 5 year release from IPCC downgrades both recent past and near future temperatures, yet even Jim “tipping point” Hansen says the IPCC are still too pessimistic about the rate of warming.
http://www.accuweather.com/global-warming/headline-earth.asp

There’s a video with IPCC member Pat Michaels and Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute that’s worth viewing (skip it if you can’t stand the phrase “market forces”). Unfortunately, the camera stays on the speakers so you need to pay attention and imagine the visual aids.

You can view it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3224710639583566424

Stan,

There are a lot of human activities and structures that change the albedo. For example: Roads, buildings, crops, dams, etc. The surface associated with those structures is much bigger than the one that is expected to be dedicated to solar PV. Even global warming could have a positive feedback with a bigger effect in the reduction of the albedo through the melting of the ice caps and the expanding ocean surface. I think you’re over reacting. I know you’re going to refer to the “more than perfect blackbody” argument but I think that is a little bit overkill.

Statistically the wild cat population is bigger threat to birds than windmills, even the glass windows you find in tall buildings are more dangerous for birds. Before the explosion we had in windmill installations the bird issue was a frequent argument, now nobody dare to use it.

@Arthur,

Someone else apparently really reads what the IPCC scientists actually say. Not what the political bureaucrats say they said, as they put words in their mouth. And not just distort, but turn the meaning completely upside down.

When warming was first proposed as a human caused activity, the only variable seemed to be GHGs. So it was assigned a power for all "Measured" warming.

As Science always does, the hypothesis was proposed, tested, and is increasingly being found wanting. Several other sources, for the possible warming that is occurring, none of which can be caused or controlled by Man, are being delineated and calibrated. As each assumes it proper position, the default assumed power of GHGs, is then reduced.

The variable out put from the SUN, the regulated cosmic ray sources altering cloud formation, as modified by the Solar wind, turn out to be the primary sources and much more powerful than GHGs. The various GHG Gasses, variations in the Earth's orbit, natural variability, periodic sea temperature oscillations like ENSO, et cetera are all being measured and calibrated.

Several erroneous co-assumptions, such as the unique proposed ability of CO2 to only be released but not equally absorbed by the Sea, have been tested and found to be in error. CO2 is now proven to act like every other mixture of a soluble gas-liquid interface. CO2 does not stay in the Atmosphere for long, as Henry's Law now re-affirms and measurements of radioactive CO2 from atmospheric Nuclear tests confirm. Only 5.7 years on average, and certainly not for tens or hundreds of years as the AGW proposers feared, with their proposes one-way buffers.

The IPCC has promised to remove that artificial prop in the next 5 year review. That alone will shrink GHG power by 90% or more.

Meanwhile all the GHGs gasses, except CO2 have now been brought under control, as Man cleans his environment.

The power and ability of AGW to alter the climate via GHG emissions is constantly being shrunk into insignificance.

Besides it is not clear at all that a little natural warming is not wholly beneficial and not calamitous. Expanded growing seasons, and more food creates wealth.

The golden ages of human civilization have occurred during warm periods; and been disrupted in cold periods. Greece and Rome and Han empires fell when it got cold, as it drove starving Northerners, South into their territories. The religious wars closed the Renaissance when it grew colder, and set Man against Man, once again.

There is even some question now about how much warming has actually occurred as the US and worldwide temperatures measurements have been shown to be very sloppy. Satellite measurements available only since 1979 do not agree with earth based measurements. Moreover the Earth based measures are disrupted by the collapse of the Soviet Union that closed many colder, northern measurement sites.

Even the level of pre-industrial CO2, is coming into question as todays' scientists review the work of 18th and 19th century Scientists. Work that was previously ignored even though it included observations from as many as four differnt Nobel Prize awardees. CO2 as measured by these Nobel laureates, turns out to be much more variable and much higher level than the presumed pre-industrial level as deduced, but not measured, from ice core analysis.

Stan,
While I disagree with your overestimation of the effect of solar panel driven albedo change, I'm curious where you found the 5.7 year value for CO2's atmospheric life, do you have a link/source for that?

Thanks,
Tony

Stan, I'm wondering what exactly you are arguing for? If you're not interested in supporting people who are trying to help the environment why are you on this site?
Who cares what your reasons are for changing things for the better as long as you're trying to change them for the better right? If you want to think that the best reason for these changes is that reducing our output of CO2 will slow global warming then so be it. If you want to think that the best reason is it saves you your hard earned cash then great! But we should all remember that reducing our output of GHGs requires consuming less, and this in its very nature saves us money, reduces our required resources (be them renewable or non),
reduces our impact on the environment etc etc.

If the earth's entire wealth of all natural resourses were averaged over the land surface of the planet and divided up acording to a person's "requirements", how much land would you require to maintain your current lifestyle? Would there be enough room on the planet for everybody?
Who are you going to kick off?
(please don't answer that anyone! )

Its not just GHGs that are affected here, reducing our global footprint helps everybody.

If your life was a "car" would it be a gas guzzler V-8 4x4? or a clean diesel? how about a peddle bike?

oh and good luck to the EU! Hopefully they are successful and maybe we here in north america can learn a thing or two from them.

Cheers