The main objective of this manuscript is to look anew at Energy intensity, an indicator often used as measure of efficient economic development, which currently does not include any environmental component. The authors compared results obtained on the same sample by using Energy Intensity, a well known indicator, and Index of Energy Intensity Cost, an improved indicator suggested by the authors. The new indicator includes carbon emission cost, since 96% of carbon emission is result of energy consumption. Besides the introduction of a new component, the authors changed the nature of the indicator itself. Namely, traditional Energy intensity is based on physical values. The new indicator is expressed in monetary values – more suitable for monitoring economic development. Monitoring in the EU27 region, by using two chosen indicators, shows opposite results. Measuring of Energy Intensity, EU27 region showed positive trends. Measuring of Index of Energy Intensity Cost showed negative trends. Further modifications to Energy intensity are needed.
McKillopA., Recasting European Energy Dependence on Russia, Energy & Environment, 2014, 25(2), 415–418.
2.
MackechnieC.MaskellL.NortonL.RoyD., The role of the “Big society” in monitoring the state of the natural environment, Journal of Environmental monitoring, 2011, (13), 2687–2691.
3.
HolmesK.J.PapayL., Prospects for electricity from renewable resources in the United States, J. Renewable Sustainable Energy, 2011, (3), 042701.
4.
GolušinM.Munitlak-IvanovićO.DomazetS.DodićS.VučurovićD., Assessment of the effectiveness of policy implementation for sustainable energy development in Southeast Europe, J. Renewable Sustainable Energy, 2011, (3), 062702.
5.
GolušinM.IvanovićMuinitlak O.AndrejevićA.VučenovS., Survey of socio economic growth in SE Europe – new conceptual frame for sustainability metrics, Journal of Economic Surveys, 2014, (28), 152–168.
6.
ZhangZ.EnergyX., Climate and Environmental Policy in China: Introduction to the Special Double Issue, Energy & Environment, 2014, 24(7–8), 1201–1208.
7.
Diaz-ChaoA., A Measurement for the Evolution of Renewable Energies: The Case of the European Union, Energy & Environment, 2014, 25(2), 305–324.
8.
OztrukI.KaplanM.KalyoncuH., The Causal Relationship Between Energy Consumption and GDP in Turkey, Energy & Environment, 2013, 24(5), 727–734.
9.
HuJ.L.WangS.C., Total-factor energy efficiency of regions in China, Energy Policy, 2006, (34), 3206–3217.
10.
ShiG.M.BiJ.WangJ.N., Chinese regional industrial energy efficiency evaluation based on a DEA model of fixing non-energy inputs, Energy Policy, 2010, (38), 6172–6179.
11.
ChangM.C.Energy intensity, target level of energy intensity, and room for improvement in energy intensity: An application to the study of regions in the EU, Energy Policy, 2014, (67), 648–655.
12.
SamuelsonR.D., The unexpected challenges of using energy intensity as a policy objective: Examining the debate over the APEC energy intensity goal, Energy Policy, 2014, (64), 373–381.
13.
NiuY.ChenW.WuZ., The Economic and Environment Impact on China of Carbon Tariffs Based on Gage Model, Energy & Environment, 2014, 24(7–8), 1295–1308.
14.
GolušinMIvanovićMunitlak O., Kyoto protocol implementation in Serbia as precognition of sustainable energetic and economic development, Energy Policy, 2011, (39), 2800–2807.
15.
HammoudehS.NguyenD.K.SousaR.M., Energy prices and CO2 emission allowance prices: A quantile regression approach, Energy Policy, 2014, (70), 201–206.
16.
JinY.ZhangS., Elasticity Estimates of Urban Resident Demand for Electricity: A case study of Beijing, Energy & Environment, 2014, 24(7–8), 1229–1248.
17.
NordhausW.TobinJ., Is growth obsolete? In: Moss (Ed.), The Measurement of Economic and Social Performance. Studies in Income and Wealth, Columbia University Press, New York, USA, 443–446, 1973.
18.
DalyH. & CobbJ., For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, Beacon Press, Boston. USA, 1989.
19.
CobbC.HalsteadT. & RoweJ., The Genuine Progress Indicator – Summary of Data and Methodology, Longman, San Francisco, USA, 1995.
20.
KimH.S.KooW.W., Factors affecting the carbon allowance market in the US, Energy Policy, 2010, (38), 1879–1884.
21.
HtunN.JiangY.MahajanD.MessnerD.TemplerR., Preface to Special Topic: Low-Carbon Society for a Green Economy, J. Renewable Sustainable Energy, 2012, (4), 041301.
22.
KimE.AhnY.RyuD., Application of the Carbon Emission Pricing Model in the Korean Market, Energy & Environment, 2014, 25(1), 63–78.
23.
StiglitzJ.SenA.FitoussiJ.P., Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris, France, 2009.
24.
AkashiO.HanaokaT.MatsuokaY.KainumaM., A projection for global CO2 emissions from the industrial sector through 2030 based on activity level and technology changes, Energy Journal, 2011, (36), 1855–1867.
25.
GonzalesD.R.S.MaculanN.HuatucoL.H.Montoya-TorresJ.DiabatA.de AlmeidaC. M.V. B.GianettiB.HuisinghD., Decision-support models and tools for helping to make real progress to more sustainable societies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013, (59), 3–4.
26.
RecaldeM.Ramos-MartinJ., Going beyond energy intensity to understand the energy metabolism of nations: The case of Argentina, Energy, 2012, (37), 122–132.
27.
FilipovićS.GolušinM., Environmental taxation policy in the EU – new methodology approach, Journal of Cleaner Production, in press, 2014.
28.
AllcottH., Rethinking real-time electricity pricing, Resource and Energy Economics, 2011, (33), 820–842.
29.
GiampietroM.SormanA.H., Are energy statistics useful for making energy scenarios?, Energy, 2012, (37) 5–17.
