source Bloomberg

On Monday the head of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION spoke about the need to cut down on energy consumption

and on Wednesday it was already agreed by all parties to reduce it mandatory by 5%.

Instead of cheering and putting my hands together, I dare to ask a few questions which came to my mind

All the questions point out the fact, that the decision to REDUCE CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY, is taken out of the context and not the speakers, not the decision-makers, not the politicians, not the experts really see the complex image, being enclosed in a silo of personal interest.

Reading carefully the content the media deliver, in fact, does not refer to the entire consumption of energy, just the consumption during the PEAK TIME, which is not specified, by the document, but can be explained as the time of main industrial production from 6–14 or 6–22 (2 shifts) or 6–6 (three shifts) and this is the next issue, the way how the new regulation would be explained is not defined. Additionally not only on a national level but even in pan European context the energy is being transferred through the grid from one place to another, and once again the pan-European balancing of the grid, is a matter of guesses.

I spend today two hours of my time with THE FINANCIAL TIMES and UNITED NATIONS listening to empty talk and phrases that mean so much to the speakers and nothing to the audience because only one site gets paid for the delivery

Before I registered I asked if questions can be asked and I was assured that it will be the case, so I did ask during the first two sessions. Not a single one was answered. The event broke just before the end, so I was not able to listen to the final world, but despite that, I was asked to fill in a questionnaire, which I did, and hope the organizer will use it as described

I am sure that if I will ask FINANCIAL TIMES how the other members of the audience rated the event I would be probably told that I count to the 5% which does not like the event because 95% find it great and informative.

What is interesting is the fact that the 5% are close to 2%

why so important?

2% of people own more money than 98% of the rest and the richest in the world have more money than the entire countries. I do not expect the 2% will be following the 5% rule. Why should they? They buy politicians, decisions, laws, and regulations, and scientific studies and media love them because what can be better than a sponsor and well-paying customer?

Since 2013 already I am implementing the waste prevention principles in companies and businesses giving all the opportunities to see and touch the result.

Everywhere was implemented it worked so this is why I use it as a ground stone for the FIRST INDUSTRIAL EVOLUTION EVER LED BY MAN (HUMAN) calling it INDUSTRY 5.0. Since 2015 INDUSTRY 5.0 growing and in 2021 I started to share the knowledge with the governments of the world.

The reason for doing so is rather simple. The 95% start changing already, they know how and why it is necessary, so it is time the remaining 5% do the same. If they do not, the mandatory 5% cut will come to save not only energy but money and time, all in the complex process of global recovery.

The CORE TASK of the day is


Have a nice time free of waste and wasting in all its forms, stay safe and free

Michael Rada, HUMAN



I am HUMAN. This is the only title you can find after 30 years in business on my business card. Since 2013 I build wasteless world. I am founder of INDUSTRY 5.0

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Michael Rada

I am HUMAN. This is the only title you can find after 30 years in business on my business card. Since 2013 I build wasteless world. I am founder of INDUSTRY 5.0