He must have watched a lot of kabouter wesley to come up with that number.
The idea is noble, but will lead to a lot of mission creep in some countries like Belgium that don’t rein in excessive spending in good times and keep on spending during bad times.
An investment is by default a non-recurring expense that expands wellbeing. Everything else is just a cost. The last budget of Vivaldi had a lot of expenses but not a lot of investments, even if politicians claim otherwise.
> “Als we nu niet voluit gaan, staat de geloofwaardigheid van Europa als politiek project op het spel”, zegt hij in De Tijd.
With such idiotic statements as investing 5 trillion euro in the fucking climate, he already lost all his political credibility. And intellectual credibility too while we’re at it.
To sketch some context: his proposal is to invest 5 trillion euros *spread out over 10 years*, so about 500 billion per year. The current GDP of the EU is around 15 trillion euros. This amounts to each country investing every year about 3.3% of its yearly GDP in climate measures.
Note that this back-of-the-envelope calculation does not take into account expected GDP growth and inflation which will make the proposed investments lower than 3.3% GDP per year.
It indeed is a high sum, but you should make the comparison with the massive costs associated with climate inaction. Don’t assume doing nothing will be cheaper. Furthermore if done correctly these investments should also lead to more jobs, renovated houses, cleaner air…
Da gade gij nie bepalen!
5000 MILJOEN MILJARD !!!!
Imagine if we had spent 500 billion per year on reliable energy sources (nuclear *cough*) rather than “green” ones. Those wind farms and solar panels aren’t doing us any good when we are still paying through the nose for gas and electricity. They ended up being these cute, expensive projects that gave the green parties a climate boner, but which aren’t going to actually help the people that are just trying to warm their homes this winter.
I once read somewhere that it would cost 300 billion to plant enough trees to counter the climate change. Now, this does sound overly simple but still it’s a route to further look into.
8 comments
He must have watched a lot of kabouter wesley to come up with that number.
The idea is noble, but will lead to a lot of mission creep in some countries like Belgium that don’t rein in excessive spending in good times and keep on spending during bad times.
An investment is by default a non-recurring expense that expands wellbeing. Everything else is just a cost. The last budget of Vivaldi had a lot of expenses but not a lot of investments, even if politicians claim otherwise.
> “Als we nu niet voluit gaan, staat de geloofwaardigheid van Europa als politiek project op het spel”, zegt hij in De Tijd.
With such idiotic statements as investing 5 trillion euro in the fucking climate, he already lost all his political credibility. And intellectual credibility too while we’re at it.
To sketch some context: his proposal is to invest 5 trillion euros *spread out over 10 years*, so about 500 billion per year. The current GDP of the EU is around 15 trillion euros. This amounts to each country investing every year about 3.3% of its yearly GDP in climate measures.
Note that this back-of-the-envelope calculation does not take into account expected GDP growth and inflation which will make the proposed investments lower than 3.3% GDP per year.
It indeed is a high sum, but you should make the comparison with the massive costs associated with climate inaction. Don’t assume doing nothing will be cheaper. Furthermore if done correctly these investments should also lead to more jobs, renovated houses, cleaner air…
Da gade gij nie bepalen!
5000 MILJOEN MILJARD !!!!
Imagine if we had spent 500 billion per year on reliable energy sources (nuclear *cough*) rather than “green” ones. Those wind farms and solar panels aren’t doing us any good when we are still paying through the nose for gas and electricity. They ended up being these cute, expensive projects that gave the green parties a climate boner, but which aren’t going to actually help the people that are just trying to warm their homes this winter.
I once read somewhere that it would cost 300 billion to plant enough trees to counter the climate change. Now, this does sound overly simple but still it’s a route to further look into.