4 ms·
>It would come at a heavy price to taxpayers, who would provide the 40 billion euros earmarked for investment in regions hardest hit by job losses over the next
by cmarschner 8y ago
>It would come at a heavy price to taxpayers, who would provide the 40 billion euros earmarked for investment in regions hardest hit by job losses over the next two decades, along with other costs that include compensation in amounts yet to be determined for power companies taking coal plants offline early.
2 billion a year seems extremely cheap for a measure of these proportions, especially since part of that money goes into creating new jobs in the affected regions.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y agoThe number is really what this costs politically, I. e. to buy acceptance from the relevant regions with large lignite industries. In economic terms, it’s extremely hard to come up with any number, or even to agree on what should be included in the calculation. Since wind power will be playing a large part in the transition, and that’s investment that mostly stays in the country, one could reasonably say the whole project is net positive anyway. It obviously is if you factor in climate change and particle emissions, because otherwise it wouldn’t be done. The 2 billion / year perfectly align with existing efforts to reduce regional inequality, considering we’re mostly talking about rural areas in the east here. To the degree that they reduce other federal transfer programs, such as unemployment benefits or health care, the net difference is liable to be smaller anyway.