Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
The reductions in health can't be predicted as a ratio on wind only, they depend on the overall switch to renewables, and what source is being offset to wind.
Plus the numbers given are all completely off, they are just adding everything they can together without regards to tradeoffs (e.g. 1W of wind electricity is offset by 1W of non wind electricity so the added value is only the cost of imported gas or uranium or whatever, the jobs are not added but reassigned, the export value provided is wishful thinking...).
Wind and solar with storage are a very good idea, I'm all for it. But these numbers are just corpo bullshit.
Rule of thumb: direct investments from government have a multiplier ratio roughly between 1 & 5 depending on the economic situation. 5 is extreme, applicable only in big recession with money being spent directly towards the poorest.
Except, if I'm not mistaken, wind also doesn't need much labor, meaning there's actually a proportional amount of labor is available to be used elsewhere in the economy, so in effect you're getting (more or less) free energy and free labor. And don't forget the economic value of not being tied to political upheavals in the Middle East or Russian war crimes in Ukraine and the lower bar for economic undertakings due to cheaper energy a la Jevon's paradox. Now I don't know enough about economics to coneifm or deny the €7 number, but you're underselling the impact here.
Freeing the manpower offsets production to other areas. A net gain for the countries, but the workers will still generate a similar amount of value from an economic standpoint. The gain is already taken into account into production prices, which themselves already include the countries productivity. On the scale of the union and all that is produced, the productivity increase from wind will be very very small.
The rest is a great political gain, but won't impact macroeconomics much, as energy markets are worldwide. Even the positive impact on the trade balance won't change the numbers much (even as they change greatly the financial stability of EU).
So it is a very real gain, and if you get all these arguments together it is pretty obvious, just the purely economic result when looking at the economy as a whole is way more subtle that "hey, free money". It's really just reallocation. (Macro and micro economics are really two different beasts).
Unsure,what is crappy or unsound corpo bullshit because the economic models used by EU to allocate resources and to drive fiscal decisions are even less complex than those proposed by the scientific community, because they ignore climate change.
EU Commisions economic models currently assume that every Euro of investment generates just 0.6 Euro of economic activity. Renewable energy projects are the only investments with coefficients above 1. Source
So .6 generated make a multiplier of 1.6 for the economy. (1 initial + .6 generated). Which is pretty much the norm in a standard economy.
And your source which is reliable (links to proper studies) gives a multiplier of 2.6 which is totally off from the multiplier of 7 mentioned in OP link.
Edit: thank for your link, I'd have ballparked 2 rather than 2.6.
.6 is a multiplier. It's a loss of 40 cent per Euro.
There are numerous studies assessing the return on investment, but I wouldn't say that some are more correct. They are working with different assumptions regarding the environmental costs, which can lead to huge differences in the cofficient estimates. Currently, the goal is to convince EU commission to include the environmental costs in their economic models. The precise math isn't that important, it's the step towards better models that matters. The study by Trinomics is part of this effort and shouldnt be discarded, even though it comes from industry and though it claims large multipliers.
1.2-1.7, for Europe based on observation (IMF), which consistent with theory.
0.6ow values are when you give money to people who hoard it (e.g. tax cuts).
Just means that the EU uses a shit factor for deciding policies based on money going mostly to tax cuts or something else with policymaking.
I disagree, giving the public wrong estimates of what is going on is too much of a sports for the media .