Economics

ميونيخ- أكدت رئيسة المفوضية الأوروبية، أورسولا فون دير لاين، في أول خطاب سنوي لها ألقته هذا الشهر بشأن "حالة الاتحاد"، أن الاتحاد الأوروبي، من خلال صفقته الخضراء، قد التزم بشكل جديد وواسع النطاق من التدخل الحكومي في الاقتصاد. وعلى ما يبدو، يعتقد البيروقراطيون في بروكسل أنهم- هم وحدهم- يعرفون المسارات التكنولوجية الأفضل لبناء مستقبل مستدام.

Sep 24, 2020 Hans-Werner Sinn

ومن خلال اعتماد هذا النهج، يزعم السياسيون في الاتحاد الأوروبي أنهم يعرفون أشياء حول تكاليف تجنب انبعاثات ثاني أكسيد الكربون التي لا يعرفون شيئا عنها في الواقع. ولكن نظرًا لأنهم سينفقون أموال الآخرين بدلاً من أموالهم، فليس لديهم حافز للبحث عن طرق تقضي على الانبعاثات أو تقلص من مستوياتها، بتكلفة يُحتمل أن تكون منخفضة. إن الإيمان الساذج بحكمة المخططين المركزيين وأمانتهم- عامل جذب قاتل اعتقدنا أننا تغلبنا عليه في عام 1989- يطل برأسه القبيح على أوروبا مرة أخرى.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Hans-Werner Sinn

Writing for PS since 2002
111 Commentaries

Hans-Werner Sinn, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Munich, is a former president of the Ifo Institute for Economic Research and serves on the German economy ministry’s Advisory Council. He is the author, most recently, of The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming (The MIT Press, 2012).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 Comments on this article

Henk Crop Sep 26, 2020

The EU is copying the approach of the USSR. The USSR attempted for 70 years to built a centrally planned economy. It ended in immense poverty and terror.
The lesson is that bureaucracies are not good at innovation.
The Tesla is a good recent example. It was not developed by General Motors, Volkswagen or Nissan, but by a third party.
The EU Commission should take the role of a policy setter and facilitator, instead of an institute to exert it's political and financial powers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
alex Finch Sep 26, 2020

Large social transfers and confidence in Europe’s social safety nets has given Europeans a false sense of security and as a result household wealth creation for retirement has been nonexistent for the majority. The UK could see this socialist system was leading to stagnation, and their savings were being used to prop it up, so they got out. In a world where economies like America and China operate under fierce competition, where the workforce is subject to constant but healthy pressure, the laid-back European socialist system is no match and has already fallen way behind. The EU is delusional in thinking the world will come around to their way of operating. Professor Sinn is right, the European Commission is ignoring common sense, to the detriment of Europe’s future. Ursula von der Leyen needs to put an end to the control of unions and bureaucrats before it’s too late. The union controlled steel company Thyssenkrupp now demanding billions of euros of government subsidizes to avoid a long overdue reduction in it’s huge workforce is the canary in the coal mine. After promising to improve productivity in 2009, Thyssenkrupp has instead only managed to reduce it’s net equity from €9.500 billion in 2009, down to NIL in 2020, while it’s workforce remained at 160.000 all those years. Now they want to lead the world in Green Steel production, just another excuse to avoid layoffs. The government subsidized enterprises in China will outlast those in Europe. This is a game Europe will lose.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
mtcmom222a Loppy Sep 25, 2020

OMG!!! Genuine Independent Thought on PS!!! Not The typical Liberal DRIBBLE!!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
György Szilágyi Sep 24, 2020

Central planning fails....

Small guy buys a car for 20 year use because thrifty and running just 5000km per year. He would be best off with a cheap gas car whose production cost is half of a similar size EV. Assuming lifetime cost and hence CO below that of an EV.

Corporates buy EV since they figure running it 80000km a year for 4 years pays of better with an EV. Right to assume also total CO below that of similar size petrol or diesel.

Both actors can make a right decision assuming extrenalities are priced into energy. Both result in optimal CO emission for the whole system. They dont need bureaucracy telling them which one to buy...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jacki Rawn Sep 24, 2020

Why hydrogen would prevail more?
- Michael Public Sep 24, 2020
  
  It won't because hydrogen is extremely difficult to manufacture, store and transport. The cheapest place to get hydrogen is still from fossil fuels. Toyota is still flogging that dead horse but probably only for sunk cost fallacy reasons.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
MATT MATT Sep 24, 2020

It is clear from this article that free-market religion has nothing more than its agressivity to face reality.
Of course we should have more faith in human institutions taking informed and targeted actions than in the theoretical effects of generalized uncontroled selfishness. The oposite is absolutely irrational, and contradicted by observations.
The carbon market is clearly a failed experiment that proved to be biased, easily manipulated, and inefficient (currently, companies earning the largest amount of money from carbon credits are paradoxically from the fossil fuel industry!). It's time we end this joke and take actual decisions.
The way the author transforms the truth to its ideological interests is just shameful. The EU is known to be largely influenced by indrustrial lobbies and has imposed the most orthodox capitalism to its members, but no: for the author, the slightest regulation makes EU a bolchevist institution in the hands of green dictators! This is just pathetic.
"almost all economists believe that it would be far better to establish a comprehensive emissions trading system for all sectors". You should rather say "all economists in your tiny fundamentalist circle". Many others call for radical structural changes in the economic system.
"Apparently, the bureaucrats in Brussels think that they – and only they – know which technological pathways are best for building a sustainable future". Classic rhetoric to misguide the discussion: the question is not who has the knowledge (the knowledge is publicly available in the scientific litterature), but who has the will.
Companies pursue only one objective: making money. Which is fine, but they are simply not the organizations we should rely on to solve climate change issues. It's just not their job nor priority nor responsability.
But you know all that, right?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Sep 24, 2020

A typical blacklung apologist viewpoint of those born generations ago. Don't save the planet because it will make us poor. Rather kick the can a little further down the road. Why not? Look, money is an important thing too, but rather than advocate for half measures - advocate for doubling down on PROVEN measures - wind, solar, electric cars - these are proven and cost effective technologies. Climate change need BOTH a top down and bottom up drive to make any headway - don't accept the false tradeoff the author offers between 'markets' and 'central planning' when we can simply have the best of both.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/pwiHL7far

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification