European Court of Auditors conclude: 1+1=0

How much money is actually spent on climate action? What climate-related goals is it actually spent on? The European Court of Auditors (ECA) concludes in a critical report that 72 billion euros (20.1%) were not shown to be relevant to the climate.

The European Commission has set itself the target of spending at least 20% of the budget on climate-related goals. Last year the EC reported that in the period 2014-2020 the target (spending €216 billion / 20.1%) has been met. However, the Court of Auditors believes that the EC is far too optimistic. Especially in the agricultural sector, measures are too easily seen as beneficial for the climate. Subsidies in this sector worth 60 billion euros haven’t been shown to have led to reductions in CO2 emissions. Examples of this distorted picture are:

  • Farming policy 'development of rural areas': construction of new roads
  • Crop rotation: usually good for soil quality, but no positive effect on the climate
  • Stimulating organic farming: usually more agricultural land is needed for the same yield. Does this then lead to an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?

Who is fooling whom here? Isn't this 1+1=0? The ECA recommends that there should be a clear calculation method. In addition, it would be wise to distinguish between preventing climate change and adapting to the effects of global warming.

Of course, this isn't just happening at the European Commission. There are also many companies & institutions that make 'wrong' calculations. Do you want to calculate impact properly? Join our mission! 1+1=11? 😉

Comments are closed.