By: Mitja Iršič
The economy of the West in the last hundred years has been marked by the struggle between the Keynesian economic model and the Austrian School of Economics. While Keynesians believe that the state is necessary to regulate the free market, Austrian economists argue that the market is capable of regulating itself, and government interventions are potentially harmful. The current Slovenian government strongly leans towards Keynesianism with extreme collectivist tendencies.
The so-called just transition to green is one of the litmus tests indicating how the government of Robert Golob envisions governance – by obstructing private companies as much as possible, forcing them into dependence on the state, while rewarding individual business guilds aligned with the government’s political interests and the private business interests of the prime minister.
The Slovenian government is complicit in the deception of the EU (or the current European Commission), which is not pursuing the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions but primarily aims at the business of trading renewable energy sources (especially wind turbines and photovoltaic panels). A good example of this is the European Commission’s attitude towards France. France is a European champion in reducing CO2 emissions, mainly due to its network of nuclear power plants. However, this is not enough for the European Commission – it forces France (completely inexplicably) to invest more in renewable energy sources, even though such a move would empirically increase CO2 emissions. It is clear, therefore, that this is not about environmental protection but a business where European lobbies clearly favour Far East products that significantly increase emissions compared to nuclear energy.
The adjective “just” in the green transition in Slovenia is understood primarily as centrally planned. The government, in line with EU guidelines, has decided to throw a massive amount of money into the black hole of renewable energy sources. Government representatives, as complete energy ignoramuses, dream of contributing the entire energy consumption in Slovenia from renewable sources. Since citizens are not enthusiastic enough about renewable energy sources, the government wants to encourage them with your money to follow the “correct” (German) path of expensive electricity and higher emissions, rather than the French path of cheaper electricity and lower emissions. At the end of last year, the government announced a new public call for direct non-refundable funds for investments in new devices for the production of electric energy and heat from renewable energy sources, as well as for electric and heat storage devices in combination with energy production – translated into taxpayer language: our money from the climate change fund will be siphoned off to government-friendly companies that resell foreign technology.
IN THIS CASE, PEOPLE QUICKLY UNDERSTOOD THAT SUBSIDIES ARE NOT A FREE GIFT FROM THE STATE TO ITS SUBJECTS. THE LUXURE OF COMMUTING WITH E-BIKES IN LJUBLJANA, MARIBOR, AND CELJE WILL BE PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS THROUGH ENDLESS LEVIES.
The symbol of the central planning approach of this government towards environmental changes is the recent decision to subsidise electric bikes, which has stirred public outcry and somewhat surprised the government, as they expected applause and approval on Gregorčičeva Street.
People immediately grasped that subsidies are not a free gift from the state to its subjects. The luxury of commuting with e-bikes in Ljubljana, Maribor, and Celje will be paid for by taxpayers through endless levies. These subsidies will mainly be funded by the poor (including desperate retirees in Velenje with bills almost as high as their pensions), while buyers will mostly be wealthy (good e-bikes cost as much as a fully functional car). Purchasing an e-bike has already been a bourgeois luxury, especially for those with some leftover in their family budget at the end of the month, but not for those barely making ends meet. Even with subsidies, this will not change, as two workers’ salaries for an e-bike are still far too much for the average citizen.
However, this case serves as a lesson on what needs to happen for green eco-mania to collide with the wall of reality. People need to personally identify with the harmfulness of the measure. Many have a friend, neighbour, or colleague with an expensive e-bike, and they quickly associate such subsidies with the January electricity bill, where a significant portion is dedicated to the climate transition. Now, the next step is needed, understanding not only every government subsidy but also every intervention by the state in the free market from the same perspective.