Recent reports about immigration in Europe suggest a real macroeconomic benefit to welcoming millions of refugees and economic migrants into the country
And that’s true. Even poverty-stricken refugees consume goods and services.
If we look at the German example; One million Middle Eastern refugees have been accepted into Germany since 2010 and all of them eat food, pay rent, pay electricity bills, take the bus, buy clothing, go to movies — and in many other ways add revenue to the economy.
If each of those million refugees spend 10 euros per day (equal to their daily food spending) that’s 10 million euros per day. Totalled, their monthly food spend equals 300 million euros in Germany alone.
If we extrapolate the German example further, we see that almost everything in Germany has a sales tax attached to it, and for those that have become employed, they’re paying income tax on their earnings.
Therefore, Germany is earning nearly 1 billion euros per day from their 1 million refugees
Of course, there are the high costs of accepting refugees and some may remain on social welfare programmes for as long as 2 years. German taxpayers pay for that. But after the 2-year mark, it’s all good.
No wonder Chancellor Merkel looks at immigration with such optimism. From an economic standpoint Merkel is 100% right; It really is the best thing for Germany. A brilliant but domestically unpopular policy by one of the greatest Chancellors in German history.
And let’s also recognize that this latest wave of immigrants is additional to the existing German immigrant pool — the first wave of which began in the 1970’s, and that generation are now a cohort of decent, hardworking, and family-oriented people. A benefit to the German economy almost every day since they arrived.
It’s not all Apple strudel and yodeling in Germany, however
Crime is much higher due to those massive levels of immigration. In Germany, girls can’t even attend a women’s music festival without a high probability of being molested by immigrant men. And the same holds true throughout Europe, especially in Sweden (of all places) and in Greece.
So what’s the point? Gain more in taxes so that women must hide in their homes?
That’s a bad deal for half the population, the female half.
Thus far, the lack of leadership on what is expected of new arrivals to Europe is astonishing and breathtaking all at once.
Refugees and economic immigrants from Day 1 of their arrival in Europe, should’ve been handed water bottles and pamphlets (written in their language) describing the rules of European culture, the rights of the person in EU society, the culture of respect for law and order — and not a gloss-over job but a poignant list of laws and societal norms that must be adhered to while travelling or living in Europe.
And printed in bold letters front and back of the pamphlets:
“It’s not your *right* to emigrate to our countries, it’s a *privilege* therefore consider yourselves guests while in our countries.”
Would you allow a guest to your home to wear muddy boots and to walk all over your expensive carpets and furniture? Obviously not.
Then neither should you allow your guests to molest your girls, rob subway passengers, and engage in rioting and looting.
Nor should we allow immigrants (or anyone) to defile EU culture — culture being the mass of our thoughts, brought into the light.
“I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.” — Mahatma Gandhi
It’s a very human thing to help people experiencing hardship and fleeing from countries due to conflict or famine there. The fact that we still do this (although not as well as in prior decades) gives hope for humanity.
But it’s been bungled up til now in the EU and it needs to be fixed. ASAP.
Finally, refugees should be given a temporary landed immigrant card (a photo ID) that allows them to stay in the EU for up to 4 years
After that; ‘It’s time to go back home and rebuild your country, with the skills, money and experiences you’ve acquired during your time in the West.’
European countries should now, even at this late stage, attempt to:
1) Educate refugees/economic migrants about European legal and cultural standards, from Day 1 of their arrival. 2) Continue to provide the normal social benefit for each adult, until they find a job. 3) Continue to provide safe housing until reasonable accommodation can be found. 4) Continue to monitor those people to make sure they are finding services, housing, jobs, and are not being targeted by Middle Eastern ‘mafia’ types within their own community. 5) Provide a free airline ticket at the 4-year mark to allow them to return to their home country. If they don’t want to return to Syria (for example) they could exchange their ticket for another of similar value (to Cairo, for example) 6) By accepting and paying for the living expenses of refugees and economic migrants (where they don’t have their own funds) for four years, and by educating them to Western norms, and by helping them to find safe shelter and jobs, etc. it’s truly a privilege for those people to be in Europe, and they should conduct themselves accordingly. 7) If not, they should be deported as soon as they are convicted of any crime (and obviously, their 4-year pass cancelled)
Every day, we teach others how to treat us
If we teach others that it’s acceptable to walk into our homes wearing their muddy boots and to walk all over the carpets and furniture, we deserve everything that we get from those people.
If we (gently) teach them about the rules of our house and provide the support they need, we are teaching them that we’re their benefactors and that we’re people to be respected.
Thus far, we’ve been teaching the refugees the wrong things, and they’ve responded in kind. (Input = Output)
It’s a failure of vision and it’s a failure of leadership. And the experiment with mass immigration flows from the Middle East will end in the failure of some EU member nations.
We’ve already seen blowback from this mishandled affair via the Swiss voting in a 2014 referendum to leave the EU, and Brexit in 2016, with surely more exits to follow.
It’s a problem that won’t go away until EU leaders address the fundamental problems of mass migration, problems which (in the absence of proper guidance) begin on Day 1 of a refugee’s arrival.
An accelerated switch to renewable energy is the path to EU jobs and prosperity
Europe is on shaky ground. There is even talk in some quarters that the euro, and consequently the EU, may not last a year.
Critics of the European Union are predicting that continued austerity measures, the elections in Greece, petroleum price instability, and Russian moves in Ukraine will conspire to topple the European Union.
Of course, this is a subject of ongoing debate. EU backers say that the present economic morass will end and that the UK and other European nations will join as full European Union members in the coming months, resulting in a unified and complementary union ready to take on the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
Success Stories Throughout History
Throughout history, various leaders have ‘risen to the occasion’ to provide visionary leadership — seemingly ‘rising out of nowhere’ to inspire great love among the public for a cause, and on account of their great vision and leadership impossible feats occurred on their watch due to the combined willpower of millions of thereby-inspired people.
People are individuals, and no matter how many individuals there are in a country or in a larger economic union like the EU, at the end of the day every one of them are individuals living inside a larger society. Therefore, leaders must appeal to those things important to their citizens.
In Life; All a person really needs, is a person (or something) to love. If you can’t give them that, give them hope. If you can’t give them that, at least give them something to do.
Leaders who can inspire love for the country through their vision and charisma, have the effect of giving each individual in the country something to love. Or at the very least, give them hope.
Where would the United States have been without FDR?
The New Deal was a series of domestic programs enacted in the United States mainly between 1933 and 1938. They included laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term (1933–37) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the “3 Rs”: Relief, Recovery, and Reform.
That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. — Wikipedia
The success of the New Deal is beyond dispute. Without it, the United States would not be half the country that it is today.
Where would Great Britain have been without Winston S. Churchill?
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill was a British politician who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955.
Widely regarded as one of the greatest wartime leaders of the 20th century, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army, a historian, a writer (as Winston S. Churchill), and an artist. Churchill is the only British Prime Minister to have won the Nobel Prize in Literature since its inception in 1901, and was the first person to be made an honorary citizen of the United States. — Wikipedia
In between lecturing Hitler and Mussolini via his weekly radio broadcast, Winston Churchill painted a realistic picture of Great Britain for his citizens, and painted another realistic picture for them what life would be like under occupation.
Rather than be cowed by a more powerful aggressor, Churchill inspired his people to valour and sacrifice. And they responded powerfully.
What would our 21st century world have become had Mohandas K. Gandhi not perfected the art of non-violent protest?
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the preeminent leader of Indian independence movement in British-ruled India. Employing nonviolentcivil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. Indians widely describe Gandhi as the father of the nation.
Gandhi famously led Indians in challenging the British-imposed salt tax with the 400 km (250 mi) Dandi Salt March in 1930, and later in calling for the British to Quit India in 1942. He was imprisoned for many years, upon many occasions, in both South Africa and India.
Gandhi attempted to practice nonviolence and truth in all situations, and advocated that others do the same. Gandhi’s vision of a free India was based on religious pluralism.
Imagine if every protest movement since 1947 hadn’t been influenced by Gandhi. Almost certainly, the anti-Viet Nam protests and the civil rights movement in 1960’s America would have led to civil war.
Due to Gandhi’s example, individuals who were part of the anti-war movement or the civil rights movement protested — peacefully for the most part — and to great effect.
John F. Kennedy’s decision to not be cowed by the USSR’s Nikita Khrushchev, led eventually, to the end of the Soviet Union
Had JFK not stood up to Soviet adventurism in Cuba and South America, the geopolitical world would have evolved very differently The USSR would have, in short order, controlled the Western democracies completely.
By utilizing the economic advantage, by ordering a Moon shot, and by not backing down against the communists in Viet Nam, JFK neatly avoided playing the Soviet gameplan — and instead played a gameplan that favoured the strengths of the democratic West.
All of these visionaries gave citizens reason to — love their country, to hope for a better future, to employ their good will and energies — towards solving the almost unsolvable problems of their time. (Love, Hope, Do)
Without that overarching vision promised by their political leaders, without that hope in their hearts, and without some means to express their goodwill and energy, citizens wouldn’t have united in large numbers to solve the near-insurmountable challenges of their time.
Now is the time for visionary EU renewable energy leadership
The case for the EU to adopt a ‘50% renewable energy by 2020’ portfolio and make it an ‘air quality and jobs mission’ for citizens and governments alike:
The vast majority of Europeans want a renewable energy future.
They know that the technological hurdles have been overcome, they know that many Pacific Ocean island nation-states and Indian Ocean islands now run on 100% renewable energy, they know that Norway is powered by 100% renewable energy and that Iceland has surpassed 76% renewable energy use.
They know that Sweden gets 51% of its energy from renewable energy, and that Latvia, Finland, Austria, and Denmark aren’t far behind. They see Estonia, Portugal, and Romania getting more than 25% of their electricity from renewable energy and they see Germany’s Energiewende setting stellar records for renewable energy output every month.
Other nations in Europe have surprisingly advanced renewable energy programs and some EU nations will surpass their renewable energy target before 2020.
Renewable Energy provides massive employment opportunities
And it is becoming apparent that when compared to the fossil fuel industry, the renewable energy industry provides thousands more jobs per million people. Always handy that, a job to go to.
Energy Price Parity and Subsidy Regimes
Not only has some renewable energy approached price parity with conventional energy, in some cases it has surpassed it. Especially when the massive global fossil fuel subsidies that topped $600 billion in 2014 ($550 billion in 2013) are factored in.
Meanwhile, global renewable energy subsidies barely hit $100 billion in 2014, the majority share of it spent in China.
Worried about fossil fuel subsidies? That’s nothing compared to fossil fuel externalities
Fossil fuel subsidies of $600 billion (globally) are one thing. But it now appears that the economic totality of fossil fuel cost to healthcare systems, to livestock health, the agriculture sector, the global climate, regional climate (local drought or flooding) and damage to outdoor concrete and metal structures may now exceed $2 trillion dollars per year.
China reports 410,000 premature deaths per year are due to air pollution. The U.S. admits to 200,000 premature deaths by air pollution and as many as 400,000 premature deaths per year occur in Europe due to our overuse of fossil fuels.
If you add the global rising fossil fuel subsidies of $600 billion to the global externality cost of fossil fuels, it equals approximately $2.6 trillion (globally).
How much renewable energy can we get for $2.6 trillion dollars, please?
It’s not that fossil fuels are intrinsically bad, or evil. It’s not that the people who run those companies are bad, or evil. It’s not the shareholder’s fault either.
It’s just that too many of us are using fossil fuel.
And nobody is forcing us to buy it. If there are reasonable alternatives to fossil fuel overuse, then citizens are making a conscious decision to pollute the air, rather than choose those alternative forms of energy.
But if no alternative exists for citizens to purchase (and yet consumer demand is there) that is primarily the fault of policymakers.
The solution to the fossil fuel subsidy and externality problem in the EU? Renewable energy
With the right vision and the right leadership, getting the EU to a 50% renewable energy minimum standard by 2020 is eminently possible.
There are no technological hurdles that haven’t been solved.
There simply exists no public outcry against renewable energy power plants.
Grid parity (with low subsidy) is now the norm — even against massively subsidized fossil fuel and nuclear power.
And several countries around the world already run on 100% renewable energy. One of them is in Europe. (Norway) So it can be done.
It’s not about; How much will switching to renewable energy cost us?
It’s now about; How much will renewable energy save us?
Each one euro spent on renewable energy installations (actual installations, not more endless research) could save two euros of fossil fuel subsidy and three euros of fossil fuel externality cost — although there is a time lag involved before healthcare systems, ranchers, farmers, and owners of infrastructure see declining costs.
Following the 1/2/3 fossil fuel subsidy and externality equation, we see that if the EU suddenly installed 10 billion euros worth of wind turbines and solar panels (displacing the equivalent amount of fossil electrical generation) the EU would save 20 billion euros of subsidy, and would over 25 years, save 30 billion euros in heathcare costs, costs to livestock health and agriculture, and outdoor concrete and metal infrastructure repair costs.
Spending 10 billion to save 50 billion — for a net save of 40 billion euros over 25 years. Not bad.
Spending 100 billion euros to save 500 billion — for a net save of 400 billion over 25 years, that works too.
So, denizens of Europe, how much fossil fuel electrical power production would you like to replace with renewable energy?
The EU should move to a 50% renewable energy portfolio by 2020 and make it a priority ‘mission’ for citizens and governments alike. An energy ‘New Deal’ for EU citizens
In order to plan for a clean EU energy future, we need to look at where the European Union is today and make a responsible plan, one that displaces fossil fuel electrical power production without placing undue economic hardship on existing electrical power producers.
A ‘can-do’ attitude that doesn’t ignore the many positives associated with an EU-wide 50% renewable energy standard will be required to meet the challenge
The best candidate for an EU-financed switch to renewable energy?
Malta is presently striving to meet its target of 10% of energy demand from renewable sources by 2020. However, Malta could easily convert to 100% renewable energy in as little as 24 months.
Malta is a tiny island nation and other tiny island nations have successfully transitioned to 100% renewable energy — and it took them only a few short months to accomplish that goal.
Malta’s electrical grid produces 571 MW at peak load and uses expensive imported fossil fuels.
Replacing Malta’s fossil fueled electrical grid with a combination of offshore / onshore wind turbines and solar panels is well within our present-day technical capabilities and would save the Malta government millions of dollars per year in fuel and healthcare costs.
A low-interest loan from the EU to cover the capital cost of wind and solar power plants and some basic technical support is what Malta needs. Nothing more complicated than that.
How would replacing Malta’s present electrical power generation with 100% renewable energy benefit the EU and the residents of Malta alike?
It’s a given that all of the wind turbines and solar panels / inverters, etc. would be sourced from the EU. In fact, European sourcing could be a requirement of obtaining the EU financing for the project.
All of the engineering, manufacturing and installation / grid connection would be performed by EU workers.
Malta’s residents and visitors would thereafter enjoy clean air, lower healthcare costs, better quality of life, and could say goodbye to toxic and expensive, imported oil.
From 10% to 100% renewable energy within 24 months — now that would demonstrate political and environmental leadership!
Granted, Malta has the smallest electrical grid in the EU. But it’s a place to start, a place to set a baseline for the learning curve to 100% renewable energy on a per country basis, and a place to test out the actual economic inputs vs. outputs, with minimal investment.
By starting with island nations and converting them to 100% renewable energy, solid standalone renewable energy power generation experience is gained, and once completed, can serve as models for standalone systems on the continent.
To get to 50% renewable energy in other EU states requires similar measures but on a larger scale than Malta. (Low interest loans from the EU, requirement to source all equipment, materials, and labour from EU nations, and some amount of renewable energy expertise)
Some European Union nations wouldn’t need all that much investment to make the step up from their planned 2020 targets. Some will already have attained at least 30% renewable energy, assuming they hit their planned targets. Other nations have small populations, and therefore, wouldn’t need all that much capital to hit the 100% mark, let alone a 50% renewable target by 2020.
The Next Step for the EU
During the darkest days of recession in early 1980’s America, newly-elected President Ronald Reagan didn’t appear and suddenly solve America’s economic problems.
He told Americans (very convincingly) that they had it in their power to solve their own economic problems and arranged some temporary loans to Chrysler and other companies — and cheered by his vision and leadership, they responded powerfully — ending America’s recession.
Someone in the EU needs to step up now, leading the charge to improve EU air quality, to lower the rate of illness and premature deaths due to air pollution, to lower the damage to livestock and agriculture, and to concrete and metal infrastructure — thereby creating tens of thousands of well-paying jobs — by insisting on a minimum of 50% renewable energy standard by 2020 for all EU nations.
And that great, overarching vision in itself, will be the thing that EU residents will love, hope for, and willingly agree to do, for the next five years. Neatly ending the EU’s present recession.
Let’s roll up our sleeves, people. We’ve got work to do.
What a difference a year makes. Electric Vehicles, once a novelty in Europe, seem to have hit the mainstream. No doubt there is still plenty of room to grow as even with the latest sales increase, EV’s only make up only a tiny fraction of the annual 7 million car sales in the European Union.
Overall, EV sales in Europe are up 79% from the same time period last year, although within individual nations there are wide disparities in EV adoption.
NORWAY — Although Norway is not an EU-member-country, it is part of Europe. And the earliest adopter of electric vehicles in Europe is Norway, registering only 2373 EV sales in the first half of 2013.
Now compare that to the 9950 EV sales Norway logged in the first half of 2014. That’s a 302% increase H1 2013 to H1 2014. In a country of only 5 million people that’s a pretty significant sign that EV’s are gaining wider acceptance.
TESLA has just completed the installation of dozens of free-to-use SuperCharger stations in Norway and you can find them in almost every Norwegian city, town and hamlet. A big draw with the SuperCharger system is that a Tesla Model S can fully charge in about 30 minutes from dead flat. Of course, if you’re just ’topping-up’ your Tesla battery you may not have time to finish your latte before you’re on the road again.
Prior to the latest SuperCharger installations, it took some careful driving to drive the length of Norway and not run the battery down, but one can now drive across the entire country of Norway with hardly a thought about charging locations, all of which are easily located on the huge Tesla LED dashboard display.
The most popular EV’s in Norway are the Tesla Model S and the Nissan LEAF.
GERMANY – Posting respectable numbers but nowhere near the example set by Norway, EU-member-nation Germany has almost doubled their first half EV sales compared to the same time period in 2013. German’s bought 2382 EV’s in H1 of last year, ramping up to 4230 in H1 of this year.
United Kingdom — Another European country that is still not part of the EU, the UK registered 1168 EV’s in H1 of 2013, and in H1 of 2014 some 2570 EV’s were registered.
Both the German and UK drivers prefer the Tesla Model S, the BMWi3 and the Nissan LEAF, although the new Renault Zoe is gaining acceptance as a very affordable electric vehicle.
FRANCE – French citizens buy a lot of EV’s, but numbers were slightly down compared to last year. Still, Renault continues to add affordable new EV models to its lineup. In 2013, there must have been a lot of ‘pent-up’ EV demand, as France registered 7293 EV’s in H1 of 2013, but in H1 of this year France added only 6405 Electric Vehicles to the country’s roads.
The most popular EV’s in France are the Renault Twizy, the new Renault Zoe and the Nissan LEAF.
While some countries in the EU could not match (non-EU-member) Norway’s total EV sales, some statistically significant numbers are showing for some EU nations.
The Netherlands for one, zipped up from 437 EV sales in the first half of 2013, to 1149 units in the first half of this year. While Austria went from 252 to 709 H1 to H1 and Belgium went from a lowish 195 first half EV sales up to 629 in H1 of 2014.
As far as the top electric cars, they were the Nissan Leaf (7,109), Tesla Model S (5,330), and Renault Zoe (3,669). Tesla Model S sales were largely in Norway (over 3,000 there), while Renault Zoe sales were largely in France (over 1,600 there). – CleanTechnica.com
All in all, some respectable increases with only France as the spoiler in the Year-on-Year H1 comparison.
Here are the total registrations for H1 2013 and H1 2014.
TOTAL EV sales all EU countries (first half of 2013) — 15591
TOTAL EV sales all EU countries (first half of 2014) — 27946
TOTAL EV sales increase all EU countries year-on-year (first half comparison) — 79%
Even with all that good news, it’s important to remember that while EV sales are showing dramatic improvements in some European nations, electric vehicles have not yet reached 1% of new car sales.
The one bright spot, now that more EV’s are hitting the roads is that public charging stations are being installed at at phenomenal rate. The Netherlands public charging system is geared to a maximum travel distance of 65 kilometres between chargers. That puts electric vehicles on an even footing with petrol stations in the country.
And, unlike a petrol car, you can always charge your car at home or at the office just by plugging it in to an ordinary wall socket, although this slow-charging mode may take a few hours.
Another positive is that affordable new EV models are hitting showrooms, giving drivers more choices and a wider range of electric vehicles to choose from. With names like Tesla, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Renault, Volvo, Ford and Porsche solidly behind electrified vehicles, reliability issues are non-existent.
Here are some fun facts for European residents to ponder when considering the switch from a petrol engine car to an electric vehicle.
Here are the petrol prices per litre for some selected European nations, as of August 11, 2014:
Austria — € 1,35
Belgium — € 1,61
Denmark — € 1,71
Finland — € 1,63
Germany — € 1,62
Netherlands — € 1,79
Norway — € 1,89
Portugal — € 1,62
Sweden — € 1,55
United Kingdom — € 1,61
To convert these per litre prices, valued in euros – into their U.S. equivalents, we can use the very rough calculation of 4 litres per US gallon (which is how petrol/gasoline is sold in the United States) and 1.33 USD to 1 euro (current as of August 11, 2014).
For the Norwegian example, we can see that 4 litres of petrol (to roughly equal 1 US gallon) will cost you 7.57 euros – and converting that to US dollars gives you $10.14 per US gallon. Many US citizens use 10 gallons of petrol (or more) every day…
In Austria 1 US gallon of petrol (rough calculation) will set you back $7.18 in US dollars.
For those who elect to charge their EV at home for about 1-3 euros per day, you will have no need to stop at a petrol station and pay up to € 1,89 per litre of petrol, times how many litres you burn per day. And it’s doubtful that petrol prices will be dropping any time soon.
Not only are EV’s pollution-free, reliable and extremely low maintenance – spending 1-3 euros per day to recharge your EV battery at home (or nothing if you charge it at a free-to-use public charging station) vs. 5-10 euros per day for petrol depending on the size of the petrol engine – can really add up over the course of a year.
I strongly suspect that 2015 EV sales numbers will greatly surpass these first impressive baby-steps taken by electric vehicle manufacturers and their customers. By 2020, it would be reasonable to expect a full 10% of new vehicle registrations to be of the electrified vehicle variety.