Green quantitative easing could pay for climate change invetsment we need. Why aren’t we using it?

Posted on

France has agreed to suspend its fuel tax increases. Protest has delivered change. But let’s not forget what this tax was supposed to do. It was meant to discourage fuel usage as a green measure. And superficially that has failed.

As someone with strong green leanings that worries me. At another level, it’s fairly obvious that this is a problem of sequencing. Those protesting are right to complain when the tax increase is designed to limit their access to travel that is, for many, a basic necessity when there is no viable alternative available. This is the sequencing error: what should have happened, and will have to happen, is that the investment in the replacement technology for those that needed to be made redundant must take place before penal measures to prevent the use of old technology are enacted.

This is why I wrote green quantitative easing. The whole purpose of Green QE is to ensure that the funding is available to ensure that the invetsment in essential climate change technology can take place before it is too late.

Green QE is always available. Why aren’t we talking about it?

There is a way to pay for the change we need. The lack of willing to use it is very telling. The political willingness to deliver change clearly does not exist, despite all the posturing, as yet.