So .6 generated make a multiplier of 1.6 for the economy. (1 initial + .6 generated). Which is pretty much the norm in a standard economy.
And your source which is reliable (links to proper studies) gives a multiplier of 2.6 which is totally off from the multiplier of 7 mentioned in OP link.
Edit: thank for your link, I’d have ballparked 2 rather than 2.6.
Freeing the manpower offsets production to other areas. A net gain for the countries, but the workers will still generate a similar amount of value from an economic standpoint. The gain is already taken into account into production prices, which themselves already include the countries productivity. On the scale of the union and all that is produced, the productivity increase from wind will be very very small.
The rest is a great political gain, but won’t impact macroeconomics much, as energy markets are worldwide. Even the positive impact on the trade balance won’t change the numbers much (even as they change greatly the financial stability of EU).
So it is a very real gain, and if you get all these arguments together it is pretty obvious, just the purely economic result when looking at the economy as a whole is way more subtle that “hey, free money”. It’s really just reallocation. (Macro and micro economics are really two different beasts).
The reductions in health can’t be predicted as a ratio on wind only, they depend on the overall switch to renewables, and what source is being offset to wind.
Plus the numbers given are all completely off, they are just adding everything they can together without regards to tradeoffs (e.g. 1W of wind electricity is offset by 1W of non wind electricity so the added value is only the cost of imported gas or uranium or whatever, the jobs are not added but reassigned, the export value provided is wishful thinking…).
Wind and solar with storage are a very good idea, I’m all for it. But these numbers are just corpo bullshit.
Rule of thumb: direct investments from government have a multiplier ratio roughly between 1 & 5 depending on the economic situation. 5 is extreme, applicable only in big recession with money being spent directly towards the poorest.
This is totally crappy and unsound economics.
This from before the Iran debacle:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2026/02/20/us-tourism-trump-slump-2026/
1.2-1.7, for Europe based on observation (IMF), which consistent with theory.
0.6ow values are when you give money to people who hoard it (e.g. tax cuts).
Just means that the EU uses a shit factor for deciding policies based on money going mostly to tax cuts or something else with policymaking.
I disagree, giving the public wrong estimates of what is going on is too much of a sports for the media .