I can see the difference, the problem is that the large multinational companies have been brought in, so that the energy generated by this party will be consumed in the future.
Take, for example, the Hollands Kron wind farm, where, in theory, 300,000 households could be supplied with green electricity, whatever the initial plan. This creates support among the local population because the costs (horizon pollution) are offset by a lower energy bill.
But on the side, Theo Meskers has been lobbying Microsoft, among others, to get it to the A7 Agriport with the worst of it all that green energy goes straight to the data center.
As a result, the foreign company that owns the wind farm through a subsidy (reading money from residents) receives all the desires plus the foreign company running the data center receives this cheap energy. This misses the point completely.
The focus should be on making current consumption more sustainable, but not to bring in multinationals, so that consumption only increases expansively and the final bill comes back to Jean by the short name, while these multinationals pay no local tax but pay all subsidies .
“Total coffee specialist. Hardcore reader. Incurable music scholar. Web guru. Freelance troublemaker. Problem solver. Travel trailblazer.”
More Stories
Officially: Citroën ë-C3 Aircross (2024) – French Frontera
Bitcoin fell below $60,000 after the Israeli counterattack, but is recovering
Samsung switches to a six-day work week