“The government managed to spark a day-long controversy over very low carbon emissions. This overshadowed the employment work held in the center’s summer spotlight. Now it was forgotten. “
Mykkänen told the newspaper that the core problem of the budget proposal is that the loan will not be withheld despite the positive economic development observed after the population’s vaccination campaigns against Covid-19 disease. The budget of EUR 64.8 billion has a deficit of EUR 6.9 billion, due, for example, to the costs of setting up social circles as part of social and health care reform.
“We have more than six billion euros in debt during the upswing, even though we should save for a rainy day. There are billions in uncovered debt without proper employment measures, ”he said.
“Instead, we promise to return to the next government’s spending framework in 2024, when the economic outbreak is likely to be over.”
Although Mykkänen said that the climate measures taken by the government show a sensible direction, he estimates that the government’s indecision is reflected in the temporary decisions concerning police and research budgets. The government increased police budgets and virtually suspended the EUR 40 million cut in funding for the Academy of Finland for 2022.
“Postponing the threat of layoffs and adjustments by a year will not help police or investigators. This is not long-term research funding. This is an unsustainable road, ”he said.
Stakeholders are concerned about borrowing, lack of expertise
YLE on Friday reported that the draft budget – in particular the resumption of borrowing, the lack of restructuring and employment measures – has also criticized industry and business interests.
“The government itself raised expectations to find a solution to the acute skills shortage. A couple of good decisions were made, but the results are limited when looking at the whole, ”he commented Mikko Valtonen, Senior Expert of the Finnish Chamber of Commerce.
managing director Juha Romakkaniemi added that while stimulus-based policy was a sensible approach during the downturn caused by the pandemic, lending to the extent proposed by the government is questionable this year and a blatant mistake next year.
“Continuing the recovery policy in next year’s budget is a blatant mistake that will continue to haunt us,” he warned.
“It is irresponsible for the government not to make changes or implement structural reforms that will actually increase employment,” he reiterated. Mika Kuismanen, Chief Economist of Finnish Entrepreneurs.
More criticism, some thanks from the industry
The Finnish Technology Industry expressed concern about the lack of employment measures and low investment in research and innovation.
“Instead of promoting local bargaining and amazing earnings security, the government is postponing employment measures to a later date, as if we were in no hurry to improve the capacity of our economy.” stated Jaakko Hirvola, CEO of Technology Industries.
The Finnish forest industry, on the other hand, also expressed its disappointment at the uncertainty caused by indebtedness and the lack of a long-term industrial policy.
“The government was unable to make decisions that would restore confidence in responsible economic policy,” stated managing director Timo Jaatinen. “Continued and strong public borrowing undermines the predictability of the operating environment for companies operating in the country.”
Moving from bans to incentives means light at the end of the tunnel for the energy sector.
“The measures will reduce heating costs and at the same time emissions. Incentives are a good approach when you want to get results that are effective for climate policy, rejoiced Jukka Leskelä, President and CEO of Suomen Energia.
The draft leaves environmental organizations disappointed
Greenpeace Finland and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (SLL) are both pleased that the climate is central to the political process, but reminded that climate action must continue beyond the budget.
“The necessary emission reductions have been compiled on paper, but it is a different matter whether they form a coherent whole that withstands critical examination. Fortunately, there is a clear desire, deadline, and goal for this critical study so that the implementation of emission reductions does not depend on gut feelings. said Kaija Kosonen, Greenpeace Climate and Energy Specialist.
However, WWF Finland considers that the compromise on climate action is insufficient and added that it was particularly disappointed that the government did not want to introduce methods that have proved effective, such as taxation and emissions trading, into its climate tool.
“The emission impacts of the new measures by 2035 are based in part on estimates. The government does not take enough responsibility for climate goals, said Bernt Nordman, Director of Climate Policy at WWF Finland.
“The package is very modest in terms of agricultural emissions. This puts pressure on the timely reform of agricultural subsidies. “
In summary, climate action lacks ambition Markku Ollikainen, Chairman of the Finnish Climate Change Panel. He stressed to the public broadcaster that the government did not even discuss the possibility of increasing the fuel tax, decided not to increase subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles and overestimated the impact of its decisions on traffic emissions.
Aleksi Teivainen – HT
Source: The Nordic Page