Climate Change is a Scam, Austrian Gov't Report Admits

It's designed to bamboozle EU member-states into buying 'emissions certificates' to underwrite Brussels' Hamiltonian ambition to create a superstate, replete with taxation, albeit w/o representation

Today, we’ll explore what happens if experts™ and data say, ‘stop, you morons, that ain’t gonna work’ while politicos™ and journos™ pretend that the assumption of the position of an eating ostrich will work out just fine.

Let me present you with the considerations of Austria’s Fiscal Advisory Council, or Fiskalrat, the official gov’t task force on budget, taxes, and debt, which just published its official ‘Sustainability Report’, or Nachhaltigkeitsbericht, in April 2025.

In many ways, today’s posting is a follow-up to yesterday’s posting on the ‘queering’ of reality whose main point is ideology trumps (sic) reality:

The Queering of Reality

The Fiskalrat’s summary is in English, hence I merely added emphases and [snark] are mine.

The Fiskalrat’s Assessment

The present Fiscal Sustainability Report by the Fiscal Advisory Council (FISK-FSR 2025) aims to examine the long-term stability of Austria’s public finances [it means public debt]. For the first time, the fiscal implications of various climate aspects have been considered [oh would you look at that]. The projections, which extend to the year 2070, were created under a no-policy-change assumption [do they know something you and I don’t?] The measures of the new government program could not yet be incorporated into the baseline scenario due to timing constraints. However, the expected effects of implementing the planned consolidation volume on Austria’s long-term fiscal position were estimated.

A strong opening—we’re the first ones ever in the history of the universe to have done something like this—is followed by the stunning admission captured in Fig. 1, reproduced below but with the following additions: that black arrow is the projected development (sic) of debt to GDP (I’ve merely done so to make the originally green dots more visible); the red arrow (a) indicates what the Bruno Kreisky-led socialist reforms™ did to the debt-to-GDP ratio, which roughly quintupled during his time in office (1970-83):

Note further that the projections to 2070 (!) are ridiculous as they merely envisage going once more below the EU/Eurozone’s debt ceiling™ of 60% of GDP. What this means in reality, however, is—the lingering question how would a native population that’s destined to shrink due to below-replacement level fertility rates manage anything like this? We’ve tried mass immigration, yet the fiscal benefits of doing so is actually quite questionable:

Dutch Researchers Reveal the True Cost of Mass Immigration

So, with mass immigration being out of the question, economic growth, of course, is the one answer—but that is frowned upon by everyone in the climate communist-ique death cult masquerading as the UN-led efforts at sustainability™.

Don’t take my word for it, here is what the Fiscal Advisory Board writes:

The fiscal gap quantifies the annual adjustment requirement—consistent with comparable long-term analyses (such as the European Commission’s Ageing Report)—without accounting for the macroeconomic feedback effects of the necessary consolidation.[footnote 11: ‘Technically, the gap is closed using a virtual zero-multiplier instrument that represents the adjustment requirement.’] This means that the actual consolidation effort required to close the fiscal gap exceeds the gap reported in this study.

See, reality-as-is is different than the model version we used in our study™, the indomitable gentlemen of the Fiscal Advisory Board admit in a footnote. If you don’t believe me, well, here’s another nugget from their report™:

The determination of the adjustment requirement for a given year is based on the assumption that the adjustment requirements of previous years have been met.

Join me in laughing about these morons, that is, after you’ve gotten up from the floor (I fell off my chair reading this expert™ mumbo-jumbo).

Here’s the money (or lack thereof) figure that reveals the true problem:

This deterioration is largely attributable to demographically driven expenditure categories (+6.2% of GDP by 2070) and, to a lesser extent, to climate-related budgetary burdens (+1.3% of GDP by 2070). The development of other budget categories (including taxes on labor and administrative costs) noticeably mitigates the increase in the primary deficit (-2.2% of GDP by 2070).

Put bluntly: old people are wrecking the budget, which otherwise would be o.k.-ish to deal with ‘climate change’.

At this point, here’s a thought: health- and eldercare are part of GDP, and shouldn’t elevated expenditures for senior citizens increase GDP? (Personally, I don’t think senior care should be factored into GDP in the first place as it’s an increasingly enormous investment into an asset class that’s rapidly depreciating; the best analogy I’m able to come up with—trying to keep an old car from becoming un-usable has its own point of diminishing returns, and so does health- and eldercare).

One more snippet of wisdom related to the above-cited footnote 11—comes to us in footnote 13, which, once again, gives away the game here:

If real GDP had evolved since 2021 as assumed in the last sustainability report, the projected pension expenditure ratio for 2025 would be 14.9% of GDP instead of 15.8%. If, in addition, the GDP deflator had risen at the same rate as the consumer price index (CPI), the forecast would be 14.4% of GDP. The sensitivity of the expenditure-to-GDP ratio to real GDP growth is particularly pronounced for pensions. Unlike other expenditures such as demand for health care services, which is assumed to respond directly to income changes and thus to GDP growth, weaker productivity and real wage growth translate only gradually into lower pension expenditure growth, as they primarily affect the benefit levels of new retirees.

See, we’ve been quite off (by quite a bit) in our projections, trust us again. How bad are things? Well, don’t take my words for it, here’s stuff straight from the horse’s mouth:

The FISK-FSR 2025 thus reinforces the findings of the Ageing Report of the European Commission (EC) and the long-term forecast of the Federal Ministry of Finance (MoF), both of which also predict a significant increase in demographically driven expenditures in the long run. However, the expenditure increases calculated in the FISK-FSR 2025 are significantly higher than those projected by the MoF and the EC.

Translation: reality is actually worse than projected by the MoF and the EC. I think it’s safe to assume this to be true also for other gov’t and/or EU reports.

What’s the Fuss All About? It’s the Climate, Stupid!

The Fiscal Advisory Council’s report has gotten quite a bit of attention not so much due to the above-related real-world problems—but because it also factored in climate change-related budget items.

In this report, the fiscal effects of climate change, as well as national and international climate and energy policies (collectively referred to as “climate-related budgetary effects”), are considered for the first time. These climate-related budgetary effects are primarily determined by four factors: [1] the direct costs of climate protection measures, additional [2] revenues from CO2 pricing net off the loss of a significant portion of energy-related tax revenues, [3] the indirect budgetary costs resulting from weaker economic performance due to increased energy prices (including taxes), and [4] the costs incurred from failing to meet European emissions reduction targets.

Here’s my take on—translation of—these four numbered issues:

1. spending, mostly public (i.e., debt-financed), on ‘climate protection measures’ adds to gov’t budget woes = higher public expenditures/debt

2. higher taxes from CO2 indulgences merely offset gov’t revenue losses from other sources, such as income or payroll taxes = the gov’t is preparing to shift its income (sic) from existing taxes to CO2 (‘green’) taxes

3. as the preceding item (2) already explained, the economic future is grim, esp. as regards high energy prices, which reinforces—exacerbates—future growth/manufacturing/services, which also explains why gov’ts will have to move towards ever-increasing CO2 taxes = the economic depression will otherwise curtail the gov’ts’ spending possibilities

4. there may be additional penalties from Brussels if member-states don’t behave appropriately = a straight-jacket of the member-states’ own making that is going increasingly rogue

Here’s some more prose from the report:

The current level of climate-related subsidies and transfers amounts to 0.7% of GDP [doesn’t sound much, but if the debt-to-GDP ration declines to below 60% once more, this also means that these subsidies and transfers will decline]. This ratio remains relatively constant over the projection horizon.…The baseline scenario of this report aligns with the with existing measures (WEM) scenario from the National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), but also incorporates measures from the with additional measures (WAM) scenario that have since been implemented or approved.

Good for you, you approvers and implementers. Here’s the main driver of climate-related expenditures, though:

With emissions declining from 68 megatons (Mt) of CO2 equivalents in 2023 to 47 Mt in 2050, the baseline scenario is slightly more optimistic than the WEM scenario (2050: 53 Mt) but significantly more pessimistic than the WAM scenario (2050: 25 Mt). As a result, Austria is projected to fall well short of the EU-wide goal of climate neutrality by 2050, necessitating the purchase of emissions certificates under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR).

Here’s what may be the ultimate 3D chess of the EU Commission: I’ve long been musing about how Brussels will underwrite its ‘sovereign’ (their words, not mine) bills and bonds as the EU Commission has no income other than the five-year budget (allowance) from its member-states, which is virtually entirely earmarked for specific expenditures. Background here:

EU Commission to Issue ‘Sovereign EU-Bonds and EU-Bills’

How does anyone service the debt (interest payments to investors/creditors) without regular income? Well, taxes would be one way to do so, and that’s also how things went historically speaking (if you’re into it, I recommend three books on this subject: P.G.M. Dickson’s The Financial Revolution, 1967; J. Brewer’s The Sinews of Power, 1989; and M. Edling, A Hercules in the Cradle, 2014).

But taxes have a bad reputation, and I’m unsure politicos™ have the intellectual abilities to figure out how to pitch them convincingly to the EU population.

So, here’s what’s the most likely taxes-by-another-name scheme the EU will employ to secure its Bills & Bonds: having instituted the climate scam across the board (emissions certificates), member-states—and, most likely, also all those countries that wish to do business with the EU—will have to buy these certificates™, hence generating the regular income that permits Brussels to engage in regular debt service for its Bills & Bonds. You’ve got to give it to them, it’s an elegant, if highly perverse, scheme.

In this, the Fiscal Advisory Council’s phrasing is very, very telling, indeed:

The deterioration of the primary balance, driven by demographics and climate change or climate policy, can be somewhat mitigated by other developments.

The main problem here is—in their own words—another issue, though:

From 2033 onward, primary surpluses will be necessary to adhere to the required debt-to-GDP trajectory.

Translated from the BS bingo boilerplate, this means the following: a ‘primary surplus’ is simply the difference between government revenues and spending (± accounting gimmicks, such as before/after debt service). In other words: given the two main factors—ageing/demographics and climate policy—taxes will have to go up while gov’t services/transfers will go down.

Again, don’t take it from me:

Compared to the last sustainability report from 2021 (FISK-FSR 2021), in which the fiscal gap for the year 2070 was quantified at 2.6% of GDP [that was then, a mere four years ago], the fiscal outlook has significantly worsened due to several factors. The most influential factor is the markedly more unfavorable starting position. While the previous report projected a primary surplus of 0.6% of GDP for 2023, a primary deficit of 1.4% of GDP was actually realized [please re-read this to understand how far off the experts™ really were: instead of the modelled growth of .6% of GDP, reality was a deficit of 1.4% of GDP, which translates into the experts™ having been off by more than 300%]. The main reasons are the weaker economic development and the period of high inflation due to the energy crisis, along with the associated support measures [translation: the economy was weaker due to (1) higher energy costs and (2) gov’t transfers to soften these blows].

You cannot make this up. Who still believes these clowns? This is how the Fiscal Advisory Council continues their analysis™:

Real GDP in 2040 is projected to be 7% below the previous estimate [from 2021], with the gap widening to 13% by 2070 [bye-bye pensions, and farewell to virtually every other gov’t transfer payment]. The population forecast is also slightly less favorable compared to the previous report (the ratio of individuals aged 65+ to those aged 20-64 is expected to rise to 55.8 instead of 55.0 by 2070). However, this is partially offset by a more optimistic labor force participation projection [we just hope™ something’s gonna produce more tax revenues in the future]. The current medium-term interest rate expectations are also significantly more unfavorable, with an average interest rate on government debt of 2.4% in 2030, compared to 0.9% in the previous report [let that sink in: this is a massive drag on everything]. Finally, another key revision concerns the inclusion of climate-related budgetary effects [that is, the indulgence payments to Brussels].

This is summarised in Table 1, reproduced below; note that I merely highlight what’s supposedly going on until 2030 as I consider everything further into the future the equivalent of reading tealeaves of studying bird entrails (which, let’s be honest here, may be no less accurate than this report™):

Note, in particular, the massive discrepancies between what the Ministry of Finance (MoF) projects for 2023-30 vs. what the Fiscal Advisory Council (FISK) estimates:

• primary gov’t expenditure differential: MoF = -.1% vs. FISK = +1.6

• demography-related expenditures (pensions): MoF: 1.9%, AR (the EU Commission’s Ageing Report) = 1.5% vs. FISK = 2.4%

• primary balance by 2023: MoF = -.7% vs. AR = -2.2% vs. FISK = -2.3%

Across the board, the Fiscal Advisory Council’s estimates are way worse than both the federal gov’t and the EC assume. Since the Fiscal Advisory Council’s last report (2021) was already overly optimistic, and since past performance is an indicator of future problems, too, I ‘predict’ the 2025 report to be equally ‘problematic’ once we’ll be able to compare the Fiscal Advisory Council’s projections with reality.

One last snippet of wisdom from the Sustainability Report 2025 concerning the new Austrian gov’t before we wrap this up:

It must be considered that consolidation dampens economic performance [because we’re all in state-capitalist/socialist societies since before WW2] which, ceteris paribus, leads to a decline in tax revenues and an increase in unemployment-related expenditures. As a result, the primary balance improves by less than the consolidation volume stated in the government program.

Translation: the gov’t already is cooking the books. We’ve seen how badly off the gov’t—and the EU’s—projections were in the past half-decade, and there’s every reason to expect this to actually get worse over time.

Bottom Lines

Why bother reading these reports™ if they’re so bad and/or from small countries, such as Austria?

As regards the former, small countries do speak quite candidly about some important things, such as the the revelation—in an official gov’t document—that ‘climate change’ and ‘climate policy’ are interchangeably understood. Note, for good measure, that merely one of these two terms is actually human-made.

In addition, the above-cited report—which I encourage everybody to read in full (it’s in English)—reveals, in no uncertain terms, the most likely way forward for the EU as a whole.

Since the EU Commission lacks the abilities to directly tax the resident population—which I consider actually a bridge too far even for the deracinated weaklings passing for European electorates—Brussels will force member-states to buy increasingly expensive CO2 emissions certificates, thereby generating stable (and rising, it is projected) income streams that aren’t labelled taxes.

These funds will then be used to service the debt held by the EU Commission’s ‘primary dealers’, i.e., every ‘systemically relevant’ or ‘too big to fail’ banking institution there is. In other words, this is how the European populations will be made to pay for their own enslavement.

For over a year, I was pondering how the EU Commission—which doesn’t have any disposable income of the size required to secure investors’ interest payments—would pull off the federalisation of the EU bloc.

Now I think I’ve cracked that riddle; interestingly, the current state of affairs didn’t escape Politico, which called the present the EU’s ‘Hamiltonian moment’ (albeit omitting the here-discussed aspects).

Also, no mention is made that this kind of emissions trading™ constitutes taxation without representation, and as every student of history knows, there’s but one answer to it: gather ye pitchforks.

There’s but one resolution to this conundrum: the EU must go, and the chattering classes of morons and assholes who’re running and propagating this nonsense must go, too.