23,330 million euros. That has been the amount of public aid that The Spanish State has allocated in 2024 to activities that damage the environmentaccording to a pioneer study In Spain in charge of Greenpeace.
The report analyzes subsidies worth 27,100 million euros and discovers that 86% of that amount will stop to “toxic” activities according to the organization because, Instead of promoting an ecological transition, they aggravate the climatic crisis and generate inequality.
The environmental analysis of the subsidies in charge by the environmental organization reveals that only 13.9% of public aid goes to activities or projects that promote ecological transition.
One in three public euros spent has stopped activities that damage the environment and half of the state investment has subsidized projects with both positive and negative impacts in the environment.
The agricultural sector has concentrated almost half of the aid analyzedfollowed by transport (38% of the total amount examined) and the housing sector – energy consumption – which has received 15% of subsidies.
One in three public euros spent has stopped activities that damage the environment
A pioneering study in our country, in charge of Greenpeace, He denounces that our economy is “dopada” with subsidies harmful to the environment that reach 23,330 million euros In 2024.
In this report, called “Of toxic grants to responsible investments. How to put public money at the service of well -being”subsidies are analyzed by value of 27.1 billion euros, of which 86% They are aimed at “toxic” activities since, far from promoting ecological transition, they aggravate the climate and biodiversity crisis, and do not solve inequality problems.
The analysis focuses on Agrarian, Transport and Energy sectors in homesfor being sectors responsible for 50 % of emissions, and keys to the necessary ecological transition.
The agricultural sector concentrates the largest number of subsidies analyzed with 12,805 million euroS (47.3 %), followed by the transport sector 10,293 million (38 %) and, finally, the housing sector (energy consumption) with 3,998 million (14.8 %).
The environmental analysis reveals that, Despite the current situation of climate crisis and biodiversity, harmful subsidies (brown and oranges) are the majority in our economy, in front of green subsidies.
Greenpeace remembers that “fossil doping”It intensified after the pandemic and the energy crisis derived from the Russian invasion in Ukraine, following the EU trend and other countries.
At European level, harmful subsidies to the environment have reached about 400,000 million euros
This situation of “Dopaje”, Far from reversing, it continues to generate total costs, including environmental impacts, which in Spain equals 2 % of GDPaccording to the IMF.
With a climatic impact on Europe and Spain, and after the recent Dana -What left 227 victims and record damage of 18,000 million euros-,, Greenpeace warns that brown aids stop the ecological transition, fattening the benefits of the most polluting corporations and feed.
Eliminating toxic grants would allow duplication for resources for fair climatic action. However, we continue to allocate that money to sustain the dependence on fossil fuels.
If this happens it is because Public money is used to tie homes and SMEs to dirty businesses dominated by a handful of companies and oligarchies instead of promoting their full participation of the benefits of ecological transition.
Enjoy quality public transport, clean energy, renewed homes and healthy and ecological eating cannot be something minority.
The 5 ‘keys’ of the nonsense:
- The analysis of the aid to the agricultural sector yields the worst environmental and social balance of the analyzed sectors, with the Common Agrarian Policy (PAC) as main responsible. The PAC is the largest existing subsidy, with about 7,344 million a year, and is harmful to the environment and enormously regressive: a small farmer (<5HA) receives 76 times less resources than a large one (> 250ha). In addition, diesel and agrochemical aids, which add up to 2.3 billion a year, harm the environment and do not focus on family and social agriculture. With these resources, the income of these most disadvantaged groups and Promote an agroecological transition against climate changethe biodiversity crisis and energy shocks.
- More aids to diesel are allocated than to the electric vehicle. The positive part is the increase in public transportation Thanks to green subsidies, but it is key to move towards its guarantee in the worst connected areas. While A unique fertilizer at affordable price is necessary throughout the state and have specific rates for some groups. A good way to finance these measures would be to end the “fiscal amnesty” of airlines worth 4,610 million euros.
- Investment in housing renewal is six times less than necessary and aid does not reach those who need them most for bureaucratic obstacles. Energy renewing households is ten times more effective in the long term to fight against energy poverty than social bonds. Gas favorable taxation is a lousy economic signal. So is the unpredictability of relief in IRPF by investments in energy renewal.
- Many aid justified for their social impact benefits high income and large companiesinstead of those who really need it. This is the case of 28 % of the Aid of the PAC (1,908 m) or 50 % of the air and sea transport bonus in extrapeninsular territories (445.25 m). Also in the recently extinct measures of 50 % of the 20 cents discount per liter of fuel (730 m), 10 % of the reduction of Food VAT (221.8 m) among others.
- Companies such as Repsol, Moeve, Naturgy, Fertiberia, Iberia or Ryanair receive aid and benefit from a subsidies model that generates a consumption dependent on gas, fuel and agrochemicals Meanwhile, they generate record benefits and escape paying for the generated environmental damage. Greater accountability is urgent and assert the principle of “Who pollutes pay”.
In front of the doctrine of the chainsier, the tax evasion of large fortunes and military waste, the best way to defend public money is to invest it responsibly.
We must maintain the focus of public effort to guarantee the well -being of people, avoid catastrophic damage to climate change and protect ourselves from economic and political instability of fossil fuels.
If we want security and well -being, we need more agroecology sustained by family and social agriculturevery isolated and heated homes to do without gas, clean transport and restored ecosystems that protect us from extreme events.
The report also points how despite its international commitments, The government lacks a clear strategy to eliminate harmful subsidies for the environment.
Greenpeace requires the government and administrations that end toxic subsidies, especially those that end in the wrong pockets. In addition, it claims more transparency, plans with clear objectives and calendars defined and redirect public funds to households and SMEs.
According to Greenpeace, with these resources it is possible to popularize access to housing of zero emissions, ecological and local foods, sustainable mobility, proximity cities with low emissions areas, guaranteed public transport in rural areas and compensation for groups at risk in the countryside and the city.