The vast majority of the proposers do not consider it a smart move by Greenpeace to take the cabinet to court over state aid to KLM. “It is too crazy to risk thousands of jobs
The environmental organisation wants to enforce stricter climate agreements in the aid package for the airline via the courts. Most respondents think this is stupid and short-sighted. “If KLM goes bankrupt, we will have many more unemployed. Companies that supply KLM will also go down“, it sounds in the reactions. “KLM‘s gap will then be filled by a foreign company over which we may have no control
Nearly 90% of them therefore think that Greenpeace should abandon the business because there is a good chance that KLM will go bankrupt without government support. “Greenpeace has only one interest, but it underestimates the indirect consequences for the whole of the Netherlands
The State should certainly not withdraw or adjust the 3.4 billion aid package, according to most respondents. “Good environmental policy can only be paid for with a strong economy”, is a reaction. “In poor countries the environment is much worse off than in the Netherlands. Greenpeace slaughters the goose with the golden eggs”
Another reaction: “Companies such as Greenpeace often exaggerate to get their way and unnecessarily hunt everyone down. That doesn’t do their business any good, because in the end it comes to light and people lose confidence. If you want to become greener, you need money and a lot of it. You don‘t get that in a country full of unemployed people
Most people do not think that suing the State is the right way to make the aviation sector cleaner. “It can’t do any harm to draw attention to it, but it does go a long way,” said one participant.
Many respondents are afraid that competitors will jump into the hole if KLM falls over at the hands of Greenpeace. “People will continue to fly, but with a different, less sustainable and less innovative airline. The ultimate consequences will therefore be worse for the environment“
Some argue that KLM is already more environmentally friendly than many of its competitors. “For example, they are working with TU Delft on the Flying V, a very energy-efficient type of aircraft for long distances, which could mean a revolutionary development“, one respondent knows.
Nevertheless, there are also participants who feel that Greenpeace was right to start a case. “First of all, I hate Greenpeace, but it is consistent in this one. Unlike the government, because forcing everything and everyone to reduce CO2 emissions and then giving one of the biggest polluters so much money is absurd! We not only have to make aviation more sustainable, we also have to reduce it significantly“, said a supporter of the thesis.
Take one example from Germany, says another. “It is true that Lufthansa also receives state aid from the German Government, but there are strict climate requirements attached to this. A number of polluting aircraft are/will be taken out of service immediately. Where is KLM? They are still living in the clouds there with their golden salaries and reimbursement of costs”