When Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson (S) announced in March the first crisis billions in the corona eruption, it was about spending a few billion kronor.

Not only the business community, but also all the most prominent economics professors, called for more money together. Some thought the crisis could cost 500 billion, another brought in 1,000 billion.

As long as the state finances can - and they do in Sweden - it's just a waste of money, they said. All in order for 100,000 companies to avoid going under and standing ready when the virus danger is over.

State aid to stock market giants with billions of cash, which would do well anyway, were the cracks one had to take. Better support a company too much than one too little.

Now, two months later, Sweden's crisis spending has jumped to SEK 240 billion. And yesterday, the European Commission proposed SEK 8,000 billion in crisis support.

Biggest question since the theodicean problem

However, the Swedish Minister of Finance and others assumed that there is an end. That after the virus everything would continue where it ended. Probably in the fall. However, the virus does not appear to have read the forecasts. Hardly anyone dares to predict how it will be this fall, or after that. The airline industry does not believe that people will travel at all like before.

And who wants to release Swedes across the border when the virus has ravaged so relatively freely here? Not all countries, obviously.

Thus, three new questions arise.

The first: how long can we afford? It is relatively simple, for Sweden: the year out at least. Government debt was 35 percent of GDP when the crisis began. It can easily increase to 50 or 60 percent of GDP.

The second: can Sweden borrow? It's semi-difficult. Yes, will be the answer unless the crisis turns into a financial crisis. If this happens it can be difficult for Sweden to borrow, but just maybe.

The third: It is the really big question, possibly the greatest paradox in history, at least since the theodicist problem was formulated.

This question, or paradox, is about the survival of the planet. Many of the companies and jobs hardest hit are found in industries that contribute to global warming.

Fossil consumption in the center

SAS needs new money to be able to resume an operation that we were told as late as last fall to be ashamed if we used it.

The crisis for everything that is dependent on tourism, such as hotels, restaurants and amusement parks, is because people do not travel and thus do not contribute to global warming with their flying and car driving.

Among the large companies that can receive the most severance payments are the truck giants Volvo and Scania. They have both been hit by the collapse of the global subcontractor chains and demand stops.

And financial markets are alerted that falling demand for oil could trigger the dreaded global financial crisis. Oil producers, not least in the United States, have started hard-hit oil recovery in recent years. The risk of credit losses is enormous.

Thus: Many support billions, in Sweden and the world, seem to go to companies and businesses that have arisen from carefree fossil consumption, and which - very hairy, many of them are now putting great resources into reducing emissions - our planet would feel best if they completely disappeared.

But if we let everything that has to do with travel, transport, trade and tourism undergoes a mess that hardly saves humanity either.

So the corona crisis is supposed to lead to the largest global state capital injection in global warming ever.

The Finance Agency is published every Thursday evening on SVT Play. It is also broadcast in SVT2 22:10.

Host: Alexander Norén.