But what about our incoming House members? What plans do the Dutch political parties propose for reducing emissions? In the run-up to the House of Representatives elections, we take a closer look at the political parties' climate plans with climate lawyer Tim Bleeker.
Emissions reduction is not a choice
What is most alarming, according to Bleeker, is the noncommittal way some parties talk about reducing emissions. “Whether or not to reduce Dutch greenhouse gas emissions is not a political issue but a legal obligation.” The Supreme Court ruled in the Urgenda case that climate change is a human rights issue. In the Paris Agreement and subsequent climate change conferences, several countries, including the Netherlands, agreed that global warming must remain well below two degrees, with one and a half degrees as the target. At the European level, these ambitions have been translated into a 55% reduction target for 2030. The Netherlands has adopted this target in its national legislation. As a party, you cannot easily deviate from this. What is written about climate change in some party programmes is contrary to binding European regulations and human rights.’
Can we meet the 2030 climate target with nuclear power?
To meet the 2030 reduction target, Bleeker says that more short-term measures are needed. “Many of the climate debates had by politicians are about nuclear power because it is a concrete and engaging topic. But this is actually not at all relevant for achieving the 55% reduction target for 2030 because before that nuclear reactor could be in place, it would be long past 2030. The most difficult question is how political parties are going to cut emissions by half over the next seven years.”
Because of human rights, governments are obliged to take adequate measures that are ‘reasonable and appropriate’ in order to meet climate targets. “So it is not just about the reduction target. Parties must also have a good account for how they want to meet that target.” The choices parties make in this regard can be enormously consequential for citizens and businesses, which is why, as far as Bleeker is concerned, the climate debate at election time should be about other topics.
Political parties must be more concrete
Bleeker likes to see it when political parties do the math. “This is how many megatons we want to reduce and we are going to achieve that with these measures.” Especially for the shorter term, political parties need to be more concrete. “Citizens want to know where they stand. Entrepreneurs want to know what to invest in. The mediagenic issues that are often discussed now are only a small part of the solution.”
“Much more important than nuclear reactors is whether certain forms of energy will become more expensive, forcing citizens to switch to heating and cooking on electricity; or whether [CO1] companies will be taxed more heavily for polluting activities; or whether in the future we will be obliged to make our homes sustainable in order to attain a certain energy label; and if so, how the government will make that affordable for everyone. Such issues have a direct impact on the lives of citizens. This is precisely what the political battle of ideas should be about.”