Economic growth and achieving climate objectives are often at odds with each other. For the Netherlands, these objectives boil down to reducing CO₂ emissions by 49% in 2030 compared to the level in 1990, and further reducing them in 2050 to a level of 5% of that in 1990.
Especially when one considers that between 1990 and 2018, the economy in developed countries grew on average by almost 300% with an inflation of nearly 50% over the same period, this won't be an easy task. The Dutch economic growth is precisely at the OECD average of 300%, and, interestingly, CO₂ emissions did not rise during this period, despite that growth. That is encouraging since growth has not led to higher CO₂ emissions. At the same time, it is evident that such lack of progress is a bad starting point for achieving the 2030 goals. The Netherlands has been accused by many national and international institutions and NGO's, of doing too little to meet its obligations. A comparison with other countries shows that this criticism is justified. In Sweden, the average CO₂ emissions per capita are 3.6 tonnes, in The Netherlands, this is at a level of 8.6 tonnes per capita (2018).
It is essential to find out what impacts these results to gain a better understanding of the underlying dynamics. Only then it is possible to map the route towards achieving the set objectives. The data of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which records energy flows and CO₂ emissions very precisely for each country, provide such in-depth and comprehensive insight.
My analysis shows that a large number of countries have been able to take essential steps by switching from CO₂-inefficient to CO₂-efficient energy carriers. In 1990, Poland, the Czech Republic, Greece, Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom were dependent on the environmentally very harmful coal for more than 30% of their total consumption, as a source of energy. An enormous transition took place in the countries concerned in the following decades. Natural gas, biomass, wind and solar power took over coal's dominant function in the energy mix.
This transition to considerably more CO₂-friendly energy sources is an essential reason for the very significant reduction in CO₂ emissions, particularly in Denmark, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and Germany. These transitions between energy sources are 'relative' factors that contribute to the substantial reduction of CO₂ reduction in the countries concerned.
Other countries are blessed with a potential of hydropower (hydro) energy or have invested heavily in nuclear power. Both energy carriers are CO₂-free and have been contributing to the relatively lower CO₂ emissions in countries such as Sweden (46.7% of the energy supply in 2018), France (46.2%), Norway (41.3%) and Switzerland (40.4%). Except for Norway, these countries are also among the countries with the lowest CO₂ emissions per capita. In Belgium, Japan, Germany and Spain, nuclear capacity was phased out over the same period, which, insofar as no substitution with other CO₂-free energy sources took place, has partly counteracted the reduction in CO₂ emissions.
Shifts in the share of industry sectors within GDP and population development also affect countries' energy needs. For example, the services sector has grown fairly generally at the expense of industry in developed economies, and the population in almost all countries has grown considerably in the last 30 years. Despite substantial technological advancements in the field of fuel efficiency, insulation and heat technology, the relative energy consumption in the transport, residential and service sectors on the whole increased with resp. 19.9%, 10% and 25.9%. On the other hand, there is a 16.6% decrease in energy consumption in the industry.
STATEMENT 1
All the circumstances and influences above play a role in achieving the objectives of the Climate Agreement and, more internationally, the Paris Climate Agreement. Admittedly, we have waited too long to tackle our problems. In itself, however, this is no excuse to go for simple answers and quick-fixes to issues which require long term solutions. The subject is very complex; the principles, possibilities and solutions are highly (inter)dependent on a multitude of factors. Taking the outcome of CO₂ reduction as a single reference point of success is counterproductive and ultimately potentially harmful.
The Netherlands
It is clear from the above graphs and tables that the Dutch energy mix has hardly changed in terms of composition over the past 30 years. The great importance of natural gas in our energy mix and its exuberant domestic availability has made us 'blind' for a long time to the need to take action to reduce CO₂ emissions and to look for CO₂-free alternatives. This blindness now presents us with particularly significant challenges.
Also, the dominance of the chemical industry in the Dutch energy mix is striking, which, it seems to me, seems to be a disproportionate burden on Dutch energy consumption for producing substances and materials for export.
Finally, it appears that the transition to solar and wind energy (for the time being?) seems to be halting if existent at all. The share of 1.8% in total production contrasts sharply with that of the leader in my selection, Denmark with 8% (which is also much less than you would expect from the "world champion" sustainability). The transition to CO₂-free alternatives, certainly given the time paths agreed for realization, will require sharp(er) policy choices.
Conditions for (Dutch) growth
We need to consider which of our current economic activities are still justified considering the environmental impact involved. It is necessary to gain insight in the distribution of the various emission categories (CO₂: carbon dioxide; NOₓ: nitrogen oxides; SO₂: sulfur dioxide and PM10: particulate matter) among the different economic sectors. Furthermore, we need to assess which energy mix is the most ideal for our country, given our objectives, in the medium and long term. One cannot ignore the fact that the Netherlands is a densely populated country and that for some energy carriers, there is no space or place in certain areas.
The emphasis in this article is on energy consumption and CO₂ emissions, although the other emission categories, where relevant here, will also be included.
Economic activities
The energy, industry and transport sectors are responsible for most of the emissions of harmful substances in our country. Not surprisingly, these are also the sectors that rely most on fossil fuels. Nuclear, biomass, solar and wind powery have such emissions only to a minimal extent. As such, this makes the nature and choice of any energy carrier an essential element in achieving climate goals.
Chemical industry
Of all sectors, the chemical sector is the sector that puts a significant burden on our total national energy consumption (26.3%, CBS, 2018). Simultaneously, this sector also is one of the engines behind the success of the Netherlands as a trading nation. It is independently responsible for around 60% of our trade surplus with foreign countries. The sector generates 2% of our GDP and employs approximately 42,000 FTEs; this makes this industry valuable but not, in my view, an indispensable factor in our economy.
Moreover, this sector is very vulnerable to aging as more than 60% of employees are older than 45 years. Nationally, this is exceptionally high. The question is whether a (still) high contribution to our trade balance is an objective in itself. With current production standards, this highly polluting economic activity is responsible for 10.8% of CO₂ emissions and 5.6% of SO₂ emissions in our country. As far as I am concerned, this question could only be answered in the affirmative if the energy consumption and emissions of this sector could be reduced to acceptable, but preferably energy-neutral, levels.
Road transport
A robust transport sector is part of a flourishing economy. The total road transport in 2018 accounted for slightly more than 14% of our total energy consumption, 31.6% of CO₂ emissions, 18.2% of SO₂, 63.8% of NOₓ and 2.8% of particulate matter. Less than 1% of the total consumption was electric. Despite outdated sentiments of "Petrolheads", this has to change soon. The transition to electrically powered vehicles will have to be accompanied by a "carrot and stick" approach. To this end, the government should facilitate the transition to electrically powered cars and trucks with purchase premiums. Simultaneously the use of fossil-powered vehicles should be discouraged with gradually increasing motor vehicle taxes (a lower replacement rate of electrically powered vehicles triggers a higher rate of increase).
Homes and office buildings
The use of (mainly) electricity and natural gas in homes and offices accounts for an estimated 22% of Dutch energy consumption and almost 20% of CO₂ emissions. It is self-evident that there is a lot of potential gain in making our homes, but also office buildings, more sustainable. Here again, a carrot and stick approach introduced gradually over time, should work best. The energy label of a building (based on a system of reliable certification and with exceptions for monumental buildings) should determine the property tax. In addition to this and as a stimulus, consideration could be given to reducing the energy tax as the energy label is more favorable.
STATEMENT 2
More is not always better, especially when it comes to activities with demonstrable damage to the environment and to health. The government must play a more active role in steering desired behavior and preventing undesirable behavior, even if (macro) economic interests are at stake. If necessary, the activities and influence of lobbyists must be exposed to the public domain so that there is sufficient democratic control over the outcomes.
Energy mix
Earlier in this article, we looked at consumption and saw that there is much to be gained through policy interventions. Nevertheless, all these activities still require energy. We direct much of our efforts towards the transition from fossil energy carriers to sustainable ones such as solar and wind energy, biomass and heat pumps. I have doubts as to whether this is substantively justified.
As an example, I want to showcase the "world champion" sustainability Denmark, a country that does not have hydropower or nuclear energy. As a country, it made a move to sustainable energy supply for quite some time is an example to the Netherlands serves in that regard.
Denmark has succeeded in reducing its "dependence" on coal and converting that share into renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy and biomass.
However, I struggle to place my trust in biomass as a sustainable source of energy. The theory is that the CO₂ absorbed during the growth of the biomass compensates the CO₂ released during incineration. However, this ignores the fact that combustion and emissions still take place and that the biomass is useful in the production of building materials and plastic-replacing raw materials and materials. In those cases, no release of CO₂ takes place.
Only solar and wind power are emission-free. In Denmark, it accounts for only 7.5% to 8% of the total energy mix over the past five years. Besides, there is only a limited upward movement in this share of renewable energy. Geographical limitations and fading support for this form of energy may be behind this. Also, there is doubt worldwide whether the objectives for this sustainable energy supply are achievable.
Despite all good intentions, it will be an enormous task to be able to provide a virtually emission-free form of energy generation in the long term (ten to thirty years). I am in favour of seriously considering the possibilities that nuclear energy offers to protect our society from a climate crisis that has got out of hand. Prevailing dogmas and prejudices against this form of energy generation must be reassessed not only against reality but also from the need to provide workable and sustainable solutions quickly. First of all, the IEA states that ageing, especially in Western countries, nuclear power plants (now responsible for 22% of global energy production) puts only increasing pressure on finding alternative sources of sustainable energy generation. Secondly, it argues that with new techniques, it is possible to provide for the energy transition in a responsible manner and at a lower cost than in a situation without nuclear energy. With his TerraPower initiative, Bill Gates has taken an enormous step to come up with possible solutions for making the safety risks associated with current nuclear power plants manageable. Besides, his prototype nuclear power station (the Traveling Wave Reactor, TWR) provides for the use of already finished uranium as fuel. As such, it directly contributes to solving the serious problem of storing radioactive waste. For those interested, the episode of Netflix's documentary on this subject is very worthwhile.
STATEMENT 3
Putting hope and expectation in sustainable energy generation with solar and wind energy and biomass as the primary source is a dead end. We need to re-examine our dogmas and prejudices and open ourselves up to new insights into the application of nuclear energy and work towards securing our sustainable future.
Finally
The need to take measures to combat climate catastrophes is inevitable. Denying the influence of human activity on the climate on earth, with all the scientific evidence pointing in the opposite direction, puts too significant a risk on future residents and therefore is irresponsible. We need to look responsibly and sensibly at meeting these challenges. Only if we are open to the complexity involved and do not fall into simplistic reasoning and solutions, we can succeed. We should not underestimate the issue of implementation. We must be honest about the dangers and risks that threaten us and be prepared to let no longer growth prevail over the environment and health. Only if we face the future with an open mind and without prejudice and dogmas, will we be able to find the best solutions for everyone; both in the present and in the future.
THIS ARTICLE WAS TRANSLATED FROM THE DUTCH ORIGINAL, USING GOOGLE TRANSLATE AND GRAMMARLY