Author: Sible Schöne
The focus on a sustainable energy supply hinders the effective approach to the climate problem, believes Sible Schöne.
“We are preparing the Netherlands for the future – climate neutral, fossil-free and circular – with a clean energy supply and green industrial policy.” This is the opening sentence of the climate paragraph of the coalition agreement. The sentence illustrates that there appears to be broad agreement that striving for a sustainable energy supply, based on sun, wind and energy savings, is the most effective approach to sufficiently reduce CO2 emissions in the Netherlands. Unfortunately this is not the case. In practice, this view blocks an effective approach to the climate problem.
The development of solar energy and wind energy is going extremely well. Everyone is gradually agreeing on this. And thanks to the spectacular drop in battery prices, the integration of sun and wind into the electricity supply is also becoming an increasingly realistic prospect. In the long term, solar energy in particular can become the basis of a fully sustainable energy supply. A fantastic perspective that we should certainly hold on to.
“If we look at the contribution of solar energy over that period, it is unfortunately quite limited”
But there is also another side to this story. And that is the contribution of sun and wind to tackling the climate problem. Solar energy, which will ultimately be the most important source of sustainable energy in all scenarios, currently accounts for 2% of the electricity supply worldwide, or approximately 0,4% of the energy supply. If we assume a doubling every three years, we arrive at approximately 3% in 2030, roughly 20% in 2040 and further growth in the following years.
The climate problem now has a different time scale. According to the IPCC, worldwide there is still room for approximately 2020 Gton from 400 to limit warming to 1,5 degrees, 9 times current emissions. It's been two years again, 9 has become 7. In other words, the world must reduce emissions linearly to zero between now and 2036. If we look at the contribution of solar energy over that period, it is unfortunately quite limited. Again, that is no reason not to continue with sun at full speed, but it is a reason to see what can work in the short term. After all, that 1,5 degrees is there for a reason. Many meters of sea level rise are a real possibility if we move towards 2 degrees.
“The current coalition agreement opts to phase out the use of woody biomass for energy purposes as quickly as possible”
In the short term, CO2 capture and storage (CCS) at existing installations is an important option. This is reflected in the SDE++ scheme, where these projects score best on rapid CO2 reduction. It took a long time for this simple insight to lead to action. I remember that in 1995 I had Utrecht University conduct research into the feasibility of a 20% CO2 reduction in 2005 through joint EU policy (comparable to the current Fit for 55 package). Without CO2 capture and storage, despite the necessary calculations, we did not get further than 14%. It was absolutely unacceptable within the international environmental movement at that time to add a chapter in which it was demonstrated that the remaining part could easily be completed with CCS. In the Netherlands, things have slowly changed on this point, but internationally, the switch still needs to be changed in most countries.
Woody biomass is the second example in which the difference between climate policy and the pursuit of a sustainable energy supply becomes clear. The most important conclusion of the PBL biomass report is that there is broad agreement that the use of biomass must meet clear sustainability criteria, but that the estimate of how much biomass will be available in the future and which application options are responsible is highly dependent on the broader perspective that one uses. The PBL makes an explicit distinction between a focus on climate and a focus on renewable energy (with a minimal contribution of biomass in the energy supply). Under pressure from environmental organizations, the SER advice wrongly opted for this focus on renewable energy. And the current coalition agreement also opts to phase out the use of woody biomass for energy purposes as quickly as possible.
“Without tackling international air traffic and the consumption of animal protein, the climate goals are unattainable”
The EU is also partly focusing on a sustainable energy supply instead of an effective approach to the climate problem. A good example of this is the binding obligation to use at least 50% green hydrogen in industry's hydrogen use. The Netherlands currently produces 800.000 tons of hydrogen. Including CCS, that costs approximately 4 billion m3 of natural gas. The Netherlands also wants to install an additional 10.000 MW of offshore wind for the production of green hydrogen. This produces approximately 600.000 tons of hydrogen. Hugely ambitious plans, but not sustainable enough for Brussels.
An effective approach to the climate problem is not possible without behavioral change. The Geest committee – who still remembers it – was completely clear on this point. Without tackling international air traffic and the consumption of animal protein, the climate goals are unattainable. Nothing of this plea can be found in the coalition agreement. There is simply not enough social pressure on these issues. Sun and wind are more popular.
Finally, it is absolutely clear that the world is not capable of achieving zero emissions in 14 years. That doesn't work in any country. This means that the policy aimed at CO2 reduction must be supplemented with a comparable policy aimed at removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Without negative emissions, the 1,5 degree target is completely unattainable. Unfortunately, this subject is completely missing from the coalition agreement. In my view, the main reason for this is ideological. Negative emissions do not fit with the view that a sustainable energy supply without fossil fuels is the right answer to the climate problem.
There are times when I see environmental organizations and the political parties close to them as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Especially because these parties have been refusing for years to provide a substantiated answer to the question of what is needed to achieve the 1,5 degree target.
Source Energy stage
