The PVV has become the largest party and will leave its mark on policy in the coming period. The energy paragraph from the PVV program starts with the call to put climate policy through the shredder. What does that mean for the energy transition?
Is Wilders a climate change denier? No. His program also states that the dikes must be raised to protect us against rising sea levels. The awareness is there, but the PVV opposes the high costs that a country like the Netherlands has to incur in relation to a small contribution to the climate objectives on a global scale. I think that's strange reasoning. If everyone were to pull the plug for that reason, people and the planet would be at risk. Each individual effort is a drop in the ocean, but many drops together lead to cooling down.
I also have some understanding. Our economy is vulnerable and social polarization is removing support from the transition. Yet climate change is a fact and an increasingly frightening scenario is being painted. A dilemma unfolds here: Anyone who wants to find the most sustainable solutions as quickly as possible runs the risk that heat, electricity and fuel will become so expensive that people will drop out. However, anyone who only focuses on low costs will not achieve the 1,5 degree target.
Is there a middle ground? Perhaps: don't rule anything out! Dare to use all forms of energy that are an improvement compared to fossil sources. Even if they are not yet perfectly sustainable. So in addition to solar and wind energy, geothermal energy and green hydrogen, also consider heating networks, blue hydrogen, green gas, (bio)-LNG and smart nuclear energy (Thorium). And in addition to system change, opt for CO2 removal from the atmosphere. This can be done through underground storage (CCS), in forests, sea and soil (Nature-based solutions), and in products and processes (CCU). Atmospheric and biogenic CO2 even lead to negative emissions.
Biomass plays an important role in the 'Middenweg'. Organic residual flows and energy crops are not only needed to produce affordable sustainable energy, but also provide the green carbon molecules we need to replace fossil raw materials. And help achieve negative emissions. However, biomass for energy is rejected in many election programs. Also in that of the PVV. The question is: what exactly are they talking about? One person thinks that Baltic trees will go entirely into the oven, another that valuable raw materials will be burned and another that energy crops will displace food. However, these examples have nothing to do with sustainable energy. The 'Middle Way' advocated here requires the use of residual flows of carefully grown, processed, transported, etc. bio-raw materials. Not an exhaustive but a regenerative system. To get there, we have to move away from the categorical 'no' to biomass. The next government would do well to present a sustainable biomass roadmap as part of a feasible climate policy.
About the author
Marieke van der Werf
Advisor in the field of energy and circular economy
Marieke van der Werf is an advisor at the intersection of sustainability and politics. After her membership of the Chamber, she joined Bureau Publyon, Public Affairs and Corporate Communications as a partner. Marieke has specialized in energy and the circular economy and advises, among others, the Green Gas Platform. She is also chair of the CCU Alliance and initiator of the Negative Emissions Task Force, where biogenic CO2 plays an important role. In addition to her consultancy work, Marieke fulfills supervisory roles at, among others, the Frisian Energy Fund and Spaarnelanden BV.
