Let the children come to me, all, all the children… Almost everyone who has ever been to a church in their youth will have sung this classic. It has certainly stuck with me, probably because the text is so welcoming (or in a modern term: inclusive). And without wanting to be a theologian: it also sounds like we are all equal before the Higher.
The gates of our climate policy are also increasingly open to everyone. The best example is of course our European emissions trading system: this applies to a large group of companies, which are then allowed to use all possible technologies to ensure emission reduction. We also call the latter 'technological neutrality'. It also means that, for example, bio-based raw materials can compete with other reduction options. But the first is also essential: by applying a climate target to a large group of companies, they can find out among themselves who can achieve emission reductions at the lowest cost. That means that we are ultimately cheaper off. And for the higher climate target, we are all equal: if you cannot (yet) achieve cheap emission reductions, you help to bear the burden via the system.
The development of ETS-2 is therefore a good thing. This brings sectors that do not fall under the current ETS (now ETS-1) under one joint reduction target. Parties can then again see where emissions can be reduced at the lowest cost. And that can be done with all possible techniques: energy saving, electrification, use of green gas or green fuels, you name it. Of course, it is crucial that the scheme is as inclusive as possible: open to all techniques and with coverage of as many sectors as possible. But some children are starting to behave a bit rebellious: greenhouse horticulture and inland shipping are now arguing not to be included in ETS-2. Now, every sector will be able to come up with arguments why it is a bad idea for them to fall under the system, and of course it leads to costs in the short term, and of course there is sometimes already all kinds of specific standing climate policy. But strategically, that resistance is unwise: ultimately, all sectors will have to reduce their emissions and an ETS is simply the most cost-effective way to achieve that together. The market, armed with ETS-2, is simply the best at determining where and how emissions can best be reduced. No micromanaging government policy can compete with that. As far as I'm concerned, we should guide all children to the gate of ETS-2, and that may well be with some gentle coercion.
About the author
Marc Londo
Substantive Director NVDE
Marc Londo is substantive director of the NVDE, the Dutch Sustainable Energy Association. The NVDE represents ~1600 companies in the Netherlands that are jointly working towards 100% sustainable energy by 2050. Marc is responsible for the (scientific) substantiation of the NVDE's positions. He also works as a visiting researcher at the Copernicus Institute of Utrecht University. He previously worked at ECN (now TNO) on various studies to support energy policy. He has a PhD in biomass and land use and is a graduated environmental chemist.
