Reducing fossil subsidies in the Netherlands is not making any progress
NOS News•
-
Helen Ecker
editor Climate and Energy
-
Helen Ecker
editor Climate and Energy
The A12 will be occupied again tomorrow by climate activists from Extinction Rebellion. The aim of the action is to phase out a stop on subsidies for fossil fuels. The Netherlands still spends billions of euros on direct or indirect government support for fossil energy. But the amounts vary enormously. And the discussion about this has been going on for at least twenty years.
The question of exactly how much the government spends on stimulating fossil energy sources is not easy to answer. According to Extinction Rebellion, this is more than 17 billion euros. But according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate, it is much less, although it is not clear how much exactly. The ministry holds an amount of 4.5 billion euros.
Minister Jetten of Climate: “But I have met the State Secretary of Finance that we will have an extra analysis carried out this year to properly map out how to bring fossil benefits to water in the Netherlands.”
The calculation of Extinction Rebellion was made by the economist Alman Metten, former MEP for the PvdA. He thinks fossil subsidies are wrong. “Because you’re basically replenishing the pollution.”
Four times as much
When Metten made his calculation a few years ago, he came out four times higher than the government, namely at 17.3 billion euros per year. “The government came to 4.5 billion euros, plus a number of categories from which they could compile. What I did was calculate what they were with public data, especially from Statistics Netherlands. So I could do that. And anyone can do that check, want me to have stated exactly how I ended up being.”
This not only concerns direct subsidies, but also tax benefits and price support. A large part goes to aviation, heavy industry, power stations and agriculture. And the more energy is consumed, says Metten, the less the companies have to pay. “It is of course an absurd situation that you use more gas and therefore pollute more, you have to pay less tax.”
He calls the situation in the Netherlands unique, which is also why it has existed for so long. “I fear that the government is afraid to be looked at a bit internationally. Because the Netherlands is really the top when it comes to subsidies to energy-intensive companies. And secondly: you can no longer do it these days. to justify.”
Not new
Reports about subsidies to fossil fuel companies are not new. Almost twenty years ago, the uncertainty of subsidies for the climate was demonstrated in a study by Erasmus University, following a question from the House of Representatives.
Karen Maas of the Erasmus Center for Sustainability participated in the research. “It showed that there are many environmentally harmful subsidies. These subsidies are designed to stimulate the economy, but they have negative environmental effects.”
Indeed, little was done with the choice of the research, says Maas. And that goes for many more studies on the same topic. The disappeared disappeared, she says. “Often in a drawer, eventually. To really build up policy consequences there, that happens too little. Because we’ve known this for 20 years. We could have turned those knobs a little bit for 20 years, but that didn’t happen. “
She recently signed a short of 300 economists and other university employees, in which the government is realized to quickly stop fossil subsidies. She signed that “to show that the calculations that the ministry is coming out with are incorrect. And that there really is so much more money involved, which is a very environmentally harmful situation. And what really needs to be changed.”
Find balance
Minister Jetten says in a response that the cabinet is making serious efforts to phase out the fossil benefits. But, he says, a balance must be found: as soon as “sustainability must accelerate and accelerate enormously, and on the other hand, we must also keep an eye on security of supply and employment in the Netherlands. So stopping from one day to the next is not always wise, but a rapid reduction will certainly be necessary.”