Dutch climate policy costs a lot and achieves little

The climate summit in Paris kicked off on Monday. For twelve days more than one hundred world leaders will try to reach a new agreement to curb harmful greenhouse emissions and stop further global warming. Reyer Gerlagh, one of the Netherlands' top environmental economists, is exasperated by the lack of climate ambition among Dutch government and business leaders.

People first

"The interests of the people should come first. But the parties responsible for the national energy agreement – the Dutch government, trade unions, environmental organizations and business representatives – were all too focused on their own and each other's interests. The energy agreement, for instance, provides for the abolition of coal tax, the closure of a coal-fired power plant, the construction of wind turbines and extra energy tax to let the consumer pay for it all. The various lobby groups looked after their own interests, but those of citizens were overlooked. That needs to change."

Inefficient approach

Gerlagh is amazed that the government is tackling environmental problems with ad-hoc solutions rather than with a well-thought-out long-term policy. He would also prefer to see scientists involved in the initial phases of the decision-making process.

Last week 64 professors, including five researchers of Tilburg University, signed an open letter calling upon the government to close coal-fired power plants as soon as possible. Gerlagh did not sign this letter. "Clearly, an early closure of the coal-fired power plants is good for the environment, but I didn't agree with how the case was presented in the letter. The letter urged the government to lay down the closure of these power stations by law and, in so doing, failed to mention the desired measures for achieving this objective."

"80% of the current climate debate is about intermediate objectives: how many extra wind turbines, and how many fewer coal-fired power plants? As an economist I would prefer to see 80% of the climate debate focusing on the kind of instruments we need to deploy to achieve that objective efficiently and effectively. What I am referring to is the European emissions trading system and the use of domestic economic measures such as taxes, subsidies or fiscal incentives. If you forget about the instruments in the discussion, the solution will be inefficient and far too expensive. That's why the Dutch climate policy costs too much and achieves so little. An engineer will favor technical instruments such as standards, while economists like to use pricing mechanisms. Both groups of scientists understand that instruments are essential and that these are sadly lacking in the current approach."

Contribution from science

"The science is extremely important. We produce research and write articles. We also provide education to students and share our knowledge with the next generation. We would love to carry out research in support of policy, but that's only possible if the government is open to this."

Provided by Tilburg University