The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) released a report assessing whether the Netherlands could technically achieve climate neutrality WITHOUT changing lifestyles and our orientation towards economic growth ❓ (https://lnkd.in/esvMk3iY). ✅ Their answer: Yes, this is narrowly technically feasible, but only if we make consistent policy in this direction and take quick action across virtually all possible areas. After an assessment it seems like a natural question to ask: Does this assessment mean that we can make a plan to achieve climate neutrality without changing lifestyles and our orientation towards economic growth ❓ ❌ My answer: No, we can’t. This study re-emphasizes why we need to let go of economic growth as a policy goal and change our collective lifestyle to respect planetary boundaries. It does so primarily for three reasons: 1. Political reality: When has our political system ever delivered consistent, timely policy in a given direction for twenty years in a row? Even if technically feasible, it seems implausible that we would practically manage to implement these possibilities. So, let’s not make it a plan. 2. Carbon tunnel vision: the study shows climate neutrality can be achieved, but there are many more planetary boundaries to be considered. A technical transition towards climate neutrality might exacerbate problems for other planetary boundaries, as these scenario’s rely on rapid scaling up of both biofuels (requiring land) and renewable energy sources (requiring rare earth metals). We can’t afford to have our plan to limit climate change include exacerbating biodiversity loss. 3. Responsibility: The study mentions that these pathways – which target only 2050 – reduce emissions by about 80% in 2040, thereby not meeting the 90% reduction in 2040 that will likely become an EU-wide target. Even that EU-wide target falls short of what would be internationally just. We previously explained this here: https://lnkd.in/e_QVxw2i. The PBL, too, has examined what fair climate goals for The Netherlands might be: https://lnkd.in/eyHyn6Xw. Depending on the principle chosen, the reduction in 2040 would need to be between 90 and well over a 100 %. So, both I and the PBL conclude: It is not possible to achieve climate neutrality without changing lifestyles and our orientation towards economic growth in 2050 in an internationally fair way. 🌄 I would really like to see a follow-up study from the PBL on the question: what is the lowest emission budget necessary for the Netherlands to achieve a decent quality of life for all its citizens ❓
Dr. Jos Eussen
8mo
It is still the 'good'-old People, Planet, Profit mantra dear Ernst Hobma (people talking to people about what other people should do, even if that takes some clouding of judgement); still too few seem to grasp it is ALL about the Planet, then well-being for all like you say and only then (an acceptable piece of) welfare. Keep on pushing.
Matt Orsagh
8mo
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Ernst. Good stuff.
Economic Researcher at Triodos
8moAfterthought: The chosen modelling means annual emission targets are imposed, after which the cheapest way is found to meet these emission targets. However, no cost is assigned to emissions themselves. This means that all pathways essentially maximize emissions within the given restrictions. It would have been interesting to see the results of this study if a cost of carbon emissions had been included along with literature on the social cost of carbon, with the cost responding exponentially to previous emissions and linearly to how rich a country is.