Willem-Frederik (WF) Metzelaar’s Post

The Netherlands may be small, but climate impact is large. Simply put, according to the KNMI 2023 was the warmest year on record. In parallel, the energy transition is concretely getting underway. The time for taking action is now. In the NRC I discuss the steps that companies should set in order to make a Net Zero future a reality. Next to that how EY can play a supporting role.   Read the article: https://lnkd.in/etX8hRjd.   #DuurzaamheidHardGemaakt #Sustainability# #Climaterisk #Climatemitigaion #Duurzaamheid #Decarbonization #NRC #EY

Dutch companies can play a big role in decreasing global emissions. Read more about their value chain emissions and where to get started here in NRC.

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 ❓

📢This week is Dutch National Climate Week📢 Read about it on https://nkw2024.nl/ and join us for a daily step towards a more sustainable future! 📌 Wednesday 13 November: check your own and your employer’s financial service providers Banks and insurance companies play an important role in financing both unsustainable and sustainable industries. Check how sustainable your bank, insurance company and pension fund are on eerlijkegeldwijzer.nl. Does that make you want to send them a compliment or a complaint? Does it maybe even make you want to change to another provider? Changing banks is almost certainly easier than you think, this tool will do the hard work for you: https://lnkd.in/d_26s8pn   In 2023, Scientists for Future NL asked our universities to bank, invest and insure sustainably: https://lnkd.in/d_8v9kS5 Progress is slow and can be helped with more pressure from employees, so ask your employer whom they bank, invest and insure with, and ask them to change to a more sustainable provider, for example by emailing your sustainability coordinator and/or head of finance. You can find a template for an e-mail on https://lnkd.in/dh-AYqkb!

𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙗𝙤𝙣 𝘾𝙖𝙥𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙢! 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗢𝟮 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗮𝗹𝘀. Active government intervention is needed to achieve CO2 removal from the atmosphere. Maximum commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must remain paramount. But in addition, the Netherlands needs CO2 removal to become climate-neutral and reduce the probable excess of 1.5 degrees temperature increase. CO2 removal will not get off the ground automatically on a sufficient scale and takes a long time to realise. It is therefore necessary to start policy now. The Scientific Climate Council (WKR) argues that the government should focus policy on permanent CO2 removal, encourage its realisation in the Netherlands with a procurement programme, and also drive policy in Europe. That way, the Netherlands will soon be ready for the future.These and other recommendations are in the just-released advisory: 'De lucht klaren? (Clearing the air?)' At Carbotreat we can provide you with a field proven Carbon Capture solution today. If you want to know more please contact Frank Sanders or Tom Lentelink. 𝘉𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦: https://lnkd.in/dZXeVvtW

Note the last sentence of press release saying, “It is time to implement measures that work.” Indeed, but the key measure that has already been demonstrated to work regarding overexploitation and sustainably is not mentioned. And yes, Green Growth, meaning infinite growth of consumption while pretending to do something natural on a finite planet, is indeed an oxymoron. Thanks for the powerful and eye-opening study work, exposing some self-congratulatory and misleading EU efforts, go to Honglin Zhong, Yanxian Li, Jiaying Ding, Benedikt Bruckner, Kuishuang Feng, Laixiang Sun, Christina Prell, Yuli Shan and Klaus Hubacek of Shandong University, Weihai, IREES, University of Groningen, PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, University of Maryland and University of Birmingham and Rene Fransen for sharing it. https://lnkd.in/gzWpu8km #SDGs #SDGS2030 #degrowth #overshoot #sustainabledevelopment #climatechange #supplyanddemand #limitstogrowth #offsetting #sustainability #overpopulation

Today, August 1st, marks Earth Overshoot Day. It's a strong reminder that we are consuming resources faster than the Earth can regenerate. We need to rethink our approach to resource use to ensure a sustainable future. The urgency to address climate change, protect biodiversity, and accelerate the transition to renewable energy has never been greater. 'Sustainable Project Choices' is one of the three key areas of the Arcadis 2024-2026 strategy. By making conscious decisions that prioritize sustainability and reduce our ecological footprint, we pave the way for a brighter, planet-positive future. With my advisory group, we are dedicated to not just being compliant but actively working towards bending the curve of biodiversity loss in our projects. Will you join us in making a difference? I would love to discuss further. Let's collaborate to create impactful solutions and shape a sustainable future together. 🌍💚 #EarthOvershootDay #Sustainability #ClimateAction #PlanetPositive #Biodiversity #Improvingqualityoflife https://lnkd.in/ePb8BBvu

“Greenhouse gas emissions will fall in the EU, but rise even more elsewhere” Klaus Hubacek and colleagues from the U.S. and China conducted a thorough analysis of the European Green Deal’s policies, revealing that the current plan is expected to increase emissions outside the EU by 244.8%, far outweighing the carbon reductions within the Union's land and forestry sectors. For example, the EU's plan to plant three billion trees requires large amounts of land, displacing food production to other regions. This "exports" emissions to countries like Africa and South America, where land is converted into cropland to meet demand. Although the Green Deal bans the import of products linked to deforestation, Hubacek remains skeptical, arguing that other countries could still clear forests for their local markets. He also points out that the push for organic farming in the EU requires more land, and there is insufficient data on its overall impact. The researchers also explored ways to improve the Green Deal. Hubacek highlights the adoption of a plant-based "planetary health diet" and the phasing out of food-based biofuels as effective strategies to reduce emissions and protect biodiversity. Improving agricultural efficiency in developing countries could also help. While the Green Deal in its current form may result in a net global environmental loss, the scientists believe it can be remedied. Hubacek stresses that "green growth" is unlikely without reducing consumption, as all production requires resources. With global warming set to exceed 1.5 degrees, urgent measures are needed to ensure effective climate action. More information on the planetary health diet: https://lnkd.in/gH7MvzqZ #climatechange #EuropeanGreenDeal #globalemissions #sustainability #EU #planetaryhealthdiet https://lnkd.in/gC99Uvbw

Biodiversity conservation is creeping into the spreadsheets of central bankers, banks and asset managers. The risks of disappearing nature are high and may lead to increasing costs, but the effects of the decline in plant and animal species are less easily mapped than companies' carbon emissions. "I see a lot of buzz with asset managers", says Mareike Hussels, Business Development Manager Blended Finance at Triodos Investment Management. "Usually it starts with identifying possible negative impacts on the portfolio, i.e. risks, then the more positive route follows: impact investing." The urgency is huge: "We have exceeded planetary limits as humanity in terms of biodiversity more than climate." But restoring biodiversity also comes with a lot of risks, she adds: "Biodiversity is local, complex, less transparent. This increases the risk of greenwashing." Read the full article (in Dutch) here: https://lnkd.in/eD53ksQQ #ImpactInvesting #Biodiversity #NatureRestoration #NatureBasedSolutions #COP16

This paper (see below) from the Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung makes very clear what has been concluded many times already; mitigation efforts and costs to minimize climate change are way lower then the damage costs of climate change. This is already true for one of the most ambitious mitigation scenarios (RCP 2.6; which is to lead to 450 ppm CO2 eq. in the year 2100; present concentrations are already higher), let alone when less mitigation of GHG emissions is achieved. The graphs produced on total global income lost for minimal efforts on mitigation suggest a far bigger global economic damage even. Two additional considerations on top of those published results: 1. The timeline stops at the year 2100, but for the modest mitigation scenario's the impacts of climate change are not halted at that moment and will continue to get worse (like sea level rise and losses of biodiversity), leading to a close to collapse of the global economic system. Research is underway to project the implications of this in more detail. 2. The costs of mitigation efforts (the well known mix between renewable energy, energy and material efficiency, changes in consumption and CO2 fixation (e.g. by large scale reforestation) in the meantime prove to be lower and lower due to technological learning and cost declines, co-benefits such as reduced other environmental impacts and synergies with climate change adaptation. The estimated costs of mitigation in the paper can over time be replaced by additional income and (sustainable) economic growth. Altogether, the biggest no brainer of our time.