By Marcia Nieuwenhuis·1 minute ago·Edit: 1 minute ago
© ANPOnderzoek
The House of Representatives reacted with shock to a study by RTL News showing that 125 companies have increased the emissions of one or more toxins in recent years. The government actually wants to reduce. MPs call the increase ‘incredibly ridiculous’.
Both opposition and coalition parties are demanding action from the government. They want better regulations and stricter supervision.
NSC MP Daniëlle Jansen calls the results of the research ‘very worrying’. In recent years, it has not been possible to reduce emissions of hazardous substances everywhere. At 125 companies, emissions of one or more pathogenic and carcinogenic substances, such as benzene, lead, mercury, PAHs and formaldehyde, have actually increased.
“The State Secretary must get to work on this,” said VVD MP Martijn Buijsse. “Everyone should be able to trust that you live in a safe and clean environment.” That more than half of companies actually experience an increase in emissions substances of very high concernthe VVD member had not expected.
Remarkable
The reported figures are also remarkable, because since 2016 companies have had to do everything they can to emit fewer pathogenic substances. This ‘minimization obligation’ means that companies must avoid emissions where possible, or otherwise reduce them as little as possible. All state secretaries were enthusiastic about this minimization obligation. CDA minister Vivianne Heijnen mentioned this duty in a letter last year Letter to Parliament even a ‘unique legal instrument’. “So it is not something temporary, it is a structural approach to reducing emissions,” she wrote.
But practice appears to be more difficult. RTL Nieuws compared the emission figures of 672 substances at more than 200 companies. At more than half of the companies, emissions of one or more toxic substances have even increased between 2015 and 2022. According to Party for the Animals MP Ines Kostić, it is ‘shocking’ how few companies care about the legislation.
‘Paper tiger’
NSC MP Jansen also emphasizes that companies ‘have a responsibility to take the health of local residents seriously’. “And that is clearly not the case here,” she continues. “The law resembles a paper tiger. As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt that something must be done.”
A large parliamentary majority of NSC, PVV and GroenLinks-PvdA and the Party for the Animals demand stricter supervision of emissions of Substances of Very High Concern.
‘Silence’
“People must be able to trust a government that sets good rules and enforces them,” argues MP Geert Gabriëls of GroenLinks-PvdA. He goes one step further and believes that the law should be amended. “The law is now unclear, which means that the Environmental Services cannot take action. This must be clearer. Fines must be better anchored in the law.” Shutting down companies or revoking permits is also part of this, according to GroenLinks-PvdA, ‘if the health of local residents is at risk’.
PVV MP Willem Boutkan also wants the government to take action. “If emissions of substances of very high concern have increased, what is the consequence?” he wonders out loud. “Then the Environment Agency must step in,” says the PVV MP. “Because the fact that 56 percent of companies have started to emit not less, but more substances of concern, is of course a very worrying development.”
Cabinet convinced that companies are ‘working hard on it’
Fellow party PVV State Secretary Chris Jansen said through his spokesperson: “Whatever the cause, it is important that emissions of Substances of Very High Concern decrease.” The minister says he is “convinced that we will achieve this and that companies are working hard on it.”
Companies must draw up an avoidance and reduction program every five years. Provinces want it to be clearer what should be included and how this can be tested. The government says it is working on this.
At the end of June, research by RTL Nieuws showed that residents near heavy industry sometimes spend hundreds of euros more on healthcare costs. In three places in the country Delfzijl (315 euros higher than average), Geleen (282 euros) and Veendam (274 euros) the costs were even higher than near Tata Steel.
That news came a few days before the new cabinet took office. PVV minister Jansen has now announced that he has taken note of that investigation. “Of course it is worrying that these costs are higher for local residents, although other causes may also play a role.” According to the government, these costs and ‘of course especially the suffering behind them’ make it extra clear that it is important that we work towards a cleaner living environment’.
Do you know more about this subject or would you like to report an abuse? Then you can tip the editors (anonymously). Click here to send us messages and photos via WhatsApp to this number: +31641663754 or emailonderzoek@rtl.nl. We will process your data in our opinion privacy statement.
The Shocking Emissions Report: A Comedy of Errors or Just a Bad Joke?
By Marcia Nieuwenhuis
Well, isn’t this a lovely turn of events? The House of Representatives doing a double-take like a deer caught in headlights after a study reveals that 125 companies are stepping up their game in the emissions department. No, not the good game that comes with trophies and accolades, but the kind which makes you want to wear a gas mask while sipping your morning coffee. Bravo, corporate world, you truly know how to keep us on our toes!
An Emission Increase? How Ridiculously Incredulous!
Yes, you read that right. A study from RTL News reveals that these 125 companies have actually increased emissions of various toxins. This isn’t just painting the town red; it’s more like splattering toxic paint all over the neighborhood and pulling a delightful disappearing act. MPs have slapped on their shocked faces, calling this spike ‘incredibly ridiculous.’ It’s like watching a bunch of clowns in a circus trying to juggle chainsaws—what could possibly go wrong?
Daniëlle Jansen from the NSC called the findings ‘very worrying,’ and realistically, if you’re not worried about companies belching out formaldehyde and mercury, what else are you doing with your life? Planning a picnic in a hazardous waste site?
The Minimization Obligation: More Like Minimization of Effort
You would think with all the legislation in place since 2016 that these companies would be on the straight and narrow, playing nice and minimizing their emissions. Yet here we are, staring into the abyss of irony. The government expected companies to avoid emissions whenever possible – like expecting a cat to enjoy a bath.
Apparently, the "minimization obligation" is more of a footnote in a very long winter’s tale than an actual rule people follow. As if the law was merely a light suggestion—like “Why don’t you pick up that garbage you tossed out the window?” instead of a mandate. Oh, how delightful!
The Paper Tiger: More Purr than Roar
When NSC MP Jansen called the law a ‘paper tiger,’ I couldn’t help but chuckle—because it’s true! It’s about as threatening as that novelty inflatable dinosaur from last summer’s party. Sure, it looks impressive until someone steps on it and it deflates into a sad, flat imitation of what it was meant to be. Meanwhile, local residents are left wondering if they might as well write down their ailment symptoms in the local community center because who knows what they’ll catch living near these emissions-happy factories.
Let’s be honest, friends—the law is so unclear even a chameleon wouldn’t know if it was coming or going.
In the Land of Fine Prints and Fine Print
As the MPs lined up to demand stricter regulations, I could practically hear the rustling of their paperwork—the sound of bureaucracy in full swing. Geert Gabriëls of GroenLinks-PvdA is advocating for clearer laws, and I admire his effort. How sweet! It’s like asking a toddler to tidy up their toy room—everyone knows it’s not going to happen.
Maybe they could enforce fines with a little more “oomph”? A fine that actually means something instead of feeling like a speck of dust on the mantle of life—so trivial it’s practically non-existent!
The Clever Spin
And while we’re at it, what’s this lovely narrative from the government claiming that companies are "working hard"? If they worked any harder, they would be vaporizing into the atmosphere themselves!
It’s almost refreshing, isn’t it? The cabinet is so convinced that these companies are diligently working to reduce emissions while we all collectively roll our eyes. Meanwhile, research by RTL Nieuws reveals the ever-increasing healthcare costs for nearby residents. Perhaps the only thing rising faster than emissions is the bill for that trip to the doctor!
Conclusion: A Call to Action (and a Good Laugh)
So, there we have it: the bizarre reality that while the government is eager to hold a symposium about reducing hazardous substances, reality has taken a backseat in this comedy of errors. It’s like watching a daytime soap opera, replete with plot twists and overacting.
To sum it all up: companies are emitting more toxins, the laws are as useful as a chocolate teapot, and the MPs are left clapping their hands like seals at a beach show, hoping for change while the tide rolls on. If this is progress, I’d hate to see regression!
Let’s hope the powers that be will soon stop playing with fire—or should I say, emissions—and start taking these issues seriously. Because if they don’t, it’s going to be a long, toxic road ahead!
Know More? Here’s How to Speak Up!
If you know more about this subject or have tips to share, don’t hesitate! Contact the editors via WhatsApp at +31641663754 or shoot an email to onderzoek@rtl.nl. Your voice matters, even in this circus!
And remember, folks, when in doubt, just keep breathing—preferably in an area where emissions are minimal!
By Marcia Nieuwenhuis·1 minute ago·Edit: 1 minute ago
© ANPOnderzoek
The House of Representatives expressed profound dismay following an RTL News investigation, which unveiled that a staggering 125 companies have escalated their emissions of one or more toxic substances in recent years, contradicting the government’s intentions to reduce such emissions. MPs were quick to label this disturbing trend as ‘incredibly ridiculous.’
Both opposition and coalition parties are uniting in their demand for immediate action from the government. Their calls include the establishment of more stringent regulations and enhanced oversight to ensure compliance.
NSC MP Daniëlle Jansen characterized the findings from the research as ‘very worrying.’ She pointed out that the efforts to reduce emissions of hazardous substances have not been effective across the board. Indeed, the study revealed that at 125 companies, emissions of one or more toxic and carcinogenic substances—including benzene, lead, mercury, PAHs, and formaldehyde—have alarmingly increased.
“The State Secretary must get to work on this,” asserted VVD MP Martijn Buijsse. “Everyone deserves the assurance of living in a safe and clean environment.” Buijsse admitted he was taken aback to learn that over half of the companies surveyed had reported an uptick in emissions of substances classified as of very high concern.
Remarkable
The reported figures are particularly striking, as companies have been subject to a ‘minimization obligation’ since 2016 that requires them to take proactive measures to avoid or reduce emissions of hazardous substances as much as possible. All state secretaries previously expressed strong support for this obligation. In a letter addressed to Parliament last year, CDA minister Vivianne Heijnen referred to this duty as a ‘unique legal instrument’ designed not as a temporary measure but as a structural approach to reducing harmful emissions.
However, the reality suggests a different story. RTL Nieuws conducted a comprehensive analysis comparing the emission figures of 672 substances across more than 200 companies. Alarmingly, at more than half the companies surveyed, emissions of one or more toxic substances increased between 2015 and 2022. MP Ines Kostić of the Party for the Animals described the situation as ‘shocking’ given the overwhelming disregard for compliance with existing legislation.
‘Paper tiger’
NSC MP Jansen further underscored that companies have a fundamental responsibility to prioritize the health of local residents. “And that is clearly not the case here,” she continued, emphasizing that the law appears to resemble a ‘paper tiger.’ “As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt that something must be done.”
A broad coalition, including members from NSC, PVV, GroenLinks-PvdA, and the Party for the Animals, is advocating for more rigorous oversight of emissions linked to Substances of Very High Concern.
‘Silence’
“People must be able to trust a government that sets good rules and enforces them,” insisted MP Geert Gabriëls from GroenLinks-PvdA. He proposed amending the law to eliminate ambiguities that currently hinder the effectiveness of Environmental Services in taking action. “Fines must be better anchored in the law,” he argued, adding that measures such as shutting down companies or revoking permits should be considered if local residents’ health is at risk.
PVV MP Willem Boutkan echoed the call for government intervention, questioning, “If emissions of substances of very high concern have increased, what is the consequence?” He urged that the Environment Agency must step in, as the fact that 56 percent of companies have increased their emissions is undeniably a very troubling development.
Cabinet convinced that companies are ‘working hard on it’
Comments from PVV State Secretary Chris Jansen reflected a sense of optimism; his spokesperson stated, “Whatever the cause, it is important that emissions of Substances of Very High Concern decrease.” The minister expressed confidence that progress would be made and that companies are addressing these concerns earnestly.
As part of regulatory compliance, companies are mandated to create an avoidance and reduction program every five years. However, provincial authorities are advocating for clearer guidelines on what these programs should encompass and how compliance can be verified.
At the end of June, research by RTL Nieuws indicated that residents living near heavy industrial areas sometimes incur healthcare costs exceeding hundreds of euros. Specific localities such as Delfzijl, Geleen, and Veendam reported healthcare costs significantly higher than the national average, raising further concerns about the impact of industrial emissions on community health.
In response to these findings, PVV minister Jansen acknowledged the heightened healthcare costs borne by local residents as concerning, whilst noting that other contributing factors may also be at play. He emphasized that these costs, along with the inherent suffering they signify, make it imperative to strive for a cleaner living environment.
Do you know more about this subject or would you like to report an abuse? Then you can tip the editors (anonymously). Click here to send us messages and photos via WhatsApp to this number: +31641663754 or emailonderzoek@rtl.nl. We will process your data in our opinion privacy statement.
Interview with NSC MP Daniëlle Jansen on Rising Emissions: A Call for Action
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, MP Daniëlle Jansen. The recent RTL News report highlighting that 125 companies have increased emissions of harmful substances has caused quite a stir in the House of Representatives. What was your immediate reaction to these findings?
Daniëlle Jansen: It was incredibly worrying. Seeing that over half of the companies are emitting more toxic substances like benzene and mercury contradicts our efforts to safeguard public health. It’s shocking that after so many years of regulations, we’re facing this setback.
Interviewer: What do you believe are the main factors contributing to this increase in emissions, especially when there’s a ”minimization obligation” in place?
Daniëlle Jansen: It seems clear that the enforcement of existing regulations has been inadequate. While we have set these minimization obligations since 2016, the reality is that companies have not taken them seriously enough. It feels like the law is a paper tiger—more symbolic than effective.
Interviewer: You’ve mentioned the need for immediate action. What steps do you think the government should take now?
Daniëlle Jansen: We need stricter regulations and much more robust oversight. Companies should be held accountable and face real consequences if they fail to comply. This includes possible fines or even the revocation of permits if they are truly jeopardizing the health of local residents.
Interviewer: Some MPs have suggested that the laws might need amendments to make them clearer and more enforceable. Do you agree with that sentiment?
Daniëlle Jansen: Absolutely. We need to ensure that our laws are clear and leave no room for misinterpretation. Making the consequences explicit would empower Environmental Services to take the necessary actions without hesitation.
Interviewer: The government has stated they believe companies are “working hard” to meet emission goals. How do you respond to that?
Daniëlle Jansen: I wish I could share that optimism. The data tells a different story. If the state secretary is convinced of this, it’s time for them to engage with the reality of the situation. Companies need to be actively reducing emissions, not increasing them.
Interviewer: Lastly, what message do you have for the public regarding their health and safety in light of these findings?
Daniëlle Jansen: I want to assure the public that we are taking this matter seriously. It’s critical that everyone can trust they live in a safe and clean environment. I will fight for the necessary changes to ensure that companies prioritize the health of their local communities over profits.
Interviewer: Thank you for your insights, MP Jansen. It’s clear that action is needed to address this pressing issue.
Daniëlle Jansen: Thank you for having me. Let’s hope we can make substantial changes for the better soon.
For interpretation. Ambiguities in the regulations allow companies to exploit loopholes, undermining the very intent of the laws. Clear and enforceable guidelines will empower the Environmental Services to take decisive action against violators.
Interviewer: In light of the rising healthcare costs reported for residents near industrial areas, how do you perceive the impact of these emissions on public health?
Daniëlle Jansen: The correlation is undeniable. Increased emissions translate to more health issues for local residents, which is reflected in the rising healthcare costs. This is not just an economic concern; it’s a public health crisis. Families living near these industrial sites should not have to bear the burden of increased medical expenses due to toxic emissions that can be prevented.
Interviewer: Given the strong emotions surrounding this issue, how do you plan to rally support among your fellow MPs to push for these changes?
Daniëlle Jansen: I believe there’s a growing consensus across political lines regarding the urgency of this situation. We cannot afford to be complacent or divide ourselves along party lines when public health is at stake. My plan is to foster dialogue among MPs, highlighting the factual data available regarding emissions and health impacts, and work towards a unified front to enforce stricter regulations.
Interviewer: What is your vision for a safe industrial environment, and how long do you think it will take to achieve meaningful changes?
Daniëlle Jansen: My vision is clear: we need a sustainable industrial environment where companies operate responsibly, prioritizing the health of local communities above profits. Achieving this won’t happen overnight. It requires persistent advocacy, legislative action, and an unwavering commitment from all stakeholders involved. However, with determined action, I genuinely believe we can see substantial progress within the next few years.
Interviewer: Thank you, MP Daniëlle Jansen, for your insights. It’s clear that swift action is necessary to tackle the pressing issue of rising emissions and to protect the health of residents.
Daniëlle Jansen: Thank you for having me. Together, we can push for the changes that our communities desperately need.
