2024-11-19 16:46:00
It was a small bright spot at the climate summit in Dubai last year: the plan on ‘fossil subsidies‘ that then climate minister Rob Jetten presented. For the Netherlands, he had mapped out tax benefits for fossil fuels, such as low taxes on gas for industry. In Dubai he gathered twelve countries that would follow suit. And then make plans to reduce the ‘subsidies’.
The new government has a less ambitious climate policy. He does not want to abolish about 6 billion in fossil subsidies, like Jetten, but about 1.7 billion. The government is even working on a new fossil subsidy: farmers will soon pay less excise duty on diesel.
At the climate summit in Baku, climate minister Sophie Hermans and the thinned-out Dutch delegation will try to take over from Jetten, with an event about the progress of the group of countries, including an announcement of new countries.
According to Laurie van der Burg of NGO Oil Change International, it is first and foremost a ‘good thing’ that the Netherlands wants to maintain its leading role. But during the event the question arises to what extent the Netherlands can still show leadership on this subject.
Three new countries join
It’s already starting badly. Only four of the twelve countries (France, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands) appear to have fulfilled their promise to make an overview of all their tax benefits for fossil fuels. Hermans then announces the arrival of three new countries: the United Kingdom, Colombia, and New Zealand. “That’s great news,” she says, “I look forward to continuing the conversations.”
The fact that after a year only three new countries want to do something about fossil subsidies is not much, says Van der Burg, but this does not have to be a problem. Better a small group that is really ambitious than a large group with mainly nice words. “Quality over quantity.”
The problem is that there is no real progress, and no concrete goals are set during Hermans’ event. ‘A number of countries’ are expected to provide their delayed overview ‘in the coming months’, the rest could take much longer. It all turns out to be ‘sensitive’, Hermans says several times, because the abolition of the regulations affects ‘people and companies directly’.
Hermans avoids questions about Dutch ambition
Can the Netherlands still show credible leadership if it weakens its own plans and introduces new fossil subsidies? “Yes, we are still credible,” says Hermans. She avoids further criticism of the decreased Dutch ambition. “We have to do this [afbouwen, red.] do it at European level, internationally.” It is known that abolishing tax measures in a European context is difficult because unanimous agreement is required.
Will Hermans put pressure on the eight countries that missed their deadline for the fossil subsidy overviews? No, she says. Since the cooperation is voluntary, ‘putting pressure’ is not appropriate. “We should cherish everyone who has already made it.”
Herman Vollebergh, professor of economics and environmental policy at Tilburg University, wants to add a positive note. In the twenty years that he has been following this difficult subject, he sees Hermans’ ‘small steps’ as cautiously good news. In his view, the fact that the UK is joining the G20 as a powerful country is a good signal.
Climate researcher Pieter Pauw (TU/Eindhoven) is very critical. He points to a larger group of countries, including the Netherlands, that already had similar nice words in 2021 about ending fossil subsidies. Almost no country has done any substantial work on this. “We are no further forward. Maybe there is a little more insight into the data, that’s all.”
Pauw summarizes Hermans’ actions in Baku as ‘words, not actions’. And according to him, this is “a major missed opportunity”, especially at a climate summit that is about money.
Also read:
An unexpected conversation at the climate summit: with the Taliban minister. ‘We want climate justice’
For the first time, the Taliban are at a climate summit. NGOs are positive, the Netherlands is critical. But what does the minister himself have to say? Trouw was allowed to interview him, but with significant restrictions.
1732060450
#Dutch #pioneering #role #tackling #fossil #subsidies #success
What are the key differences in climate policy between current and former Dutch government ministers regarding fossil fuel subsidies?
**Interview with Laurie van der Burg, Climate Advocate at Oil Change International**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us, Laurie. The climate summit in Baku has generated quite a bit of discussion, especially regarding the Netherlands’ stance on fossil fuel subsidies. How do you see the current government’s approach compared to former Minister Rob Jetten’s?
**Laurie van der Burg:** Thank you for having me. It’s quite concerning to see the shift in ambition from the new government. Jetten’s plan to reduce fossil subsidies by €6 billion was a clear signal of trying to take a leadership role in climate action. Now with only €1.7 billion targeted for reduction and the introduction of new subsidies for farmers, the direction seems less committed.
**Editor:** It’s interesting that four out of the twelve countries have managed to fulfill their commitments regarding tax benefits for fossil fuels. In your opinion, what does this say about the group’s overall commitment to combating climate change?
**Laurie van der Burg:** It suggests that while there is some willingness to engage, the follow-through is lacking. The addition of three new countries is a positive step, but three new members in a year isn’t enough. I believe quality should be prioritized over quantity — a small, committed group can achieve more than a larger group that simply makes promises without taking real action.
**Editor:** Regarding Minister Sophie Hermans’ remarks on the Netherlands’ credibility in leadership, do you think the government can maintain that credibility with its current policies?
**Laurie van der Burg:** That’s a key question. Hermans maintains that the Netherlands is still credible, but it’s hard to reconcile that with the evident weakening of their own commitments. Without setting concrete goals or showing real progress at the summit, skepticism is growing. Leadership must be demonstrated both through words and tangible actions.
**Editor:** You mentioned the sensitivity around abolishing subsidies due to their impact on people and businesses. Do you think this is a legitimate concern, or could it be perceived as an excuse for inaction?
**Laurie van der Burg:** There’s validity in considering the socio-economic implications, as transitioning away from fossil fuels can affect livelihoods. However, it’s essential that these concerns do not serve as an excuse for delaying necessary action. A plan that addresses both climate goals and social implications is crucial to ensure that the transition is just and equitable.
**Editor:** What’s your outlook on the potential for progress following this summit, given what we’ve discussed?
**Laurie van der Burg:** I remain cautiously optimistic. While the immediate outlook might seem bleak with slow progress and limited ambition, the fact that there is ongoing dialogue and a willingness to engage is a start. It’s vital that these discussions translate into concrete actions and commitments in the near future. The climate crisis demands urgency, and we need every country to step up.
**Editor:** Thank you, Laurie, for your insights today. It’s clear that while challenges remain, the dialogue around climate action is crucial for progress moving forward.
**Laurie van der Burg:** Thank you for having me – it’s been a pleasure to discuss these important issues.
