Energy expert Remco de Boer on a quarter century of transition: 'The Netherlands should not isolate itself in its own right'

According to Remco de Boer, we in the Netherlands reflect too little on our energy policy. That's why, in his new book Droomland, he listed all the government decisions of this century. A history that reads like a thriller and exposes the pain points of the energy transition. "And as soon as you start noticing those problems, it's often already too late."

De Boer's study is full of archival material. Collections of notes and newspaper clippings from the past twenty-five years, focusing on the energy transition in the Netherlands. For although that transition has only been in the news frequently in recent years, it has in fact been underway for more than a quarter century. De Boer, who discusses the topic biweekly in his podcast Studio Energie, thought it was time to put the state of affairs in writing. "Because in the Netherlands we look back too little."

It's a chronology that took him no less than five years to record. A history that begins as early as the 1970s, when the Den Uyl government tipped wind energy as a promising technology. But the real steps are taken in the current millennium. Decades of discussion follow: new coal plants or not, nuclear energy or not, gas production or not. But the Netherlands also signed a Climate Agreement during that time, we became champions of solar energy and offshore wind energy became our success story. But above all, De Boer concludes, the Netherlands developed into a dreamland. A country that set grand climate goals, sometimes too grand and in some cases even unachievable. And a country that wants to be the pioneer within Europe at all costs, which leads to disappointment among various parties.

Although the Netherlands set ambitious goals, you write that many of them were met. Good news, right?

"Yes, that is partly good news. Actually all the goals from the Energy Agreement, set in 2013, we have met. First 14 percent renewable energy with a little help from the Danes. Then in 2023 we achieved 16 percent renewable energy on our own, thanks to offshore wind power. We also met the energy savings target, as well as our 16 percent greenhouse gas reduction target in agriculture, built environment and mobility. So that's all positive. But that shiny medal also has another side. Think about grid congestion or the dependence we had built up on Russian gas. People say we didn't see those problems coming. That's nonsense. We saw it, but did nothing about it. So it's not all good news."

We are not satisfied

That the goals of the Energy Agreement were met is not known to everyone. Indeed, many people believe that nothing at all has happened in recent years. According to De Boer, framing is the culprit. The history of energy policy is replete with it, both from environmental organizations and climate skeptics.

De Boer: "If you set ambitious goals and you achieve them, you should be satisfied with that. But we're not! Certain organizations and parties cry that politicians are doing nothing. GroenLinks, for example, says that Rutte has not achieved a single goal in ten years. So that is simply not true. But the tone is also hardening enormously from the other side."

What problems does this perception lead to?

"That ultimately causes a lot of chagrin and cynicism on both sides of the political spectrum. Ultimately, it leads to a Schoof I cabinet. Because, of course, we see these trends not only in climate and energy. People seek refuge in new political parties or parties that have been shouting along the sidelines. That is a direct result of the image formation by middle parties, media and NGOs."

The Netherlands lacks energy vision

An important conclusion that can be drawn from the history of energy policy in the Netherlands is that it rarely has a long-term vision. Cabinets seem to make impulsive decisions, zigzagging their way through the transition. De Boer describes how the Kok I and II cabinets confidently began with offshore wind, after which Balkenende II applied the brakes. And while Balkenende's fourth cabinet wanted to speed things up, Rutte I did not. A travesty, De Boer believes.

Energy supply is a loaded topic on which each political party has different views. Each cabinet will want to place its own emphasis on that theme. Is long-term policy then not an unrealistic demand?

"I don't think so. In fact, around 2010 almost the entire House of Representatives indicated a need for long-term, stable energy policy. If you want to fundamentally rebuild the energy system, and thus to a great extent our economy, you can't come up with something different every two to four years. That does happen, and then you have to accept, as a country, that things will get stuck. Then you shouldn't be surprised if you don't achieve your ambitious goals."

You write that the Netherlands, as the "best boy in the class," always wants to add to European rules. For example, with an additional levy for Dutch industry, while the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has already been created for that purpose. What is problematic about that?

"You would say that a little more of something good can't be bad. I often hear people argue that you can never be too ambitious. I disagree. In fact, if you're too ambitious, you're not going to achieve your goals. It remains to be seen whether the 55 percent CO2 reduction by 2030 will be achieved. If not, it will lead to - to put it crudely - disappointed people blocking highways and skeptical people saying: look, all those billions spent on climate policy don't pay off either."

So we should 'just' keep following EU policy? There are those who think that's too slow.

"I am a strong supporter of European policy. And that policy can certainly be more ambitious. The Netherlands is also working on that. During the Rutte III cabinet, the then Minister Wiebes (Economic Affairs and Climate) lobbied the EU for higher targets. I thought that was good. And then you don't have to sit back and wait for something to come from Brussels. You can make national policy, but it has to focus on a specific Dutch problem. Furthermore, you have to put maximum effort into the ETS. Yes, that may mean that we have more emissions here than in other countries. But in the end, the entire European emissions do decrease."

You also argue that the Netherlands is primarily committed to CO2 reduction within its own borders. As long as emissions decrease on our territory, is the guiding thought. Why do you see that as a problem?

"The moment you look only as far as the border posts, you get negative effects in the Netherlands. For example, our industry scaling back because it is better off in other countries. This puts your international competitive position at risk. How do you think there is talk within industrial companies about our country? I have enough indication that, for example, less research money has been going to the Netherlands for years. They are just watching the cat out of the tree and that is already harming the Netherlands. The point is: once you start noticing it, it's often already too late."

Corporations as scapegoats?

According to De Boer, the industry is therefore suffering. He describes how the attitude against Dutch companies with high CO2 emissions has completely turned and how, since the signing of the Climate Accord, those companies have been looked down upon with disdain. Meanwhile, almost all the headquarters of such companies have moved abroad, including Shell and Unilever.

Is it true that you consider industry and large emitters to be scapegoats in the energy transition?

"Scapegoat I think is too strong a word. I also always say that you really don't have to feel sorry for big companies. But if you look purely at the facts, we have a transition to make. Virtually all political parties have embraced in this that we need to have a green industrial policy. If you want that, you will have to do it with industry. And that's not happening now.

An example I describe in the book is that around the Climate Accord in 2019, it became clear that there were going to be all kinds of burden increases, including for fossil car drivers and that residents had to get off the gas. Then political parties suddenly began to stand up for "the citizen. Klaas Dijkhoff of the VVD, for example, promised that he would never let those citizens down. But who should foot the bill? Everyone agreed that it should be industry. I think that is a very unwise choice. You can no longer expect them to participate in the transition, which is precisely what everyone wants."

How should we get industry to go along then?

"It's a cliché by now, but by maintaining a level playing field within Europe. Of course, there will always be certain advantages and disadvantages compared to other member states, but the point is to average out a bit. We have not ensured that in the Netherlands in recent years."

Once again, there are those who argue that with such a level playing field, the momentum is not there enough. How do we protect our industry and at the same time make meters with CO2 reduction?"

"But we are already making those meters. An image has been created that large companies do and want to do far too little, and that we will get nowhere that way. That is simply not true. The Netherlands is already at 34 percent CO2 reduction. That is the EU average. So we have done a lot, including the companies. Then, of course, the next question is whether that reduction is enough. Actually, that question is very simple: in 2040, sixteen years from now, emissions from industry will simply be zero, one way or the other. After all, that is regulated through the ETS."

Uncertain Future

According to De Boer, therefore, the Netherlands looks too little to the past. He opens his book with a quote from former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl: "He who does not know the past cannot understand the present and cannot shape the future. With the resignation of Mark Rutte and a brand new cabinet on the platform, that future is anything but certain. Also, and perhaps especially, in the field of energy.

What can we learn from a quarter century of climate policy in the Netherlands?

"That European cooperation works. A lot of our measures are derived from European policy. I would say: embrace that and don't isolate yourself as a country in your own moral rightness. Stop thinking that we as the Netherlands should and will do more to save the world. Instead, maximize the power of the European Union.

And in addition, it is important to realize that change takes time. If you deny that, people are going to drop out. Of course, we also need to look at how long the transition may take to still stay within 1.5 degrees of warming. But the official position of Extinction Rebellion, for example, is that CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero by 2025. Then you have to deal with what Olof van der Gaag (chairman of the Dutch Sustainable Energy Association, ed.) calls the horseshoe of cynicism. The two extremes never find each other and the middle group eventually drops out because they no longer understand anything. And if you lose the masses, nasty things can happen. For example, the transition, which surely almost everyone wants to make, becomes difficult."

How do you look at the coming reign when it comes to energy policy?

"The incoming cabinet has to flesh out the outline agreement, of course, but if it fulfills its agreements, energy policy will probably lose some of its focus. So the compulsion that politicians have put on it so far, if only in image, may start to diminish somewhat. To that I say immediately: that need not be wrong. In fact, it might even be a good thing to broaden support for the transition. After all, it is very important to keep everyone involved. From an energy perspective, I don't necessarily see a cabinet with the PVV as something very negative. At least they have indicated that they are going to maintain existing goals, although I don't know what exactly they mean by that. If you look at history, you see that as a society we keep moving forward, under all kinds of different cabinets."

Source: Change Inc