Month: November 2024

In court cases, Shell presents itself as an actor that is at the mercy of existing demand and innovation processes beyond its control. Yet this is completely inconsistent with reality. For instance, the company sits at all political tables in the Netherlands and Europe that deal with climate and energy transition. With access to senior officials and with Mark Rutte’s phone number in its pocket, Shell began intensive lobbying in 2017 with other fossil big polluters for technological ‘solutions’ that align with its interests. Think of the current hype around hydrogen and CO2 capture and storage.

Does this make scientists working on such innovations an extension of the fossil lobby? In my opinion piece for Science Guide, I argue that we should not let the fossil industry hijack research for the energy transition. Because, as Naomi Oreskes explains in great detail in Follow the Money, fossil companies have only one interest: delaying the transition and maintaining their own earning model for as long as possible. The rest is green washing.

According to Richard van de Sanden, professor of applied physics at Eindhoven University of Technology, we do not need the fossil industry at all for the transition either. The energy economy is going to change in such a way that (chemical) industry could also look very different. No highly clustered bulk chemicals – a historical relic of cheap Groningen gas – but much higher-quality production on a local scale. So, without fossil interference, the university could also work towards a sustainable society in which well-being takes precedence over growth, and a new, smaller-scale industrial landscape to match. A wonderful academic mission!

See this LinkedIn post for the Dutch version.

Recently, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) published yet another report on the energy transition consisting entirely of ‘technofixes’. This is a missed opportunity. Because while we certainly need technology, the gigantic pile of technological roadmaps also symbolises decades of failed climate policy.

In my opinion piece for NRC, I draw attention to the dominant position of a select group of mitigation scientists in the climate solutions debate. They are – in Kevin Anderson’s words – the ‘enablers’ of the status quo. To be sure: industry and politics are primarily responsible for 30 years of inability to bring down global emissions. But the techno-optimistic culture of calculation and modelling does (partly) determine what gets on the political agenda. Technological and economic growth-oriented solutions are preferred to behavioural change and immediate emission reduction.

It can be done differently. Because it is perfectly possible – without becoming partisan – to use scientific research to break open the status quo. For instance, by having social and behavioural scientists think about a roadmap towards social tipping points. Or by a thorough degrowth report that abandons the unsustainable ‘Netherlands climate neutral in 2050’ and seriously considers scaling down certain sectors; mobility beyond the private car; or taxing overconsumption and luxury emissions of the rich elite in the Netherlands.

A environmental assessment agency that takes the planetary crisis situation seriously should be less stuck to one role and type of solution. Because for a quick and fair route to a fossil-free future, all options should be on the table.

With Roderik Van De Wal and Klaas Landsman, I show how criticism of fossil ties is smothered in academic ‘dialogue’. It’s fine to have your say – as long as you don’t think it will be taken seriously. For the full story our opinion piece in Trouw.

In the Dutch polder landscape, there seems to be no greater sin than not engaging in dialogue. After all, isn’t it always good to keep talking to each other? In many cases it is. But the widely accepted value of dialogue also makes it a strong rhetorical tool that administrators like to use to stifle critical voices. Academic administrators are masters of this too. They like nothing better than to promote the conversation only to let existing interests prevail and leave everything as it is.

This is what we experienced as concerned scientists at Scientists4Future when we wanted to talk to NWO (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) about severing ties with the fossil industry. It turned out that the lines of communication with the Dutch big polluters were so short that we were only allowed to come as part of a ‘dialogue session’ with the chief executive of Shell, the director of strategy of Tata Group and a top official of EZK. It also turned out that the topic of the session had changed. According to NWO, we would jointly examine ‘under what conditions cooperation is possible’. Because the fact that scientists had to continue working with big polluters at all costs was apparently already established.

When we openly questioned what purpose dialogue under these conditions actually serves, the matter was immediately settled. Soon, NWO itself will issue a statement on cooperation with social partners in academic research. We do not expect any surprises. At most, fodder for a new round of dialogues and collaborations with Shell, Tata and other wonderful partners in the Netherlands.

When I stepped out of my fairly sheltered academic environment to the climate protest in the streets, something struck me: the enormous passivity and moral emptiness of what we have come to call ‘leaders’ in this country. This contrasted sharply with the courage and leadership of young people I met at Extinction Rebellion NL. My friend Sebastiaan Vannisselroy is one such courageous young person. Right now, on a long bike ride to India, he is passing numerous borders that he can cross with relative ease. For him, that is no reason to celebrate the privilege of a Dutch passport; he is cycling to show how unjust and deadly borders are for so many others.

Last week, Sebastiaan was at No Name Kitchen in Bosnia. EU-backed pushbacks of migrants – where shoes are taken off and people are badly mistreated – are commonplace there. No Name Kitchen provides them with basic necessities such as new shoes. Please support their fundraiser.

And follow and support Sebastiaan on his long physical, emotional and intellectual journey. All donations go to No Name Kitchen or to MiGreat, an organisation that denounces violent border policies in Europe.

At a time when callousness and inhumanity are celebrated as virtues, we cannot rely on our ‘leaders’. We will have to stand up for humanity ourselves – in word and (financial) deed.

The coalition agreement of PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB has already been assessed for its unpracticability and for violating the rule of law. But it has not yet been ‘celebrated’ as a victory of Dutch (fossil) industries over much-needed climate ambitions. Led by former Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende and VNO-NCW forewoman Ingrid Thijssen, major Dutch polluters like KLM, Shell, DSM, AKZO Nobel and Friesland Campina made an appeal to political parties during the formation period: maintain the climate fund – read: billions in subsidies paid by citizens – and stop further regulation of industry.

And yes: big business got what it wanted. The coalition agreement keeps the climate fund; promises that Dutch regulations will not be stricter than those of the EU; wants to increase gas production in the North Sea; supports hydrogen production based on natural gas; reverses a CO2 tax; and postpones the abolition of 40 billion in fossil subsidies. As icing on the cake, Balkenende’s ‘Sustainable Growth Coalition’ now even gets their own Ministry for Climate and Green Growth.

This victory fits into a long series of attempts to undermine Dutch climate policy. Each of the three big waves of attention to climate change was followed by a wave of wanton obstruction – with a dubious leading role for employers’ association VNO-NCW. Logical, then, that Extinction Rebellion NL, after successfully putting fossil subsidies on the agenda, is now aiming its arrows at a climate retardant that wants to keep these subsidies in place for a long time to come.

See the opinion piece in NRC I wrote with Martijn Duineveld for thirty years of obstruction efforts of Dutch employers organization VNO-NCW. For the full story of climate obstruction in the Netherlands see our chapter in the Climate obstruction accross Europe (Oxford University Press).

With many deaths and massive damage, the floods in Valencia are making deep inroads into Spanish society. The record amount of precipitation points unequivocally to fossil-driven climate change. The scientific explanation is quite basic: More water evaporates from the much warmer Mediterranean Sea while the warmer atmosphere can absorb more water vapour. If this moist air collides with cold air, more rain therefore falls.

Science aside, MP Henk Vermeer (BBB BoerBurgerBeweging) gave a very different explanation in the talkshow of Sven Kockelmann. Where the Netherlands had given the rivers more space, the Spanish government had actually restricted it: ‘They have demolished a lot of dams there in recent years because that would be good for biodiversity. And then all the buffer capacity is gone.’

Complete nonsense, of course: These are small dams that were not built for flood control, and hardly any dams have been removed in the Valencia region (that happened mostly in northern Spain). On reflection, ‘it’s the dams’ is a piece of disinformation that has been eagerly spread by (extreme) right-wing politicians and Twitter users for a while now to question the effects of climate change. Not entirely surprising that the BBB participates in this: Vermeer was recently visiting the climate deniers pf Clintel who have made doubt sowing their profession.

With their wide reach and political chatter, talk shows like Café Kockelmann (Omroep WNL’s, NPO) provide a welcome platform for climate disinformation. To make the public sphere resilient to this, we could replace the easy-talking sidekick with someone who is knowledgeable. Or not invite politicians who (continue to) abuse their podium for disinformation purposes for a while. Because one thing is clear: if we do not put up institutional dams, the disinformation will continue to run freely.

For my opinion piece in the Volkskrant on the desinformation tactics of the BBB (in Dutch) see: Van Trump naar de BBB: desinformatie is dichterbij huis dan je denkt.

‘Everyone has their own conspiracy theory’. That already seems like a pretty lousy thing to say for a minister. But for Barry Madlener (PVV), this was just the starting point, on the back of more than two hundred deaths in Valencia, to indulge in an ugly piece of climate denial.

The climate science on the floods in Spain is clear and unequivocal. Because we are burning so many fossil fuels, the earth is warming significantly. A warmer Mediterranean sea causes more seawater to evaporate. Warm air can also absorb more water. If that warm and humid air collides with cold air high in the atmosphere, more water also comes down. To be precise, record rainfall in a single day has become 12% more intense and twice as likely at the current warming of 1.3 degrees. See: Extreme downpours increasing in southeastern Spain as fossil fuel emissions heat the climate – World Weather Attribution

How do you recognise when people are trying to pull the wool over your eyes anyway?

A tried and tested tactic is to pretend that ‘climate’ has nothing to do with ‘extreme weather’. According to Madlener, ‘you can’t link a flood like this to climate change one-to-one. It is a weather situation, a weather phenomenon, […] to link that to climate change also seems to me to be going too far’. Similarly, pretending that science hasn’t figured it out yet is a classic tactic to sow doubt: ‘The science is interesting, and important, but the science about weather, or climate, isn’t completely crystallised either’. And finally, you can suggest that there are very big differences of opinion: ‘hence we have all sorts of scenarios that are vastly different’.

How do you recognise when people are trying to pull the wool over your eyes anyway?

With many decades of observations, we don’t need scenarios at all to map changes in temperature and extreme weather. We also understand these changes well because the natural science basis has been unchanged for about a hundred and fifty years. And the increase and/or intensity of floods, storms, droughts and forest fires are now so clearly visible that we can also attribute individual weather extremes to climate change.

I recently wrote about the disinformation spread by MPs like Henk Vermeer (BBB) together with far-right colleagues about the floods in Spain. But the fact that even a Dutch minister now seems to be getting away with climate denial is another degree worse…

My Volkskrant opinion piece on desinformation strategy of BBB (in Dutch): Van Trump naar de BBB: desinformatie is dichterbij huis dan je denkt.

Voor de Nederlandse versie zie mijn LinkedIn post.