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.