Not often were there such loud cheers in the public gallery of the House of Representatives when a motion was adopted as last Tuesday. Activists from Extinction Rebellion (XR) filled the room with cries of joy when it turned out that there was a large majority in favor of the motion that calls on the cabinet to explore the options to stop providing fossil subsidies.
That motion, submitted by GroenLinks, PvdA and the Party for the Animals, is a victory for the climate demonstrators. They blocked the A12 in The Hague in January, March and May. And they did this for 27 days in a row from September 9, with the demand that fossil subsidies in the Netherlands must be abolished.
Because even though this motion is not immediately followed, XR sparked a discussion that has been going on ever since. About what fossil subsidies are and how much the government spends on them.
XR itself initially assumed 17.5 billion euros, which was increased to 30 billion after a calculation by former PvdA MEP Alman Metten. Minister Rob Jetten (Climate, D66) presented new research on Budget Day which showed that the amount could even rise to 46.4 billion euros. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the Central Planning Bureau arrived at a much lower amount of 13.7 billion euros last week.
Also read:Is abolishing fossil subsidies necessary? Experts disagree
These (all astronomical) amounts vary so much, because it matters quite a bit what you count as fossil subsidy – and how it is defined. XR talks about ‘subsidies’, suggesting that the government gives money directly to companies that then use CO2 emit with it. But it’s about tax benefits. Money that companies do not pay on the amount of CO2 that they consume, while citizens, for example, do.
By making these money flows visible, the conversation about what should be done next also started. Abolish as soon as possible, as XR says, as well as a group of 21 economists, including professors Bas Jacobs and Sweder van Wijnbergen? Or better not, or not right away, as yet another group of leading energy experts advocated in the economists’ journal ESB. They are now also supported by the planning agencies, which call the phasing out of subsidies “a brainteaser”. Because, the planning agencies argue, what ultimately matters is whether the abolition of a specific tax benefit actually supports climate policy.
With the knowledge that so much tax money is being pumped into the fossil industry, which will have to green up one way or the other, important questions and responsibilities arise. When tax benefits are abolished, do emissions move to other European countries or not? Is it best to regulate emissions reduction at European level via the existing ETS emissions trading system or not? It is a discussion that will ultimately have to be settled politically.
Regardless of that outcome, it is of great value that XR has managed to put the financial labyrinth behind fossil subsidies on the agenda. That the government, citizens and scientists have started digging, creating more awareness about how financial incentives can undermine – or support – their own climate policy.
This gain is in addition to XR’s merit that these widely supported climate concerns of citizens are now also discussed in parliament.
Also read: Fossil subsidies cost more than the entire climate fund every year
A version of this article also appeared in the October 16, 2023 newspaper.