Policy and solutions in the Netherlands

[kassy]

Technically you can get rid of the gas connection and associated costs but at a cost. They charge about 600 to remove it so that only pays of after 5 years or so.

This would be fine if you are the owner and plan to stay for a while or if you made it a gasless house on purpose.

In this case there might be more people in the building with some maybe using gas?

The entry that surprised me most was the actual ´voorschot gas´. Did you change energy providers recently?

[nanning]

Thanks for the replies.
kassy is right about the disconnection costs. As I understand it, my provider, and I think they're not an exception, cannot charge me for 0 m3 gas use but they have to charge me a minimum usage amount in order for their computersystem to make me pay the transport costs which is compulsory when you have a connection. It is not allowed to disconnect because these appartments don't have any other means of heating. And as kassy stated, even if it would be allowed it is too expensive for me as a poor renter.

I posted it to show that The Netherlands is in no way progressive with handling individual 'green behaviour'. It is preposterous that I have to pay for stuff I don't use at all!
This is an incentive in reverse, it is a barrier: Lower CO2 emissions = higher price per unit of energy, & Lower energy use = higher price per unit of energy.
So much for 'policies and solutions' in The Netherlands.

Another thing that's happening here is that our government plans on giving 2-4b euro's to the air line KLM. 2-4b euro's go to a very large carbon footprint generator in private hands.
I scratch my head and think "for that money we could have nationalised KLM and have complete control over it.
The same should happen with all public transport otherwise you cannot make 'green' policy without handing large amounts of money to private companies.

It's as if there still is no long-term view but just stumbling along over every unanticipated bump and pothole. Reactionary and chaotic. Dear governments, it is high time you stopped listening/submitting to the rich old families behind the scenes.

The metaphoric (ingrown) neo-liberal iron ball around the ankles of policy makers: Can the ball be cut loose and give us free rein to lower our collective carbon footprints in time?
Perhaps start with making it a criminal offence to externalise costs. Take the whole picture of all consequences.

[kassy]

They have a rather crappy system if that is the case.

It is preposterous that I have to pay for stuff I don't use at all!

Not really, that is what taxes are for. Although of course you pay very little tax.
Some things i pay for which i am not using: education (no kids), health care (did not need it so far this year), roads between towns (i cycle), bijstand (did not need it so far this year). And yes that is a bit of a charged way of putting it to underscore the general principle.

Of course you only need a little patience since the gaslines will be removed eventually.

As for KLM not sure if you could nationalize it for that amount or should want to but basically carbon costs should be priced into flights but that cannot be done at a country level.

[nanning]

Dear kassy, I don't get my (virtual) gas from the government but from a private corporation. I don't use their product. Therefore it is preposterous that I should pay for it. The only tax that applies here, as it says on my bill, is BTW. But I don't use any product. The bill states gas costs but I use no gas.
I understand what taxes are for.

Regarding the KLM, our oldest air line, the future looks bleak (emissions) and cuts will have to be made in air travel. Therefore it is better to have control over our future, especially if you're giving away (our tax money) 2-4 billion euro's.

[kassy]

There is a new advice on nitrogen policy from the specialist group looking at the nitrogen problem.

The report is called ´Not everything can be done everywhere´ which is a surprisingly short and to the point title.

Some key finds:
1) We have a 5 billion euro 10 year buyout for farmers which is not ambitious enough. This will result in a 26% reduction by 2030 while at least 50% is needed.

2) The governments proposals so far not only lack ambition but they lack commitment.

Remkes: often i read ´the governemnet strives to´ The commitments should be put into a law. ´We do not want an obligation to try but an obligation for results.´.

Goals should be set at provincial level and the provinces can handle it from there.

3) Most important is that agriculture as 40% emitter should be reduced more. The proposed plan for voluntary reductions is not enough.
What is needed is aimed buy outs of farms close to the Natura 2000 areas.

These measures actually work together. Lets say some farmer quits because he has no heirs is not sure of the near and long term future but he is in an area with lots of room. A farmer that is near a nature area but who wants to keep on farming could move to the other farm and go on there.

4) Shipping needs to be greener

5) Peak emitters heavy industry or Rotterdam Harbor, Schiphol Airport also need extra measures.

6) Temporary emission rights can be used for stuck infrastructure projects if above is realized in a goal driven way.

From AD paper 9th june. Italics my comment.

Basically Johan Remkes´role is to play a devils advocate to the government to make sure they don´t stall to much and he is doing a good job.

[kassy]

So by 2030 we should have green energy.

The country has been divided in 30 energy regions. The idea is that they work out the local measures. The first round of plans has been completed and here are some trends.
Goal is 35 TWh of solar and wind (which is only 30% of what we use).

1) The regions prefer solar to wind which is much more expensive adding a billion of costs.
Solar is more expensice then wind and it requires more investment in the grid.

There is much more resistance to wind parks from people. Solar roofs should be a big gain mainly for urban areas.

Wind:Solar is now 60:40 and with the plans shifts to 20:80.

2) Wind yields three times as much energy for same installed power.

3) One reason for the choices is that the regions don´t feel the costs or efficiency of the overall system so they mainly decide on what is popular with the people and how they think about using public space. Last sentence is a literal translation and it is obtuse in dutch too. Just reads like no windmills in our backyard, frontyard or general vicinity used twice.

So maybe there should be a little more central planning (it´s a small country anyway) but we will get to that hopefully.

From Regio´s verkiezen due zonne-energie boven wind NRC 15 july 2020 paper edition. Story was not free on their web edition.

[kassy]

Schouten houdt vast aan veevoerplan voor stikstofreductie

https://www.nu.nl/politiek/6062049/schouten-houdt-vast-aan-veevoerplan-voor-stikstofreductie.html

Dutch minister of Agriculture plans to regulate by law the amount of protein that can be added as animal feed. The farmers hate this but they did not come up with workable plans to reduce nitrogen pollution in time.

They are protesting now but there are no options left: We need the reduction to be able to build houses and roads the minister said.

Reducing proteins in the animal feed reduces the amount om ammonia in urine and feces.

[nanning]

https://www.omropfryslan.nl/nijs/975605-flylan-wekket-tefolle-enerzjy-op-stroom-moat-oars-brukt-wurde

In Friesland in the North we have a very shallow sea, the Wadden sea, and a series of small islands.
On the island of Vlieland (ca. 30Km from the coast) there is so much renewable energy generated that it overloads the cable connecting it to the main land.

The, privatised, electrical infrastructure company "Liander" says it will cost too much (€15 million) to upgrade the cable. They even say that the tax payer has to pay for that. Then why hasn't the cable been upgraded already?

This is the same company that is responsible for many black-out's lately. Also through incompetence and/or cost cutting imo.

One would expect an (monopoly) infrastructure organisation to plan long-term and be aware of developments. The amount of electrical energy generated on that island is not happening all of a sudden but they did not see this coming and there is apparently no oversight and coordinated planning. Another example of incompetence imo. The reason is likely cost cutting or in other words: profit maximisation. Cost cutting leads to lack of maintenance, lack of redundancy, lack of long term vision and planning and less professional/scientific thinking and incompetence. No doubt the board room is filled with rich people.

[kassy]

Upgrading the grid should be tackled at a national level and we will get there eventually just not soon enough.

[nanning]

You are right kassy, but the problem with privitisations is that this in no longer in the governments' hands. Government has no control over 'national level' and apparantly didn't have long term planning and oversight either.

They have lost control with the privitisations and now have to talk to and hand over loads of our money to the privatised infrastructure companies. The same situation applies to e.g. the busses where you can't make them all electric if that is government policy because they there is no government control and it has to hand over loads of taxpayer money to the individual companies.

I presume that re-nationalisation of infrastructure is out of the question in all the neo-liberal countries.

[blumenkraft]

IMHO, everything that is public infrastructure should be in public, not private hands.

This is something to fight for in the EU! Please vote accordingly (i.e. no neoliberals or conservatives).

[kassy]

NETHERLANDS STILL PUSHING €8 BILLION INTO FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY ANNUALLY: ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

...

The over 8 billion euros in state aid to the fossil fuel industry listed in the report includes direct subsidies, but also tax advantages and price support. The largest part, almost 5 billion euros per year, goes to aviation and shipping, industry, power plants and agriculture.

42 percent of the total amount is for the aviation sector - airlines receive billions of euros in benefits. And this excludes coronavirus support. There is no VAT on kerosene, which means there is no tax on airline tickets. Because there is VAT on all other forms of transport, this leads to an uneven playing field, the environmental organizations said. "It is absurd that you pay more VAT for your tram ticket than for a plane ticket to Bali."

According to the organizations, the government also indirectly supports fossil energy projects abroad. For example, Dutch companies receive government support for building refineries in Oman and oil platforms in Mexico. "The Netherlands exports the climate crisis through our fossil support," they said. "Poor countries in particular become more dependent on oil and gas." And it is the people in these countries that are hit hardest by the climate crisis.

The industry also enjoys major tax advantages. "The big polluters from heavy industry receive millions in tax benefits, which are coughed up by households and small entrepreneurs," Milieudefensie director Donald Pols said.

...

https://nltimes.nl/2020/07/14/netherlands-still-pushing-eu8-billion-fossil-fuel-industry-annually-environmental

So on the the upside there is plenty of money to liberate for the transition.

[gerontocrat]

You are right kassy, but the problem with privitisations is that this in no longer in the governments' hands. Government has no control over 'national level' and apparantly didn't have long term planning and oversight either.

Is there a regulator?
Privatisations of Government owned utilities usually required legislation.

If you want anything to happen you have to do your homework & find out what levers Government have over these greedy arseholes.

Then you have to embarass your National & Local elected representatives with the aim of threatening their prospects for reelection. And the regulator can always be made to feel uncomfortable.

& to do this you have to give yourself a time budget. Three times I have had to launch a campaign on behalf of myself and some friends to fight injustice. I gave myself 2 hours a day to start with and then just 1 hour a day to make the scumbags life a little less pleasant. A strict time limit avoids getting obsessed.

& you may well get absolutely nowhere. I got one success, one failure and one 50-50, and got very tired.

[nanning]

You really are a great fighter for the good cause gero imo.

Thanks for the tips for engaging and setting a self-protecting time limit on ones efforts. I love self discipline.

I gather that this has to be done via the media, preferably national media, and I have no idea how to start that because I am alone without any credentials or contacts. And I don't have money to spend on it.

I am a long time member of the Socialistische Partij SP. Perhaps I can use that channel but all things that smell of socialism are not high up on our media's priorities and our neo-liberal dominated politics. Socialism has been effectively demonized.

Perhaps an organisation that fights for our environment would have more chance, such as the "milieudefensie" organisation kassy mentioned. I'll have to think about it. It has to have a massive reach for it to be effective. Perhaps kassy has some further ideas...

edit: change "discipline" into "self discipline"

[kassy]

Schouten houdt vast aan veevoerplan voor stikstofreductie

https://www.nu.nl/politiek/6062049/schouten-houdt-vast-aan-veevoerplan-voor-stikstofreductie.html

Dutch minister of Agriculture plans to regulate by law the amount of protein that can be added as animal feed. The farmers hate this but they did not come up with workable plans to reduce nitrogen pollution in time.

They are protesting now but there are no options left: We need the reduction to be able to build houses and roads the minister said.

Reducing proteins in the animal feed reduces the amount om ammonia in urine and feces.

A couple of month later.

https://www.nu.nl/politiek/6071851/minister-schouten-schrapt-veevoermaatregel-vanwege-beperkte-stikstofreductie.html

Skipping the dutch quote but basically they cancelled it.

The reason is that it would not reproduce enough reductions. Of course that means the whole reduction gap will still need to be plugged but there are elections coming up so they will kick that can fully up the road even though that is basically contrary to the outcome of the lawsuit.

Maybe they figure there will be no further litigation or that they can at least hide behind covid. Practically it´s up to the next government.

A more practical background: one big problem was that the additional feed comes on top of grass but the yield for grass has been exceptionally low because it was so sunny which took out a big part of the budget. The yield was estimated from 2018 which is a recent warm year so that does not bode well for the future.

[kassy]

Anderhalve dag per week thuiswerken kan 3 miljard autokilometers besparen

https://www.nu.nl/economie/6073497/anderhalve-dag-per-week-thuiswerken-kan-3-miljard-autokilometers-besparen.html

Not policy yet but we could use this:

Working from home 1.5 days a week could safe 3 billion car travel kms


If 1 in 8 employees works from home for 1.5 day per week its saves 3 billion car travel kms and
353.600 tons of CO2.

The number is based on two thirds travelling by car.

Other savings 632 tons of nitrogen and 11 tons of fine particulate matter.

It would save 1,7 billion euros of costs. 78 million hours of travel saved , more productivity and less pollution costs.

Savings for less maintenance needed for infrastructure is not included in this number.