• Judith van de Holsbeek

  Climate and Energy Editor

• 

  Helen Ecker

  Climate and Energy Editor

There are no legal obstacles to phasing out a significant portion of fossil subsidies. This is evidenced by an overview sent by Climate Minister Citén to the House of Representatives I sent.

Each scheme has been examined to determine whether it can be legally modified. “Fossil fuel subsidies” relate mainly to tax benefits, which have often been in place for decades, and in some cases for more than a hundred years.

Last Friday, NOS reported that fossil subsidies totaled between €39 billion and €46 billion, a much higher amount than the government took into account until recently.

It has now been determined how much money is involved in each scheme and whether it can be stopped. Examples of fossil subsidies that are difficult or impossible to phase out include the costs of using oil as a raw material to make materials and exemption from tariffs on aviation and shipping fuel.

Due to international agreements, the government cannot simply terminate these arrangements, which benefit the sectors involved. This total amounts to approximately 22 billion euros.

Fossil benefits that can be phased out are, for example, a lower duty rate on diesel or an arrangement whereby large energy consumers pay less in taxes because they consume more energy. As far as Minister Gittin is concerned, the publication of the new overview could put an end to the debate on the definition and amount of fossil subsidies.

“For the past few years, we have had a guessing game about whether there are fossil fuel subsidies or not. My predecessors said: ‘It’s only €4 billion, so what are we really talking about?’ Now, with the overall overview, to get things right, we don’t have to Discuss it further.”

Researcher Peter Bowe from TU Eindhoven points out that this discussion has been going on for a long time. “The G20 has already been working on this since 2009. At that time, former Prime Minister Balkenende also promised that the Netherlands would phase out these weapons. But it is clear that it is easier to say something and then not do it.” Pao calls the lack of legal obstacles to phasing out subsidies important, but says there is no clear vision for phasing out.

The outgoing government leaves this reduction plan to a new government. Jetten calls on climate activists and companies to think together about how the Netherlands can phase out fossil subsidies.

“I call on all kinds of environmental activists and organizations, but certainly also companies to sit down together and put together a good plan on how to green the Netherlands and say goodbye to these fossil benefits.”

He also confirms that the government has already begun phasing out schemes worth four to six billion euros. “For example, companies engaged in greenhouse horticulture or brick factories that have to pay more taxes on their energy consumption. A special exemption for coal has also been scrapped for Tata Steel. So, we have come a long way on our way, but there is still a lot to do.” “What we have to do is finished.”

At the same time, he warns of the consequences if fossil fuel subsidies are reduced too quickly, for example to support employment. Employers’ organization VNO-NCW also fears that benefits will be cut too quickly, but is happy that there is now more clarity on the consequences of phasing out some measures.

“Impact analyzes clearly show that alternatives to fossil fuels and raw materials are not always available, and entrepreneurs often have no business perspective. This is where you have to Carefully coordinate the phase-out path.”

According to the organization, the abolition of many regulations requires European coordination, because otherwise “there will be a real risk that we will transport carbon dioxide, the prices of everyday products will rise and jobs will disappear here.”

On the other hand, working groups are mainly in a hurry. Now that it is clear that the amounts involved are in the billions, many organizations believe action must be taken quickly. “The impacts on a select group of energy-intensive businesses should not get in the way of a good phase-out plan,” SOMO, Milieudefensie and Fossielvrij NL, among others, wrote.

“Waiting makes things worse for companies,” says Boris Schelkins of SOMO. According to the Youth Climate Movement, a lot of money will be saved, “to make public transport cheaper or even free, for example,” says movement president Dion Hoedkooper.