Fenna Swart, March 26, 2024, 3:30 pm, Volkskrant

About the author
Fenna Swart is the chair of the Clean Air Committee and co-founder of the International Coalition against Biomass Combustion. This is a submitted contribution, which does not necessarily reflect the position of de Volkskrant. Read more about our policy regarding opinion pieces here. Previous contributions to this discussion can be found at the bottom of this article.

A biomass power plant (the white building) near a residential area in Egchel. There are concerns about air pollution from the biomass power plant. Image Freek van den Bergh/de Volkskrant.

Last week, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) published a new report on the feasibility of the international climate goals for the Netherlands. It is striking that the core message is that Dutch climate policy becomes more effective if the policy is also perceived as fair and there is therefore less resistance.

The reason is a recent proposal from the European Commission that all EU member states must have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by the end of 2040 compared to 1990. The PBL considers the chance of success to be small: ‘If social support for climate policy is ‘limited’ , that 90 percent also remains out of reach’ (First, 19/3). But this support is exactly what is missing.

According to the PBL, we must continue to focus on technologies such as ‘a combination of bio(mass) energy with CO2 capture and storage (the so-called beccs)’. This carbon capture and storage, in combination with biomass, is promoted as a new climate solution.

It is even recommended by the PBL as the technique for clean air. England is investing heavily in it, Europe has included it in its climate policy and the Netherlands, under the leadership of Climate Minister Rob Jetten, is currently seriously considering going along with it. In reality, the climate is worse off.

In the overview report published four years ago by the PBL, In Prelude to a Biomass Sustainability Framework, according to then Minister Wiebes of Economic Affairs and Climate, an ‘answer to all questions about biomass’ was given. But even then there appeared to be numerous gaps in the report that did not appear to have been resolved in recent years. For example, several peer-reviewed practice reports on nature damage due to forest and clear-cutting in Estonia, caused by the subsidized demand for biomass from Europe, were missing.

In response to questions from the Clean Air Committee the day after this publication, Bart Strengers (principal researcher at the PBL) indicated that he ‘no longer has any financial scope for research in the Baltic States’ (one of the core areas where clear-cutting takes place for biomass). and dismissing ‘clearcutting’ as there is ‘only anecdotal evidence’ for this.

This was remarkable, because the Rutte III cabinet determined its biomass course entirely on the basis of this report, where biomass combustion was ‘considered necessary to achieve the climate goals’. The PBL turned out to de facto deliver conclusions dictated by politics and industry.

How different was the Biomass in Balance advice from the Social Economic Council a month later. She stated that wood burning for heat should be phased out as quickly as possible. But advice or not, there was no reduction path. It is easy to guess what the government’s position on biomass was based on.

With the call from the House of Representatives in 2021 to stop new subsidies for biomass, and an immediate subsidy stop for all new biomass subsidies in 2022 by Minister Jetten, the end seems to be in sight for biomass combustion.

But nothing turns out to be further from the truth, even now. In both the PBL report then (2020) and now (2024), biomass in combination with beccs is presented as a new climate solution, as if nothing has happened in the past four years. It is striking that the climate and energy issue is consistently and one-sidedly examined from economic and business models, and little or no from an ecological perspective.

Despite the emphasis that the PBL places on the importance of support for the success of the climate goals, many questions that have been asked for years by science and society remain unanswered. For example, will the construction of Vattenfall’s biomass power plant still go ahead or not? The minister has re-awarded this subsidy of 395 million euros. While the permit to qualify for this was rejected by the highest court last summer. And RWE, the largest energy producer in the Netherlands and Europe, wants to convert existing coal-fired power stations into full biomass power stations. If the requested permits are issued, RWE will be allowed to burn 7.5 million tons per year (currently it is 3.5 million tons per year). That is one fifth of all existing forest in the Netherlands every year.
So if you read this PBL report, RWE can continue with it. How ‘fair’ is that? It is up to the government to determine the approach for the Netherlands, implement the EU frameworks and take control.

We therefore call on Climate Minister Rob Jetten to involve all parties involved in the implementation process of the EU renewable energy directive into national legislation. This also includes science, ecologists and forest protection groups from the Netherlands, the Baltic States and the United States.

Finally: perhaps it is time to broaden our attention to climate change, to our health and that of animals and nature. Our air is dirty, our water is contaminated and our food is soaked in pesticides, due to industry, agriculture and traffic. What do politicians, Climate Minister Rob Jetten and the PBL actually think of this? Logical questions, asking for logical answers. These answers may help pave the way to the desired support for the climate transition.

READ ALSO
Selected by the editors:

NEWSEuropean Court of Auditors very critical of Brussels policy on biofuels

NEWS
Vattenfall halts development of controversial Diemen biomass power plant and seeks ‘sustainable alternatives’