- Research
- 16/03/2021
Prof Talk | Vote for a party that takes immediate action on climate change
TU/e climate expert Heleen de Coninck gave a mini-lecture at the Climate Alarm in Eindhoven last Sunday, in which she explained the scientific basis for making the climate crisis a top political priority. She and Frank Veraart, who researches the historical development of sustainability, urge people to cast their vote for a green party in the general election on March the 17th.
In the nineties, the risks of climate change may have been something to laugh about – ‘the hobbyhorse of tree-hugging hippies’ – but today, everyone realizes that humanity faces a grim future if global temperature rises by two or even three degrees. That is why a deafening Climate Alarm sounded in several towns and cities across the Netherlands on Sunday 14 March. Because even though climate has become a major issue for many voters, it was hardly addressed during the election debates. The timing of the protest couldn’t be better.
It’s true that actions to limit global warming are already underway, but there is still an enormous gap between words and action, says professor of Innovation and Climate Change Heleen de Coninck. “Every party manifesto contains a measure that needs to reverse climate change, such as a CO2 emission tax or meat tax. It sounds very progressive, but even if it would be implemented, individual measures won’t suffice.”
That is why De Coninck, who contributed to a report on limiting global warming to 1.5°C for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, calls for systemic change. “We can talk all we want about flying less often, but for that we need a better price ratio between train and airplane tickets. And more high-speed rail networks. We need to take more actions simultaneously and comprehensively. Our food system, our energy system, the design of our cities; it all needs to change if we want global warming to stay below 1.5°C.”
Paris climate agreement
If we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius – or to well below 2, as was agreed in the Paris Agreement – it seems that an even more radical change of course is necessary. Because according to a UN emission report, the world is on track for a 3 degrees Celsius global temperature rise if the current climate commitments are met. And the Netherlands does not feature among the highest ranking countries when it comes to achieving the climate goals. The government wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 49 percent by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, and the European Union subsequently raised that target to 55 percent with its Green Deal. But the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency estimates that emissions will reduce by a disappointing 34 percent with the current policy, although the CO2 emissions tax on industrial companies was not included in the calculation.
Erratic policies
“We were never the ‘best student in class’ in the field of climate,” says assistant professor of History of Technology Frank Veraart, whose areas of expertise include the sustainable society. “The political color of our government has shifted numerous times over the past decades. This has led to many compromises and erratic change in policies between left- and right-leaning cabinets. That’s bad for political stability. It translated into the discontinuation of measures and the withdrawal of investors who couldn’t assess whether certain rules would still apply in five to ten years. Privatization also plays an important role, and the world has gotten fragmented. That doesn’t help if you want to launch large scale projects.”
Like De Coninck, Veraart calls for systemic change, and believes that we should change our living environment and behavior. Veraart: “Investments in new energy sources such as wind farms and solar cells have increased, and the current debate is about whether we should build a new nuclear plant. All these matters are based on an increasing demand for electricity. But we also need to start working on energy conservation, otherwise it’s useless. That won’t be painless; it will have an impact on every citizen.”
Geopolitical consequences
Veraart also stresses that the energy transition comes with a different transition, one that will lead to geopolitical shifts. “There’s an entire story behind the wind turbine. When fossil energy reduces, the power of oil-producing countries reduces as well. What will that do to the stability in those regions? And then there are the raw materials. For example, the production of wind turbines requires rare metals and minerals, from very unstable regions. These kinds of complex matters have hardly been raised during the discussion on climate so far, but they should be included in light of a long-term vision.”
Complex or not, we should stop talking and start acting, De Coninck says. “We are in a hurry. That 1.5 degrees Celsius is still within our reach. And that makes a difference for animals, plants and humans. It’s still not too late. But the longer we wait, the greater the risk will be. Now is the time for the government to start acting systemically, and voters can exert an influence on that.” Even though they don’t give any concrete advice on how to vote, both researchers are very clear on this. Vote for a party that has concrete, immediate climate plans, that will not shift all responsibility to Europe, and that keeps its eye on the overall picture.
Discussion