Discussion on making energy-intensive industry future-proof

The House of Representatives' Economic Affairs/Climate and Green Growth committee received members of the Scientific Climate Council (WKR) on the evening of Tuesday, March 24. The WKR provides strategic and scientific advice to the government and parliament, both upon request and unsolicited. The reason for the meeting with the committee was the recent WKR report ‘Choosing or Losing: Towards an Industry Suited to a Future-Proof Netherlands’.

Introduction

The report was explained by WKR Chair Jan Willem Erisman, Deputy Chair Heleen de Coninck, and council member Henri de Groot, who delivered the introduction. ‘Choosing or Losing’ was written on the WKR’s own initiative and focuses primarily on the emissions of the energy-intensive industry. This includes refineries, basic metals industry, basic chemicals, and fertilizer industry. These sectors produce basic materials at large production sites and are responsible for nearly a quarter of the Netherlands’ total emissions. They are also energy-intensive: their energy use accounts for over a third of the country’s total energy consumption. As a result, they have a significant impact, and the WKR believes decarbonization is necessary.

Decarbonization

The report shows that climate targets are not being met, and climate policy is under pressure. CO₂ emissions are barely being reduced. While the energy-intensive industry wants to decarbonize, the business models are not conducive to it. A lack of long-term government policy and insufficient future certainty means investing in sustainability is not worthwhile for these sectors. Decarbonization is costly and requires significant physical space, which is limited in the Netherlands. If policymakers do not make choices, the WKR warns, the Netherlands will ultimately lose everything—economically, socially, and in terms of climate impact. There is broad consensus that action must be taken.

Senators’ Questions

Various political groups raised questions about the report. The VVD asked whether it would be better to focus on reducing demand rather than cutting emissions. The BBB inquired whether future advice could include additional conditions. GroenLinks-PvdA asked how politicians should decide which major industries to phase out, while D66 questioned where the Netherlands stands in the transition: which industries should we say goodbye to? What are we good at, and what should we preserve? The Visseren-Hamakers faction asked how Europe can meet its needs with current production capacity. If we decarbonize, will we face overcapacity? Volt shared concerns about climate targets and asked what more can be done at the European level to accelerate decarbonization. Finally, OPNL asked about the regional impact and role of affected areas.

WKR’s Response

The WKR stated that reducing demand could help, but this requires major innovations. Radical choices are needed, as well as consistent and stable policy. By investing in specific economic sectors, viable business models can be established. Ensuring future-proof conditions is crucial for creating stable policy. One sector that could be phased out is refineries. Phasing out steel production will be challenging for various reasons. Any reduction will at least take place at the European level. If countries start protecting their own industries, it will hinder finding solutions. The WKR emphasized caution when investing large sums of money, especially if it only delays the closure of industries. Adjusting scale could help preserve industries in the Netherlands. In regions where industries are phased out—often economically vulnerable areas—new opportunities must be created.

• The discussion with the WKR can be viewed here.