As It Happens

Ambitious Dutch climate plan includes shutdown of new coal-fired plants

Dutch politician Stientje van Veldhoven says the Netherlands hopes to cut carbon emissions by 55 per cent before 2030. Shuttering the newly-built plants, she says, was the cheapest option.
Greenpeace activists chained themselves to a crane at the construction site of a coal plant in Rotterdam in 2008. Three new coal-fired plants were recently opened in the Netherlands, but a vote from the Dutch parliament recommends shutting them down. (Guido Benschop/AFP/Getty Images)

The Netherlands has voted to adopt some of Europe's most drastic measures to cut carbon emissions.

In a close vote last week, the Dutch parliament pledged a 55 per cent cut in cut C02 by 2030. That would include a shutdown of the country's five remaining coal power plants, including three that opened just last year.

Even if it feels a bit weird to close down literally brand new coal-fired power plants, all alternative measures are far more expensive.- Stientje van Veldhoven, Dutch politician

Stientje van Veldhoven, a Dutch politician with the Democrats 66 party, spoke to As It Happens host Carol Off. Van Veldhoven was in Paris last year during negotiations for an international deal on goals to mitigate climate change. She voted to support the plan.

Stientje van Veldhoven is a Dutch politician with the Democrats 66 party. She voted in favour of a plan for a 55-per-cent cut of the Netherlands' carbon emissions by 2030. (Bart Rietveld/Wikiportrait)

"If we are serious about this, and I certainly am, then every country in the world needs to take substantial measures to cut down CO2," she said.  

The vote isn't binding on the government. But it would bring the country within the limits set by the Paris agreement.

Van Veldhoven explained that shutting down coal-fired plants makes the most sense for the country. That includes the new plants, which are more efficient.

"Even if it feels a bit weird to close down literally brand new coal-fired power plants, all alternative measures are far more expensive," she said.

The country's economy minister said closing the newer plants would be "crazy." This was after the Netherlands statistical agency announced this year's climate emissions were up five per cent over last year's.

Canadian provinces have also taken steps to move away from coal. Ontario has eliminated coal-fired plants completely as a power source. In Alberta, where coal use has historically been high, a panel is hearing from those affected by a shift away from it in hopes of providing new opportunities.

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore (front left) and young activist Hannah Alper (front right) at the announcement of the end of coal-fired electricity in Ontario in 2013. (Stephanie Lake/CP)

Last year, a Dutch court ordered the government to reduce emissions by 25 per cent over five years. The centre-right coalition government has appealed the decision and is putting together a more modest climate plan.

This latest vote by the parliament doesn't have the same legal force. But van Veldhoven says the government is also considering a climate law that would include the 55-per-cent target.

"So it's not legally binding yet," she said, "but it will become legally binding in the Netherlands once we pass that law."

She added that the Netherlands currently has a surplus in its energy supply. And it can fill what needs may arise using gas plants, which she acknowledged still produce emissions.

"But since we are in the transition toward 100-per-cent renewable electricity, in the time that we are not there, the best combination is between renewables and gas, because gas emits a lot less CO2 that coal-fired power plants," she said.

The Netherlands will hold an election in March. The anti-immigration Freedom Party has led many opinion polls.

Van Veldhoven feels the country's major left-leaning parties are behind an ambitious climate plan. And she's hopeful that the powerful centre-right Liberal party, which leads the government coalition, would back it as well.

"If they subscribe to the goals of the Paris agreement, why would they chose the option that would cost taxpayers far more than this option?"