The Netherlands seems to be leading the way in setting even more ambitious climate goals than already prescribed by the EC. Looking at cost effectiveness, the question can be asked to what extent it is desirable to be (too) far ahead of the rest of the world. Another consideration is that of technology choices.
In a recent study, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) showed that delaying or ruling out options in advance will make climate neutrality in the Netherlands in 2050 almost or even completely impossible. According to PBL, the luxury of choosing between energy sources and technologies is no longer available. This seems at odds with the recent citizens' initiative introduced by Triodos Bank and a broad group of organizations and companies. On the contrary, this initiative is pushing for an international treaty that completely stops the use of coal, oil and gas. It is true that climate goals can also be achieved by excluding certain technologies or energy sources. But that would be at the expense of the affordability and/or reliability of the energy system. In addition, part of the CO2 emissions will be moved outside Europe. Something that is good for meeting our own goals, but rather counterproductive for combating global climate change - and thus the ultimate goal.
In this report, compiled by Public Affairs Energy Research & Strategy (PZ ERS) and Quo Mare, we compare two scenarios for the transition to an energy system in 2050 transformational scenarios presented: the Net-Zero - or CO2-neutral - scenario and the fossil-free scenario. In the fossil-free scenario, coal, oil and gas will no longer be used at all and only emissions from the agricultural sector must be offset. In a carbon-neutral society, CO2 emissions from the extraction, transportation, conversion and consumption of these fossil energy sources can be offset with negative emissions, or captured through Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).