Jeffrey Ros
Today I found out that one of our government parties has collaborated with an opposition party in order to create a new "climate enactment". This new enactment forces future governments to compose a yearly climate budget, which includes plans on how to achieve climate targets that are also set in this enactment. As is usual within politics, there are parties with arguments for and against this enactment. And as is also usual within politics, most of these arguments are blunt and lack any nuance. Politicians are the masters of framing. They can usually promote their opinions in a single sentence and make them sound very believable, simply by leaving out part of the whole story.
One example is from VVD Member of Parliament Halbe Zijlstra, who is against this plan. His words:
"If The Netherlands is going to do more than the rest of the world, companies will move from here to other countries where they will produce even less environment-friendly. The end-result being that the Netherlands becomes less wealthy, and the earth still heats up." [1]
That is a real black-and-white and short-sighted vision on this particular matter. Sure, it might be the case that certain companies will not like the new regulations. It might even go so far that on the long term, some of them will leave the country to produce elsewhere. But how problematic is this, really? Because in return, having a set of clear targets and regulations will create a more stable investment climate, resulting in more investments into pro-environmental services and products such as solar panels. So this enactment will not destroy our economic climate, as bluntly stated by Zijlstra. It will likely attract a different branch of entrepreneurs, creating more jobs and maybe even putting us at the forefront of sustainable entrepreneurship and innovations. The latter position means that our experience will be crucial for countries that want to follow up, creating even more jobs with regards to sharing knowledge and expertise.
Of course there is some truth in Zijlstra's words, because what he is hinting at is a classic, international prisoner's dilemma: the best outcome for the world in the long term would be if every country would cooperate to reduce their emissions. However, when one or a few decide to renounce this task, it means that they might gain a better (economic) position compared to the rest (at least on the short term) who will be left with high costs and low ultimate net (climate) gains. Because there is a lack of international trust between nations, the current result is that no one is really inclined to change anything.
But that's the point. If no one changes anything, nothing indeed will change. This call for a new enactment is the first sign that shows we mean business and want to invest in a better world. Let's just hope that a majority can be found for this enactment so that in the future, united, we can frame our way towards global acceptance of pro-environmental policy and thereby breaking through this global prisoner's dilemma.
[1]http://nos.nl/uitzending/10576-uitzending.html