Ninth blog, February 22, 2019
A concept some experts hide behind is the term 'national emission target'. According to them, each country must solve its own CO₂ emissions within the national borders. This is - in addition to the 'indulgence' argument we write about in the next blog - the main reason why the Treesolution is not included in the Dutch Climate Agreement. And so we experience that when we propose the Treesolution to prevent climate change, we are silenced in advance with the argument that 'the Treesolution is not allowed because we have a 'national emission target'. This is not accuarate, however. The climate convention Paris COP21 states in article 5.1 that 'sinks' are permitted, with 'forests' being mentioned as a solution. National boundaries are not set here, so we are allowed to think ‘out of the country’.
Pinching on the ‘national emission target’ means that we limit ourselves territorially and miss introducing alternative low-cost solutions, resulting in extra costs. The population of the Netherlands will pay 60 euros per tonne of CO₂ by means of CCS within our national borders, yet we could solve it for 6 euros per tonne of CO₂ with the Treesolution outside our borders. For the same money, we remove 10 times as much CO₂ as with trees.
What is even more serious is the following: in the last 50 years worldwide, we have followed the principle that we produce where one has developed a specialisation. So Bangladesh makes clothes, the Netherlands makes food, Silicon Valley digitizes the world, China makes moulds, and so on. Everyone does what they can do best.
But we do not follow this outsourcing principle - which has caused tremendous prosperity worldwide - in the solution of our climate problem. If in the Netherlands the costs of removing CO₂ emissions are 60 euros / ton, and in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East or Asia 6 euros / ton, why should these peoples not solve the CO₂ problem for us? We have a low cost price - thus increasing prosperity – and they get developing economies through the Treesolution, thus again, increasing their prosperity.
Why do not we grant Africans, South Americans, Arabs and Asians this prosperity? If we live in a world where everything is outsourced, why should these peoples not be allowed to participate? Is that not unjust?
The solution of the global climate problem by these peoples can give them prosperity in the 21st century. They are entitled to it just as we are entitled to it. So away with the argument of 'national emission target' that works as a territorial CO₂ limitation.
In the next blog we discuss ’The climate indulgence discussion'.
On 8 October 2018, the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued an emergency call to all countries to reduce their CO₂ emissions by at least 50% by 2030. The Netherlands wants to comply with this by means of a Climate Agreement. Pieter Hoff is of the opinion that the Climate Agreement needs additional policies to achieve 0% net CO₂ emissions by 2030 and that this supporting policy can be implemented much more efficiently, quicker and less costly than the current proposals that are included in the proposed Dutch Climate Agreement.