Flaws in Dutch Climate Policy Lead to Inefficient Use of Funds
The Hague, Thursday, 19 June 2025.
Crucial weaknesses in the Netherlands’ climate policy are wasting funds, with decisions like biomass subsidies criticized for inefficiency. Experts urge policy revisions to optimize resource use against climate change.
Inefficiencies in Biomass Subsidies
The Netherlands’ climate policy is under scrutiny for continuing to allocate substantial funds to biomass subsidies, despite scientific consensus that this practice is environmentally counterproductive. Studies assert that the process of burning biomass such as trees does not reduce CO2 emissions and can be detrimental to forest health. A coalition of Dutch and European scientists has repeatedly challenged the efficacy of these subsidies, emphasizing that they fail to deliver the promised environmental benefits, even extending beyond 2050 [1].
Strangling Climate Laws
Minister Sophie Hermans of Climate and Green Growth is reportedly considering the expansion of biomass subsidies, despite documented inefficiencies. This situation underscores a broader issue where the legality and compliance within climate laws take precedence over effectiveness. Current regulations include stringent CO2 reduction targets, which some experts argue are inflexible and impractical, potentially stifling more effective climate actions [1][2].
Alternative Views on Climate Financing
The debate about climate financing was also highlighted during the ‘Money Matters Live! 2025’ event, where experts discussed the need to overhaul the financial system to support sustainable practices. Participants at the event argued for a restructured approach to climate financing, advocating for systems that prioritize long-term ecological and societal benefits over short-term financial gains [3].
Call for Policy Revisions
To address these inefficiencies, there is a growing call among experts for policy revisions. Suggestions include introducing ‘hardship clauses’ in climate laws to allow flexibility and responsiveness to evolving scientific evidence and circumstances without legal repercussions. This approach could empower national coordinators to make necessary adjustments in a timely manner, mitigating unintended negative consequences of rigid regulations [1].