‘Who stands to gain from the continued sabotage of an ambitious climate policy?’

‘No one benefits from a fact-free climate policy’, write the initiators of the Climate Case in response to the news that Flanders is the only region to appeal in cassation against the Climate Judgment. ‘Would the Flemish government read its own reports?’

The Flemish region is the only government to file a cassation appeal against the Climate Judgment. The argument is repeatedly that the reduction target of 55 percent by 2030 unattainable and unaffordable and that there is no support for overly ambitious climate policy. However, the facts show the opposite.

Would the Flemish government read its own reports? The first ‘Monitoring of support for the climate transition among the Flemish population’ by the Flemish Environmental Planning Agency was recently published. The results of that research confirmed exactly the opposite of what is repeatedly claimed: that there is no support for ambitious climate policy. Three quarters of respondents indicate that they are quite willing to commit to a robust approach to the climate crisis. This monitoring is confirmation of what international surveys have shown time and time again. Up to ninety percent of Belgian citizens donate in one peer reviewed Nature study shows that they find ambitious climate policy important and that their government must do more to combat the climate crisis.

One wonders how many studies are needed to finally take the same conclusion seriously: yes, people are concerned about the climate crisis and yes, they believe that governments should and can do more. For ‘the people’ that politicians like to listen to during election times, things can be a bit more ambitious. That is exactly what the panel of judges of the Brussels Court of Appeal imposed on the various authorities in Belgium in the climate judgment of November 30, 2023. By 2030, the country’s greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 55 percent compared to 1990 emissions. That is within six years.

While the Brussels region and the federal government accepted the verdict, the Flemish region is the only one to appeal in cassation. This appeal does not have a suspensive effect, but it does show that the Flemish government is clinging to braking and delaying. Feasible and affordable is the hoary mantra this government is waving. The reality is that it is precisely these delaying maneuvers that drive up costs. First and foremost, that of lives lost. Already, 138,000 people died in the European Union between 1980 and 2020 due to climate disasters, such as floods, storms and especially heat waves. Thousands of them were Belgians. They are the unmentioned victims of the climate crisis. It is the human price we pay for flawed policies.

But also from a purely financial point of view, the benefits of a thorough climate policy greatly outweigh the increasing costs of inadequate policy. A feasible and affordable climate policy means investing now to prevent much worse, and also saves on pointless expenditure.

The Social-Economic Council of Flanders (SERV) calculated that phasing out oil and gas consumption by families and companies will save billions. In 2022, households and companies together paid 21 billion euros for oil and gas. The faster we switch to a fossil-free energy system, the more money we will have left to increase well-being here. Moreover, we will be less dependent on oil-producing countries and better protected against unpredictable fluctuations on international energy markets.

The Climate Judgment is therefore by no means an attack on Flemish prosperity, as the Flemish ministers claim. On the contrary. Yet other Flemish research shows that the imposed reduction target is the most affordable option. In the PATHS2050 report at the end of 2023, Energyville brought together the findings of two hundred researchers to calculate the most cost-optimal path to climate neutrality in 2050. The most balanced scenario results in a 57 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 – 2% more than what the judges imposed. The same applies to the 2021 report from the Federal Public Service Climate, in which research institutions CLIMACT and VITO participated. The most balanced and technically realistic scenario assumes a reduction of just over 55 percent by 2030. In addition, the transition to a carbon-free economy will create a series of new jobs. A study by the federal administration in collaboration with CLIMACT, KULeuven and ULiège estimates that this will result in an increase of 1 to 1.7 percent in employment in 2030 alone. Meaningful jobs, moreover, with which a person helps build a future in which health, living environment, food quality and living comfort all improve without putting a strain on the rest of life on this planet.

We therefore have everything to gain from no longer dawdling and delaying, but to implement the Climate Arrest, as all governments in this country plan to do, with the exception of the Flemish one. It is more than feasible and affordable, it creates valuable jobs and with the right framework, on which the High Committee for Social Justice wrote a report at the end of 2023, it has the potential to bring everyone along.

The only question you deduce from this is why the Flemish climate policy is not based on demonstrable facts that various, often also Flemish, government administrations provide? Why do political leaders continue to litter the public discourse with unfounded one-liners about the so-called unfeasibility and unaffordability of the climate transition? Who stands to gain from the continued sabotage of an ambitious climate policy?

Because the only thing that makes the climate transition truly unfeasible and unaffordable is the lack of thorough policy. The only thing that harms the existing support for climate measures is their active undermining by the Flemish government. In any case, it is bad for democracy to feed a debate that is fundamental to society with unfounded statements. It becomes inexcusable and harmful when this happens on a social issue where lives are at stake.

It is striking that the argument of feasible and affordable was not invoked before the Court of Appeal, which had to decide specifically on the emission reduction. This certainly reinforces the suspicion that the Flemish government knows very well that its beloved mantra would not withstand judicial review. Because all studies prove the exact opposite.

And no one benefits from a fact-free policy.

Serge de Gheldere, Sarah Van Riel, Francesca Vanthielen, Dirk De Clippeleir, Johan Van Den Bosch, Lambert Schoenmaekers, Ignace Schops and Sarah Tak of Klimaatzaak