Broad Support in the House of Representatives for Greener Chemistry

To combat climate change, the Netherlands has committed to no longer emitting CO2 by 2050 and to being completely circular. In practice, this means stopping the use of fossil fuels and resources and reusing almost all waste as raw materials. This also applies to the chemical industry. The Green Chemistry New Economy (GCNE) platform has been established to accelerate the transition in chemistry. GCNE aims for green chemistry, where innovative technologies and business models can help realize a new economy based on non-fossil resources. Together with the Top Sector Agri & Food, GCNE has received 338 million euros from the Growth Fund for its program BioBased Circular. Additionally, participating companies and partners are investing another 550 million euros in the program. The goal is to replace oil and other fossil resources used for various plastics and materials in packaging, building materials, textiles, and coatings with plant-based alternatives, recycled plastic, and, in the longer term, captured CO2. However, biobased raw materials are still significantly more expensive than their fossil counterparts. And while a large portion of plastic is expected to be made from recyclate in the future, currently less than 5 percent of globally recycled plastic is reused, even in the chemistry sector. This is partly because, according to the law, it is considered waste and cannot be used in new plastic for the food sector.

Raw Materials Act

Political parties also recognize these problems and are proposing various solutions. According to most parties that participated in the debate, much attention has been given to climate measures in recent years, such as the transition to green energy and CO2 savings. Consequently, the other goal—a circular economy by 2050—has been pushed to the background. GroenLinks-PvdA, which is forecasted to secure 22 seats in the polls, even refers to a CO2 tunnel vision. The party wants to stimulate the circular economy and raw materials policy by having its implementation coordinated by a single minister. Just as there is a climate law that sets frameworks and objectives for climate policy, the party believes there should be a Raw Materials Act. “Then you must show every year what you are doing and what it yields,” says Member of Parliament Suzanne Kröger, seventh on the candidate list. GroenLinks-PvdA also wants a raw materials tax that makes primary and fossil resources more expensive while making renewable and recycled materials cheaper.

Other parties like VVD (28 seats in the polls), CDA (4), and D66 (8) also advocate for such a law and tax, but at the European level. According to D66, the government must assess what is feasible per sector and prescribe it.

The parties align with the recommendations made by the Social and Economic Council (SER) last year. The Sustainable Development Commission (DUO) of the SER, chaired by Ed Nijpels, advocates for a European raw materials tax to price the use of primary resources and reward and subsidize reuse and recycling.

Blending Obligation

In 2021, CDA, together with D66, and in 2022 with Volt, already submitted a motion to increase the percentage of recyclate in plastic at the European level. VVD wants to compel Dutch companies through a blending obligation. “You must create a market for circular plastics. You need to ensure that it is worthwhile to invest in circular and renewable resources. This is done through blending obligations and pricing,” asserts VVD Member of Parliament Silvio Erkens, eleventh on the list.

CDA also sees a role for the government. “There are many incineration ovens in the Netherlands, but not much recycling capacity for textiles or chemical recycling. How nice would it be if the government helps to scale up in that sector,” says Jantine Zwinkels, fourteenth on the CDA list.

BBB (12 seats in the polls) is not particularly fond of laws. The party believes that the government should set frameworks and make clear agreements with the industry about which goals must be achieved by 2040. “We also need to do something about pricing, but there need to be European agreements to prevent the leakage of industry abroad,” says Cor Pierik, number six on the BBB list.

Fossil Subsidies

Many chemical companies currently choose fossil resources because they are cheaper. To shrink the price gap between fossil, biobased, and recycled resources, most parties opt for pricing, norming, and subsidizing. “The perverse incentives must be eliminated,” says Zwinkels from CDA. GroenLinks-PvdA and D66 want to abolish the fiscal advantages and subsidies for the fossil industry. “We currently have 43 individual regulations that make fossil more attractive and cheaper. They really need to be dismantled to stimulate circular and biobased initiatives,” says Kröger. Her colleague Tjeerd de Groot from D66, tenth on the list, states: “We are actually undercharging 13 billion for the use of fossil energy and materials in our society. Therefore, we need to closely examine fossil subsidies.”

Alternative Income Model for Farmers

All parties agree that complex and restrictive legislation needs to be amended to provide the industry with more opportunities. For example, recycling companies often struggle to obtain the mandatory ‘end-of-waste status’, which is necessary to sell their product as a raw material. To make green chemistry possible, waste must more frequently be regarded as a raw material, the parties believe.

In addition to recyclate, green chemistry also requires a significant amount of biobased crops as raw materials for plastics. This includes sugar beets, grains, corn, and wood. These must come from farmers and foresters in the future. BBB believes this could become an alternative income model for farmers, but only if they can receive a fair price for their harvest and are supported in the transition. Farmers are already growing biomass for co-firing in power plants and will cultivate more crops for biobased construction. However, if they are also required to produce for the chemical industry, according to BBB, the main objective of Dutch agriculture will be jeopardized. “We want to maintain the Netherlands as a producer of food. That is where the income model for the farmer lies,” says Pierik.

Author: André Oerlemans; Photos by Bram Saeys