Sometimes a bit of experience hurts. 25 years ago, I was a trainee in the German Federal Ministry of Environment in the department for climate change. Yes, for the younger generation: 25 years ago the German as well as the Dutch government had already set CO2 reduction targets (for the year 2005).
At the time, I had the chance to be present in many interdepartmental meetings. Unsurprisingly, it was about CO2 reduction in the transport sector, the electricity sector, in industry and in the building stock. Back then, it was already obvious that we have to insulate our buildings (including monuments) at a large scale.
That is why I was amused when I recently read the evaluation of the “warm sweater” week from the Green Office and the complaints from colleagues. The most amusing remark was the following: “our conclusion is that some buildings are not yet fit for Warm Sweater Week”. And even better: “A known issue is that some buildings are poorly insulated.” As I already mentioned, we have known what to do for the last 25 years. For me, there is only one conclusion. We should stop celebrating “warm sweater week”.
In the past, I believed in awareness raising. However, I have noticed that the success or failure of climate change policies in the EU is less related to public awareness than I thought. The Netherlands is a case in point. According to Eurobarometer (2017), many Dutch have a rather high awareness of climate change compared to other EU member states. In three member states, at least a quarter of respondents say that climate change is the most serious problem (Sweden (38%), Denmark (29%) and the Netherlands (27%)). One could assume that this is an excellent condition for progressive climate change policy. It is apparently not. Whereas Sweden and Denmark are leading countries, the Dutch performance in climate policy belongs to the worst of EU member states according to several rankings.
This is policy failure. For two decades, consecutive governments have failed to take effective measures. Take my office as an example: single glazing and leaky windows after 20 years of climate change debate. This means in the first place, that the University has apparently still not established a professional energy management and investment priority. And yes, we know that we are dealing with monuments (as for the last 20 years), that is no excuse. Sitting in an office with single glazing and celebrating “warm sweater week” is in this case the simulation of policy. Even worse: it gives us the idea that we are taking action. Furthermore, it gives the wrong impression that climate change policy is about suffering and less comfort. It is not. We would enjoy more comfort in state-of-the-art renovated buildings.
Behind the surprisingly modest performance of the University, there is of course a general policy failure. If not even the top of a University (with all these smart people) can implement very obvious measures, then we need regulation such as a law to phase out single glazing and leaky windows.
Climate change policy is in this case comparable to the policy we have for Urban heritage conservation. Nobody expects the University to respect the monument regulation voluntarily. There are clear rules, despite the fact that investments for special roofs or facades are higher than for state of the art material. It is obvious that the protection of monuments is a political question and not a personal or a moral. We do not have to be good people to save our monuments. The good news: the same is true for the climate.
Martin Unfried, senior researcher at ITEM