Six out of ten Flemish want to ban heavy SUVs.

Seven out of ten respondents think that the political decision making process evolves too slowly and that a government consisting of specialists has to impose measures on society now in stead of discussing it endlessly in parliaments. Fewer than one out of five still holds on to the democratic decision making process.

Hans Bruyninckx, International Environmental Policy Professor at the KU Leuven and President of Bond Beter Leefmilieu (Better Environment union), is not surprised by these results. According to him, these results reveal how the Flemings perceive the political events: laborious and slow decision making. But, according to Bruyninckx, the result is also an expression of the faith that many people put in specialists.

He thinks that the climate policy at best proceeds from a long-term vision, lead by professionals. The disadvantage of this is the enlarging distance with the citizens. Buyninckx is surely not in favour of an eco-dictatorship: ‘We can’t give away society to technocrats and scientists. We have politicians to make the policy. On a global level, there is the necessity of a global governance system too. A system that becomes more democratic in stead of less, and more representative as well.’

Peter Tom Jones, environmental expert at the KU Leuven and co-author of the book Terra Reversa, on the other hand is pleasantly surprised by the big amount of believers in an expert-government. ‘The Netherlands have already evolved more in this direction. You simply can’t make any progress if everything depends on the elections which come every two years, as is the case in Belgium. Once the outlines are established by politics, it’s better to let a transition-arena of people involved in a certain sector work out the details. In the Netherlands for example, they are investigating together with farmer organizations, how they can improve the offer of vegetable proteins or hybrid meat. Their government is also actively promoting ‘Thursday Veggie Day’. That is something we can only dream of.

43 percent thinks that emerging third world countries like India and China should make the same efforts as the rich industrial countries, 44 percent disagree.

The UN proposition that was brought up for discussion in Copenhagen, had the starting point that the emerging countries would have to cut their emissions with 15 to 30 percent regarding to their business as usual, before 2020. That proposition was not accepted. China, India and Brazil made the promise though, to make their growth less CO2-intensive.

Sunita Narain, director of the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, India: ‘Let us be clear: according to the Kyoto protocol and the Climate Convention, India is not obliged to contribute. India has the right to pollute. But we do understand that we have to make contributions too. India suggested to make its economy 20 percent less energy-intensive by 2020. That is a substantial difference with respect to the business as usual. And it is going to cost us money. For this purpose we ask money and technology in order to be able to make the transition.’
 
One out of three thinks that Europe has to receive environmental refugees from heavy stricken areas. 49 percent doesn’t agree with that.

Hans Bruyninckx: ‘I do understand this number. People think: “It’s already full here, do we still have to receive those other people too?” It’s the reflection of how people sense the asylum problem. The predictions about the climate refugees vary a lot: somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion by 2050. These are no estimations, but only a conjecture. The UN-climate panel predicts a desiccation of the Mediterranean basin. If this provokes a migration wave, we can’t possibly get rid of it. The present international agreements on refugees, recorded in the Convention of Geneva, are not up-to-date. But it is very difficult to change this convention. The best refugee policy is about prevention and consists of helping people on the spot to adapt themselves to the changing circumstances.

At the climate conference in Copenhagen, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, stressed the need for new tools to receive people who are forced to migrate because of climate conditions. ‘Right now, a statute exists to receive stateless individuals, but not to receive a whole group of people whose country or region has become uninhabitable. How should we handle this group identity and different nationality? In addition, there is a statute for temporary relief. But those tools are not sufficient for the new needs.’ Guterres also stressed the fact that Europe needs migration in order to survive and that it is much better to conduct an active policy instead of shutting the door.
 
54 percent of the respondents is prepared to adapt their own lives: they want to live more frugally and consume less in order to compensate the hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indian and Brazilian people who want to adopt our lifestyle. 33 percent does not want to make the effort.

The 54 percent that is prepared to live more frugally, wants to undertake the following actions:
-         To lower the heating (91%)
-         To use the car less (78%)  
-         To eat less meat (71%)            
-         To travel less by airplane (64%)

According to Hans Bruyninckx it’s absolutely useful to adapt your lifestyle. ‘As a consumer, you make plenty of choices every day, by which you can choose one direction or another. In addition there is the policy to direct the course people are following.’ But it doesn’t surprise him that 33 percent isn’t prepared to settle for less. Bruyninckx: ‘When you take a look at Flanders’ most recent poverty report, by the group of investigators of professor Jan Vrancken (UA), I can imagine that a lot of respondents themselves live a little above the poverty line and are therefore will not willing to live a more frugal life.
 
88 percent wants all social houses to be built in the future to be passive houses.

According to the ground and property decree of March last year, there have to be another 43.000 social rental houses and 21.000 owner-occupied properties by 2020. The decree is an assignment for every city or municipality that has less than 9 percent social houses at present. According to Bart Martens (sp.a), chairman of the Environment Commission in the Flemish Parliament, it’s obvious that those houses be low energy houses. And what about the outline of costs?
Martens: ‘The extra cost of passive houses is 15 percent, but since social houses are built in cluster, this extra cost will be a little lower. When we take the total lifespan of the house into account, this extra cost will disappear very soon because of the considerably lower energy costs. The government is also subsidizing energy for the people living in social houses, therefore the total outline of costs will not necessarily be more expensive. And in the mean time we have reduced the emissions of CO2. Maybe we can search for additional financing for the extra costs in the construction phase.
 
60 percent thinks that heavy cross-country vehicles should be banned from ordinary traffic.

‘We should get those cars off the market’, Hans Bruninckx thinks. ‘Unless they use completely clean technology. And then you can still wonder who needs such a car in Belgium. But the problem is more fundamental: we have to organize our traffic differently.’ Bruyninckx sees the preservation of mobility as an absolute priority for Flanders. ‘We are going towards a social crash, literally and figuratively speaking. There is an urgent need for a different infrastructure, other stimuli or instruments to penalize, a revision of the relation between inner cities and outer areas.’

Economist Paul De Grauwe thinks it’s striking that 60 percent of the respondents thinks that SUVs should be banned from ordinary traffic. ‘This figure is surprisingly high. I can understand that, though. Those cars not only have a higher CO2-emmission, they are also more dangerous for others. The owner of the SUV is safer, the others are less safe. That’s a problem. It’s ok to try to radiate more power, machismo and confidence, but not at the expense of others. That has to change. Yes, the consumer is sovereign, but he has to pay the cost. The risk to others and the environmental effects have to be included in the price. Another option is to limit the weight of the cars. You can prohibit cars who weigh more than 2240 English pound, this way SUVs will simply be banned.’
 
For 47 percent of the respondents, there can be a CO2-tax on meat consumption.

Bruyninckx: ‘It’s correct that we eat too much meat and that meat has a heavy ecological footprint. The food industry plays an important role here, with the conscious choice to add sugar and fat to us. That costs energy and water. Food is one of the “low hanging fruits” - things which are easy to reach - but food and eating aer cultural data and often hard to change.’
Degrauwe: ‘I wouldn’t invent a separate CO2 tax for meat – there is definitely a need for a general CO2 tax. And if it’s working well, it will influence the cattle-breeding as well.’
 
53 percent thinks the climate tax is an appropriate measure to finance the extra cost of special measures.

Hans Bruninckx: ‘A lot of people are in favour of this tax, but not many of them understand the structure of the taxes they pay. Currently our tax system is not ‘green’ nor durable. It’s a very complex matter. Nevertheless there has been a lot of research on this matter and there already is a lot of know how. Especially politically it is very difficult.

Prime Minister Leterme’s response to the MO* inquiry.

Prime Minister Yves Leterme understands that seven out of ten people think the political decision making process is too slow. ‘From the point of view of frustration, of despair of people who wonder when things will be progressing finally. But most certainly I do not agree on the position of leaving the decision making to specialists - even in this case. For me, democracy is too important. You could even say that the social basis for environmental policy is attacked by a way too technocratic approach. The problem is not the EU doing too little, but rather that the United States - the biggest polluters in the world - together with China, preclude making firm agreements on strong objectives on a global level.’

Leterme is in favour of a climate tax. ‘Last year, for example, I proposed a tax on airline tickets. But the Flemish government rejected it because of the airports of Deurne and Ostend, just as the Walloon provinces did because of Charleroi. That’s a pity. We have to evolve as quickly as possible to a global funding of a global approach of global problems. The opposition against this are protests of regional and national level. We can only handle the climate change by a strong international organisation, to which we even hand over a part of our sovereignty and which doesn’t completely depend on contributions of national states, but which can also call on global taxes.

In Paris, a few months ago, I pleaded for a financial transaction tax (formerly know as Tobintax). Challenges as global poverty, sustainable development and climate change have to be tackled and financed on a global level. But here we are blocked by conservatism. Within the federal government, there was willingness, but when Flanders and the Walloon provinces shut down this process, we can’t proceed.’

Leterme has brought up the same proposal mid-December. ‘But a transaction tax is not something you can apply starting from Belgium; at best you need an agreement between the euro, dollar and yen zone. For the airline tax you have to start at least with the majority of the EU Member States. But that doesn’t mean we are paralysed. Not long ago the advocates in favour of the Tobintax have been jeered at. Today however, everybody is talking about that, all great European political families are now looking for a way to implement this tax. So, we see, change is possible.’