Let us scrap climate policy after the UN climate panel withdraws its doomsday scenario

Lidewij De Vos MP submits parliamentary questions: 

Let us scrap climate policy after the UN climate panel withdraws its doomsday scenario.

For years, people have been told that the Earth could warm by as much as 4 to 6 degrees by 2100. (1) This extreme scenario (SSP5-8.5) from the IPCC (2) formed the basis for drastic climate policy, sky-high climate subsidies, higher taxes, and alarming media coverage. Now, however, it turns out that the IPCC itself is distancing itself from this scenario. (3)

FVD parliamentary leader, Lidewij De Vos, wants to know from the government why the Netherlands is sticking to extremely expensive climate policy while the underlying 'doomsday scenario' has now been scrapped by the IPCC itself. She also draws attention to the consequences for previous climate lawsuits, including the Bonaire case, in which judges partly relied on the now-scrapped SSP5-8.5 scenario. (4)

It is unacceptable that people have to foot the bill for extremely expensive policies based on fact-free doomsday scenarios. The cabinet must therefore scrap the climate policy and reduce the burdens on citizens.

Written questions from Lidewij De Vos MP (FVD) to the Minister of Climate and Green Growth concerning the scrapped 'doomsday scenario' of the IPCC

1. Have you taken note of the report that the IPCC has scrapped its most extreme doomsday scenario (4 to 6 degrees of warming in 2100)?

2. Have you taken note of the analysis that more than 80 per cent of media coverage has been based on this now outdated scenario?

3. How do you assess the reporting referred to in questions 1 and 2?

4. Do you believe that in recent years a distorted and overly alarmist picture of climate developments has been presented? If yes, why? If no, why not?

5. To what extent is current Dutch climate policy based on assumptions and models from the IPCC which have since been adjusted by that same IPCC? Can you explain your answer?

6. Do you consider it responsible to continue with policies that have a very major economic and societal impact, while the underlying assumptions and models from the IPCC on which that policy is based have since been adjusted by that same IPCC? If yes, why? If no, what changes are you prepared to make?

7. Are you prepared to carry out a full review of Dutch climate policy? If no, why not? If yes, on what timeline?

8. Are you prepared, in light of these developments, to take measures to reduce the burdens on citizens, for example by (partly) scrapping or even reversing the climate policy? Can you explain your answer?

9. How will you ensure that policy in the future is not based on extreme and unrealistic scenarios?

10. Have you taken note of the report that all climate lawsuits from recent years would refer to the now-scrapped doomsday scenario of the IPCC?

11. How do you assess the reporting as mentioned in question 10?

12. Do you acknowledge that, if the reporting mentioned in question 10 is correct, this has far-reaching consequences for the legal foundations on which judges have convicted the Dutch state and Dutch companies to far-reaching and costly climate policy? Can you explain your answer?

13. Are you prepared to have it investigated to what extent the judgments in climate lawsuits directly or indirectly rely on the doomsday scenario of the IPCC that has since been scrapped by that same IPCC? Are you prepared to inform the House of the outcomes of this investigation? If yes, on what timeline? If no, why not?

14. In the climate lawsuit concerning Bonaire (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1344), the judge assumes under point 4.21 a sea level rise of 27 cm in 2050 and 85 cm in 2100, based on the "doomsday scenario" SSP5-8.5 that has since been scrapped by the IPCC; how do you assess the fact that this court ruling with far-reaching consequences is partly based on scenarios from the IPCC that have since been scrapped by that same IPCC? Can you explain your answer?

15. Are you prepared, in the appeal against the ruling concerning Bonaire, to explicitly take into account that the court of first instance partly based itself on the SSP5-8.5 scenario that has since been scrapped by the IPCC, and that the substantiation of the ruling has therefore been fundamentally changed? If yes, why? If no, why not?

16. Can you answer these questions as soon as possible and separately from each other?