Dutch town forced to yield to industry expansion

One glance at the map and you see it immediately: a David versus Goliath situation. A village of 1,150 people, right next to a sprawling industrial complex on a harbour on the Dutch coast. The most inland seaport in the Netherlands, and that is no coincidence.

In 1968, Shell(opens in new window) was looking to expand its capacity in the port of Rotterdam. Fearing that Shell would leave the Netherlands for Antwerp(opens in new window) , Dutch authorities developed a plan to build a large industrial estate in Moerdijk. Shell was convinced by the plan and the guarantee that(opens in new window) the route from the sea to Moerdijk would remain open. So in 1973, the oil giant opened its first factory: an ethylene cracker (to produce raw materials for plastic). According to Shell(opens in new window) , the resulting petrochemical complex is one of the largest in Europe. This makes Shell the largest user of the site, and Shell has been given a formal consultation and veto right(opens in new window) over new installations in the area.

In the years that followed, pressure on Moerdijk increased. In 1992, the province(opens in new window) presented an industrial expansion plan covering 600 hectares, which would require sacrificing Moerdijk. In 2013, the Nijpels Commission presented a new expansion plan – “Port of Moerdijk 2030(opens in new window) ” – which prioritised economic growth over the quality of life(opens in new window) in Moerdijk.

Now, more than 50 years after the first factory was built, that drive for expansion remains, and Moerdijk, a village measuring 2.3 by 2.3 kilometres, has to make way. This time for a new plan: the ‘Powerport(opens in new window) ’. Under the guise of energy transition, the municipality is presenting a plan for high-voltage substations, offshore wind cables, electrolysers, and batteries. While that may sound like a shift toward sustainable energy infrastructure, a technical analysis(opens in new window) of the plan shows that, by far, the most space is needed for the expansion of existing industry. Specifically, up to 900 hectares of new land is planned for industry versus only 250 hectares allocated to the energy transition. This drive for expansion is being presented as a necessity for the energy transition, but in reality, it reflects the desire that was there all along: to expand industry.

The false dilemma presented to the residents of Moerdijk

The 1,150 residents of Moerdijk are being presented with a “choice(opens in new window) ” in the expansion plan: they are invited to provide input on whether the industrial area will be expanded towards the east or towards the southeast.

This is not a genuine choice. As stated in the Moerdijk municipal decision(opens in new window) of 2025: ‘The growth of the Moerdijk port and industrial cluster is inevitable’. A technical analysis(opens in new window) of the Powerport project even states that a lack of space could lead to an ‘implosion’ of the industrial estate, without further explanation.

In other words: industry must grow, the village must make way, and the residents of Moerdijk can at most choose how they will be displaced.

What is not on the map are precisely the questions that matter: should industry grow here at all, even if it is ostensibly in order to become more sustainable? And if so, at whose expense? Should the village make concessions or the established (fossil) industry yield? By framing the discussion as a spatial choice between east and southeast, this underlying political question is kept out of the room.

The solution: strategic phaseout as an opportunity

Green industrial policy does not begin solely with the question of which industries we want. It also requires that we explicitly answer the question of which industries we no longer want.

One sector that is often overlooked is the energy-intensive basic industry. This includes several hundred companies in fertilisers, oil refining, chemicals, and steel that grew enormously thanks to cheap gas from Groningen. Although they comprise only a few hundred companies, in absolute terms the basic industry in the Netherlands is the largest in Europe(opens in new window) after Germany.

If we zoom in on the energy-intensive basic industry, we see that the Netherlands has an outsized oil refining sector. The Netherlands refines 12% of all fossil oil(opens in new window) in the EU. That is more than larger countries such as France or Poland. The more fundamental point is that anyone who takes climate targets seriously knows that we need to reduce fossil refining capacity rather than maintain it.

The benefits of an excessively large oil refining sector remain unclear. According to the Dutch national Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 6,200 people(opens in new window) work in the sector across the Netherlands, and it generates €510 million(opens in new window) in annual tax revenue. On the other hand, the sector also costs a lot in terms of nitrogen space, physical space, and emissions. The oil refining sector costs the Netherlands €2.1 billion annually in health damage and accounts for 6.5% of Dutch greenhouse gas emissions. That is in addition to the health damage and emissions caused by their oil products via cars, aeroplanes, and ships.

We should not view the strategic phasing out of parts of the basic industry, such as some of the oil refineries, as a problem, but rather embrace it as an opportunity. Tough choices are needed, if only because there is insufficient space to maintain the current scale of energy-intensive industry, as the Scientific Climate Council(opens in new window) confirmed earlier this year. It argues that trying to preserve all energy-intensive industry will lead to a potential waste of public money and is also unfeasible due to limitations in grid capacity, the labour market, and physical space.c

We can make this very tangible for Moerdijk. What does the “Powerport” industrial plan need? Mainly space with direct access to a seaport, for the landing of cables from the North Sea.

Just 20 kilometres north of Moerdijk in the port of Rotterdam, which holds four large oil refineries. Together, they cover more than 1,000 hectares of industrial land. That is more than twice the size of the proposed Powerport area near Moerdijk, and each of them is larger than the village itself. We know that we cannot keep everything. We know that fossil fuel refining must be scaled back. The space Moerdijk is looking for is therefore already available in Rotterdam. The government can either wait and see whether this resolves itself through the climate targets that have been set or take proactive action.

If we want to seriously normalise Dutch refining capacity (back from 12% to a proportionate European share), then closing some of the Rotterdam refineries fits in with that logic.

The buy-out of such a refinery can be seen as the concrete implementation of the court ruling in the Bonaire climate case(opens in new window) and the advice provided by the Council of State(opens in new window) to clarify which activities should not be given priority. The Netherlands has previously bought out companies when the public interest outweighed other considerations, and that public interest is clearly present here again. This was the case with the “Room for the River(opens in new window) ” programme, in which space was (literally) made along the banks of our rivers by relocating or buying out citizens, farmers, and businesses.

Buying out a refinery is also cheaper, faster, and more socially desirable than removing a village. There is no need to build new homes in an already-tight housing market. There is no need to resettle a community. And it avoids years of appeals from owners who cannot or will not sell their homes.

Who owns the industry of the future?

There is another question that is not being asked. The climate crisis exposes something that is systemic: when industry is in private hands, shareholder interests prevail over social interests. Economists Shapira and Zingales(opens in new window) analysed Chemours’ decision-making regarding PFAS pollution in Dordrecht and concluded that continuing the pollution was the rational choice for a profit-maximising company. Shareholder value outweighed the health of local residents.

Let us therefore include in this discussion the question of who owns the industry of the future. In building a sustainable industry, are we going to learn from our mistakes and explore alternative ownership structures? Let’s build a democratic economy with cooperatives and public-common partnerships.

Way forward: partially phase out the fossil fuel industry to make room for liveability and the industry of the future

The pressure on the residents of Moerdijk is the result of choices that have not been made for decades: what industry do we want, and what industry do we not want? As long as those choices are postponed, it is the residents of Moerdijk who will pay the price.

We do not have to pass the bill on to the residents of Moerdijk. There is a better solution. It starts with recognising that the energy-intensive industry in the Netherlands is too large, that we have too many fossil oil refineries, and that phasing out part of this capacity will create space for the industry of the future.

As long as politicians avoid these questions, 1,150 people will pay the price for political indecision. There is a better solution, but it starts with the courage to say what needs to be phased out and not to give away the industry we do want to private parties that serve their own interests.