Jort Kelder & Louise Vet (NIOO-KNAW)
In Dutch society at large, green issues have stopped being a typical left-wing concern, according to debate organiser Edwin Huis (Naturalis Biodiversity Centre).
Just look at major companies such as Heineken, he said, which sets great store by clean water and sustainably produced hops. Green issues are "not as political" as many people think.
On the other hand, the main political parties in the Netherlands still vary wildly in their commitment to sustainability, biodiversity and the transition away from fossil fuels.
It all means that green issues are very much an area which could help voters decide at the ballot box on 15 March.
The debate in Amsterdam was organised by Naturalis and IUCN NL, with Johan van de Gronden (IUCN NL) and Louise Vet (NIOO-KNAW) joining moderator Jort Kelder to introduce topics from a scientific perspective.
Taking part were spokespersons for eight major parties, including the two government parties VVD and PvdA. Geert Wilders' populist PVV and a number of smaller parties did not join the debate.
In their policy plans, the eight parties are still divided largely along conventional left-right lines. At one extreme is the VVD, which wants to spend 0.5 billion euros on green policies. At the other extreme is the Green Left party, which has earmarked 16 billion euros.
Johan van de Gronden from IUCN NL suggested the VVD is more "modest" and focuses on meeting international targets, while left-wing parties want to resurrect the Netherlands' former status as an international "guide country".
But according to Louise Vet, making the Netherlands a guide country once again should not only be an aim of left-wing parties, as it also makes sense from an innovation point of view.
That, she pointed out, is how the Netherlands became an international leader when it comes to developing alternatives for chemical pesticides, for example, despite being a relatively small country.
Vet said parties which focus too much on existing targets are missing the point. It's by moving to the forefront that the Netherlands can create opportunities for innovation; efforts she believes will pay themselves back economically.
Responding to accusations of a lack of ambition, VVD environment spokesman Remco Dijkstra said that his party is committed to the transition towards renewable energy, and that the "hardcore climate deniers" who were found in its ranks only a couple of years ago no longer play a significant role.
The difference in proposed budget with left-wing parties is misleading, argued Dijkstra: the left's green billions would be spent mostly inside the Netherlands, and without the kind of international cooperation the VVD is pushing for, much of the money would "disappear down the drain".
Other parties argued that progress made so far has been "despite" rather than thanks to the VVD. PvdA spokeswoman Kirsten van den Hul said that while the VVD is taking credit for halving the environmentally damaging extraction of natural gas in Groningen, it did so only after it had first ramped up the extraction process.
On other topics - reducing the use of palm oil, for instance, and boosting biodiversity in the Netherlands - there was less disagreement between the parties at the debate.
At the end of the day, suggested Louise Vet, the problem with green concerns in the Dutch elections isnt that anybody still thinks they're not worthwhile. It's that too many people still believe they're merely "nice to have" rather than essential to our future and deserving full commitment.
After the elections, much will depend on the building of a new government coalition. But the green debate, concluded the organisers, has demonstrated that on a number of topics at least, serious commitment is possible across the political spectrum.