Dutch farmers organise mass protests in face of farm closures(fwi.co.uk)
fwi.co.uk
Dutch farmers organise mass protests in face of farm closures
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/environment/air-and-water/dutch-farmers-organise-mass-protests-in-face-of-farm-closures
221 comments
Note that the problem is not nitrogen gas, but nitrous oxides and ammonia, both of which contain nitrogen.
Nitrogen gas itself is inert.
Moreover, the designation of protected areas came with money, it wasn't just diligence but also greed that caused this problem.
Finally, there already was a plan for managing nitrogen, but it counted things way too optimistically. That is what the court struck down. Notably it was known to the government this model was a problem, but they figured it was easier to punt the problem to a next term rather than solve it. Now that courts are forcing a solution the problem has grown so big it takes drastic measures to fully meet the rules, and there is no wiggle room.
Moreover, the designation of protected areas came with money, it wasn't just diligence but also greed that caused this problem.
Finally, there already was a plan for managing nitrogen, but it counted things way too optimistically. That is what the court struck down. Notably it was known to the government this model was a problem, but they figured it was easier to punt the problem to a next term rather than solve it. Now that courts are forcing a solution the problem has grown so big it takes drastic measures to fully meet the rules, and there is no wiggle room.
> farm's emission of nitrogen
Air is 78% nitrogen (N2). This is about nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (HN3).
Air is 78% nitrogen (N2). This is about nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (HN3).
Thank you, this is very informative. The last paragraph is particularly anxiety inducing: forcing food shortages on society on experimental recent data based science is not a good backbone for running a country.
The Netherlands is the second or third biggest net food exporter in the world. For food security, we can do with less farmers.
That doesn't mean we should screw over our farmers. But the tragedy here is how farmers are being ruined by long ignored legal requirements. The tragedy is not how the Netherlands will go hungry for lack of food production.
That doesn't mean we should screw over our farmers. But the tragedy here is how farmers are being ruined by long ignored legal requirements. The tragedy is not how the Netherlands will go hungry for lack of food production.
Let's not quite overlook the fact that the farmer's actively lobbied to be ignored for years. They knew these rules were coming, and worked to shield their business from environmental rules. This isn't some sudden surprise; that's just PR to extract even more concessions. And when considering that, consider also that farmers are already particularly wealthy in the Netherlands, and that there are already compensation funds.
That's not to say there won't be individuals that will be financially worse off due to their particular circumstances; nor that it's not a downside that they'll need to live with some uncertainty about their future, but I'm not buying that there exists even a single business surprised by this. Not one.
That's not to say there won't be individuals that will be financially worse off due to their particular circumstances; nor that it's not a downside that they'll need to live with some uncertainty about their future, but I'm not buying that there exists even a single business surprised by this. Not one.
Farmers are not a hive-mind. Some farmers lobbied, that doesn't mean all farmers knew the current rules were untenable.
> The Netherlands is the second or third biggest net food exporter in the world. For food security, we can do with less farmers.
What if all the farmers are cooperating as a bloc? Are these protesters mostly farmers directly affected by nitrogen lawsuits, or just fellow farmers who rightfully think their farm could be next?
What if all the farmers are cooperating as a bloc? Are these protesters mostly farmers directly affected by nitrogen lawsuits, or just fellow farmers who rightfully think their farm could be next?
Its a mix of farmers directly affected, and farmers who feel that agriculture in general is under attack and needs to be defended.
The system that makes the Netherlands the second largest food exporter has resulted in ever fewer farmers earning ever less money. They as a group are the first that stand to gain from a complete change in how Dutch agribusiness operates, because the profits of the current export-focussed system are not going to them. It also costs the Dutch tax payer (and European tax payers through the famous European agricultural subsidies) billions of Euros. Subsidy on pork farming is over a 100%, and still pig farmers are struggling.
That a significant group of farmers is defending this status quo goes to show that they have a poor understanding of their situation.
That a significant group of farmers is defending this status quo goes to show that they have a poor understanding of their situation.
Of course people won't go hungry in the Netherlands, they'll just eat worse food instead and their economy takes a hit.
> they'll just eat worse food instead
This is very debatable. A majority of nitrogen emissions are from dairy farmers, and some 80% of milk produced in The Netherlands is meant for export (as powder, mainly baby formula). It's unlikely the Dutch food market will affected much, although it's possible our export markets will.
> and their economy takes a hit.
Sure, although the impact of this is also debatable. All Agriculture together forms around 1.4% of the Dutch GDP. Even if the entire sector were to collapse (which it obviously will not) it would be survivable in terms of economic impact.
This is very debatable. A majority of nitrogen emissions are from dairy farmers, and some 80% of milk produced in The Netherlands is meant for export (as powder, mainly baby formula). It's unlikely the Dutch food market will affected much, although it's possible our export markets will.
> and their economy takes a hit.
Sure, although the impact of this is also debatable. All Agriculture together forms around 1.4% of the Dutch GDP. Even if the entire sector were to collapse (which it obviously will not) it would be survivable in terms of economic impact.
It's not that simple. Most of the food produced here is exported, most of the food we eat is imported, and farming accounts for about 1-2% of GDP. A significant amount of farming here is in the business of importing plant-based foods, feeding it to animals, and exporting dairy and meat. It's a very intensive business: for example, there are 100 million chicken here, 20% of that in the US but on less than 1% of the farmland area. Why we do it that way? It was very profitable for the farmers when environmental costs could be externalized.
(Flower farming is significant as well, but doesn't produce food).
(Flower farming is significant as well, but doesn't produce food).
That last paragraph is a bit disingenuous. The model has been in development since at least 2013 (https://www.aerius.nl/en/reviews links to an international scientific review from 2013)
The discussion is highly politicized (and that’s an understatement), so it’s hard to figure out whether the model is good enough for its purpose. Any statement by the developers about uncertainties in the model gets translated into “it’s rubbish” by some of those (currently; from what I understand, some politicians have changed their opinion here over the years) not happy with its predictions.
I don’t know how hard it is to do either, but those who want to can read the source or run the model. The model is open source (GNU Affero GPL version 3. See https://gitlab.com/AERIUS/AERIUS)
The discussion is highly politicized (and that’s an understatement), so it’s hard to figure out whether the model is good enough for its purpose. Any statement by the developers about uncertainties in the model gets translated into “it’s rubbish” by some of those (currently; from what I understand, some politicians have changed their opinion here over the years) not happy with its predictions.
I don’t know how hard it is to do either, but those who want to can read the source or run the model. The model is open source (GNU Affero GPL version 3. See https://gitlab.com/AERIUS/AERIUS)
its way more complicated than that.
The main issue is runoff. In short, cows shit. That effluence has to be disposed of. The issue is, cows poo in fields, the rain comes and washes it into watercourses. That then finds it's way into rivers and lakes and causes large algal blooms that kill everything.
The more productive a farm, the bigger the runoff problem.
As everything has water in the Netherlands, runoff is a massive problem(its a big problem in the UK, but we have other issues that are more pressing in the eyes of the public).
The traditional solution would be to drain Makermeer, expand onto that and have done with it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flevopolder was "drained" in 1962) but thats not going to happen anymore.
The Dutch are not going to have food shortages. its more an issue of livelihood.
The main issue is runoff. In short, cows shit. That effluence has to be disposed of. The issue is, cows poo in fields, the rain comes and washes it into watercourses. That then finds it's way into rivers and lakes and causes large algal blooms that kill everything.
The more productive a farm, the bigger the runoff problem.
As everything has water in the Netherlands, runoff is a massive problem(its a big problem in the UK, but we have other issues that are more pressing in the eyes of the public).
The traditional solution would be to drain Makermeer, expand onto that and have done with it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flevopolder was "drained" in 1962) but thats not going to happen anymore.
The Dutch are not going to have food shortages. its more an issue of livelihood.
Food shortages?
To be more straight: the pollution came from animals urine or guano, witch is NOT AT ALL pollutant under certain level of concentration (it's a good fertilizer for most plants, not a limited number) above such level it start to kill most plants.
Now that's is a density issue: NL is a little country with a big population, so they can't expand much. Farms in the actual economic model need to be "intensive" witch means very dense and as a result pollutant.
IMVHO some, really intensive, can collect urine/guano and sell them as a basic product to build fertilizers, that demand money, I do not know how many farmers have... Others have not much choice. Simply letting the country starve so people learn they need to eat and supermarkets does not produce food in their backyard might be of help not for NL in particular but for anyone who like to have all and want the pollution in someone else home...
A bottomline disclaimer: I'm not Dutch, I do not live in NL and I'm not a farmer...
Now that's is a density issue: NL is a little country with a big population, so they can't expand much. Farms in the actual economic model need to be "intensive" witch means very dense and as a result pollutant.
IMVHO some, really intensive, can collect urine/guano and sell them as a basic product to build fertilizers, that demand money, I do not know how many farmers have... Others have not much choice. Simply letting the country starve so people learn they need to eat and supermarkets does not produce food in their backyard might be of help not for NL in particular but for anyone who like to have all and want the pollution in someone else home...
A bottomline disclaimer: I'm not Dutch, I do not live in NL and I'm not a farmer...
> I'm not sure why this is on HN
Agriculture is technology too.
Agriculture is technology too.
Thanks for an explanation. I’m only familiar with this subject through the political lens I’ve seen it through in some recent headlines, so I appreciate how you got straight to the point. I do have some questions though.
What is the government offering in exchange for these people to shut down their source of livelihood? Who decides which “nearby farms” need to “close” and what process do they follow for deciding that? Is there an objective rubric or well-defined amnesty plan available to farms that pledge to reduce emissions?
Nitrogen emission is not some discretely measurable artifact that conforms nicely to property lines (not to mention shared waterways, grazing routes, etc.). It’s conceivable that a region comprised of ten independent farms might measure as producing excess nitrogen, when in reality nine of the farms are ecologically sustainable, but one dominant polluter pushes the region to excess as a whole.
In this situation, how will the government decide exactly which farms are subject to which regulations or shutdown orders? Do you think this might depend on the outcomes of some political process?
(btw, I expect the American perspective on this will lean strongly in favor of the farmers, the key difference being “the government’s citizens” vs “the citizens’ government.”)
What is the government offering in exchange for these people to shut down their source of livelihood? Who decides which “nearby farms” need to “close” and what process do they follow for deciding that? Is there an objective rubric or well-defined amnesty plan available to farms that pledge to reduce emissions?
Nitrogen emission is not some discretely measurable artifact that conforms nicely to property lines (not to mention shared waterways, grazing routes, etc.). It’s conceivable that a region comprised of ten independent farms might measure as producing excess nitrogen, when in reality nine of the farms are ecologically sustainable, but one dominant polluter pushes the region to excess as a whole.
In this situation, how will the government decide exactly which farms are subject to which regulations or shutdown orders? Do you think this might depend on the outcomes of some political process?
(btw, I expect the American perspective on this will lean strongly in favor of the farmers, the key difference being “the government’s citizens” vs “the citizens’ government.”)
[deleted]
This story about the nature reserves plays well in Dutch media, which isn't surprising as it supports the national pride at being particularly diligent. However, it's a little misleading; the Netherlands is dealing with what looks like some of the worst NOx and NH3 pollution in the EU. I'm sure there are various causes for that, but it's measurable by satellite, and it's not merely a question of being overly zealous with nature reserves. Politicians don't like taking blame for dithering, so it's convenient to say their hands are tied by judges, rules, international treaties and the phase of the moon, but really, it's simply a problem that should likely be addressed regardless of the legal details of whatever happened to trigger the current flare up.
Furthermore, Dutch farmers enjoy popular support, remarkable influence, and they know it and use it. However, in actuality they have been warned for years if not decades by now that their emissions were not only harmful, but also unsustainable - yet lobby groups held real action at bay, as usual. An illustration of just how extreme that regulatory capture is should be apparent when you consider that not only does farming have the most millionaires of any industry; they have huge exemptions from wealth and estate taxes and are overrepresented in regulatory bodies the Dutch call waterschappen, which causes its own land misuse issues. Amusing anecdotes here include that the last time this nitrogen debate flaired up: despite livestock farming being responsible for the majority of emissions, lawmakers decided to reduce the speed limits on highways (responsible for a much smaller fraction of emissions in this instance) instead of confronting the farming unions. They're a real political force.
Farmers really don't deserve any pity here. Their industry is a real problem, and the individual farmers that actively muddy the water by trying spreading anti-science misinformation to protect their own interests are causing the Dutch state to persist with poor policy, including shifting costs from rich landowners (the farmers) onto the rest of the population; extremely regressive policies, in other words. Even where farmers will need to adapt to policies they've been warned about and have been delaying for years, current political proposals include excessively lucrative compensation for business losses incurred.
There surely are mitigating factors, but it's impossible to even have a rational discussion about this in Dutch politics because of the toxicity caused by farmers. I'm not holding my breath for a good outcome here. This isn't an example of Dutch diligence or over-zealousness; it's an example of sticking your head in the sand and blaming others for the consequences.
Furthermore, Dutch farmers enjoy popular support, remarkable influence, and they know it and use it. However, in actuality they have been warned for years if not decades by now that their emissions were not only harmful, but also unsustainable - yet lobby groups held real action at bay, as usual. An illustration of just how extreme that regulatory capture is should be apparent when you consider that not only does farming have the most millionaires of any industry; they have huge exemptions from wealth and estate taxes and are overrepresented in regulatory bodies the Dutch call waterschappen, which causes its own land misuse issues. Amusing anecdotes here include that the last time this nitrogen debate flaired up: despite livestock farming being responsible for the majority of emissions, lawmakers decided to reduce the speed limits on highways (responsible for a much smaller fraction of emissions in this instance) instead of confronting the farming unions. They're a real political force.
Farmers really don't deserve any pity here. Their industry is a real problem, and the individual farmers that actively muddy the water by trying spreading anti-science misinformation to protect their own interests are causing the Dutch state to persist with poor policy, including shifting costs from rich landowners (the farmers) onto the rest of the population; extremely regressive policies, in other words. Even where farmers will need to adapt to policies they've been warned about and have been delaying for years, current political proposals include excessively lucrative compensation for business losses incurred.
There surely are mitigating factors, but it's impossible to even have a rational discussion about this in Dutch politics because of the toxicity caused by farmers. I'm not holding my breath for a good outcome here. This isn't an example of Dutch diligence or over-zealousness; it's an example of sticking your head in the sand and blaming others for the consequences.
> the Netherlands is dealing with what looks like some of the worst NOx and NH3 pollution in the EU
Note that there very little NOx emission comes from farming; 92% of NOx comes from industry and traffic. Farming emits mostly NH3.
> Dutch state to persist with poor policy, including shifting costs from rich landowners (the farmers) onto the rest of the population
I do agree that the Dutch government has a tendency to shift costs from rich to poor. However amongst the nitrogen emitters, the farmers are not the richer party here: that is the NOx emitting industry.
Note that there very little NOx emission comes from farming; 92% of NOx comes from industry and traffic. Farming emits mostly NH3.
> Dutch state to persist with poor policy, including shifting costs from rich landowners (the farmers) onto the rest of the population
I do agree that the Dutch government has a tendency to shift costs from rich to poor. However amongst the nitrogen emitters, the farmers are not the richer party here: that is the NOx emitting industry.
Do you have a source for that number? Most of them point to agriculture as the main emitter:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1086854/distribution-nit...
https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/grafiek_herk...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1086854/distribution-nit...
https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/grafiek_herk...
Yes, e.g. https://data.emissieregistratie.nl/emissies/grafiek?s=uiJzcg...
I can't open your first link, the second one is not about emissions but about depositions. Although I agree that depositions are the far more important number, there is a catch: there are no regular measurements of nitrogen depositions in NL, all numbers are estimates based on a model that has only emissions as input. After a lot of criticism about that, the RIVM has started to take deposit samples near 2 farms in 2020, hoping to be able to refine their models with the results. The results of those samples are not used in their famous nitrogen map yet, and anyway since they only measure near farms and not near industry, they won't tell much about NOx deposition.
I can't open your first link, the second one is not about emissions but about depositions. Although I agree that depositions are the far more important number, there is a catch: there are no regular measurements of nitrogen depositions in NL, all numbers are estimates based on a model that has only emissions as input. After a lot of criticism about that, the RIVM has started to take deposit samples near 2 farms in 2020, hoping to be able to refine their models with the results. The results of those samples are not used in their famous nitrogen map yet, and anyway since they only measure near farms and not near industry, they won't tell much about NOx deposition.
Yeah, I'm lumping them together because that's the way they're talked about in the media and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know off the top of my head what the exact distribution of which pollutant is. And I'm almost certain that if the debate were rational, there'd be some way to find out which pollution is the most harmful/least expensive to avoid, and thus come up with rational prioritization in policy.
That's why this whole pseudo-pastoral "just-hard-working-folk" shtick combined with fake surprise and outrage is so damaging: nobody is arguing for abolishing agriculture; everybody knows it's simply necessary - oh, and lucrative. But policy on this hot-button issue isn't even remotely based on science; it's based on politics, which in turn is based on whatever riles people up - so farmers are trying to portray this as some kind of evil bureacrats vs. the earth of the land, and nobody is talking about (at least not with any popular reach) why this is even a problem, what to do about it, etc etc etc.
That's why this whole pseudo-pastoral "just-hard-working-folk" shtick combined with fake surprise and outrage is so damaging: nobody is arguing for abolishing agriculture; everybody knows it's simply necessary - oh, and lucrative. But policy on this hot-button issue isn't even remotely based on science; it's based on politics, which in turn is based on whatever riles people up - so farmers are trying to portray this as some kind of evil bureacrats vs. the earth of the land, and nobody is talking about (at least not with any popular reach) why this is even a problem, what to do about it, etc etc etc.
What makes you think the description is incorrect? Even following your own account the title of the article is spot on.
The rest of the emissions story is the overarching narrative that we "must" cut some emissions and therefore food production must be reduced and hence food prices must increase.
The rest of the emissions story is the overarching narrative that we "must" cut some emissions and therefore food production must be reduced and hence food prices must increase.
The article claims that the protests are against Dutch plans to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
This is incorrect, the plan is to slash NH3 and NO2 emissions. The former is not a greenhouse gas and global warming has nothing to do with it.
Random guesswork trivia: it's probably not a relevant greenhouse gas because it's so soluble; it just rains to the ground? Because it does have the structure and absorption spectrum that otherwise might make it a greenhouse gas: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mid-infrared_absorpt...
This is on HN because someone posted it on HN.
The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
I think the parent mostly meant that it’s unexpected to be the #1 post on HN right now, which I agree with; didn’t expect this community to care this much about it.
Fringe bureaucratic rules, arguable ecologic preservation actions, agricultural impacts in a time of uncertainty of the agricultural output... It has almost everything that HK loves, it's just missing being written in a cool language.
Most of the public face of Dutch farming is a show intended to mislead the public into having sympathy, as if the farmers were struggling and at risk of losing their livelihoods. This is what every industry does in the face of regulations.
The farmers represented by these organizations are not poor. They are profiting handsomely while creating significant pollution - a cost borne by the local public and the global public.
The Netherlands is a small country by land size, and it has a vast number of intensive farms. The same intensive farming practices which are passable in other places are create high concentrations of pollution here. And as the NL as part of the EU and has agreed to abide by various pollution limits, it must make changes to curb its pollution.
Simply saying, "But this is my way of life!" is not valid if that way of life comes at an increasing cost to everyone around you. Just because something has been going on for some time does not mean it should be allowed to continue.
As for the protests, they are not protests - they are extortion or terrorism. As such, they should be met with severe criminal penalties. Allowing a group of wealthy bullies to take over a country is not acceptable in modern times. We are hopefully not just a bunch of apes with clubs forming clans and dominating those who "threaten our way of life".
The farmers represented by these organizations are not poor. They are profiting handsomely while creating significant pollution - a cost borne by the local public and the global public.
The Netherlands is a small country by land size, and it has a vast number of intensive farms. The same intensive farming practices which are passable in other places are create high concentrations of pollution here. And as the NL as part of the EU and has agreed to abide by various pollution limits, it must make changes to curb its pollution.
Simply saying, "But this is my way of life!" is not valid if that way of life comes at an increasing cost to everyone around you. Just because something has been going on for some time does not mean it should be allowed to continue.
As for the protests, they are not protests - they are extortion or terrorism. As such, they should be met with severe criminal penalties. Allowing a group of wealthy bullies to take over a country is not acceptable in modern times. We are hopefully not just a bunch of apes with clubs forming clans and dominating those who "threaten our way of life".
I feel like you don't need to "mislead" the public into having sympathy for you when the government bans ~30% of farming and then sends tanks in to stop protesters
If anything people who don't have sympathy for the farmers have been mislead. These people are having their lives destroyed for political reasons, it's like if we said with the exception of Google, Apple, and Microsoft all tech companies had to reduce their server power usage by 30% and couldn't expand in the future. This law is horrible and oppressive
If anything people who don't have sympathy for the farmers have been mislead. These people are having their lives destroyed for political reasons, it's like if we said with the exception of Google, Apple, and Microsoft all tech companies had to reduce their server power usage by 30% and couldn't expand in the future. This law is horrible and oppressive
> sends tanks in to stop protesters
Not a single tank was used. This is pathetic framing. The "tanks" were send in by the protesters: aka farming equipment, the same category used to get rid of them in the end (earth moving equipment and truck towing), which you frame as tanks (which closes the circle).
Not a single tank was used. This is pathetic framing. The "tanks" were send in by the protesters: aka farming equipment, the same category used to get rid of them in the end (earth moving equipment and truck towing), which you frame as tanks (which closes the circle).
Interesting, I have read the same about German farmers recently. Maybe I should become a farmer, I do like money and I am quite good at complaining...
I'm sure your views on this subject would be completely different if you were a farmer.
No, probably not. I would just know that I was making a profit at the expense of everyone else. To go out in public and cry crocodile tears about my livelihood would be disingenuous.
>To go out in public and cry crocodile tears about my livelihood would be disingenuous
Should we feel the same way about people in IT, programming and other computer related industries then they are laid off for economic reasons? I find it odd that there are many industries that produce far more damaging pollution, including the tech industries, which don't even produce the necessities for life like farming does, but nobody blinks any eye.
Should we feel the same way about people in IT, programming and other computer related industries then they are laid off for economic reasons? I find it odd that there are many industries that produce far more damaging pollution, including the tech industries, which don't even produce the necessities for life like farming does, but nobody blinks any eye.
These are not the same at all, at least generally speaking.
IT workers are usually not causing direct environmental impact on those around them. And if you assessed the percentage of environmental cost per individual, you would likely find that IT workers would be way, way below industrial farmers.
There are certainly many industries that create significant pollution. But pragmatically, we care when it's a small few people creating a high concentration of said pollution. That is the case for Dutch farmers.
The services of the farmers is appreciated. Their methods are not. They don't want to change their methods (or reduce their output) for any reason, environmental or otherwise. That is the problem. Other industries change (usually after throwing fits like the farmers are doing now).
IT workers are usually not causing direct environmental impact on those around them. And if you assessed the percentage of environmental cost per individual, you would likely find that IT workers would be way, way below industrial farmers.
There are certainly many industries that create significant pollution. But pragmatically, we care when it's a small few people creating a high concentration of said pollution. That is the case for Dutch farmers.
The services of the farmers is appreciated. Their methods are not. They don't want to change their methods (or reduce their output) for any reason, environmental or otherwise. That is the problem. Other industries change (usually after throwing fits like the farmers are doing now).
> Should we feel the same way about people in IT, programming and other computer related industries then they are laid off for economic reasons?
No but we should feel the same way about IT people building tracking software for the advertising industry. That is a more apt analogy probably.
No but we should feel the same way about IT people building tracking software for the advertising industry. That is a more apt analogy probably.
The point probably is that you can replace <farmer> with any well of group trying to get sympathy.
What do you think that would change about the soundness of the argument they outlined?
In the past 5 - 6 years the views on HN has generally shifted that making any amount of profits would be viewed as evil.
Making profits for doing something useful and not overtly harmful is commended. If you provide a needed service, and you do it without harming others, then everyone is happy.
But there are many, many, many examples where the harm is very clear. This is one of those cases. The only reason 53% (supposedly) of the Dutch population support the farmers is because they don't know the full story.
If I come into your neighborhood and do something which gives me a big profit but screws you and your neighbors, should my profit-seeking be commended? Or should we evaluate the real cost?
But there are many, many, many examples where the harm is very clear. This is one of those cases. The only reason 53% (supposedly) of the Dutch population support the farmers is because they don't know the full story.
If I come into your neighborhood and do something which gives me a big profit but screws you and your neighbors, should my profit-seeking be commended? Or should we evaluate the real cost?
Making profit is not evil but, making profit at the cost of everyone is always evil. I am glad that people perceptions are being changed. We all should strive to meet sustainable goals.
But making huge profit in the tech sector is rejoiced, as seen in the likes of Apple, Amazon, Google.... and the list goes on. But farmers are seen as leeches for wanting to be paid for their labor.
Show me where in the news or otherwise that the objection against farmers is that we don't want to pay for their labor. You know this is not the case.
I'm happy to pay farmers for their work, so long as their work doesn't add pollution beyond what is legal to the environment.
I'm happy to pay farmers for their work, so long as their work doesn't add pollution beyond what is legal to the environment.
To understand the nitrogen crisis (Nitrogen Oxides and Ammonia) in the Netherlands you have to see the nitrogen dioxide map:
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/03/Nitrogen_d...
And most of it is from agriculture (landbouw) 46% and abroad (buitenland)
https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/grafiek_herk...
Because the Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world after the USA:
https://medium.com/the-global-millennial/how-the-netherlands...
So something has to be done to lessen output of Ammonia and Nitrogen Oxides as they are destroying the local nature ecosystems.
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/03/Nitrogen_d...
And most of it is from agriculture (landbouw) 46% and abroad (buitenland)
https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/grafiek_herk...
Because the Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world after the USA:
https://medium.com/the-global-millennial/how-the-netherlands...
So something has to be done to lessen output of Ammonia and Nitrogen Oxides as they are destroying the local nature ecosystems.
> So something has to be done to lessen output of Ammonia and Nitrogen Oxides as they are destroying the local nature ecosystems.
I think a majority of people in NL would sacrifice the local nature (to some degree) to solve this crisis. The reason this isn't being done is because these are European rules. Which Dutch democracy cannot simply overturn.
Point being, it's European rules rather than concern for nature, that is the trigger.
I think a majority of people in NL would sacrifice the local nature (to some degree) to solve this crisis. The reason this isn't being done is because these are European rules. Which Dutch democracy cannot simply overturn.
Point being, it's European rules rather than concern for nature, that is the trigger.
> I think a majority of people in NL would sacrifice the local nature (to some degree) to solve this crisis.
Maybe, but that is just because the farmers have a great PR machine going. It does not make sense to sacrifice local nature for an billion dollar industry that mainly (70%) produces for export. Its not like the Dutch food supply will suffer from this in any way.
Maybe, but that is just because the farmers have a great PR machine going. It does not make sense to sacrifice local nature for an billion dollar industry that mainly (70%) produces for export. Its not like the Dutch food supply will suffer from this in any way.
It does not make sense to keep farming. But the extreme correction we currently have is not worth the nature tradeoff. Faith in our government is tanking with Groningen's earthquakes and the toeslagaffaire. Adding to this the government decimating many citizens who acted in good faith is not good.
We are stuck between the option of having a government being an untrustworthy partner, or breaking European laws and sacrificing nature.
We are stuck between the option of having a government being an untrustworthy partner, or breaking European laws and sacrificing nature.
> Adding to this the government decimating many citizens who acted in good faith is not good.
Is it really decimating citizens though? There's 35 billion euros available to compensate them. From what I've seen of the protests/blockades, it seems farmers are mostly upset they can't continue farming the way they currently do. I understand having to change your business practice and/or career sucks, but it's not the end of the world, and it has happened to millions of people that were working in declining industries before.
Furthermore, lots of Dutch farmers have a difficult future ahead of them anyway. Half of the farmers are over 55, and 30% of them don't have a successor lined up. To me it seems like taking the government buyout and retiring is a pretty good way out for them.
Is it really decimating citizens though? There's 35 billion euros available to compensate them. From what I've seen of the protests/blockades, it seems farmers are mostly upset they can't continue farming the way they currently do. I understand having to change your business practice and/or career sucks, but it's not the end of the world, and it has happened to millions of people that were working in declining industries before.
Furthermore, lots of Dutch farmers have a difficult future ahead of them anyway. Half of the farmers are over 55, and 30% of them don't have a successor lined up. To me it seems like taking the government buyout and retiring is a pretty good way out for them.
The "local nature" (barely anything left), has already been sacrificed for decades to this. For example, a large drop in insect populations has been recorded, likely because of intensive farming practices. So continuing to do this (apart from EU regulation) does not seem to me like it is very wise. Agriculture is also very dependent on some kind of local nature existing (think pollinators). If you don't care about nature at all, it will be a very dead place soon enough. We are also part of nature, after all.
Note that some of the nature areas are very much man-made. Generally they are the result of either over-farming or over-logging which really reduced the soil quality and gave space for species that can handle poor soil. That is making the impact of nitrous compounds much bigger because it fertilizes the soil which displaces the species used to very poor soil.
As for insect population, that is to do with pesticides, and horticulture. The farming problem causing these protests is nitrous compound emissions caused by keeping livestock. That is a totally different group of farmers.
As for insect population, that is to do with pesticides, and horticulture. The farming problem causing these protests is nitrous compound emissions caused by keeping livestock. That is a totally different group of farmers.
> I think a majority of people in NL would sacrifice the local nature (to some degree) to solve this crisis.
The only crisis is that farmers have known for years they're absolutely major polluters and something would have to give, and as far as their concerned what has to give is the country.
> Point being, it's European rules rather than concern for nature, that is the trigger.
Bullshit.
The EU set aside money for financing nature reserves in member countries. The netherlands were happy to apply for 150 of them or so, and take the money.
The only crisis is that farmers have known for years they're absolutely major polluters and something would have to give, and as far as their concerned what has to give is the country.
> Point being, it's European rules rather than concern for nature, that is the trigger.
Bullshit.
The EU set aside money for financing nature reserves in member countries. The netherlands were happy to apply for 150 of them or so, and take the money.
We applied for these rules decades ago. Now, we regret that, and I presume we would be willing to pay back the money to roll back the application.
If we got more money from the areas than we are now willing to spend on solving this, that would be a separate outrageous government decision.
>Based on measurements gathered by the Copernicus Sentinel-5P mission between April and September 2018, the image shows high levels of nitrogen dioxide in London, Paris, Brussels, western Germany, Milan and Moscow. Nitrogen dioxide pollutes the air mainly as a result of traffic and the combustion of fossil fuel in industrial processes. It has a significant impact on human health, contributing particularly to respiratory problems.
It seems that farming isn't even mentioned in the issue of nitrogen compounds produced. Maybe they should work harder on the elimination of oil as an energy source.
It seems that farming isn't even mentioned in the issue of nitrogen compounds produced. Maybe they should work harder on the elimination of oil as an energy source.
We are already working hard on this: .nl is the country with the lowest average CO2 emmissions per new car sold in the EU (and thus also nitrogen most likely). We're finally building decent amounts of wind turbines (still a shame that we dutch don't lead in this).
However, farming emissions have plateaued: https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2022-06/Grafiek%20Em...
However, farming emissions have plateaued: https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2022-06/Grafiek%20Em...
That image and the description only applies to nitrogen dioxide; the problem in the Netherlands is mostly ammonia, which is for >85% produced by farming.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/dossier/dossier-stikstof/stikstofem...
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/dossier/dossier-stikstof/stikstofem...
> the problem in the Netherlands is mostly ammonia
This is not true, and the article you're linking to doesn't support your claim. The majority of the nitrogen containing emissions are NOx. About the differences in harmfulness between both gasses not much is known, at least not when it's about soil pollution. NOx is a powerful greenhouse gas though, while NHx is not.
This is not true, and the article you're linking to doesn't support your claim. The majority of the nitrogen containing emissions are NOx. About the differences in harmfulness between both gasses not much is known, at least not when it's about soil pollution. NOx is a powerful greenhouse gas though, while NHx is not.
> This is not true, and the article you're linking to doesn't support your claim. The majority of the nitrogen containing emissions are NOx.
Only by weight, but one molecule of NO (30 u) and especially NO2 (46 u) is much heavier than one molecule of NH3 (17 u). If you read literally the next sentence in the article, they convert the gross weight into amount of nitrogen, and the ammonia contains twice the nitrogen content.
Only by weight, but one molecule of NO (30 u) and especially NO2 (46 u) is much heavier than one molecule of NH3 (17 u). If you read literally the next sentence in the article, they convert the gross weight into amount of nitrogen, and the ammonia contains twice the nitrogen content.
Why is it better to spread out nitrogenes over a larger area? If they're the result of food production (well, of current technology of food production), than that won't change the amount of nitrogenes, just the location.
If anything, higher concentration of nitrogen sources in Netherlands could make it easier to solve the problem, centrally.
If anything, higher concentration of nitrogen sources in Netherlands could make it easier to solve the problem, centrally.
I thought you meant per capita, but I looked it up and it really is the second largest in absolute terms - 80B$ versus 120B$ for the US. It's insane that the netherlands exports over half as much as a country 20x it's size.
That is one heck of a blob over London and that area does lack farms. Indeed looking at somewhere like Spain and you would think all that fruit and vegtable production didn't exist.
So is farming more a scapegoat for these emmisions?
So is farming more a scapegoat for these emmisions?
According to above graph, 6,1% of the output in the Netherlands is coming from traffic compared to 46% from farming.
And mind most of the output comes from farm animals like cows, pigs and chickens which the Netherlands has a lot on a small surface area. It is not as much caused by growing crops and fruits.
NO2 is mostly generated from burning fuel, that's why in most of the countries in the map you only see yellow blobs over major cities due to higher car traffic, and almost no NO2 in rural areas.
The major blob over central europe and south uk makes no sense and I don't think that excessive farming can justify it.
If you look at a worldwide map of NO2 emissions [1] you can see that besides that large area in Europe only China has concentrations of NO2 that high.
[1] https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/no2/pix/regionals/scripts/sliderav...
[1] https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/no2/pix/regionals/scripts/sliderav...
No, farming (fertilizer, manure) produces nitrogen oxide. Cars also produce nitrogen oxide, which is why metropolitan areas also show up.
Yes and wasn't dismissing farming as being a source and mindful cars were probably huge factor in this. But thought was worth opening that up for debate as many will see such data and run with their conclusions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's mostly about the ammonia produced by animals (manure).
Animal waste in general.
Anyone with a dog and a yard learns how devastating their waste can be to plants. Now multiple that by 10,000.
Anyone with a dog and a yard learns how devastating their waste can be to plants. Now multiple that by 10,000.
These protests are against attempts to slash greenhouse gas emissions in general; CO2 and many other greenhouse gasses are entirely irrelevant here. I don't trust this source if they can't even get that detail right. The problem is with nitrogen containing compounds specifically near nature preserves.
This is part of an ongoing conflict between farmers and the government that's been going on for years now. It started five years ago when the government got told that part of their nature preservation law was illegal and the government was the forced to act. Everything from construction to industry is hit by the restrictions the government ignored for years.
Pollution within the country mostly comes from farmers (up to two thirds of the total, even higher specifically in nature reserves) and therefore most measures are aimed at reducing farm pollution.
This new wave of protests is particularly bad as politicians are now threatened in their homes.
This is part of an ongoing conflict between farmers and the government that's been going on for years now. It started five years ago when the government got told that part of their nature preservation law was illegal and the government was the forced to act. Everything from construction to industry is hit by the restrictions the government ignored for years.
Pollution within the country mostly comes from farmers (up to two thirds of the total, even higher specifically in nature reserves) and therefore most measures are aimed at reducing farm pollution.
This new wave of protests is particularly bad as politicians are now threatened in their homes.
From previous comments on the subject I gathered that farmers had apparently been exempted from or allowed to skirt many of the previous rules and regulations as well, despite a major if not the main source of pollution in the country.
But not this time, this time they're asked to put in the work same as everyone else, and that makes them very unhappy.
But not this time, this time they're asked to put in the work same as everyone else, and that makes them very unhappy.
They haven't been exempted per se, but the license system the government implemented was way too loose and allowed for much more pollution than EU standards allow for.
As an industry, they're disproportionately hit because they're disproportionately causing pollution of this type. In a European context, they've had an advantage over other countries for years.
However, certain industries are subsidised less than their competition. Dairy production, for example, only takes 20% of their income from subsidies in the Netherlands, where competing countries provide double that. There is also pressure from the supermarket monopoly chain to keep prices incredibly low, as importing the same products from countries with lower wages is quite cheap in comparison. It's quite difficult to compete with much cheaper countries within the eurozone while staying within the pollution limits because there's simply less land to go around and more money needs to be spent on utilities, fuel, housing, and everything else. Clearly, violent protests to end pollution restrictions won't solve that problem, because of the Dutch government ignores these rules, what's keeping the foreign industry from doing the same and dropping prices even further?
This can only end one way, and that's with fewer farms and less livestock within the Netherlands. I don't see what refusing to accept that is even still doing for these people.
As an industry, they're disproportionately hit because they're disproportionately causing pollution of this type. In a European context, they've had an advantage over other countries for years.
However, certain industries are subsidised less than their competition. Dairy production, for example, only takes 20% of their income from subsidies in the Netherlands, where competing countries provide double that. There is also pressure from the supermarket monopoly chain to keep prices incredibly low, as importing the same products from countries with lower wages is quite cheap in comparison. It's quite difficult to compete with much cheaper countries within the eurozone while staying within the pollution limits because there's simply less land to go around and more money needs to be spent on utilities, fuel, housing, and everything else. Clearly, violent protests to end pollution restrictions won't solve that problem, because of the Dutch government ignores these rules, what's keeping the foreign industry from doing the same and dropping prices even further?
This can only end one way, and that's with fewer farms and less livestock within the Netherlands. I don't see what refusing to accept that is even still doing for these people.
"Put in the work same as everyone else" seems, potentially, a bit off to me. Farming, by its nature, may involve more pollution than other professions. For example, a programmer working remotely emits very little nitrogen relative to a farmer, but it would be odd to say that the programmer is putting in the work on nitrogen emissions.
Let's take your analogy and fix it a bit.
There's a guy living on one side of the lake in an area where electricity is cheap. He decides to setup a bitcoin miner in his home. Once he starts making money, he realizes his profit is quite good; so he scales up, and scales up, and scales up. Eventually he's drawing so much electricity that it's affecting the whole region; and he's cooling his mining rigs with circulated lake water, eventually affecting the local wildlife in the water and around it.
Is that ok? After all, 1 rig was fine. What's wrong with 1000 rigs?
What's wrong is that there was always an environmental or public cost that was not borne by the person making the profit. When it was a small cost, it wasn't a problem. But now it's a huge cost.
There's a guy living on one side of the lake in an area where electricity is cheap. He decides to setup a bitcoin miner in his home. Once he starts making money, he realizes his profit is quite good; so he scales up, and scales up, and scales up. Eventually he's drawing so much electricity that it's affecting the whole region; and he's cooling his mining rigs with circulated lake water, eventually affecting the local wildlife in the water and around it.
Is that ok? After all, 1 rig was fine. What's wrong with 1000 rigs?
What's wrong is that there was always an environmental or public cost that was not borne by the person making the profit. When it was a small cost, it wasn't a problem. But now it's a huge cost.
What I wrote was not an analogy but an example meant literally. It's specious to say that "we all follow a regulation" as some kind of argument by solidarity if the regulation is burdensome to some people and not to others.
The LACK of regulation is burdensome to everyone. The farmers have increased profits at the expense of everyone else.
If a person ran a small mail order business out of their house, and once a day a delivery vehicle came to drop off and pick up items, it wouldn't be much of an issue for the neighbors. Perhaps there wouldn't be any zoning regulations (because heretofore it was not necessary). But if the house is now full of workers, and there are a dozen semi trucks stopped in front of the house every day, the neighbors are going to be unhappy. Probably the local government will institute some zoning laws which prohibit that scale of operation in a residential area.
Obviously that new regulation is burdensome to the person who was running a fine, profitable operation out of a residential home. Naturally they will fight to prevent such regulation.
What we have here is a town where every block has such an operation. So the town has a lot of good production and export, and there's great financial incentive to continue. But not only are the locals who are not in that business impacted negatively by the businesses, but now even the neighboring towns are complaining about the torn up country roads (too many heavy trucks), the congested intersections, and so on.
The businesses say the problem is not them, but lack of good infrastructure. Build more big roads and this won't be a problem. Why take away our successful businesses that we built with our own hands? Let us buy our neighbors houses (to expand our business), and those people can move away where they won't be bothered by us.
Make no mistake - if it were possible, the farmers would buy up every piece of land in this small country and push all the other people out. Why stop with what you have when you could scale up and earn more?
If a person ran a small mail order business out of their house, and once a day a delivery vehicle came to drop off and pick up items, it wouldn't be much of an issue for the neighbors. Perhaps there wouldn't be any zoning regulations (because heretofore it was not necessary). But if the house is now full of workers, and there are a dozen semi trucks stopped in front of the house every day, the neighbors are going to be unhappy. Probably the local government will institute some zoning laws which prohibit that scale of operation in a residential area.
Obviously that new regulation is burdensome to the person who was running a fine, profitable operation out of a residential home. Naturally they will fight to prevent such regulation.
What we have here is a town where every block has such an operation. So the town has a lot of good production and export, and there's great financial incentive to continue. But not only are the locals who are not in that business impacted negatively by the businesses, but now even the neighboring towns are complaining about the torn up country roads (too many heavy trucks), the congested intersections, and so on.
The businesses say the problem is not them, but lack of good infrastructure. Build more big roads and this won't be a problem. Why take away our successful businesses that we built with our own hands? Let us buy our neighbors houses (to expand our business), and those people can move away where they won't be bothered by us.
Make no mistake - if it were possible, the farmers would buy up every piece of land in this small country and push all the other people out. Why stop with what you have when you could scale up and earn more?
The general tenor of a lot of agricultural objections to these kinds of scenarios tends to be along the lines of "everyone else must fully eliminate all of their emission scenarios before we are forced to reduce a single thing."
You can see a similar effect in the US's Western megadrought crisis, where farmers are adamant that all possible water use reduction in urban and suburban areas are done before you start discussing reducing the water use that goes to agriculture. And I've also seen some similar stories about Chesapeake Bay nitrogen runoff--fix all urban uses before you ask farmers to make changes to their fields.
You can see a similar effect in the US's Western megadrought crisis, where farmers are adamant that all possible water use reduction in urban and suburban areas are done before you start discussing reducing the water use that goes to agriculture. And I've also seen some similar stories about Chesapeake Bay nitrogen runoff--fix all urban uses before you ask farmers to make changes to their fields.
Water rights are more tied to the land and deeded as such. I don't think you want to bring water into the fray...
They asked for permits, they got permits. These permits were based on calculations of other measures the government was going to take to reduce nitrogen emissions. Now those permits turn out to be wrong, and whilst farmers with permits can keep them, they cannot sell, expand, or modify their business. Moreover, there is a chance they will be forced to sell their farms to the government.
The government caused this problem, the only mistake farmers made was trusting the word of the government.
The government caused this problem, the only mistake farmers made was trusting the word of the government.
CO2 is not irrelevant to this story, the nitrogen produced by farming in bad for a type of growth called raised bogs that thrives only in nitrogen poor conditions. Now you might not care about this unimpressive shrugs and grasses but they are one of natures most effective ways of storing carbon.
To be honest I don't know how much this raised bogs plays a role in the carbon calculus, but the dutch government is not doing a god job explaining this.
To be honest I don't know how much this raised bogs plays a role in the carbon calculus, but the dutch government is not doing a god job explaining this.
>This new wave of protests is particularly bad as politicians are now threatened in their homes.
While I don't agree with the positions held by the farmers, I do have to admire a group of people who know where to direct their energy.
While I don't agree with the positions held by the farmers, I do have to admire a group of people who know where to direct their energy.
Have the protesters specifically threatened politicians with violence, or merely demonstrated near their homes?
Death threads are a normal part of being a politician these days, but death threads while a violent mob gathers in front of your house just hit differently.
Luckily, there have been no attempts to harm anyone yet. So far there has only been property damage, blocked roads, and one or two blocked ambulances that may or may not have had consequences. It's also hard to tell what the consequences have been of blocking the supermarket distribution centers, though the intent is clearly to block them for a longer period, so access to healthy food may become a problem in some regions as early as later this week.
Luckily, there have been no attempts to harm anyone yet. So far there has only been property damage, blocked roads, and one or two blocked ambulances that may or may not have had consequences. It's also hard to tell what the consequences have been of blocking the supermarket distribution centers, though the intent is clearly to block them for a longer period, so access to healthy food may become a problem in some regions as early as later this week.
They surrounded a house with tractors at night without notice.
The farmers seem to be fighting a very losing battle on this one. A few weeks ago, about 40% of the population was supportive of their plight. In just the last few days we've seen:
- Farmers blocking highways, not even letting ambulances through (!).
- Farmers threatening the family of cabinet ministers.
- Blockades of food distribution centers.
- Rioters attacking police vans with sledgehammers.
This kind of thing has been degrading popular support pretty fast. Politicians calling it a "civil war" are just playing to the audience though. Actual farmers make up a less than a single percent of the population (~53k according to the central statistics agency) and the general desire of the population to get on with other things like building houses is likely to prevail IMO.
- Farmers blocking highways, not even letting ambulances through (!).
- Farmers threatening the family of cabinet ministers.
- Blockades of food distribution centers.
- Rioters attacking police vans with sledgehammers.
This kind of thing has been degrading popular support pretty fast. Politicians calling it a "civil war" are just playing to the audience though. Actual farmers make up a less than a single percent of the population (~53k according to the central statistics agency) and the general desire of the population to get on with other things like building houses is likely to prevail IMO.
I've noticed this gets said of every protest movement in the last few decades: BLM protests in the US, Trucker convoy in Canada, Yellow Vest in France. Even years ago, the average urban dweller started to hate the Critical Mass protests in cities when their commute got worse. I wonder if there is a limit on disobedience that is tolerated? Or simply people get defensive when they are made to suffer for a protest they aren't directly involved with?
This isn't about the actual movements/protests, but about the tactics. "Raising awareness" only gets you so far, negatively impacting people seems to backfire. Is there a middle ground?
This isn't about the actual movements/protests, but about the tactics. "Raising awareness" only gets you so far, negatively impacting people seems to backfire. Is there a middle ground?
> Is there a middle ground?
Yes. Raise awareness with targeted, limited, protests and try to keep the awareness by remaining visible. You can remain visible with banners, brochures, interviews and in lots of ways. Increasing violence is not a good way to get people interested in your cause. The increase in violence also often doesn't seem to be caused by the people who feel strongly about a cause, but by other who hijack it for their enjoyment.
Also, the farmers aren't raising awareness for some coherent goal like ending racism. They are protesting drastic measures that are necessary to protect nature in the country and are supported by a majority of the people. These drastic measures include billions in payments to the affected farmers, it's not like the cost will be on them. So it will be really hard for the farmers to convince the public that their demands are reasonable. (We don't even really know their demands except "not this".)
Yes. Raise awareness with targeted, limited, protests and try to keep the awareness by remaining visible. You can remain visible with banners, brochures, interviews and in lots of ways. Increasing violence is not a good way to get people interested in your cause. The increase in violence also often doesn't seem to be caused by the people who feel strongly about a cause, but by other who hijack it for their enjoyment.
Also, the farmers aren't raising awareness for some coherent goal like ending racism. They are protesting drastic measures that are necessary to protect nature in the country and are supported by a majority of the people. These drastic measures include billions in payments to the affected farmers, it's not like the cost will be on them. So it will be really hard for the farmers to convince the public that their demands are reasonable. (We don't even really know their demands except "not this".)
On the other side there's been massive censorship through tech + gov partnership to amplify the tyranny of the majority and even shape the majority's beliefs. Couple that with huge funding imbalances in science and sponsored "research". What's the saying go? If you suppress speech, the only option is more forceful approaches...
Considering the imminent food shortages due to the double whammy of blocked Ukrainian exports and global fertilizer shortage, closing farms for greenhouse emissions seems like a spectacularly bad idea.
The article is wrong. I don't get how this could make it to the top.
It has nothing to do with greenhouse emissions, but with nitrogen compound emission. See https://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2022/06/whats-all-the-fuss... (the first english source I could find)
The source is mostly cattle. Which doesn't make up for Ukrainian grain.
It has nothing to do with greenhouse emissions, but with nitrogen compound emission. See https://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2022/06/whats-all-the-fuss... (the first english source I could find)
The source is mostly cattle. Which doesn't make up for Ukrainian grain.
> The source is mostly cattle. Which doesn't make up for Ukrainian grain.
I would expect that the more food shortages become severe, the more different types of food become fungible.
You might think this happens only in extreme cases, but as a "poor" Uni student I don't remember eating expensive food very often. And I was living in one of the richest countries on earth.
Single parents, people in disadvantaged communities etc., even in first-world countries, have the problem of putting food on the plate, and they don't really have the luxury to think about what type of food that is.
I would expect that the more food shortages become severe, the more different types of food become fungible.
You might think this happens only in extreme cases, but as a "poor" Uni student I don't remember eating expensive food very often. And I was living in one of the richest countries on earth.
Single parents, people in disadvantaged communities etc., even in first-world countries, have the problem of putting food on the plate, and they don't really have the luxury to think about what type of food that is.
Beef prices have been extremely high for a while now, having over doubled since the pandemic started, and going up 5x since 2010. The people suffering from food insecurity haven't been eating beef as a staple. It's a luxury.
Industrial beef is fed grains that could be instead used to feed humans (or, at least the land used to produce these grains can instead produce human food). This is a far more efficient use of calories. People worried about food insecurity should be looking at reducing meat production for this very reason.
Industrial beef is fed grains that could be instead used to feed humans (or, at least the land used to produce these grains can instead produce human food). This is a far more efficient use of calories. People worried about food insecurity should be looking at reducing meat production for this very reason.
My argument is that if all beef in the world magically disappeared this minute due to an evil curse, food prices would go up across the board, regardless of food categories. I may be wrong.
> It's a luxury.
IMHO it's not a luxury in the same way that caviar and champagne are, it's a luxury in the same way that fresh greens are a luxury compared to frozen peas.
> It's a luxury.
IMHO it's not a luxury in the same way that caviar and champagne are, it's a luxury in the same way that fresh greens are a luxury compared to frozen peas.
Momentarily, for sure.
Medium or long term though, practically all other domesticated animals are more efficient than beef on a per-calorie basis. Chickens in particular, are substantially more efficient. Best case, replacing beef with chicken could increase meat yields by 10x, worst case, by 3x.
https://awellfedworld.org/feed-ratios/
Medium or long term though, practically all other domesticated animals are more efficient than beef on a per-calorie basis. Chickens in particular, are substantially more efficient. Best case, replacing beef with chicken could increase meat yields by 10x, worst case, by 3x.
https://awellfedworld.org/feed-ratios/
> practically all other domesticated animals are more efficient than beef on a per-calorie basis
yes, this is true, although some of those, like chickens which you mentioned, or pigs that are mentioned in the link you shared, are dependent on grains - unlike beef, which can be grass-fed.
But there are more animals besides beef that can be grass-fed, and they might be more efficient than beef.
It would be interesting to know the feed conversion ratios of goats and sheep for example.
The problem of goats and sheep is that, in a regenerative faming context, their manure is not perceived to be as effective as cow manure.
For this reason, would be interesting to measure both feed conversion ratios AND manure production ratio.
Knowing the effectiveness of manure in a regenerative farming context is very important, unless we want to continue depending on fertilisers made from petroleum which is just as bad as burning gasoline in terms of global warming.
yes, this is true, although some of those, like chickens which you mentioned, or pigs that are mentioned in the link you shared, are dependent on grains - unlike beef, which can be grass-fed.
But there are more animals besides beef that can be grass-fed, and they might be more efficient than beef.
It would be interesting to know the feed conversion ratios of goats and sheep for example.
The problem of goats and sheep is that, in a regenerative faming context, their manure is not perceived to be as effective as cow manure.
For this reason, would be interesting to measure both feed conversion ratios AND manure production ratio.
Knowing the effectiveness of manure in a regenerative farming context is very important, unless we want to continue depending on fertilisers made from petroleum which is just as bad as burning gasoline in terms of global warming.
Most ranchland is ill-suited to other uses.
Many are wondering if this is by design. Generate a crisis and then solve the problem with an approach that gives you what you want. Force the little people to eat bugs and only fly on planes rarely. Tie your wallet and passport to what you buy, where you go etc and fence them in.
I think the source is dairy farming specifically. So cattle yes, but kept for milk rather than for beef?
So if these farmers would switch to agriculture it would be a solution right? Although fertilizers come with their own set of problems if I remember correctly.
How does a car compare to a cow?
About 45% of these emissions come from farms, 12% from cars. The national speed limit was lowered from 130 to 100 km/hr to deal with this issue (happened a few years ago)
Plants turn CO2 into proteins and sugars. One of two things happens. Either the cattle eat the plants and process them
or the plants rot and produce CO2 and Methane which quickly becomes CO2.
Animals eat the plant some of the CO2 is stored as fat and protein. The remainder is exuded in the form of cowshit and farts. The cowshit goes back to the soil and into plants. The Methane produced quickly becomes CO2 which is, AGAIN, used by the plants to produce plant growth. How is a single atom of carbon actually created in any of this? Sure ,if animal numbers suddenly expand rapidly, you get a very very minute increase in Methane levels. The effect is indiscernible in reality.
Animals eat the plant some of the CO2 is stored as fat and protein. The remainder is exuded in the form of cowshit and farts. The cowshit goes back to the soil and into plants. The Methane produced quickly becomes CO2 which is, AGAIN, used by the plants to produce plant growth. How is a single atom of carbon actually created in any of this? Sure ,if animal numbers suddenly expand rapidly, you get a very very minute increase in Methane levels. The effect is indiscernible in reality.
The Netherlands is a small, densely populated country with a huge farming export surplus, with a very large industry (and lobby) behind them. This also isn’t about plantations, but livestock. Cows mostly. So nothing related to fertilisers at all.
A few years ago a judge ruled that the way the government calculated the emissions were incorrect, and now the government is basically forced to act. As these livestock farms account for a huge amount of nitrogen compound emissions, the most pain will be felt here. This was known for many years though, but now the reality is here and shit hit the fan.
In general, I think all this is also a symptom of the general distrust in the government, frustration that has been building up, and there’s quite some overlap in this protesting community and the “covid is a hoax” group. It attracts some very weird people.
A few years ago a judge ruled that the way the government calculated the emissions were incorrect, and now the government is basically forced to act. As these livestock farms account for a huge amount of nitrogen compound emissions, the most pain will be felt here. This was known for many years though, but now the reality is here and shit hit the fan.
In general, I think all this is also a symptom of the general distrust in the government, frustration that has been building up, and there’s quite some overlap in this protesting community and the “covid is a hoax” group. It attracts some very weird people.
The point is that the world is facing a massive food shortage this year, and anything that reduces food supply will result in more starvation in the third world.
This just just not good timing.
This just just not good timing.
Wouldn’t reducing the number of cows increase total food supply? I’m not saying that NL should reduce their cow supply, but your logic seems flawed.
Even for dairy production, cows consume a lot more calories than they provide on the other end. If fewer calories are going to feed cows, then more would be available for other uses.
Even for dairy production, cows consume a lot more calories than they provide on the other end. If fewer calories are going to feed cows, then more would be available for other uses.
That depends entirely on what the cattle are being fed. If they are grazing pasture that cannot be planted in row crops (e.g. too hilly, too gravelly), or if they are eating the waste products of other food production (e.g. corn stalk silage), then they are eating calories that would never have been available for human consumption.
These farms will be closed over an 8 year period (hopefully), and farms have been closed over the past years as well. It’s just the protests that are happening now, the actual effects are spread over years and years.
Why are you hopeful about closing farms? I don't understand that.
Because it makes very little sense for a country as small and densely populated to heavily subsidise this industry and have such an export surplus, even more so for livestock. This is not a healthy industry, economy at all.
I think this is an utterly ridiculous situation to be in, and the whole argumentation from the farmer’s side is ridiculous. I understand their concerns, but this process has been going on for years, decades, and at this point they’re just mostly spreading FUD.
I think this is an utterly ridiculous situation to be in, and the whole argumentation from the farmer’s side is ridiculous. I understand their concerns, but this process has been going on for years, decades, and at this point they’re just mostly spreading FUD.
Udderly ridiculous.
Because we have too many in the Netherlands, it's that simple. We are a tiny country where nearly every area that isn't used for housing or industry is used for farming. Go to any other European country, you have large forested areas, mountains, etc. That hardly exists in the Netherlands because we're all farm.
The reduction in farm animals isn't going to happen within a year (there are not even very concrete plans yet), this will likely be a very long process.
The Dutch protests are not about third world countries.
I don't care what the protests are about, I'm saying why it is a terrible idea.
And you're wrong, and ignoring people who are trying to educate you. Ramping down the number of Dutch cattle over 8 years or whatever is not taking affordable food out of the mouths of poor people in the third world.
> Considering the imminent food shortages
There are no imminent global food shortages. Wheat futures are literally crashing right now because the entire thing was FUD-driven financial speculation: https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/futures/W00
There are (and are going to be) local food shortages, in countries which relied on ukraine specifically as they need new supply lines, and the speculation has done the opposite of helping by pricing them out.
And then also in other low-wealth countries which the speculation has also priced out, there the speculation alone creates the food shortages.
There are no imminent global food shortages. Wheat futures are literally crashing right now because the entire thing was FUD-driven financial speculation: https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/futures/W00
There are (and are going to be) local food shortages, in countries which relied on ukraine specifically as they need new supply lines, and the speculation has done the opposite of helping by pricing them out.
And then also in other low-wealth countries which the speculation has also priced out, there the speculation alone creates the food shortages.
If there is less cattle, less farmland is needed to grow fodder. That farmland is then available for growing food for people. This way the same amount of farmland can feed more people.
Reducing cattle farming increases the efficiency of food production.
Reducing cattle farming increases the efficiency of food production.
Sri Lanka is a recent case study.
Same applies to closing down nuclear reactors and coal mines over the last decade in some countries in Europe.
No, the article is about cow shit.
It’s important to note that much of the food produced by these farms is exported, so national food prices may not be affected as much as you would think.
But people in those countries, where Netherlands has traditionally exported food, might suffer food shortages?
It depends on how the world is going to react. If cattle farms shut down, large swathes of land suddenly become available to more efficient food production as the need for farm animal feed decreases.
Huge amounts of food is being processed into animal feed which in turn ends up producing relatively little food. I like my meats as much as the next guy, but in a world hit by a food shortage caused the Russian invasion, using more arable land to feed people instead of cows seems like the obvious choice.
Huge amounts of food is being processed into animal feed which in turn ends up producing relatively little food. I like my meats as much as the next guy, but in a world hit by a food shortage caused the Russian invasion, using more arable land to feed people instead of cows seems like the obvious choice.
We’re talking about an 8 year period, and all things considered, we’re not that big a player for cow meat exports. But it has a significant impact on a small and densely populated country.
Depending on what’s grown it can be affected if it’s part of a global marketplace. Oil for example doesn’t care where it’s produced but a drop in production anywhere will cause a spike in prices everywhere except for places that subsidize the price (Venezuela and Iran for example).
This is true, and it’s why I said “as much as you think”. There seems to exist a narrative that these farmers are producing “our” food, which is incorrect.
Traditionally exported, or still today?
What foods do they produce that isn't consumed in the Netherlands?
What foods do they produce that isn't consumed in the Netherlands?
People are gonna starve because of these closures.
Maybe. People are going to drown if we do not act to reduce nitrogen emissions
(And eating less meat would significantly reduce emissions, but that seems unlikely to happen on a large scale)
(And eating less meat would significantly reduce emissions, but that seems unlikely to happen on a large scale)
Who knows where we will be in another few years ...
"... 44% of consumers in Germany follow a low-meat diet, which is a significant increase from 2014 (26%). Similarly, 6% of US consumers now claim to be vegan, up from just 1% in 2014" [from 2017]
https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/4959853/top-trends-in-pr...
"The number of vegans in Great Britain quadrupled between 2014 and 2019"
"The 400% increase of vegans in the UK is shocking, but the 1,500% increase in plant-based food sales in the UK is even more shocking. "
"In 2022, research by ProVeg found that 51% of Germans had reduced their meat intake in the previous year"
"In 2022, research commissioned by ProVeg Netherlands found that 28% of Dutch people want to see a future without meat, and 20% would like to see the government ban slaughterhouses"
" Research conducted in 2021 by Rakuten found that 82% of consumers in the US have tried plant milk, 40% have tried other vegan dairy alternatives, 62% have tried plant-based meats and 22% have tried vegan egg replacements. Key motivations included health (35%), wanting to try a food trend (41%), and concern for animals (23%). The same research found that 5% of respondents said that they only consume plant-based foods""
https://www.vegansociety.com/news/media/statistics/worldwide
"... 44% of consumers in Germany follow a low-meat diet, which is a significant increase from 2014 (26%). Similarly, 6% of US consumers now claim to be vegan, up from just 1% in 2014" [from 2017]
https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/4959853/top-trends-in-pr...
"The number of vegans in Great Britain quadrupled between 2014 and 2019"
"The 400% increase of vegans in the UK is shocking, but the 1,500% increase in plant-based food sales in the UK is even more shocking. "
"In 2022, research by ProVeg found that 51% of Germans had reduced their meat intake in the previous year"
"In 2022, research commissioned by ProVeg Netherlands found that 28% of Dutch people want to see a future without meat, and 20% would like to see the government ban slaughterhouses"
" Research conducted in 2021 by Rakuten found that 82% of consumers in the US have tried plant milk, 40% have tried other vegan dairy alternatives, 62% have tried plant-based meats and 22% have tried vegan egg replacements. Key motivations included health (35%), wanting to try a food trend (41%), and concern for animals (23%). The same research found that 5% of respondents said that they only consume plant-based foods""
https://www.vegansociety.com/news/media/statistics/worldwide
Yes, its almost as if the actions of the last few years were planned to cause a massive catastrophic societal collapse that will have us begging for smart cities, green passes and all the other technocratic essentials that have been long in the planning. Technocrats are lucky, I guess.
This article gets so much wrong. For starters "to slash greenhouse gas emissions" is wrong; it's about nitrogen oxides.
Nitrogen oxides are very potent greenhouse gases.
Correct, but in the Netherlands the problem is that they're killing our existing flora and fauna. Especially in areas where nature reserves and farming are close together, this causes issues. The Netherlands is the 2nd biggest food exporter in the world, after the US. But we're only the 134th largest by land mass and 69th largest by population.
The amount of farming we do in our tiny country is pushing the limit of what you can do to nature and it's causing issues on a local scale. The unfortunate thing is that we're about the most efficient producer in the world too, so on a global scale, cutting down production here would probably be a bad thing.
The amount of farming we do in our tiny country is pushing the limit of what you can do to nature and it's causing issues on a local scale. The unfortunate thing is that we're about the most efficient producer in the world too, so on a global scale, cutting down production here would probably be a bad thing.
That have a short life at the atmosphere.
They are relevant for local warming (normally named "heat islands"), but not much for global warming. Anyway, they have much more important local effects, so mostly nobody cares about the warming.
They are relevant for local warming (normally named "heat islands"), but not much for global warming. Anyway, they have much more important local effects, so mostly nobody cares about the warming.
> The protests coincided with a parliamentary vote on a proposed £22bn programme to halve agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide and ammonia by 2030.…close to nature reserves, the policy is tougher still, with 70-95% reductions targeted… Netherlands House of Representatives released a statement which said: “The honest message is that not all farmers will continue in business. Those who do will have to farm differently.”
What does “farm differently” actually look like? Are there viable replacements for the chemicals being targeted? (Guessing not, given the farmers’ reaction.)
What does “farm differently” actually look like? Are there viable replacements for the chemicals being targeted? (Guessing not, given the farmers’ reaction.)
The farmers' reaction is mostly due to the first part:
> not all farmers will continue in business
The farming differently mostly has to do with scale. We're already really good at producing efficiently, but we're building massive (relatively, nothing compared to the US) farms for meat and dairy and we're doing this right next to nature preserves. Our country is so tiny, that pretty much everything is right next to each other.
Over the past decades, through farming and related lobbies, we've seen a huge increase in the size of the farms over here. The economies of scale have benefited the share holders of food companies and banks, but not the farmers, because every penny they save gets cut from their income by these food companies. This causes farmers to aim for even larger farms with more automation, which requires investment, which benefits the banks.
Now, the government is telling the farmers we need to reduce the number of farms and the size of the remaining ones. After being fucked over mostly by large companies for decades, they feel like the government is now targeting them unfairly. They see all their investments might be useless in the future and they're angry because of it.
All of this is exacerbated by leftover Covid anger and conspiracy groups adding to the fire and joining the protests, which are becoming more violent and their demands are becoming less coherent.
> not all farmers will continue in business
The farming differently mostly has to do with scale. We're already really good at producing efficiently, but we're building massive (relatively, nothing compared to the US) farms for meat and dairy and we're doing this right next to nature preserves. Our country is so tiny, that pretty much everything is right next to each other.
Over the past decades, through farming and related lobbies, we've seen a huge increase in the size of the farms over here. The economies of scale have benefited the share holders of food companies and banks, but not the farmers, because every penny they save gets cut from their income by these food companies. This causes farmers to aim for even larger farms with more automation, which requires investment, which benefits the banks.
Now, the government is telling the farmers we need to reduce the number of farms and the size of the remaining ones. After being fucked over mostly by large companies for decades, they feel like the government is now targeting them unfairly. They see all their investments might be useless in the future and they're angry because of it.
All of this is exacerbated by leftover Covid anger and conspiracy groups adding to the fire and joining the protests, which are becoming more violent and their demands are becoming less coherent.
> Guessing not, given the farmers’ reaction.
Why would you guess that? Farmers don't generally like changing their habits, and are usually very happy to put the burden on the commons.
In this case, the farmers are unhappy because the netherlands are a massive nox producer (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/03/Nitrogen_d...), this comes from a huge livestock sector, and the government has decided to implement severe restriction on nox emissions, especially around nature reserves where it's creating wastelands.
Why would you guess that? Farmers don't generally like changing their habits, and are usually very happy to put the burden on the commons.
In this case, the farmers are unhappy because the netherlands are a massive nox producer (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/03/Nitrogen_d...), this comes from a huge livestock sector, and the government has decided to implement severe restriction on nox emissions, especially around nature reserves where it's creating wastelands.
Well, if you produce crops instead of livestock, you are not emitting any nitrogen compounds so would in theory be totally unaffected by regulation.
The Netherlands simply has too many farm animals and overfertilization has been a problem for decades. This is especially visible on this map from 2011 [1]. The overfertilization will lead to biodiversity loss, as plants that prefer nutrient poor soils will be outcompeted by plants that can harness the excess nitrogen and/or that prefer acidic soils [2]. Due to EU regulation and court orders only recently did this become a real mess, where building projects couldn't even continue because of the limits on nitrogen emissions.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_Global_Fertil...
[2] https://www.wur.nl/en/Dossiers/file/Nitrogen.htm
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_Global_Fertil...
.jpg){kind=link}
[2] https://www.wur.nl/en/Dossiers/file/Nitrogen.htm
Why is that “simply”? Why should we care more about biodiversity than construction and farming? I think really nothing is simple about this trade off.
Even with the proposed reduction in the amount of farm animals the Netherlands will still produce more than enough meat and milk to meet domestic demand, and the reason that construction can't continue is precisely the excess nitrogen emissions produced and the physical space consumed by by the farms. The country simply isn't large enough to not make this tradeoff. And if you don't care about the biodiversity, sooner or later you'll find out that you can't continue with agriculture at all because there are no pollinators left.
a bit of background (Dutch national, living currently in France)
They have already reduced the maximum speed from 130 km/h to 100 km/h. They have already reduced house building activity, etc. The problem is, the biggest emitter of nitrogen is the agricultural sector. There is no way that they can make up for lost time without forcing some farmers to stop.
The farmers, like the rest of the Netherlands, knew about this issue for decades. But every time something about farmers is under discussion, they protested heavily(we're not talking quiet marches here) So nobody dares touch the subject. So the whole thing continued for decades.
And given the current zeitgeist, these protests are worse than before. We're talking criminal activities, threatening MPs, etc.
I sympathize with the farmers, and do believe that they deserve some compensation. But I'm not convinced that it's a good thing that the political arena is swayed by violence. Europe's had it's dose of that, and it finished poorly for Europe, and the rest of the world.
- the Dutch are the second largest agricultural exporter (in absolute terms! it's a tiny place, look it up)
- this intense agricultural activity generates a lot of "nitrogen", which causes ecological issues
- the Dutch have known of this issue for decades (I remember talking about it in the 90's)
- the Dutch are bound to nitrogen limits by international treaties (like for CO2)
They have already reduced the maximum speed from 130 km/h to 100 km/h. They have already reduced house building activity, etc. The problem is, the biggest emitter of nitrogen is the agricultural sector. There is no way that they can make up for lost time without forcing some farmers to stop.
The farmers, like the rest of the Netherlands, knew about this issue for decades. But every time something about farmers is under discussion, they protested heavily(we're not talking quiet marches here) So nobody dares touch the subject. So the whole thing continued for decades.
And given the current zeitgeist, these protests are worse than before. We're talking criminal activities, threatening MPs, etc.
I sympathize with the farmers, and do believe that they deserve some compensation. But I'm not convinced that it's a good thing that the political arena is swayed by violence. Europe's had it's dose of that, and it finished poorly for Europe, and the rest of the world.
> the Dutch are the second largest agricultural exporter (in absolute terms!)
This number is quoted often, usually in defence of strict measures, but it includes flower exports (which you can't eat unless you've got a real expensive taste) and imported food being exported again.
I agree with everything else you say, but I very much dislike this factoid.
This number is quoted often, usually in defence of strict measures, but it includes flower exports (which you can't eat unless you've got a real expensive taste) and imported food being exported again.
I agree with everything else you say, but I very much dislike this factoid.
Could say the same thing about China and manufacturing but it really doesn't ever get any traction.
I wasn't trying to point fingers at the Dutch for polluting in the absolute. In fact they're relatively conservative in emissions, for a European country.
I was simply reacting to the various people saying 'yay for all the protests'. Because all this political violence in reaction to ecological conflict is just a taste of what's coming for the rest of the world, and I don't see how one can anticipate that with glee.
I was simply reacting to the various people saying 'yay for all the protests'. Because all this political violence in reaction to ecological conflict is just a taste of what's coming for the rest of the world, and I don't see how one can anticipate that with glee.
I don't know why this is on HN, but this is the degree of protesting I'd like to see happening against patent law.
Are you aware of the "degree of protesting" that has been going on? Threatening children is not OK in my book, even if their parents are government ministers in charge of the policy you disagree with.
I expect that tech news are the primary focus of this site, but that the 'spirit' of the site, as promulgated by the likes of @dang, is intellectual curiosity and debate with a tech focus.
This is the degree of protesting I'd like to see in the US about anything.
There has been quite a lot of vigorous protesting in the US over the past several years. That energy has just been sadly captured by authoritarian charlatans promising simplistic answers to complex problems. Eventually the protestors will tire, apathy will set in, and the corprocracy will continue rolling forward. This is how the US system works.
It's notably different though. There was no general strike until conditions were met. As you say, it just fades away and nothing changes.
Spreading an infectious disease to overwhelm hospitals, attempting to disrupt the presidential election, and other deeply spiteful behavior seems akin to a strike, given the lack of labor organization in the US.
I don't think its been proven that the Democrats did this. There were a lot of court cases that were dismissed without any discovery though so maybe its not entirely settled.
I suppose there's that... I guess if that's what progress looks like in the US right now then we may be doomed without a serious course correction.
We keep having these horrible mass shootings, and somehow there have been zero billionaire victims...
What’s the plan of the closures? To import the food instead? But that’ll be more emissions not less won’t it? Just keep the emissions in a poorer country?
As I said in another comment, most of the food produced by these farmers is destined for export.
But again, so it’ll just be grown elsewhere with the same or more emissions?
The problem is currently with localised pollution, either near nature preserves or near places where construction is planned.
Other European countries using much less intensive food production methods over much larger areas of land can take the increase in emissions quite well.
This isn't a about global warming, though these compounds are definitely not helping the situation; this is about nitrogen rich compounds ending up in the ground where it shouldn't be.
Other European countries using much less intensive food production methods over much larger areas of land can take the increase in emissions quite well.
This isn't a about global warming, though these compounds are definitely not helping the situation; this is about nitrogen rich compounds ending up in the ground where it shouldn't be.
Yes and no. Not all land are equal & not all surrounding ecosystem are same. For example growing palm trees has more bad effects in Indonesia compared to growing in country like India.
So the lack of food being imported from this export needs to be balanced somewhere else, no? This would mean no reduction in emission. Only emission within this locale. I guess that's a win to make local numbers look good. This is so pointless. Not to mention we are taking away livelihoods from people.
No, it is a local problem regarding local concentration. If the production elsewhere spreads out, they won't have these problems with their soil.
> a local problem
So now it'll be a local problem... just for some other poorer people.
So now it'll be a local problem... just for some other poorer people.
Not necessarily. The problem is concentration, too much nitrogen oxides and ammonia compounds distributed over a small area. If production here is replaced by increased production spread out over the rest of the world, the problem is solved.
They must reduce their emissions. So they can cut down on certain food for the cattle or have less animals. Anyway no farm is closed yet and they can always start a lawsuit. There also are a lot of farmers that don't have any offspring or people to take over, so they can be bought out.
Export less food. Where food is mainly cattle and poultry. The Netherlands exports a lot of food at the cost of the local environment. That has not been sustainable for a long time and the current government is being forced to act after having declined to do so for many years.
> Export less food. Where food is mainly cattle and poultry.
So instead the meat will be produced elsewhere, so there would be no net change?
So instead the meat will be produced elsewhere, so there would be no net change?
That's the plan. Or we reduce our meat consumption, that's probably even better for the planet. It's a very localised problem to "move it somewhere else" is actually a possibility.
> Or we reduce our meat consumption, that's probably even better for the planet.
I don't disagree on that.
I don't disagree on that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yet another consequence of politicians afraid to do what is evidently necessary for enviromental protection for decades and now, after a 2019 court order [1], only harsh measures (a strict speed limit on highways and a limit on farm animals) remain.
Politicians, of course from a center-right government, could have gone and implemented a soft, multi-year transition period towards animal farming that could have softened the impact, but they did not do so and rather chose to stick their heads into the sand. Now they have to deal with angry farmers.
The worst thing is, this sort of behavior towards environmental protection was common over the last decades, and with climate change becoming more and more severe and the judicial systems imposing stricter mandates as a result, we are looking towards serious social unrest. Everywhere. The French Yellow Vest protests were just the starter.
[1] https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/niederlande-stickstoffemission...
Politicians, of course from a center-right government, could have gone and implemented a soft, multi-year transition period towards animal farming that could have softened the impact, but they did not do so and rather chose to stick their heads into the sand. Now they have to deal with angry farmers.
The worst thing is, this sort of behavior towards environmental protection was common over the last decades, and with climate change becoming more and more severe and the judicial systems imposing stricter mandates as a result, we are looking towards serious social unrest. Everywhere. The French Yellow Vest protests were just the starter.
[1] https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/niederlande-stickstoffemission...
This is the worst part, in my opinion. The farmers are mad that they need to cut emissions but it was the lax government policy that allowed them to grow to the size they are today to even emit this much.
I sympathise with the farmers that will need to adjust as a result of this mess, as the government ignoring the problem (in no small part because of industry lobbying, though) is the root cause of this upheaval.
On the other hand, the lawsuit that forced the government to come up with a plan finished five years ago, at this point it's no longer something that couldn't be foreseen.
The violent protests as a response to mild, insufficient government action are quickly ruining the good reputation and compassion many people have for these farmers, despite the fact that the majority of them are choosing simple inaction over violence.
I sympathise with the farmers that will need to adjust as a result of this mess, as the government ignoring the problem (in no small part because of industry lobbying, though) is the root cause of this upheaval.
On the other hand, the lawsuit that forced the government to come up with a plan finished five years ago, at this point it's no longer something that couldn't be foreseen.
The violent protests as a response to mild, insufficient government action are quickly ruining the good reputation and compassion many people have for these farmers, despite the fact that the majority of them are choosing simple inaction over violence.
The Netherlands has barely any nature left, almost everything here is artificial. Rivers have been relayed, dykes have been raised. Nearly all our forests have been planted. In other places all trees were cut, and a desert-esque ecosystem was the result: the Loonse/Drunense dunes.
Even the "typical" Dutch heather fields are a product of our destruction. Because when we drained the swamp (haha) and removed its top layer to use as fuel, we left a very mineral deficient soil, which is very suitable for growing heather.
Now some biologists have decided that some areas (nature2000) should remain exactly as artificial as they are now, forever. And that some plants, insects and birds were more valuable than others. Thats why the farms surrounding these areas suddenly need to go. Even builders are having a hard time getting permits, because this also produces nitrogen oxide.
The political parties who support these farm closures funnily enough are the same parties who don't want immigration to the Netherlands to be restricted... Like we can just keep on growing in population forever and our "nature" won't suffer from it. Ok.
Personally I think we shouldn't sacrifice our economy / home building capabilities for protecting our "nature", which in my opinion is nothing more than a poorly maintained park. I feel like we are becoming victim to some biologists pet project. Maybe the proponents of this policy should raise money and purchase the farmlands themselves. Costs about 6 euro per m2 here.
Even the "typical" Dutch heather fields are a product of our destruction. Because when we drained the swamp (haha) and removed its top layer to use as fuel, we left a very mineral deficient soil, which is very suitable for growing heather.
Now some biologists have decided that some areas (nature2000) should remain exactly as artificial as they are now, forever. And that some plants, insects and birds were more valuable than others. Thats why the farms surrounding these areas suddenly need to go. Even builders are having a hard time getting permits, because this also produces nitrogen oxide.
The political parties who support these farm closures funnily enough are the same parties who don't want immigration to the Netherlands to be restricted... Like we can just keep on growing in population forever and our "nature" won't suffer from it. Ok.
Personally I think we shouldn't sacrifice our economy / home building capabilities for protecting our "nature", which in my opinion is nothing more than a poorly maintained park. I feel like we are becoming victim to some biologists pet project. Maybe the proponents of this policy should raise money and purchase the farmlands themselves. Costs about 6 euro per m2 here.
If you see the map of ESA, something is going totally out of control in the Netherlands:
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/03/Nitrogen_d...
Any local species of plants, insects, birds will be wiped out and we will get back a totally different ecosystem.
We would also create worse effects on our own health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide#Health_effect...
What the Netherlands is doing is not sustainable, and we should use our innovations to just lower output of those gases. Some farms already have shown that with some use of different food for the cows they can radically lower output of those gases.
Any local species of plants, insects, birds will be wiped out and we will get back a totally different ecosystem.
We would also create worse effects on our own health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide#Health_effect...
What the Netherlands is doing is not sustainable, and we should use our innovations to just lower output of those gases. Some farms already have shown that with some use of different food for the cows they can radically lower output of those gases.
If you are Dutch,
https://nos.nl/collectie/13799/artikel/2304403-stikstof-vier...
As you can see their output of NO2 has mostly DECREASED in the past decades...
https://nos.nl/collectie/13799/artikel/2304403-stikstof-vier...
As you can see their output of NO2 has mostly DECREASED in the past decades...
Sure, but the problem being much worse 30 years ago doesn't mean there's no problem now.
These "natura" 2000 areas were designated in 1992. Since then, nitrogen output has decreased from 289 million kilos to 106 million kilos... Now to "protect" these pieces of nature and "maintain" their health, they want to decrease it even more?
That does add a wrinkle that makes the whole thing seem pretty suspect, at least to this US-based outsider.
> The Netherlands has almost no nature left
But you have wolves, and they like to eat the dike sheep.
But you have wolves, and they like to eat the dike sheep.
Farming is not rocket science. It has been done fot hundreds of thousands of years. Countries The Netherlands exports to should build their own farming areas. The duch farmers will be offloaded from the burden of having to feed the world from "een kleine stukje aarde".
We really need to see more folks getting interested in food system innovation. This is just one of many outcomes we are seeing as a result of our current system which is highly unsustainable.
There are so many entry points for our brightest minds to reinvent the value chain of food. Inputs, plant breeding, machinery, precision ag, logistics, processing, and marketing. Agriculture is also one of the least digitized industries.
We also need to consider an entire paradigm shift when it comes to food. Does a sustainable food system provide the same variety of food we currently see? Does a sustainable system cost the same as our current one? I don't know, but we should be ready those potential changes.
I'm personally excited to see the intersection of personalized health and food systems. Technologies which reduce food waste, non-communicable disease, and improved bodily and societal health.
There are so many entry points for our brightest minds to reinvent the value chain of food. Inputs, plant breeding, machinery, precision ag, logistics, processing, and marketing. Agriculture is also one of the least digitized industries.
We also need to consider an entire paradigm shift when it comes to food. Does a sustainable food system provide the same variety of food we currently see? Does a sustainable system cost the same as our current one? I don't know, but we should be ready those potential changes.
I'm personally excited to see the intersection of personalized health and food systems. Technologies which reduce food waste, non-communicable disease, and improved bodily and societal health.
Basically any land grant university has thousands of our brightest minds doing exactly that, every single day.
The fields and labs of Ames, Iowa are less visible and sexy than an SV startup or NYC / London / Dubai NGO, but I can assure you what you want exists en masse.
The fields and labs of Ames, Iowa are less visible and sexy than an SV startup or NYC / London / Dubai NGO, but I can assure you what you want exists en masse.
It's such a shame that quite a few farmers in the Netherlands have been weaponized by Big Ag. Especially the BoerenBurgerBeweging (farmer party) is straight up lobby money (1).
Watching the media around farmer protest in the Netherlands I also see a lot of right wing populist talking points.
1) https://www-doorbraak-eu.translate.goog/boerburgerbeweging-g...
Watching the media around farmer protest in the Netherlands I also see a lot of right wing populist talking points.
1) https://www-doorbraak-eu.translate.goog/boerburgerbeweging-g...
[deleted]
love seeing the resistance to this period of peak centralized control of lives
months ago many ppl i know praised central mandates on things like ESG scores & vaccines. Near all have completely reversed their position just 6 months later (even deleting previous tweets).
the unprecedented political-decisions as of late have been something of an IQ test.
months ago many ppl i know praised central mandates on things like ESG scores & vaccines. Near all have completely reversed their position just 6 months later (even deleting previous tweets).
the unprecedented political-decisions as of late have been something of an IQ test.
> love seeing the resistance to this period of peak centralized control of lives
I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Climate change is and will happen. One of the central questions is how much we choose to act to mitigate its consequences. If we, as you seem to imply, apply a hands off approach as we have done for decades, then you can have negative externalities that compound uncontrolled and unchecked to blow up in everyone's faces to the detriment, decay, and possible destruction of society. The world is unfortunately not so simple as the "resistance" and "centralized control of lives" as you make it out to be. Actions and lack thereof have consequences. We're feeling them now.
I tire of discussing the consequences of climate change with those in denial. I hope your disillusionment with reality doesn't harm your future.
I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Climate change is and will happen. One of the central questions is how much we choose to act to mitigate its consequences. If we, as you seem to imply, apply a hands off approach as we have done for decades, then you can have negative externalities that compound uncontrolled and unchecked to blow up in everyone's faces to the detriment, decay, and possible destruction of society. The world is unfortunately not so simple as the "resistance" and "centralized control of lives" as you make it out to be. Actions and lack thereof have consequences. We're feeling them now.
I tire of discussing the consequences of climate change with those in denial. I hope your disillusionment with reality doesn't harm your future.
"Close down your ancestral farms and do as we say or these horrible tribulations and curses will befall you, your cities will be drowned into the ocean, your lands will glow a fiery red, pestilences and disease will succumb you... probably in about 30 years from now when I'm dead and wont have to answer to you when I am wrong.". This is essentially what you are saying and what you believe. What did it take to put you and so many others into this mindset?
I for one, will be alive for another 50 years if you go by how old my grandfather and father are(both still quite alive).
As long as the farmers are made whole if their farms are indeed shut down. Right now that is a 'fear' not an actuality of any policy. Times change, things change. I am pretty confident in saying that these ancestral farms are not run the same today as they were 100 years ago. So their impact is much different.
Also, I feel the same about people that do not want to leave the environment cleaner on all levels. "Who cares about climate change, I'll be dead when the worst of it comes to pass."
As long as the farmers are made whole if their farms are indeed shut down. Right now that is a 'fear' not an actuality of any policy. Times change, things change. I am pretty confident in saying that these ancestral farms are not run the same today as they were 100 years ago. So their impact is much different.
Also, I feel the same about people that do not want to leave the environment cleaner on all levels. "Who cares about climate change, I'll be dead when the worst of it comes to pass."
> "Close down your ancestral farms and do as we say or these horrible tribulations and curses will befall you, your cities will be drowned into the ocean, your lands will glow a fiery red, pestilences and disease will succumb you."
This is happening now. Regardless of closing the "ancestral farms." Subsidence and storm surges happen every few months globally. Sea levels are rising. Have you been to Venice, Miami, Bangkok, among other cities lately? Flooding and erosion are a constant issues. New Orleans has not and most likely never recover its pre-Katrina population levels in our lifetimes. Recordbreaking wildfires in Australia, California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin have all happened in the last five years alone. COVID-19, monkeypox, avian flu, orange trees succumbing to diseases, valley lung, Lyme disease, dengue fever, etc. I hope the rock you're living under is a pleasant place to live.
Multigenerational farms become incorporated groups with familial ownership or multinational corporate control. I don't know of many bucolic countryside farms these days, but if you look at the numbers they've certainly been consolidated and controlled by fewer groups over time. 'Independent family farmers' are a dying group in developed economies.
This is happening now. Regardless of closing the "ancestral farms." Subsidence and storm surges happen every few months globally. Sea levels are rising. Have you been to Venice, Miami, Bangkok, among other cities lately? Flooding and erosion are a constant issues. New Orleans has not and most likely never recover its pre-Katrina population levels in our lifetimes. Recordbreaking wildfires in Australia, California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin have all happened in the last five years alone. COVID-19, monkeypox, avian flu, orange trees succumbing to diseases, valley lung, Lyme disease, dengue fever, etc. I hope the rock you're living under is a pleasant place to live.
Multigenerational farms become incorporated groups with familial ownership or multinational corporate control. I don't know of many bucolic countryside farms these days, but if you look at the numbers they've certainly been consolidated and controlled by fewer groups over time. 'Independent family farmers' are a dying group in developed economies.
> What did it take to put you and so many others into this mindset?
For me it was looking at the data and learning more about geology as well as systems thinking.
It was about a decade ago now that I was curious what the big deal was about CO2 ppm rising so high, and then again a few years after that when we reached a new minimum for global sea ice. Looking into the details of these problems and then learning more about how our global energy economic works I started to realize the situation at hand.
The more you understand the data as well as ways of viewing climate modeling from various different scientific communities the more you realize how dire the situation is and how often our models under estimate variance, and how that variance is more likely to be on the "worse than expected" than "better than expected" side of things.
But, I'm also of the perspective that it's far too late. We can't even tackle nitrogen pollution in a relatively progressive area of Europe, we'll never be able to touch on the larger problems we're facing. On top of that the time for action was around 30+ years ago.
For me it was looking at the data and learning more about geology as well as systems thinking.
It was about a decade ago now that I was curious what the big deal was about CO2 ppm rising so high, and then again a few years after that when we reached a new minimum for global sea ice. Looking into the details of these problems and then learning more about how our global energy economic works I started to realize the situation at hand.
The more you understand the data as well as ways of viewing climate modeling from various different scientific communities the more you realize how dire the situation is and how often our models under estimate variance, and how that variance is more likely to be on the "worse than expected" than "better than expected" side of things.
But, I'm also of the perspective that it's far too late. We can't even tackle nitrogen pollution in a relatively progressive area of Europe, we'll never be able to touch on the larger problems we're facing. On top of that the time for action was around 30+ years ago.
I've done the same thing and come to different conclusions about the degree of severity and about how hard economically it will be to overcome. Not saying I'm right but I do think the debate needs to be had, be open and be free from censorship. If the 'other side' can't offer that, then you'll see more extreme reactions.
Any proof at all for this claim?
what exactly are you looking for? certified letters from the people he knows proving that he is accurately reflecting what he has seen?
It's as if we are no longer able to perform inductive reasoning.
parent edited their comment which originally was just the first paragraph about centralised control, I suppose that's what you are replying to.
Obviously it is hard to quantify control so I don't have hard numbers to present, but I ask you: can you name a more efficient surveillance device than a smartphone?
Note that smartphones became ubiquitous very recently, I would say during the last 10 to 15 years (before that, they did exist but were used by a tiny minority of people).
Obviously it is hard to quantify control so I don't have hard numbers to present, but I ask you: can you name a more efficient surveillance device than a smartphone?
Note that smartphones became ubiquitous very recently, I would say during the last 10 to 15 years (before that, they did exist but were used by a tiny minority of people).
I can: people. If you think that mass surveillance requires technology you haven't seen what, for example, eastern European regimes we're able to accomplish. Stasi [0] would be the first such example.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
By sheer numbers this has likely been the "peak centralized control of lives".
Clearly that's the prominent fact and claim to be proved out.
It is certainly the most important claim discussed, but it's concerning that we have to wonder whether you intend to question the shifting of opinions instead of the claim.
Clearly that's the prominent fact and claim to be proved out.
It is certainly the most important claim discussed, but it's concerning that we have to wonder whether you intend to question the shifting of opinions instead of the claim.
This is mostly a fair criticism. I've seen the common, 'my body my rights' used in both vaccines and abortion rights. I would point out however, that the vaccine is less deadly, with fewer side effects than carrying a baby to birth. But also, vaccines give herd immunity, which is a direct benefit to the people around you. So they wouldn't be the same.
Vaccines and climate change are not comparable in any way. And just to state, you can be pro-government and anti-government in certain areas of life/society simultaneously without being a hypocrite. Government is and can be expansive and everyone has their limits. Unless you also like pointing out that people live in houses but still go outside?(What is that all about? like come on, you either love living indoors or outdoors you can't do both /s)
>>you can be pro-government and anti-government in certain areas of life
Perhaps, but you cannot be 'my body my choice' for one thing, and my body, the governments choice in another - the moral high ground on the 'my body my choice' slogan, has been lost - you can't have it both ways imo, and the left has muddied the waters quite a bit by arguing for 2 years that, no you don't get to decide, the government does.
- sure, you can slice and parse the differences all you want, but the previous absoluteness of the 'my body my choice' message has been permanently tainted - and will be exploited over and over again by those that are opposed to abortion (which btw, is not me)
Perhaps, but you cannot be 'my body my choice' for one thing, and my body, the governments choice in another - the moral high ground on the 'my body my choice' slogan, has been lost - you can't have it both ways imo, and the left has muddied the waters quite a bit by arguing for 2 years that, no you don't get to decide, the government does.
- sure, you can slice and parse the differences all you want, but the previous absoluteness of the 'my body my choice' message has been permanently tainted - and will be exploited over and over again by those that are opposed to abortion (which btw, is not me)
The COVID-19 vaccines don't give herd immunity. I would encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting vaccinated, but this does very little to prevent infection and transmission. Everyone will be exposed.
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
I'm really happy that it's other countries that are experimenting with these disastrous "pro-climate" policies (but really anti-progressive and anti-civilisation).
Such as Netherlands experimenting with "low-food" (anti-meat) regimes and Germany experimenting with "low-energy" (anti-nuclear, pro-solar) policies.
We can then learn from their mistakes.
Such as Netherlands experimenting with "low-food" (anti-meat) regimes and Germany experimenting with "low-energy" (anti-nuclear, pro-solar) policies.
We can then learn from their mistakes.
A long time ago, NL signed a couple of European agreements that forced them to designate a number of area's for which the natural diversity should be preserved. NL did this very diligently: no less than 162 of such area's were assigned. About 10 years after signing the contract, an environment organization started a lawsuit against a farm next to such an area that wanted to expand. It won the lawsuit and the farm's expansion was forbidden. The ground for the verdict was that the expansion would increase the farm's emission of nitrogen; a gas that when it ends up in the soil, favors a limited number of plants such as nettles and grass, most other species will die out.
Once this precedent was created, many more lawsuits followed. Eventually the Dutch government decided to make a plan to regulate nitrogen emissions nationally. A map was published that showed estimated levels of nitrogen emission in the country. In many area's the emissions were too high, and the most obvious way to bring it down was to close nearby farms. This is the reason for the farmer's protests.
Interestingly, very little is known about how much emitted nitrogen eventually ends up in the soil. The RIVM, the Dutch institution that made the map, only started doing some measurements of deposits in 2020. There's also a lot of criticism on the way the emissions are measured and on other aspects of the model that was used to create the nitrogen map.