6 ms·

I'm not sure why this is on HN, but since it's here now, let me add a bit of the details of what's behind the situation in the Netherlands, because the descript

I'm not sure why this is on HN, but since it's here now, let me add a bit of the details of what's behind the situation in the Netherlands, because the description in the original article is incorrect. 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.

oneepic 4y ago
This is on HN because someone posted it on HN.
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  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.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    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.
- shaftoe444 4y ago
  The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
truthwhisperer 4y ago
olivermarks 4y ago
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.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Food shortages?
- rocqua 4y ago
  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.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    Of course people won't go hungry in the Netherlands, they'll just eat worse food instead and their economy takes a hit.
    - sushibowl 4y ago
      > 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.
    - Denvercoder9 4y ago
      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).
sampo 4y ago
> farm's emission of nitrogen Air is 78% nitrogen (N2). This is about nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (HN3).
rocqua 4y ago
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.
rgrieselhuber 4y ago
> I'm not sure why this is on HN Agriculture is technology too.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
karol 4y ago
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.
- misja111 4y ago
  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.
  - emn13 4y ago
    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_absorption_spectra_of_Gases.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mid-infrared_absorpt...
emn13 4y ago
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.
- 4y ago
kkfx 4y ago
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...
TechBro8615 4y ago
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.”)

oneepic 4y ago

This is on HN because someone posted it on HN.

stingraycharles 4y ago
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.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  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.
shaftoe444 4y ago
The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

truthwhisperer 4y ago

olivermarks 4y ago

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.

madeofpalk 4y ago
Food shortages?
rocqua 4y ago
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.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  Of course people won't go hungry in the Netherlands, they'll just eat worse food instead and their economy takes a hit.
  - sushibowl 4y ago
    > 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.
  - Denvercoder9 4y ago
    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).

sampo 4y ago

> farm's emission of nitrogen Air is 78% nitrogen (N2). This is about nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (HN3).

rocqua 4y ago

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.

rgrieselhuber 4y ago

> I'm not sure why this is on HN Agriculture is technology too.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

karol 4y ago

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.

misja111 4y ago
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.
- emn13 4y ago
  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_absorption_spectra_of_Gases.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mid-infrared_absorpt...

emn13 4y ago

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.

4y ago

kkfx 4y ago

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...

TechBro8615 4y ago

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.”)