4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

ricardobeat 4y ago
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-nitrogen-oxides-emissions-in-the-netherlands-by-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1086854/distribution-nit... https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/grafiek_herkomst_stikstofdepositie_taart_0.png https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/grafiek_herk...
- misja111 4y ago
  Yes, e.g. https://data.emissieregistratie.nl/emissies/grafiek?s=uiJzcgSoy 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.
emn13 4y ago
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.

ricardobeat 4y ago

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-nitrogen-oxides-emissions-in-the-netherlands-by-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1086854/distribution-nit... https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/grafiek_herkomst_stikstofdepositie_taart_0.png https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-09/grafiek_herk...

misja111 4y ago
Yes, e.g. https://data.emissieregistratie.nl/emissies/grafiek?s=uiJzcgSoy 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.

emn13 4y ago

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.