4 ms·

The reason why housing is expensive is the same as what the article said about nitrogen emissions, new housing construction is limited to try and not exceed emi

by vasco 4y ago

The reason why housing is expensive is the same as what the article said about nitrogen emissions, new housing construction is limited to try and not exceed emissions even more. Regarding the rest, it looks like a fake problem because they still have schemes like the reduced tax for several years to attract foreigners. Can't be both ways, politians can't say there's too many people while keeping the incentives. The practicality of the tax law speaks more than speeches. As for schiphol airport lines, I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but having informed myself a bit on the subject and having been on those queues many times this year, I think it's again a self inflicted problem, as the government wants to have less flights overall, and I believe they found a reasonable escape goat for it with the "staff shortages". One only has to see that they've paid over $100m in compensation for missed flights to airlines yet at the end of August rolled back an extra €5 / per hour that they added to fight the problem. Result? Everyone quit again. Now they rolled out an extra €2.5/hour per security guard. Only if you are blind you don't see there's more at play here than simple "staff shortages". People haven't died, they just don't want your shitty job when they can do remote customer support for some startup for more money and not deal with rude tourists all day.

jacooper 4y ago
> The reason why housing is expensive is the same as what the article said about nitrogen emissions, new housing construction is limited to try and not exceed emissions even more. This is honestly just dumb. Many of the climate actions taken in European countries like stopping nuclear energy are really really dumb. > As for schiphol airport lines, I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but having informed myself a bit on the subject and having been on those queues many times this year, I think it's again a self inflicted problem, as the government wants to have less flights overall, and I believe they found a reasonable escape goat for it with the "staff shortages". But why? Is it also to reduce emissions? They don't want to actually do something meaningful, so they cause havoc in the Airport to reduce emissions? What is going on?
- TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
  > climate actions taken in European countries like stopping nuclear energy It's not a climate action. It's an environmental action, which there's an overlap with, but which is not the same thing.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    What's the difference?
    - akvadrako 4y ago
      Climate is basically long-term weather. "Nitrogen" doesn't affect the temperature or rain or clouds, so it isn't climate. FYI when they say nitrogen they don't mean it literally – it's a code-word for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (HN3).
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      Different set of utopian authoritarians forcing people to act against their own interests.
    - more_corn 4y ago
      Nuclear energy is actually good for reducing climate change. It’s environmentally undesirable because of the failure mode, the difficulty of cleanup, the fact that the waste is basically forever and we have no real plan for storing or processing it.
      - hakfoo 4y ago
        At this point, I have to wonder how inherent those problems are to nuclear and more to the specific designs that were built over the years, in part due to various military priorities. The right time to develop a different nuclear platform was 40 years ago, but the second rightest time is today. Where is the bold, government-level messaging and big research grants saying "here's a completely new architecture, it's simply not capable of the same failure modes as Fukushima or Three Mile Island." I guess that's why people were boosting Thorium a while back, but I haven't heard much news there. Seemed like microreactors was the latest sexy thing.
- Zeebrommer 4y ago
  > This is honestly just dumb Yes, but in an indirect way. At some point, nitrogen deposition was identified as harmful to nature, and emissions targets were put in place. Politicians then did everything they could not to be the one having to introduce unpopular legislation, until they couldn't anymore. Now the government has painted themselves in a corner and cannot give permits for building projects anymore without breaking the law. I think we'll see this more often in the future when the consequences of ambitious targets will need to be reckoned with.
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    And yet, these "ambitious targets" as you characterize them, are insufficient. I don't even need to know the target or the efficacy. The static political situation and power structures versus the actuals of three decades of climate science have not significantly changed. The only improvements have been solar/wind/battery changing the efficiency and emissions game, but REDUCTIONS are still effectively nothing. All "emissions targets" are "compromises" between political ignorance/denialism and reality. Everywhere. Until the rich realize they are directly affected (not their children, the elite care nothing for their children), real policy won't emerge.
  - hakfoo 4y ago
    I suspect it might also be trying to avoid targeting the base. If you can fit your compliance push into something that seems minor and distant for most voters, it's probably less politically toxic than going for the direct problem that might be controversial. "We need to scrap gas guzzlers" is a direct attack on your voters, but "We might not be able to issue construction permits in 2025" is distant and doesn't necessarily affect anyone you know personally. It probably comes from the same mindset that says "let's pay for a lot of (programme) with a high surtax on hotel rooms because that pretty much only impacts external tourists who aren't going to vote us out over it."
  - fmajid 4y ago
    I suspect nitrogen remediation with carbon capture using fast-growing plants like bamboo might be part of the solution. One thing eludes me, though: the Netherlands' highly productive agricultural exports are mostly due to growing vegetables like tomatoes in greenhouses, where th effluent can be controlled. Nitrogen pollution is typically more the result of large-scale livestock or pig farming. The sector actually impacted by the restrictions might not be the most productive one.
chimeracoder 4y ago
> escape goat FYI, it's "scapegoat".
- rapnie 4y ago
  Though 'escape goat' is a marvellous find; words I may steal.
  - filoeleven 4y ago
    Dave Gorman did a segment about these kinds of things once in his show. I’ve linked to “escape goat.” His analysis of the one just after it, “bowl in a China shop,” is even more entertaining. https://youtu.be/5ExXOIvY9V0?t=472 https://youtu.be/5ExXOIvY9V0?t=472
  - Qem 4y ago
    What is the top speed of a escape goat?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- version_five 4y ago
  Escape goat is fine for all in tents and porpoises
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    What's that you say - goat on the menu? Bone apple tea!
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    Nice. Get two birds stoned at once.
- more_corn 4y ago
  I like the other way ;-)
justaj 4y ago
That's just one part of the issue. Much bigger part is that the government didn't buy out farmer's land when land price was still relatively cheap in order to build houses there (like Belgium did) What also doesn't help, is that the majority of the voters for the biggest ruling party own homes and have an active interest in seeing their prices surge.

by vasco 4y ago

jacooper 4y ago

> The reason why housing is expensive is the same as what the article said about nitrogen emissions, new housing construction is limited to try and not exceed emissions even more. This is honestly just dumb. Many of the climate actions taken in European countries like stopping nuclear energy are really really dumb. > As for schiphol airport lines, I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but having informed myself a bit on the subject and having been on those queues many times this year, I think it's again a self inflicted problem, as the government wants to have less flights overall, and I believe they found a reasonable escape goat for it with the "staff shortages". But why? Is it also to reduce emissions? They don't want to actually do something meaningful, so they cause havoc in the Airport to reduce emissions? What is going on?

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
> climate actions taken in European countries like stopping nuclear energy It's not a climate action. It's an environmental action, which there's an overlap with, but which is not the same thing.
- jacooper 4y ago
  What's the difference?
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    Climate is basically long-term weather. "Nitrogen" doesn't affect the temperature or rain or clouds, so it isn't climate. FYI when they say nitrogen they don't mean it literally – it's a code-word for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (HN3).
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    Different set of utopian authoritarians forcing people to act against their own interests.
  - more_corn 4y ago
    Nuclear energy is actually good for reducing climate change. It’s environmentally undesirable because of the failure mode, the difficulty of cleanup, the fact that the waste is basically forever and we have no real plan for storing or processing it.
    - hakfoo 4y ago
      At this point, I have to wonder how inherent those problems are to nuclear and more to the specific designs that were built over the years, in part due to various military priorities. The right time to develop a different nuclear platform was 40 years ago, but the second rightest time is today. Where is the bold, government-level messaging and big research grants saying "here's a completely new architecture, it's simply not capable of the same failure modes as Fukushima or Three Mile Island." I guess that's why people were boosting Thorium a while back, but I haven't heard much news there. Seemed like microreactors was the latest sexy thing.
Zeebrommer 4y ago
> This is honestly just dumb Yes, but in an indirect way. At some point, nitrogen deposition was identified as harmful to nature, and emissions targets were put in place. Politicians then did everything they could not to be the one having to introduce unpopular legislation, until they couldn't anymore. Now the government has painted themselves in a corner and cannot give permits for building projects anymore without breaking the law. I think we'll see this more often in the future when the consequences of ambitious targets will need to be reckoned with.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  And yet, these "ambitious targets" as you characterize them, are insufficient. I don't even need to know the target or the efficacy. The static political situation and power structures versus the actuals of three decades of climate science have not significantly changed. The only improvements have been solar/wind/battery changing the efficiency and emissions game, but REDUCTIONS are still effectively nothing. All "emissions targets" are "compromises" between political ignorance/denialism and reality. Everywhere. Until the rich realize they are directly affected (not their children, the elite care nothing for their children), real policy won't emerge.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  I suspect it might also be trying to avoid targeting the base. If you can fit your compliance push into something that seems minor and distant for most voters, it's probably less politically toxic than going for the direct problem that might be controversial. "We need to scrap gas guzzlers" is a direct attack on your voters, but "We might not be able to issue construction permits in 2025" is distant and doesn't necessarily affect anyone you know personally. It probably comes from the same mindset that says "let's pay for a lot of (programme) with a high surtax on hotel rooms because that pretty much only impacts external tourists who aren't going to vote us out over it."
- fmajid 4y ago
  I suspect nitrogen remediation with carbon capture using fast-growing plants like bamboo might be part of the solution. One thing eludes me, though: the Netherlands' highly productive agricultural exports are mostly due to growing vegetables like tomatoes in greenhouses, where th effluent can be controlled. Nitrogen pollution is typically more the result of large-scale livestock or pig farming. The sector actually impacted by the restrictions might not be the most productive one.

chimeracoder 4y ago

> escape goat FYI, it's "scapegoat".

rapnie 4y ago
Though 'escape goat' is a marvellous find; words I may steal.
- filoeleven 4y ago
  Dave Gorman did a segment about these kinds of things once in his show. I’ve linked to “escape goat.” His analysis of the one just after it, “bowl in a China shop,” is even more entertaining. https://youtu.be/5ExXOIvY9V0?t=472 https://youtu.be/5ExXOIvY9V0?t=472
- Qem 4y ago
  What is the top speed of a escape goat?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
version_five 4y ago
Escape goat is fine for all in tents and porpoises
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  What's that you say - goat on the menu? Bone apple tea!
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Nice. Get two birds stoned at once.
more_corn 4y ago
I like the other way ;-)

justaj 4y ago

That's just one part of the issue. Much bigger part is that the government didn't buy out farmer's land when land price was still relatively cheap in order to build houses there (like Belgium did) What also doesn't help, is that the majority of the voters for the biggest ruling party own homes and have an active interest in seeing their prices surge.