13 ms·
Farmers' protest party win shock Dutch vote victory
- draw_down 4y ago[dead]
- Neil44 4y agoI understand this is about new laws to do with nitrogen use in farming coming into effect in the EU. Holland is one of the first countries to actually move towards compliance the the farmers are not impressed. Personaly I am with the farmers, why are we burning our farmers and industry on the fire of environmentalism when the future of the environment will be decided by developing countries, not us. There is a balance to be made here.
- mkesper 4y agoThis is totally wrong as we in the developed countries are emitting so much CO2 and are eating too much meat so soy is planted everywhere, just to feed animals.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- evandijk70 4y agoThis argument might be made for CO2 emissions, but nitrogen emissions are mostly a local problem.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hbn 4y agoMost environmental action being taken out seems to be exclusively acts of religious-like penance. I think people's metric for whether or not we're doing something about the environment is "does this make day-to-day life harder than it was before?" Nothing to do with the actual effectiveness, no solutions for the ginormous populations in poor countries that are burning all their trash or throwing it into the ocean, or pumping ludicrous amounts of smog into the atmosphere until the sky is orange. Only useless solutions that let college-educated Westerners pat themselves on the back like paper straws, plastic bag bans, complaining about gas stoves, etc.
- stdbrouw 4y agoThere's a much simpler explanation: people are worried about the environment and global warming, so they are willing to try out a lot of different things that they think might help, but lo and behold, it turns out that some of those things actually help and others turn out not to, and because some of the things that don't help maybe still get a lot of attention or the associated behaviors linger on, well-intentioned people look like idiots. But, realistically, how could any large scale movement to change the way we live be any different? What do you think you are contributing by being smug and cynical? (By the way, those college-educated Westerners are also choosing to live smaller, use more public transport, drive fewer miles, invest in durable goods, insulate their homes, buy heat pumps and vote for parties that want to do something about industrial pollution. It's not all canvas shopping bag virtue signaling.)
- RandomLensman 4y agoThe climate change agenda often doesn't really have a great sales pitch: have high costs now, still experience climate change and then in the far future things might be better. This has to change to truly get everyone on board - there have to be benefits in the now.
- peterashford 4y agoThen we all go to hell together.
- RandomLensman 4y agoWhy? You think we cannot come up with better incentive structures? I doubt that very much.
- peterashford 4y agoBecause we require major systemic changes. That's not going to happen if we require everyone to choosing to do the right thing right now. Also, IMO, the changes need to happen at a governmental and corporate level. Individual people - which is where I was imagining you were thinking about when referring to incentives* - make a much smaller difference to AGW. *was I wrong about that? What incentive structures do you see working in this context?
- enaaem 4y agoIt’s easy to blame on the EU, but nitrogen pollution is not an abstract global issue but a real local issue. It would have to be managed by local governments regardless of the EU.
- myrmidon 4y ago> when the future of the environment will be decided by developing countries, not us. There is a balance to be made here. This is not just misleading but straight up wrong. Sure, western nations don't dominate global population numbers (and are mostly shrinking too), but the United states alone emit TWICE the amount of CO2 compared to India, with 1/4 the population. Just saying "the future of the environment is on you, India, China, Africa, since there is not much we Americans can do, there are just not enough of us" is sickeningly hypocritical. Also, how are you going to convince ANY developing nation that struggles to lift their population out of poverty that paying for environmental protection is necessary, while you (as a rich westerner) sit on your ass?! Sorry for the confrontational tone, but I feel I HAVE to correct this because it is an extremely popular sentiment ("we're already doing more than our part for the environment in the west, now it's on the Chinese/Indians/etc."), and this is completely unsupported by facts.
- Neil44 4y agoYou assume I’m American, I’m not. Also the article is about Dutch people. CO2 is only one metric of pollution. And as India is 4x the population of the US what difference will the amount of Nitrogen Dutch farmers use make once the Indians achieve a US style standard of living? Bugger all that’s how much. So they’re correctly asking why on earth they’re being put out of jobs over this at this time.
- myrmidon 4y agoYour argument does not make sense. Of course fewer people have less influence on the outcome, but that is not an excuse to do less (per person) in the smaller group. India could just split into 2000 states and turn your argument straight around... This is just not how collective obligation works, in the very same way that you absolutely CANT argue with your tax officials that "it doesn't really make a difference whether I pay" (or your village/city if they're small). I just picked America as example because they're arguably the worst of the bunch in Co2/capita (except some rich tiny states like Luxembourg), so good on you for doing better than them (probably). Also feel free to make an argument using different metrics for pollution, but I have strong doubts that you could change the conclusions-- also consider that climate change is precisely that big a problem because it is not quickly reversible at all. Co2 is also a metric where you can get easily comparable numbers and those are already unfavorable even WITHOUT taking into account how much pollution is outsourced by wealthy nations (which is hard to quantify).
- peterashford 4y ago"why are we burning our farmers and industry on the fire of environmentalism when the future of the environment will be decided by developing countries, not us" I'm flabbergasted. This is so wrong it hurts. Developed countries have BY FAR done the most to create and currently contribute to AGW. We have the moral responsibility to do the bulk of the work to fix it.
- jmclnx 4y agoSeems people do not like to cut emissions to help with Climate Change, no surprise there. That to me means no one whats to change their lifestyle. Does not bode well for Climate Change.
- madsbuch 4y agoThere are several ways to achieve climate change. Two big sides currently are energy conservatism or energy progressionism; Either you save energy, drive less, etc. or you embrace energy sources like nuclear. The hypocrisy comes in when you don't want to nuclear power, don't want to drive less and also want climate change.
- readthenotes1 4y agoDon't forget the hypocrisy of wanting other people to do their bit to combat climate change while you fly in your private jet and use the excuse that one person's contribution is insignificant...
- madsbuch 4y agoThat is in an energy conservatist framework. If you fly to a conference to advocate nuclear power and synthetic fuels, it would be congruent.
- comte7092 4y agoThat’s a bit of a false dichotomy, realistically you need both.
- madsbuch 4y agoWell, if I "realistically need both" it is not a false dichotomy. Then it is just impractical. I also don't present a DI-chotomy, I present two sides of potentially a lot of sides. I also don't present the sides as being mutually exclusive, why it is neither a di-CHOTOMY. Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Currently we seem to take the practical approach of choosing none.
- RandomWorker 4y agoThey did get quite a lot, but you need majority vote in the senate to shoot down new laws. In practical terms they can delay laws but probably can’t shoot down anything. Netherlands is a country of polderen (1). (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model
- ghiculescu 4y agoThey’ll be the largest single party bloc, they should have some real sway. I think some of their opponents will argue “they did well but not well enough, so it’s fine to keep ignoring them” but I don’t think that’s a wise move.
- tijl 4y agoThey will also have a strong position in the provinces. The government was setting a framework, but counted on the provinces to do the actual implementation. That approach will almost certainly fail since it seems likely the BBB will be able to block this in many rural provinces
- arp242 4y ago> they should have some real sway. Only in the senate and some provinces, which aren't that influential; I'm willing to bet that they'll do a lot less well in the parliamentary elections: people who feel strongly have more incentive to vote. They were never "ignored"; this entire issue has been playing since the 80s. Every time any measures are announced there are protests and measures get watered down or delayed.
- t0mas88 4y agoBeing the largest party is a serious thing in the UK or US. But the Dutch political system is a bit different. Here it has far less impact. The largest party in this case is only around 20% of the votes. There are several other political directions that have more votes just split in more than one party. For example the green/left combination also has 20% of the votes and the government combination has 31%.
- mistrial9 4y agoSo fifteen years later, here we are where almost zero people in harshly-competitive industries will voluntarily change their core inputs; combine that with pure economic self-interest from Oil and Gas, and .. woe to you, gentle reader.
- tablespoon 4y ago> She had to step back from public campaigning last year because of death threats. She was told the same fate awaited her as Pim Fortuyn, a populist leader assassinated days before the 2002 Dutch general election.
- ralfn 4y agoKeep in mind that in this case the threat comes from within the groups that agree with her ideology, but believe she is controlled opposition. The same pot of crazy she (unintentionally?) tried to activate.
- tablespoon 4y ago> Keep in mind that in this case the threat comes from within the groups that agree with her ideology, but believe she is controlled opposition. Really? It's not very believable that someone on the right would phrase a threat like that (i.e. "go away or you'll end up dead, like the last right-wing leader killed by an left-wing environmental activist"). I did some digging and all I could find (in English) was some comments attributing the threats to the "the anti-farmer or anti-BBB lobby" (https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/07/pro-farming-mp-cancels-appearances-after-receiving-death-threats/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/07/pro-farming-mp-cancels...).
- ralfn 4y agoIt was my understanding that the threats towards Kaag, Rutte and her all came from the same source.
- pessimizer 4y agoHow do you unintentionally try? Was she doing talking points, palling around or carrying water?
- ralfn 4y agoShe was trying to activate a lot of non crazy, ordinary people as well, but she wasn't experienced enough at the start to tone the rhetoric down. That some parts of her movement became too militant was likely not her intention. But it did lead to multiple politicians needing permanent security including herself.
- naasking 4y agoI think the most important point that I don't see discussed is that we shouldn't be compromising our ability to make food until we have viable non-Nitrogen based alternative fertilizers of comparable cost. Food is already too expensive, and now they want to crush poor people even more? I think the farmer's have a good point here. I don't think the people dismissing this as farmers being anti-climate change realize the implications.
- Avalaxy 4y ago90% of the food produced here is exported. This tiny country is the second biggest food exporter on the planet... The result is that our nature is destroyed, and that we can't build any more houses to solve our massive housing crisis.
- carlosjobim 4y agoThat seems like creative accounting. A lot of food is refined in Holland for export, but the raw material isn't necessarily grown there.
- 28304283409234 4y agoSource?
- carlosjobim 4y agoChocolate for example.
- WeylandYutani 4y agoYes beef is technically homegrown but the stuff that cows eat is imported from Brasil. Dutch farming is not self sustaining.
- RandomLensman 4y agoIs there no land to build on left as everything is agriculture?
- newaccount2023 4y ago[flagged]
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago[dead]
- haunter 4y agoHere is their election programme https://boerburgerbeweging.nl/verkiezingsprogramma/ https://boerburgerbeweging.nl/verkiezingsprogramma/
- huijzer 4y agoMy family are Dutch farmers who are in the middle of this discussion for a few years now. As far as I understand, what happened is that Dutch politicians have been too optimistic in their sales for the reduction in nitrogen emissions. In response, the Dutch government has been aggressively making plans to reduce the number of dairy farms in the Netherlands. However, this conflicts with the ambitions of the farmers for two main reasons. Firstly, farmers are very aware of how farming occurs in other countries. The Dutch have a long history of optimizing the farming process with a long history of ever increasing regulations. It makes no sense then to stop farming in the Netherlands to "save" the environment by sending the work to other countries, who then will increase pollution per kg milk produced. For example, farmers in Poland have generally higher maize fields not because they are better farmers, but because they are allowed to put much more manure on the fields. Secondly, farmers are all hard working people who are proud of their family business and who would like to continue their business. Having the government take the business away for controversial reasons doesn't sit right. Furthermore, from what I hear around me, people are done with the current prime minister Rutte. There have been some scandals including the "Rutte-doctrine" in which Rutte thinks that internal government documents do not have to be shared with journalists and the Tweede kamer (lower house of the Dutch parliament) and him being found out for lying time and time again. The whole scandal around the farmers is just a manifestation of the general civil dissatisfaction, as the BBC points out too.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago[flagged]
- mistrial9 4y agowhat do you think this forum gains with this kind of comment?
- fnordpiglet 4y ago[flagged]
- glass3 4y agoDoes somebody know why the manure is not concentrated and shipped to places that need fertilizers, like guano?
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoThey seem to have mostly stolen votes from another far right party without the convenient cover of being farmers. It's not clear how much (if at all) the balance has shifted towards or away from their signature policy.
- tijl 4y agoThat's not really what voter research shows. Yes, 18% of BBB voters come from the PVV, but also 17% come from the Prime minister's party (VVD), 14% comes from his Christian-democratic coalition partner (CDA). 9% Comes from the left-wing SP, 7% from D66. The amounts coming from other parties are even smaller https://app.nos.nl/nieuws/ps2023/ https://app.nos.nl/nieuws/ps2023/
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoThe seats lost/gained are: BBB +139 FvD -71 VVD -16 CDA -30 So, the voting system has lots of parties and ranked voting but it seems clear that the main story is FvD lost out to BBB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Dutch_provincial_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Dutch_provincial_election...
- t0mas88 4y agoYou forgot FvD which was the big winner 4 years ago, now loosing their seats to BBB.
- ivolimmen 4y agoI am Dutch. I don't follow the news that as a I currently am very depressed. Not by the current affairs but also issues in my household. Recently there was a television show called Lubach (Dutch rip off of John Oliver) and he addressed all the uproar of the Dutch farmers. He investigated the source. The top 10 family owned agricultural companies are behind all this. Technically most Dutch are duped. We are not talking about issues in farming but really specifically about mass production of meat. This is a really small group but the specific pr campaign set up by large hired pr company emphasized the need to call it the farmers protest not the meat industry. The companies that paid the farmers so that they could protest while not loosing income, not because they where pro farmers but against losing money. These companies are going to loose millions (maybe even billions) when the co2 reduction rules are actually in affect.
- nradov 4y agoThe rules at issue are primarily about nitrogen pollution from livestock, not CO2.
- BurnGpuBurn 4y agoArjen Lubach and John Oliver are comedians, not journalists. It's important to realize this, because they have no obligation at all to be truthful.
- Doxin 4y agoThey have the exact same obligations as anyone else to be truthful.
- danieldevries 4y agoMost comments seem to miss the point that The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of food in the world. That the agricultural sector needs to be downsized particularly in NL seems rather obvious. Sadly this goes against populist interests and a handful of very rich private interests in the country.
- ghiculescu 4y agoIt’s not obvious to me. If they are so successful at exporting food, I’d have thought they should do more, not less.
- danieldevries 4y agoAccording to EU law it's obvious. But then again let's just put our heads in the sand and ignore climate change. Yes more emissions is what is needed. Face palm
- ghiculescu 4y agoHow will decreasing NL’s food exports result in a decrease in emissions? Honest question.
- peterashford 4y agoLess food miles. Less cheap availability of dairy will encourage movement to less polluting alternatives. Less intensive farming leaches less nitrogen.
- ghiculescu 4y agoSo you’d make milk more expensive for poor people? Got it. I wonder why they voted against that.
- peterashford 4y ago
- bartimus 4y agoIt amazes me how nitrogen is dominating the Dutch political agenda. It barely has anything to do with the climate crisis. Yes it needs its fair share of attention. But there's far bigger problems that need attention. No surprise that the Farmers' protest party had such a landslide win.
- jacooper 4y agoI'm sorry, but banning farms because of climate change is dumb as fuck. Especially when we have seen recently how important food security is.
- deafpolygon 4y agoHas nothing to do with banning farms, or food security.
- jacooper 4y agoOh, just knee-kapping them.
- patrick451 4y agoI don't understand why farmers get so much hate. People want them out of the southwest united states because they use too much water; they want them out of the Netherlands because nitrogen and land use that contributes to a housing crisis; they want them out of the Amazon because they have displaced rainforests. This NIMBY attitude towards farmers is not sustainable. Where is that farming should be done? I don't care that typically these farmers are massive corporations, they feed me just the same.