8 ms·

I 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 towa

by Neil44 4y ago

I 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 ago
This 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 ago
This argument might be made for CO2 emissions, but nitrogen emissions are mostly a local problem.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
hbn 4y ago
Most 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 ago
  There'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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Then we all go to hell together.
      - RandomLensman 4y ago
        Why? You think we cannot come up with better incentive structures? I doubt that very much.
        peterashford 4y ago
        Because 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 ago
It’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 ago
  You 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 ago
    Your 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.

by Neil44 4y ago

mkesper 4y ago

This 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 ago

This argument might be made for CO2 emissions, but nitrogen emissions are mostly a local problem.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hbn 4y ago

Most 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 ago
There'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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Then we all go to hell together.
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      Why? You think we cannot come up with better incentive structures? I doubt that very much.
      - peterashford 4y ago
        Because 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 ago

It’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 ago
You 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 ago
  Your 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.