4 ms·
I don't understand the reasoning here. People still need to eat, so that food will still be grown—somewhere else—and the nitrogen will still be emitted—somewher
by diogocp 3y ago
I don't understand the reasoning here. People still need to eat, so that food will still be grown—somewhere else—and the nitrogen will still be emitted—somewhere else.
So the net impact on global nitrogen emissions should be zero.
It seems to me that all this is doing is making some poorly thought-out national emissions statistics/targets look better.
- bobs_salsa 3y agoYou're forgetting the impact of getting the exported food to its destination so theres potential to reduce the over all footprint of food. Secondly, having it be more distributed would also reduce the concentration of nitrogen at a local level (which doesnt have to be said the inpact it has on the local environment). So all in all its actually a relatively sound plan, how the Dutch government is going about it is maybe another story. But the fact still stands that this centralised agriculture system is just environmentally inefficien.