Skip to content

The Dutch net zero

Yes, seen the tractors. Been told that it’s about net zero. Nitrogen emissions.

OK, but what I’ve not seen is any useful description of what the new rules are. Is it application of fertiliser? Or is it worse than that, it’s about run off from manure? That second being pretty much impossible to solve while still having animals on the land.

Anyone got a pointer to, in English, a reasonable description of what the new restrictions are?

20 thoughts on “The Dutch net zero”

  1. My reading is that there aren’t any. The Dutch government have set regional targets on the use of Nitrogen. They have a bill with funding attached and there will be packages of regional measures to be announced (for 2023). Ministers made the mistake of suggesting that these could include farm closures and livestock reductions.

    In English from Dutch government source: https://www.aanpakstikstof.nl/binaries/aanpakstikstof/documenten/publicaties/2022/05/25/brief-overview-of-the-nitrogen-reduction-and-nature-improvement-programme/Brief+overview+of+the+Nitrogen+Reduction+and+Nature+Improvement+Programme.pdf

  2. So it’s all a giant misunderstanding? I’d trust the farmers’ suspicions more than the government’s reassurances.

  3. “My reading is that there aren’t any. The Dutch government have set regional targets on the use of Nitrogen. They have a bill with funding attached and there will be packages of regional measures to be announced (for 2023). Ministers made the mistake of suggesting that these could include farm closures and livestock reductions.”

    They didn’t make a ‘mistake’, the measures set out in the bill demand farm closures and livestock reductions. There are no other ways of achieving the stated aims. Its all worded in very neutral language, so as not to scare the horses, but the reality is clear – if you want to reduce nitrogen deposition on the stated scale (which basically means a) animal shit and b) artificial fertilisers) then the only way is to reduce the amount of animals and stop people using artificial fertiliser. Both of which mean farmers will be driven out of business.

  4. 40 years ago I was diagnosed with a chronic disease, of which my consultant said “The disease is ultimately fatal, but sadly the cure may be too.”(when I was told the news I thought “Hey ho, being human, even without any disease, life is ultimately fatal, so what’s changed?”)
    I diagnose Global Warming with the same conclusion…
    Of course, I’m happy to say medicine has progressed. So, although the ultimate conclusion has not changed, the method of arrival may have…

  5. Thanks for the article about Sri Lanka, DocBud.

    Of course I feel the same way about renewable energy.

  6. @rhoda klapp: It’s not a misunderstanding. There just aren’t any rules yet or a full published proposal, which is probably why Tim couldn’t find specifics. There are targets and some dangerous suggestions on how they’ll be met.

    @Jim: You’ve misunderstood me. The mistake was suggesting they would take such measures; I didn’t mean their suggestions were inaccurately communicating their future plans.

  7. And since The Netherlands is the second largest agriculture exporter in the world, this will also decimate their economy.

    So they won’t need all that agricultural land they’ve reclaimed from the sea, so may as well save money and take down the dykes.

  8. Mostly what’s above…

    The core of the problem is the EU directive about nitrogen pollution and protection of the natura 2000 areas in Europe.
    The Netherlands is anal about “Nature” and has a lot of those areas, even though most of us wouldn’t even recognise those as “nature”, given that they’re mostly post-stamps, in the middle of urban areas, and very heavily maintained or entirely artificial to begin with.
    All the natura 2000 areas are under the purvey of “Staatsbosbeheer”, which is a semi-independent governmental body which is chock full of, run by, and partially financed by “Lovers of Nature”.
    They are also one of the strongest “hidden” lobby groups in the netherlands, with connections to all the Usual Suspects even though the department itself is not allowed to lobby…

    Back to the directive, which states that natura 2000 areas need to be protected against nitrogen pollution to prevent them from being damaged/destroyed.
    Most of those areas by size in the netherlands are alluvial sand deposits that were mostly created by historical overuse by man in the 17th-18th C., and basically large-scale sandpits with some heather and pine that clings on.
    Or…. old production forests, of course also on sand, mostly still in use to produce Green Fuel, in posession of Staatsbosbeheer, usually cheap pine, with “nature reserve” tagged on to them because it makes it easier to keep people out and complain about all the logging..

    All those areas are sand… naturally piss-poor when it comes to nitrogen, and any historical attempts to enrich them have failed. Not enough shit, not enough water, not enough manpower, not enough money.
    But now they suddenly want to preserve that low-nitrogen state, and even make it worse to “Protect the Historical Dutch Landscapes”.
    Because of this, the base for the calculations for the dutch nitrogen pollution targets are based on what they want the nitrogen levels in those areas to be.
    Which is , of course, fuck-all, and about 100 times lower than even the strictest german norm…

    Those base numbers have been plugged into the , actually quite accurate, models for the Netherlands and the results have been rubberstamped and inserted as targets into the relevant laws.
    And yes, none of the Busybodies even considered the GIGO law, or actively pretended not to have heard of it.
    So you end up with literally insane targets for nitrogen in the most populated area of Europe where if things aren’t concrete and asphalt, there’s farmers and Staatsbosbeheer and their “Nature Reserves” competing for space.

    Between Staatsbosbeheer being a state institution, and the dutch government always trying to be Best Boy In Class regarding the EU…. Guess who’s losing out most…
    ( yes, there are other effects.. We officially can’t build any more houses under a severe housing shortage, while as a country we’re more popular than the UK for the Vibrant Enrichment which we can’t kick out, and… and… and….)
    But the Farmers Being Forcibly Shut Down is the most visible effect, and the one that’s flaring up now.

    And it’s going to get worse.. The government has already clearly stated they are not going to give an inch on the targets, and the farmers, quite rightly, are not going to let themselves be shut down for bureaucracy gone haywire, especially since they’ve already invested heavily in government-driven ecological containment measures for decades. And are now being commanded to fold up under government-determined compensation. So they won’t even get a decent price for their farm…

    Civil wars have started over less, and with all the other things that have been stewing over here over the past decades, we may be headed for Interesting Times…
    Especially since everything is done under the “For the EU!!!” banner, which… well… isn’t exactly a majority opinion over here, to put it mildly.

    Ah well.. a towel can double as a torch, so I’ll only need a pitchfork.
    Or would a halberd count? Those are pretty effective on barricades, after all..

  9. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    Grikath, as I said to a Saffer friend the other day, third boer war just got started.

    His comment? “Now I know where we got that attitude”

  10. Thank you for that account, Grikath. Would it be sensible to cut out the middleman and just attack Brussels directly?

  11. @Grikath

    Beautifully, explained, but I must quibble about one minor point:
    the most populated area of Europe

    If you mean continental Europe, then you’re correct. If you mean ‘nation state’ rather than area, then arguably correct, although England is pretty close in population density and all demographers recognise that our population is under-counted by at least 5%, probably more like 10% (the Netherlands very likely has similar problems, for much the same reasons).

    But Central* England (where 80% of the population live in 50% of the area) has 1.5x the area of NL (64,000 km²) with 2.7x more people living there (44,189,700 – 2011 numbers) and an official population density of 700/km² (in reality more like 750/km²). If you wanted to find an equivalent area with that many people in it, you’d be looking at Java or Bangladesh or Greater Tokyo.

    * roughly a quadrilateral with Liverpool, York, Dover and Bristol at the corners

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *