Dutch farmers organise mass protests in face of farm closures

This is on HN because someone posted it on HN.

Thank you, this is very informative. The last paragraph is particularly anxiety inducing: forcing food shortages on society on experimental recent data based science is not a good backbone for running a country.

> farm's emission of nitrogen

Air is 78% nitrogen (N2). This is about nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (HN3).

Note that the problem is not nitrogen gas, but nitrous oxides and ammonia, both of which contain nitrogen. Nitrogen gas itself is inert.

Moreover, the designation of protected areas came with money, it wasn't just diligence but also greed that caused this problem.

Finally, there already was a plan for managing nitrogen, but it counted things way too optimistically. That is what the court struck down. Notably it was known to the government this model was a problem, but they figured it was easier to punt the problem to a next term rather than solve it. Now that courts are forcing a solution the problem has grown so big it takes drastic measures to fully meet the rules, and there is no wiggle room.

> I'm not sure why this is on HN

Agriculture is technology too.

What makes you think the description is incorrect? Even following your own account the title of the article is spot on.

The rest of the emissions story is the overarching narrative that we "must" cut some emissions and therefore food production must be reduced and hence food prices must increase.

This story about the nature reserves plays well in Dutch media, which isn't surprising as it supports the national pride at being particularly diligent. However, it's a little misleading; the Netherlands is dealing with what looks like some of the worst NOx and NH3 pollution in the EU. I'm sure there are various causes for that, but it's measurable by satellite, and it's not merely a question of being overly zealous with nature reserves. Politicians don't like taking blame for dithering, so it's convenient to say their hands are tied by judges, rules, international treaties and the phase of the moon, but really, it's simply a problem that should likely be addressed regardless of the legal details of whatever happened to trigger the current flare up.

Furthermore, Dutch farmers enjoy popular support, remarkable influence, and they know it and use it. However, in actuality they have been warned for years if not decades by now that their emissions were not only harmful, but also unsustainable - yet lobby groups held real action at bay, as usual. An illustration of just how extreme that regulatory capture is should be apparent when you consider that not only does farming have the most millionaires of any industry; they have huge exemptions from wealth and estate taxes and are overrepresented in regulatory bodies the Dutch call waterschappen, which causes its own land misuse issues. Amusing anecdotes here include that the last time this nitrogen debate flaired up: despite livestock farming being responsible for the majority of emissions, lawmakers decided to reduce the speed limits on highways (responsible for a much smaller fraction of emissions in this instance) instead of confronting the farming unions. They're a real political force.

Farmers really don't deserve any pity here. Their industry is a real problem, and the individual farmers that actively muddy the water by trying spreading anti-science misinformation to protect their own interests are causing the Dutch state to persist with poor policy, including shifting costs from rich landowners (the farmers) onto the rest of the population; extremely regressive policies, in other words. Even where farmers will need to adapt to policies they've been warned about and have been delaying for years, current political proposals include excessively lucrative compensation for business losses incurred.

There surely are mitigating factors, but it's impossible to even have a rational discussion about this in Dutch politics because of the toxicity caused by farmers. I'm not holding my breath for a good outcome here. This isn't an example of Dutch diligence or over-zealousness; it's an example of sticking your head in the sand and blaming others for the consequences.

To be more straight: the pollution came from animals urine or guano, witch is NOT AT ALL pollutant under certain level of concentration (it's a good fertilizer for most plants, not a limited number) above such level it start to kill most plants.

Now that's is a density issue: NL is a little country with a big population, so they can't expand much. Farms in the actual economic model need to be "intensive" witch means very dense and as a result pollutant.

IMVHO some, really intensive, can collect urine/guano and sell them as a basic product to build fertilizers, that demand money, I do not know how many farmers have... Others have not much choice. Simply letting the country starve so people learn they need to eat and supermarkets does not produce food in their backyard might be of help not for NL in particular but for anyone who like to have all and want the pollution in someone else home...

A bottomline disclaimer: I'm not Dutch, I do not live in NL and I'm not a farmer...

Thanks for an explanation. I’m only familiar with this subject through the political lens I’ve seen it through in some recent headlines, so I appreciate how you got straight to the point. I do have some questions though.

What is the government offering in exchange for these people to shut down their source of livelihood? Who decides which “nearby farms” need to “close” and what process do they follow for deciding that? Is there an objective rubric or well-defined amnesty plan available to farms that pledge to reduce emissions?

Nitrogen emission is not some discretely measurable artifact that conforms nicely to property lines (not to mention shared waterways, grazing routes, etc.). It’s conceivable that a region comprised of ten independent farms might measure as producing excess nitrogen, when in reality nine of the farms are ecologically sustainable, but one dominant polluter pushes the region to excess as a whole.

In this situation, how will the government decide exactly which farms are subject to which regulations or shutdown orders? Do you think this might depend on the outcomes of some political process?

(btw, I expect the American perspective on this will lean strongly in favor of the farmers, the key difference being “the government’s citizens” vs “the citizens’ government.”)

I'm sure your views on this subject would be completely different if you were a farmer.

Interesting, I have read the same about German farmers recently. Maybe I should become a farmer, I do like money and I am quite good at complaining...

I feel like you don't need to "mislead" the public into having sympathy for you when the government bans ~30% of farming and then sends tanks in to stop protesters

If anything people who don't have sympathy for the farmers have been mislead. These people are having their lives destroyed for political reasons, it's like if we said with the exception of Google, Apple, and Microsoft all tech companies had to reduce their server power usage by 30% and couldn't expand in the future. This law is horrible and oppressive

That is one heck of a blob over London and that area does lack farms. Indeed looking at somewhere like Spain and you would think all that fruit and vegtable production didn't exist.

So is farming more a scapegoat for these emmisions?

> So something has to be done to lessen output of Ammonia and Nitrogen Oxides as they are destroying the local nature ecosystems.

I think a majority of people in NL would sacrifice the local nature (to some degree) to solve this crisis. The reason this isn't being done is because these are European rules. Which Dutch democracy cannot simply overturn.

Point being, it's European rules rather than concern for nature, that is the trigger.

Why is it better to spread out nitrogenes over a larger area? If they're the result of food production (well, of current technology of food production), than that won't change the amount of nitrogenes, just the location.

If anything, higher concentration of nitrogen sources in Netherlands could make it easier to solve the problem, centrally.

>Based on measurements gathered by the Copernicus Sentinel-5P mission between April and September 2018, the image shows high levels of nitrogen dioxide in London, Paris, Brussels, western Germany, Milan and Moscow. Nitrogen dioxide pollutes the air mainly as a result of traffic and the combustion of fossil fuel in industrial processes. It has a significant impact on human health, contributing particularly to respiratory problems.

It seems that farming isn't even mentioned in the issue of nitrogen compounds produced. Maybe they should work harder on the elimination of oil as an energy source.

I thought you meant per capita, but I looked it up and it really is the second largest in absolute terms - 80B$ versus 120B$ for the US. It's insane that the netherlands exports over half as much as a country 20x it's size.

From previous comments on the subject I gathered that farmers had apparently been exempted from or allowed to skirt many of the previous rules and regulations as well, despite a major if not the main source of pollution in the country.

But not this time, this time they're asked to put in the work same as everyone else, and that makes them very unhappy.

Have the protesters specifically threatened politicians with violence, or merely demonstrated near their homes?

>This new wave of protests is particularly bad as politicians are now threatened in their homes.

While I don't agree with the positions held by the farmers, I do have to admire a group of people who know where to direct their energy.

CO2 is not irrelevant to this story, the nitrogen produced by farming in bad for a type of growth called raised bogs that thrives only in nitrogen poor conditions. Now you might not care about this unimpressive shrugs and grasses but they are one of natures most effective ways of storing carbon.

To be honest I don't know how much this raised bogs plays a role in the carbon calculus, but the dutch government is not doing a god job explaining this.

I've noticed this gets said of every protest movement in the last few decades: BLM protests in the US, Trucker convoy in Canada, Yellow Vest in France. Even years ago, the average urban dweller started to hate the Critical Mass protests in cities when their commute got worse. I wonder if there is a limit on disobedience that is tolerated? Or simply people get defensive when they are made to suffer for a protest they aren't directly involved with?

This isn't about the actual movements/protests, but about the tactics. "Raising awareness" only gets you so far, negatively impacting people seems to backfire. Is there a middle ground?

Same applies to closing down nuclear reactors and coal mines over the last decade in some countries in Europe.

It’s important to note that much of the food produced by these farms is exported, so national food prices may not be affected as much as you would think.

The article is wrong. I don't get how this could make it to the top.

It has nothing to do with greenhouse emissions, but with nitrogen compound emission. See https://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2022/06/whats-all-the-fuss... (the first english source I could find)

The source is mostly cattle. Which doesn't make up for Ukrainian grain.

Sri Lanka is a recent case study.

Yes, its almost as if the actions of the last few years were planned to cause a massive catastrophic societal collapse that will have us begging for smart cities, green passes and all the other technocratic essentials that have been long in the planning. Technocrats are lucky, I guess.

The Netherlands is a small, densely populated country with a huge farming export surplus, with a very large industry (and lobby) behind them. This also isn’t about plantations, but livestock. Cows mostly. So nothing related to fertilisers at all.

A few years ago a judge ruled that the way the government calculated the emissions were incorrect, and now the government is basically forced to act. As these livestock farms account for a huge amount of nitrogen compound emissions, the most pain will be felt here. This was known for many years though, but now the reality is here and shit hit the fan.

In general, I think all this is also a symptom of the general distrust in the government, frustration that has been building up, and there’s quite some overlap in this protesting community and the “covid is a hoax” group. It attracts some very weird people.

> Considering the imminent food shortages

There are no imminent global food shortages. Wheat futures are literally crashing right now because the entire thing was FUD-driven financial speculation: https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/futures/W00

There are (and are going to be) local food shortages, in countries which relied on ukraine specifically as they need new supply lines, and the speculation has done the opposite of helping by pricing them out.

And then also in other low-wealth countries which the speculation has also priced out, there the speculation alone creates the food shortages.

If there is less cattle, less farmland is needed to grow fodder. That farmland is then available for growing food for people. This way the same amount of farmland can feed more people.

Reducing cattle farming increases the efficiency of food production.

No, the article is about cow shit.

Nitrogen oxides are very potent greenhouse gases.

> Guessing not, given the farmers’ reaction.

Why would you guess that? Farmers don't generally like changing their habits, and are usually very happy to put the burden on the commons.

In this case, the farmers are unhappy because the netherlands are a massive nox producer (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/03/Nitrogen_d...), this comes from a huge livestock sector, and the government has decided to implement severe restriction on nox emissions, especially around nature reserves where it's creating wastelands.

The farmers' reaction is mostly due to the first part:

> not all farmers will continue in business

The farming differently mostly has to do with scale. We're already really good at producing efficiently, but we're building massive (relatively, nothing compared to the US) farms for meat and dairy and we're doing this right next to nature preserves. Our country is so tiny, that pretty much everything is right next to each other.

Over the past decades, through farming and related lobbies, we've seen a huge increase in the size of the farms over here. The economies of scale have benefited the share holders of food companies and banks, but not the farmers, because every penny they save gets cut from their income by these food companies. This causes farmers to aim for even larger farms with more automation, which requires investment, which benefits the banks.

Now, the government is telling the farmers we need to reduce the number of farms and the size of the remaining ones. After being fucked over mostly by large companies for decades, they feel like the government is now targeting them unfairly. They see all their investments might be useless in the future and they're angry because of it.

All of this is exacerbated by leftover Covid anger and conspiracy groups adding to the fire and joining the protests, which are becoming more violent and their demands are becoming less coherent.

Well, if you produce crops instead of livestock, you are not emitting any nitrogen compounds so would in theory be totally unaffected by regulation.

Why is that “simply”? Why should we care more about biodiversity than construction and farming? I think really nothing is simple about this trade off.

> the Dutch are the second largest agricultural exporter (in absolute terms!)

This number is quoted often, usually in defence of strict measures, but it includes flower exports (which you can't eat unless you've got a real expensive taste) and imported food being exported again.

I agree with everything else you say, but I very much dislike this factoid.

Could say the same thing about China and manufacturing but it really doesn't ever get any traction.

I expect that tech news are the primary focus of this site, but that the 'spirit' of the site, as promulgated by the likes of @dang, is intellectual curiosity and debate with a tech focus.

This is the degree of protesting I'd like to see in the US about anything.

Are you aware of the "degree of protesting" that has been going on? Threatening children is not OK in my book, even if their parents are government ministers in charge of the policy you disagree with.

As I said in another comment, most of the food produced by these farmers is destined for export.

They must reduce their emissions. So they can cut down on certain food for the cattle or have less animals. Anyway no farm is closed yet and they can always start a lawsuit. There also are a lot of farmers that don't have any offspring or people to take over, so they can be bought out.

Export less food. Where food is mainly cattle and poultry. The Netherlands exports a lot of food at the cost of the local environment. That has not been sustainable for a long time and the current government is being forced to act after having declined to do so for many years.

This is the worst part, in my opinion. The farmers are mad that they need to cut emissions but it was the lax government policy that allowed them to grow to the size they are today to even emit this much.

I sympathise with the farmers that will need to adjust as a result of this mess, as the government ignoring the problem (in no small part because of industry lobbying, though) is the root cause of this upheaval.

On the other hand, the lawsuit that forced the government to come up with a plan finished five years ago, at this point it's no longer something that couldn't be foreseen.

The violent protests as a response to mild, insufficient government action are quickly ruining the good reputation and compassion many people have for these farmers, despite the fact that the majority of them are choosing simple inaction over violence.

If you see the map of ESA, something is going totally out of control in the Netherlands: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/03/Nitrogen_d...

Any local species of plants, insects, birds will be wiped out and we will get back a totally different ecosystem.

We would also create worse effects on our own health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide#Health_effect...

What the Netherlands is doing is not sustainable, and we should use our innovations to just lower output of those gases. Some farms already have shown that with some use of different food for the cows they can radically lower output of those gases.

> The Netherlands has almost no nature left

But you have wolves, and they like to eat the dike sheep.

Basically any land grant university has thousands of our brightest minds doing exactly that, every single day.

The fields and labs of Ames, Iowa are less visible and sexy than an SV startup or NYC / London / Dubai NGO, but I can assure you what you want exists en masse.

Any proof at all for this claim?

> love seeing the resistance to this period of peak centralized control of lives

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Climate change is and will happen. One of the central questions is how much we choose to act to mitigate its consequences. If we, as you seem to imply, apply a hands off approach as we have done for decades, then you can have negative externalities that compound uncontrolled and unchecked to blow up in everyone's faces to the detriment, decay, and possible destruction of society. The world is unfortunately not so simple as the "resistance" and "centralized control of lives" as you make it out to be. Actions and lack thereof have consequences. We're feeling them now.

I tire of discussing the consequences of climate change with those in denial. I hope your disillusionment with reality doesn't harm your future.

This is mostly a fair criticism. I've seen the common, 'my body my rights' used in both vaccines and abortion rights. I would point out however, that the vaccine is less deadly, with fewer side effects than carrying a baby to birth. But also, vaccines give herd immunity, which is a direct benefit to the people around you. So they wouldn't be the same. Vaccines and climate change are not comparable in any way. And just to state, you can be pro-government and anti-government in certain areas of life/society simultaneously without being a hypocrite. Government is and can be expansive and everyone has their limits. Unless you also like pointing out that people live in houses but still go outside?(What is that all about? like come on, you either love living indoors or outdoors you can't do both /s)

What do you mean by “‘low-food’ (anti-meat) regimes”?