Netherlands To Close Nearly 3,000 Farms To Comply With EU Green Mandates
The Dutch government plans to buy and close down up to 3,000 farms near environmentally sensitive areas to comply with EU nature preservation rules.
The Netherlands is ordering famers to cut down ‘nitrogen pollution’ and will push ahead with compulsory purchases if not enough farms take up the offer voluntarily.
Farmers will be offered a deal “well over” the worth of the farm, according to the government plan that is targeting the closure of 2,000 to 3,000 farms or other major ‘polluting’ businesses.
Earlier leaked versions of the plan put the figure at 120 percent of the farm’s value but that figure has not yet been confirmed by ministers.
“There is no better offer coming,” Christianne van der Wal, nitrogen minister, told MPs on Friday. She said compulsory purchases would be made with “pain in the heart”, if necessary.
The Netherlands needs to reduce its emissions to comply with EU conservation rules and agriculture is responsible for almost half the nitrogen emitted in the proud farming nation.
But the new plan looks set to reignite tensions with farmers over nitrogen reduction.
Dutch farmers have staged mass protests, burnt hay bales, dumped manure on highways, and picketed ministers’ houses over the last three years.
In 2019 a ruling by the Dutch Council of State meant every new activity that emits nitrogen, including farming and building, needs a permit.
That has prevented the expansion of dairy, pig, and poultry farms, which are major sources of nitrogen from ammonia in manure mixed with urine. This can be harmful to nature when it washes into rivers and the sea.
Last month, an army of thousands of tractors took to the roads in protest and caused the worst rush hour in Dutch history with 700 miles of jams at its peak.
Farmers fear that the plan to slash emissions by 2030 will cost them their livelihoods, oppose any compulsory purchases, and argue farming is unfairly targeted while other sectors such as aviation are not.
This is planned and intentional food shortages, another ‘conspiracy theory’ proven correct.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Getty Images
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jurg Gassmann
| #
So far as I understand, it is not strictly to comply with an EU mandate, but with the Dutch government’s interpretation of an EU rule, exacerbated by choices the Dutch government made when is specified Natura 2000 protections. The solution is fully in the Dutch government’s hands.
Reply
VOWG
| #
They really are insane.
Reply
Saighdear
| #
… and the UK MSM and GGB drown us in their silence about it all.
I’ve said before and w ill say it again, that unfortunately, Farmers should be withholding their services from such protagonistic sectors. Maybe if, like the Norstream pipelines and UK Coal & Steel Plants were torn down, then it would not be a handshale round-the-table agreement to re-start foood supply tonight. Biological processes can take a LOOOONg time to come on-stream. THese kinds of fools tell us in the UK that we should be building more On-Land windmills NOW to have them ready for Xmas – THIS YEAR. Just have NO IDEA. Townees – your ruling class
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The interesting comparison is with the Swiss. They recently held a referendum on this subject which was defeated by 65% against, resulting in the government – and the EU taking a back seat. The Swiss system of direct democracy requires the results of a referendum to be incorporated as an amendment to their constitution. So no political opportunity to ‘reinterpret’ or ignore the result of a referendum. We need a similar system of review in every country espousing democratic principles. My thoughts on the Australian requirement for CIR is at https://bosmin.com/ICS/CIR-Australia.pdf
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
I am a bit confused. If the gas content of Earth’s atmosphere is 78% of total, then how would adding 0.001% Nitrogen to the atmosphere cause a problem?
Didn’t the Nitrogen come from the air in the first place??
I am starting to believe we are dealing with mentally ill people who have been elected to public office…
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
“Mentally ill…” Right. Nitrogen is a basic element, like iron or mercury. It is not only in the air, it IS the air, along with oxygen (21%) and minor gases. My limited understanding is that a nitrogen cycle supports plant life – vigorous growth, decay and regrowth – even more than an oxygen cycle supports animal life. It is sine qua non for the food on everyone’s table. Seeing danger in so natural and indispensable an element and process does suggest a new and spreading mental disease, eco-chondria. Reaching back, Rachel Carson has much to answer for.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Tom,
I agree in full with your comment.
The proponents of fake ‘CO2 Theory’ also neglect to mention all seafood is based upon CO2.
Lobster, oysters, clams, crab, kelp, and all fish require CO2 in seawater to grow and flourish.
What did Joe Biden have for dinner with over 100 guests the other night?
Answer: Lobster.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Tom,
Correct, Sir.
All plant life which sustains all animals and humans require these primary ingredients from the atmosphere and soil:
1) Carbon
2) Hydrogen
3) Nitrogen
4) Oxygen
5) Phosphorous
6) Potassium
We are living now in a world of mindless stooges. Young people are indoctrinated with complete falsehoods, which are contradicted by Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics.
Critical thinking is no longer allowed.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Tom,
You use the term Eco-Chondriac.
My preferred term Eco-Hypochondriac.
More accurate in diagnosing these mentally ill folks.
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Tom! and Kevin
I prefer the term Eco-hypercondriac.
Sorry Kevin I did not see that you had already said it. However, I have added it as well for support.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
K Kaiser
| #
No more Tulips at Shiphol ?!
Reply