Farm seizures planned in the Netherlands
I have written at some length before on the government’s war on farmers in the Netherlands, so I refer you to this series of previous posts of mine: this and this, as well as this related post on efforts in Canada.
So now we have the next step:
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 attempting to cut down its 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.
The state-backed “emission reduction” drive in the Netherlands is part of a more extensive EU climate campaign as Brussels doubles down on its radical globalist agenda despite a record rise in food and fuel prices across the Continent…
Faced with a government-backed climate onslaught, Dutch farmers are organizing themselves politically. They have fielded a new political party called the Boer Burger Beweging (BBB), or the Farmer-Citizen Movement.
Founded in 2019, the BBB has succeeded in creating a nationwide footprint. “In next year’s provincial elections, which will also decide representation in the Dutch senate, or Eerste Kamer, the BBB is fielding more than 300 candidates in all 12 provinces. In recent polls, the party ranks fourth of the 17 leading parties in the Netherlands,” the UK-based Guardian newspaper reported earlier this month.
There’s a similar farmers’ movement in Germany.
For quite some time I’ve mentioned that climate scientist Judith Curry is my favorite go-to person for what I consider sanity on climate-change issues. I haven’t seen her address the farm/nitrogen situation directly, but I recommend this recent interview with her on the entire subject of governments and climate in general. She’s so reasonable that it’s no wonder she was driven from academia:
I’m sure that if the Dutch farmers promised to only sell their beef and dairy products in China they could not only keep their land but get a subsidy too.
The WTF is spreading its tentacles…using garbage—“follow the science”—excuses to try to provoke yet another crisis, in this case targeting what the delusional Schwab must believe are a relatively “weak link” in the chain of resistance.
Been there. Done that…
The Dutch won’t give in easily in this…21st century version of the Boer wars…
(Should be added that that BBB moniker is certainly a clever touch. The Dutch, in addition to possessing a “Don’t Tread on Me” mentality, generally…have a wicked, and finely honed, sense of humor…)
While there are hungry and even starving people in the world, (“world hunger is on the rise, affecting nearly 10% of people globally”) reducing the world’s food supply is arguably a Crime Against Humanity.
Conviction of a Crime Against Humanity should carry a mandatory and automatic death sentence, since no other consequence is proportionate to the crime.
The government undertaking this abusive business is a quadripartite coalition between two social-liberal parties and two Christian democratic parties. It’s rather like the petty outrages you hear about in Britain, which, we’re told, has had a ‘conservative’ government for 12 years. (The opposition is a grab bag of leftist and Euroskeptic parties).
Nobody does progressive authoritarianism like the EU.
EU Threatens Musk With Twitter Ban
EU Commissioner Thierry Breton told Musk he must ditch an “arbitrary” approach to reinstate banned users, pursue “disinformation aggressively,” and agree to an “extensive audit” of the platform.
I think it is time that we ask what exactly in Western Europe is worth defending from outside invasions, if the Western governments are themselves simultaneously waging war on their own citizens and allowing the Muslims to take over demographically?
what exactly in Western Europe is worth defending
Damn it Jon, stop asking questions like that. I struggle with insomnia as it is.
EU bureaucrats have been up to this nitrogenous excreta for 30 years now, regulating sabots (wooden shoes) for example. There were very good reasons for Brexit. But progressive tyrants, like rust, never cease or sleep.
There were very good reasons to leave “the old country.”
Jon baker; Mike Plaiss:
I’ll give that question a try:
(1) Beautiful cities and countryside to visit.
(2) Fascinating history; the roots of our culture and Western civilization as a whole are there as well.
(3) Plenty of people who are not on board with the globalist or leftist agenda (such as, for example, the farmers in the Netherlands).
(4) Bad as things are there, it’s still better than much of the rest of the world that would want to take it over.
Dr Curry tells it like it is: “People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe dream.” and “There’s no emergency.”
Well, I do really like the cathedrals.
An excellent question, Jon Baker.
Want to know just how crazy this is? I found a story online that claims the Netherlands has about 53,000 farmers. So, they want to simply eliminate 4 to 6 percent of the foundation of their entire ag industry.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/07/28/dutch-farmers-worried-by-unrealistic-emissions-reduction-target
Mike
But they dont representation or accountability thats the point
Specially considering the monstrous result arising
While there are hungry and even starving people in the world, (“world hunger is on the rise, affecting nearly 10% of people globally”) reducing the world’s food supply is arguably a Crime Against Humanity. — Geoffrey Britain
That captures my thought on the piece exactly.
Earlier this evening, I watched a Tucker Carlson Today interview with Michael Shellenberger, one of the few reasonable, nationally-known commentators on climate change. His book, Apocalypse Never, is quite good. I also just happened to run across this over at Spiked!: https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/11/29/the-climate-extremists-have-won/
Among the others who speak sense is, of course, Bjorn Lomborg. One of his principal, and rational arguments is that humans are creative problem solvers and it is likely that the cost of solely responding to the effects of climate change would cost only about 1 percent of the cost of trying to stop it. It would seem that many simply do not want to allow that debate to happen.
So the Dutch govt. is making an offer to farmers that they cannot refuse.
This is the sort of deal one would expect in dealing with the Cosa Nostra.
I never thought I would see the Dutch govt. do something like this.
What’s next; make Dutch farmers wear some sort of ID patches when out and about so all can see who the “enemy within” is??
This is really unbelievable.
Boy, I’m old enough to remember when World Hunger was at the top of the liberal/progressive/hippie/rocknroll agenda.
Heigh-ho. Halcyon days.
What is it about the Dutch governments and their willingness to progressively experiment on their population? How many “good ideals” have those Good Idea Fairies launched; legalized prostitution, legalized hard drugs, legalized euthanasia, legalized suicide?
How a nation chooses to euthanize itself.
huxley – Norman Borlaug, they hate him.
om, I think you mean Denmark.
huxley – Norman Borlaug, they hate him.
Mike Plaiss:
Cite?
That’s not what I remember from the 70s-90s. Though I stopped being a lodge brother after 9-11 and I haven’t tracked all things leftish so well since.
I’m aware that Paul Ehrlich, Stanford prof and author of “The Population Bomb”, attributes the failures of his famine predictions to the success of the Green Revolution, i.e. Norman Borlaug. However, I detected no trace of enmity.
Curious that the Dutch government should now sport a ‘Nitrogen Minister’. I wonder if other elements in the periodic table are going to get their own ministers. How busy do you think the ‘Praseodymium Minister’ would be? (I remember Carl Sagan enunciating that one with particular relish in an episode of Cosmos.)
This isn’t the first policy in the quest to appease Gaia, that has resulted in hardship globally. Our ethanol policy has affected food prices, and the poorest nations affected the most.
There will most likely be a rice shortage in 2023 due to weather in India affecting the amount of rice planted.
This year, rice prices increased which affects the ability of poorer countries to import the grain, a basic staple to Asia and African countries.
https://thewashingtonstandard.com/the-stage-is-being-set-for-a-massive-global-rice-shortage/
I don’t know if this is related or not; but, several years ago while in graduate school in New Jersey I had two “international” classmates in my history class studying here in the US for a year. One was from Belgium and the other from the Netherlands. Both were in their 20s and studying for advanced degrees in History.
During one of our outside-of-class discussions I came to find out they had never visited the Anne Frank house and did not know who Hermine “Miep” Gies was. I could understand the guy from Belgium having never visited the Anne Frank house; but the woman from the Netherlands had NEVER been there?! Isn’t that sort of like living in Philly and having never visited Independence Hall or the Liberty Bell? Or growing up in New York City and never went on a class trip to the Empire State Building or the State of Liberty? Also, I could also understand the average person not knowing the name of the woman, “Miep” Gies, who helped to hide the Franks and others in Anne Frank’s diary; but, history majors not knowing?!
Interestingly, both during a class discussion stated that nationalism is nothing more than jingoism that leads to fascism. Did they really believe that or were they just talking the correct points to the professor? The professor did push the discussion in that direction; so, it could very well be that they were giving the “correct” answer to get an “A”; but, they didn’t seem to realize that government overreach of any sort could lead down that path. I was very much the odd man of in class by stating that!
It was as if they learned the “correct” talking points; but, didn’t seem to really learn lessons from history.
Oh, and one last thing, while they were from the Netherlands and Belgium they both thought that being “European” was more important than being Dutch or Belgian.
https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/9kqyf/norman_borlaug_may_have_saved_a_billion_from/
https://cei.org/blog/the-man-who-fed-the-world-and-the-film-that-condemned-him-for-it/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/caught-war-on-communism-norman-borlaug-and-green-revolution/
Brian E:
Nope. The Netherlands leads the way. Look it up.
Phillip Sells:
Not too long ago the Green’s Periodic Table Pariah was chlorine Cl.
Molecules of madness? Nitrites, C02, CH4, H20 (water vapor), or Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate? All much easier than 2,3,7,8 -Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD, “dioxin”) (not a nice molecule).
charles:
Useful idiots have to come from somewhere. They have to be raised to own nothing, be happy, and eat bugs. Solyent green takes a bit longer, but in the interim you have to feed the bugs something, so lets pass a EU regulation probably having to included permitted methods of euthanasia that won’t upset digestion of the bugs ….
Re: Norman Borlaug
Mike Plaiss:
I can’t get behind the paywall of your third link, but the other links substantiate that, one film and reddit topic halfway question Borlaug, does not equate to “they hate him” (i.e. Borlaug) in my book.
The CAGW cult believe they can control the climate. Their mantra is Net Zero carbon by any means.
Judith Curry and other sensible climate scientists don’t believe the climate can be controlled by going to Net Zero. Their mantra is adaption. That works for me.
“Their mantra is Net Zero carbon by any means.”
Yes, a kind of “perfectionists of the world unite” sorta thing…
No doubt this is why the net-zero guy in Beijing is so popular with all the usual suspects…especially the dodgy, doddering UNITY dude in the WH…
Dr Curry is still on the path of realizing how corrupt and incompetent her profession is. I used to read her regularly. It was interesting to see how excruciatingly slowly she came to grasp that mainstream science was so flawed and so corrupt. Last I looked, she still hadn’t quite grasped the full extent. More importantly, she hadn’t quite grasped her own culpability in the fraud. I haven’t checked her blog much lately, but I doubt she ever will.
Her small role in the fraud is instructive. In the early 2000s she signed a statement along with many other scientists which IIRC said something to the effect that the signers were scientists who understood the science and that global warming science was good quality science. It further stated that science was under assault from nefarious deniers. She held and wrote those views when she began her blog.
I think it was following the Climategate leaks from East Anglia’s CRU that she started to realize that the science wasn’t as solid as she had been led to believe. [although it may have started with the Congressional committee’s request to review Mann’s hockey stick which showed how pathetically incompetent it was, but I don’t think so.] Her eyes were opened very, very slowly over the next decade.
She has written that she felt betrayed that her fellow scientists, upon whom she and so many other signatories relied, had not actually done good work and had engaged in all manner of shady, anti-scientific practices. What she didn’t write, and should have, is that she had engaged in defrauding the public herself.
When she signed, she effectively represented to the public:
1) that she had both scientific expertise and personal knowledge of the quality of global warming science,
2) that the science was good quality,
3) the she intended that the public rely on her representations
We know the public did rely on claims of scientists like her. And we know that the damage from said reliance has been immense.
These are the elements of fraud. Obviously, no one is going to sue her. But she clearly and intentionally misled the public.
The reality is that she had no idea at all if the science was any good. She lied when she represented that she did. Her defenders would say that she was just doing what scientists do all the time. She simply relied on claims other scientists made in published research. I’m sure she believes that doing so is morally and ethically appropriate. It’s not.
This is the huge, glaring problem with all science. There is no quality process. Dr Curry knows that peer review is not a quality process. She also knows that studies aren’t replicated. No one ever checks anyone else’s work. And she knows that there is a reproducibility crisis in academia.
I have always been stunned that any professional would make representations to the general public about the quality of the work of others when they have no idea whatsoever of its quality. This is worse than negligence. It’s at least reckless, if not amounting to intentional misrepresentation — fraud.
We saw doctors do this with Covid. We see it with global warming. The reckless spreading of disinformation, lies and slanders by professionals who know they actually have no personal knowledge is an outrage. They know they are relying on propaganda, and they know that the spreaders of that propaganda have been shown to be incompetent, dishonest and corrupt on repeated occasions. Yet they willingly put their personal and professional reputations on the line by spreading whatever nonsense they are told.
But all is sunshine, rainbows, and Unicorns in stan’s profession, and unlike everyone else, he has perfect sight and foresight, for stan has fully established his infallible hindsight.
It’s all so simple you see.
She simply relied on claims other scientists made in published research. I’m sure she believes that doing so is morally and ethically appropriate. It’s not.
One of the great scandals that is little known is how much of published research is not reproducible. I have read estimates as high as 70% in medical research. I personally know of a famous fraud in surgical research. Back in the early 70s there was a huge flap about colon cancer surgery that was referred to as “The No touch Technique.” I can no longer find descriptions of the original controversy but it was about cancer of the colon. It turned out that the author, the son of a famous surgeon, had lied about his results. Even though it was known to be a lie, references can still be found recommending his method.
This will work out fine
https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/world/austrian-grocers-to-hand-out-food-rations-during-blackouts/
I look forward to scientific analysis of how much carbon is going into the atmosphere from the Muana Loa eruption. I’m guessing each day the volcano adds an entire year’s worth of carbon. Will that speed up doomsday by months or years? Asking for a friend.
I might be too late to join the discussion 🙂 but I was talking about this with my Kentucky-born husband last night and he told me about our government doing something similar in the 90s with tobacco farming. They desperately wanted to curb tobacco growing and so they offered buyouts to Kentucky farmers (not sure if it was in other tobacco-growing states or just in KY), and apparently the negotiation of this deal was one of the early ways Mitch McConnell cemented his support in the agricultural community. (“He’s been coasting on that deal for years.”)
They specifically did several things to make it as enticing as possible, as they wanted volunteers: they paid *several times* the value of the land, PLUS more than what the farmers could expect for lifetime earnings if they were mid-40s or older- enough to retire on in a low COL area; AND they only bought the tobacco-growing rights on the land, they didn’t actually confiscate the land, so the farmers could always start up with a different crop.
And they didn’t force it- husband’s brother-in-law has a family farm that still grows some tobacco as his dad was young enough at the time of the deal that it wouldn’t have made sense for him to participate- the compensation wouldn’t have been as much as his lifetime earnings.
I don’t necessarily like paying farmers not to plant specific crops, especially as it’s actually *us* paying them and not “the government” but if you think you need to do this deal, that’s the way to do it. The 120% of the farm value specified in the article is a joke… and I’m skeptical they’re also factoring in future earnings and such.
Kshoosh:
It’s one thing to do this for a specific crop in a specific state – a crop that isn’t a food source. It’s another to do it to the farming industry – focused on food – as a whole in a country.
Is the government of the Netherlands agreeing to a price for the farms being taken that accounts for the lifetime of earnings the farm will provide the farmer and his family should they continue to farm the land? I doubt it. Regardless, this has to rank among the stupidest ideas conceived of by the liberal community. Except, of course, by their most prominent leaders – Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. But give them a little time, they’ll catch up.
Back in the’ 1990s, I was a follower of the warmers’ blog, Real Climate.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/serious-mistakes-found-in-recent-paper-by-connolly-et-al/
It exists to try to refute any scientist that questions their science. The SCIENCE IS SETTLED is their mantra. They invented the climate denier trope and it’s been very successful. Climategate exposed a lot of their anti-science science, but the MSM has kept up a steady stream of propaganda. It’s now down the memory hole.
I used to comment there and ask questions that were explained away by telling me I could not understand what they were doing. Eventually, it was admitted that CO2 alone could not cause the warming they said they were seeing. They had to invent the ideas of “forcings.” Forcings = water vapor, aerosols, methane, etc. All of which are deemed to strengthen the effect of CO2.
CO2 is a minor trace gas in the atmosphere that is relatively well mixed and evenly distributed. So, it’s easy to model. Water vapor and aerosols are not evenly distributed and change dramatically from place to place and time to time. They are not easy to model. The values for water vapor and aerosols used in their models are “educated guesses.” None of the climate models, except the Russian model (which few ever mention), have come close to matching the observed temperature changes. Yet they rely on them for predictions of the coming climate crisis. 🙁
They eventually barred me from commenting because Iwas asking bad questions. 🙂
Better climate info is available at:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ (Old, but still relevant.)
https://www.climatedepot.com/author/marcmorano/
and, of course,
https://judithcurry.com/
By weight, no cattle do not produce the most methane , insects do. Time to leave the farmers alone. Call Terminix!!!!
Some more climate science links:
https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12
“From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.”
https://climate-science.press/2021/09/22/the-greenhouse-effect-a-summary-of-wijngaarden-and-happer/
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/07/04/climate-sensitivity-to-co2-what-do-we-know-part-1/
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2021/03/WPotency.pdf?x45936
Drcool#1 Or chow down on your chocolate covered insects! A lot of them!
Thanks, Don, for those links.
Somehow, I repeated Roy Spencer’s blog address. Sorry ’bout that. 🙁
I meant to link seven questions to Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy from the Huntsville, AL news. Done in 2015., it’s still relevant.
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2015/04/7_questions_with_john_christy.html
Beyond that, even if CO2 is actually a problem, the proposed solutions – solar and wind are not feasible at scale. Only two energy generators that are low carbon are scalable – nuclear and hydroelectric. If the Greens want to go that direction, I’m with ’em. Those are at least feasible. What they are doing with their no fossil fuels drive is self-inflicted poverty.
Om,
She lied. Knowingly and purposefully lied.
This isn’t about competence or perfection. It’s about lying. Difference. A difference most people can grasp. Even preschool children.
We can only hope that you can marshal enough brain power to understand the difference. Keep trying. We’re rooting for you. You really should try to understand such things before you throw around personal insults. Good luck.
Mike K,
re: replication — check out the Amgen and Bayer experiences trying to replicate studies featured in Nature and Science (the two most prestigious science journals).
Also John Ioannides’ work beginning with his British Medical Journal article (around 2005 IIRC).
McCullough and McKitrick have an excellent Fraser article which points out that academics rarely provide enough data and code to allow others to replicate (even if someone were willing). It includes descriptions of a number of badly flawed studies which government has relied upon to pass harmful legislation. McKitrick has made the point that academics are focused on chasing grants and there are no grants for replication.
note — McKitrick did some work with Steve McIntyre in the early days of Climate Audit
JJ,
Dr Roy Brown’s answer to the ‘denier’ smear (published in WUWT) is a classic that every high school student should read.
The best model available is one that simply continues a straight line trend from the date of the temperature turn around 1815 with a sixty year sine curve around it. Of course, that has nothing to do with CO2 levels and thus provides no opportunity for massive grants or political graft.
stan discovers scientific fraud and that science is filled with humans. stan decrees that Judith Curray is not worthy, she too is a fraudster.
Thank “stan” that he is here to save us.
Not that fraud, and the lesser “stan-crime” of error, in science hasn’t been around since alchemy. Or fraud in medicine, or law. What does “stan” practice by the way, becides absolute infallibility?
Cheers, even though we are not worthy, stan.