The Dutch People Are Rising Up To Protest "Destructive WEF Climate Law"

Better brush up on your reading comprehension. I CLEARLY stated methane is a nitrogen LOSS from animals, not an input. I CLEARLY stated nitrogen can only enter livestock through their pie hole (mouth connected to digestive system for those unfamiliar with the term). Don’t believe me? You think animals absorb nitrogen from atmospheric sources? Well, then you have no business discussing anything to do with the nitrogen cycle in ecosystems.


Livestock CAN NOT produce nitrogen. They can only consume it from plant and other animal sources and eliminate it in crap, pee, flatulence, etc. Again, animals CAN NOT produce nitrogen in any form.

https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/nitrogen_cycle.html

Animals CAN NOT absorb atmospheric carbon by breathing it in.

https://sciencing.com/nitrogen-enter-body-5180380.html

What is crystal clear is you have NO understanding of the carbon cycle.

The whole ecosystem of the Netherlands is unhealthy because it was completely deforested. It’s impossible for it to be caused by animals producing nitrogen because animals CAN NOT produce nitrogen.

Impossible because animals CAN NOT produce nitrogen in any form.

The Netherlands has a nitrogen problem because they deforested their country and then mismanaged the product devised by Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch.

You didn’t read your source like I advised. The nitrogen is not “disrupting nature”. The heathlands and their flora and fauna the Dutch are attempting to “save” are unnatural heathlands that developed after the Dutch deforested their land. Heathlands are so unnatural they have had to be burned and/or intensively grazed to keep trees from growing in them for centuries. More on the details below.

Nope. The farms could stay if the Dutch would leverage the tools nature devised to keep the nitrogen cycle in balance. Instead, every time nature attempts to restore the land to it’s natural state the Dutch kill the repairmen.

No. The link I provided clearly described the process of Scots pine as remedial pioneer species helping land secession back to the way it was before men deforested the country.

Nitrogen cycles through ecosystems. This means taking nitrogen out of the system is not the only (or best) solution. It’s better to use that nitrogen to grow useful things and restore the soils of the Netherlands to their natural state.

It’s impossible for farms to produce too much nitrogen. Only the Bosch//Haber process can cause excesses of nitrogen on farms.

As the ancestors of the nuts running the Netherlands today destroyed the forests (starting back in the Iron Age) on a large scale, heathlands developed because the soils were destroyed. As heather and shrub species grew and returned some carbon to the sandy soils in the form of organic matter, trees like Scots pine tried to move back in. But the Dutch hate trees. Always have. So any time a tree grew they figured out a way to kill it. And they did. They burned heathlands and mob grazed them. They cut trees. Anything to keep the trees out. Over time it became a little easier to keep the evil trees at bay because the soil quality continued to decrease. Heathlands are very infertile and they are infertile because humans made them that way.

Now it is getting harder to keep all the evil trees away because the soils of heathlands are gaining nutrients—evil, insidious nutrients that allow productive grasses and climate mitigating trees to grow. The Dutch have doubled down. They have intentionally abused the land for centuries and they are not going to stop now. No evil trees are going to be allowed to grow where they did before the Dutch ancestors killed them all.

These heathlands are the low nutrient environment the Dutch are trying to “save”. They are trying to “save” abused, deplete, nutrient and carbon deficient soils from being regenerated into productive grasslands or climate mitigating forests. If you had followed your link back to its actual sources you would know this.

These people are INTENTIONALLY trying to keep certain soils their ancestors destroyed in an unproductive state. That is what your link is about. People who claim to want a healthy environment are intentionally “saving” land from becoming healthy ecosystems capable of sequestration of excess carbon and nitrogen. They are saying they want to mitigate climate change while intentionally doing things that exacerbate climate change. They are intent on continuing the centuries old practice of destroying forests and killing trees.

Your “source” is from people who are dedicated to keeping their destroyed ecosystem in a state of destruction.

 

you didn't.

They most deffo turn some type of nitrogen into an other. Your source says:
The waste associated with livestock farming also adds large amounts of nitrogen into soil and water. The use of nitrogen-rich fertilizers can add too much nitrogen in nearby waterways as the fertilizer washes into streams and ponds.

This is done by farmers....

Carbon is "C". We are talking about "N", nitrogen.
/facedesk.

This is unfounded.

It is. I sourced:
An excess of these substances [nitrogen] in the soil disrupts nature, causing plants and animal species to disappear. It is also harmful to our health (source: RIVM).

No, they can not all stay. The farmers are disrupting the balance. You sourced:
Certain actions of humans are causing changes to the nitrogen cycle

You indeed sourced a pine tree can pioneer. The fact is that the forest is already there. So there is no need to go pioneering.

Nitrogen is ADDED to the system through (artificially created) fertilizers used by farmers. While the livestock also eats food imported from across the globe. They "need" to do it, to get their livestock eat the amount to make an insane amount of milk. And livestock turns the nitrogen what they eat into ammonia and ammonium (an other type of nitrogen), which is in the quantities they produce cause plants and animal species to disappear.

You give me the stupid impression that you think:
livestock eat plants with nitrogen, they crap out nitrogen, making plants grow/ used by plants... and so the cycle is closed.

You casually forget that farmers ADD nitrogen through (artificial) fertilizers. The livestock also eats corn and soy produced somewhere else, like in Brasil where they burn down rainforest for it.

 

I was very clear methane is a loss from animals not an input.

I’ve never said animals get nitrogen from ingesting methane. You made that up.

You can’t tell the difference between manure adding nitrogen to soil and claiming animals produce nitrogen? You keep claiming animals produce nitrogen. They do not.

Sorry. Yes we are clearly talking about the Nitrogen cycle. Apologies for mistyping.

No, it’s all true. Animals DO NOT produce nitrogen.

And the only way nitrogen in volumes large enough to damage an ecosystem can be added to an ecosystem is through the use of the product invented by Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch. You don’t know who they were, do you? They invented the process by which we convert fossil fuels into commercial synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. ( The fertilizer you originally claimed was not a problem, only manure.) Then I pointed out the Dutch are limiting these nitrogen fertilizers as well. Almost ALL the excess nitrogen in the Netherlands associated with agriculture came directly from synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. This is a FACT anyone with any knowledge of the Nitrogen cycle would know.

And I pointed out the “nature” they are attempting to keep from disappearing is mostly heathlands that are soils terribly abused and depleted of organic matter and most plant nutrients. Heathlands are not nature any more than a cornfield or a confinement dairy operation is nature.

Yep. Change. Change is often good. In this case it could be leveraged to increase the sequestration of carbon in places like heathlands that have great potential to help solve our climate “problems”.

Also, there are other solutions like utilization of urease inhibitors and moving towards aerobic composting of manure to decrease nitrogen loss into the atmosphere. Getting rid of animals is not necessary. It’s a reactionary move by people with apparently zero knowledge of the Nitrogen cycle or the carbon cycle. But what should we expect from a bunch that destroyed 99% of their forests —as far as I know a world record. Obviously they are not environmentalists. Quite the opposite. But they seem to have you fooled. You think saving heathlands that are one of the most screwed up unnatural ecosystems on earth is admirable.

No. Van Gogh and heathlands and open spaces where they murdered trees are there.

The Dutch killed almost every tree in Holland. Some have come back, but the Netherlands is still the least forested country in Europe, tied with Ireland perhaps. The Dutch have a loathing for trees unlike any the world has known.

Why do you think I brought up Haber and Bosch? Any protein based feed they import is also grown with Haber and Bosch’s wondrous invention. My first post in this thread pointed out how Europeans like to outsource emissions of all kinds to other countries. They pollute other parts of the world and then claim they are “green”. If the Netherlands really does eliminate 30% of ther livestock it won’t help the planet any because the lost food will be grown somewhere else. Maybe even somewhere with even more ignorant environmental policies. In that case more global pollution may result.

If the Dutch had brains they would convert heathlands to productive silvopasture systems and produce milk and meat more sustainably with less nitrogen loss to the atmosphere and water. Confinement dairying is not the only way to produce milk.

Then you aren’t reading milt posts because I’ve clearly stated nitrogen can only enter the system in volume through the Haber/Bosch process. But the cycle can be leveraged to use the added nitrogen to grow more plants. And the manure and fertilizer can be better managed using urease inhibitors, better aerobic composting techniques, and more pasture based dairy systems on rehabilitated land reclaimed from the Dutch ancestor’s misdeeds.

You seem to think the only way to balance the cycle is by ceasing additions and by getting rid of livestock. This problem could be addressed using a whole systems approach that would benefit everyone and harm nobody.

No. I specifically brought up Haber and Bosch. What did you think they invented? Rubber mallets? And my first post in this thread criticized European outsourcing of pollutants.

Why should the Dutch care about Brazilian rainforest? The Dutch killed all their trees once. Then they burned their deforested lands for hundreds of years to keep trees from growing in deforested areas. Now they feel bad about burning so they use massive amounts of diesel fuel and huge excavating machines to remove carbon (organic matter) and other nutrients from deforested areas so trees can’t grow back. Brazil is still 60% forested. The Netherlands was near zero at one point and are now around 11-15% depending on what methodology is used to count.

The Dutch don’t care how many trees Brazil kills. They kill their own trees hand over fist. Their current actions will cause more pollution and less forests around the world. But the Dutch don’t care.

 

@notme,
Was going to add, it’s fun talking about biology with you. Even though we often disagree it’s enjoyable to discuss such important and interesting subjects.

 

You still hardly seem to know the difference between methane, outsourcing C02 and nitrogen

They most certainly do produce ammonia and ammonium. Those compounds contain nitrogen and are causing the problems.

The synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is only 1 source where nitrogen gets added to the cycle. The other source is what livestock eats. Farmers feed them with imported fabricated food containing soy and corn from somewhere else where they also used synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. You don't seem to understand even the basics about big farms. You're still on the level of the little house on the prairie romantics where a cow just graces around.

You still have not proven the land was abused.

Nobody in it's right mind would say "causing plants and animal species to disappear" is good.

With this you seem to suggest the Dutch government is unaware of farmtechnology. Nothing shows that they are as far as I know.

This is an unfounded opinion.

^^
So we can agree the farm needs to go, and these lands must turn into the woodlands.

Excess nitrogen kills. This is what is happening.
I sourced it.

Because that's where the nitrogen rich food comes from the the livestock also eats.

 

LOL. I’m not the one claiming animals can produce nitrogen even though they can’t. You did that on numerous occasions.

I’m not the one who claimed the problems in the Netherlands were from animal manure and had nothing to do with fertilizer. You did that. Here is the quote.

I said livestock lose nitrogen through methane emissions. You claimed I said animals eat methane as a nitrogen source.


You claimed animals could absorb nitrogen from the atmosphere. I pointed out they can not.

You have been wrong on literally every claim you’ve made.

I’m quite certain third parties can tell who here doesn’t understand the nitrogen and carbon cycles.

Actually, animals emit very little ammonia or ammonium. For example, of all the nitrogen lost through urine and fences, only a very small percentage is ammonia. The urine of cattle for instance is less than 3% ammonia. Cow urine is about 70% urea—and that is where most of the nitrogen excreted from animals is. Ammonia and ammonium secretions are too minute to be a factor in ammonia pollution from animals.

The ammonia problems with animal waste begin after the urine and feces are excreted. It’s actually microbial activity in feces that produces urease, an enzyme that facilitates conversion of urea to ammonia. You may recall my repeated mentioning in this thread of urease inhibitors. That’s why I bring them up, because animals do not emit relevant amounts of ammonia. Only microbial activity in feces and manure (combination of feces and urine) can produce urease capable of releasing relevant amounts of ammonia. So again, we see you do not understand the nitrogen cycle at all as it applies to animals and ammonia. You are blaming animals for what is actually caused by microbial actions and microbial byproducts.

I’ve repeatedly stated nitrogen fertilizer use in other places contributes to the problems in the Netherlands. I’ve repeatedly pointed out if they stop using fertilizer the fertilizer will be used somewhere else making their actions a complete waste of time and energy.

You make me laugh. I grow corn snd soybeans commercially. Much of the corn I grow is made into ethanol that is exported to the Netherlands. The are the 5th largest importer of ethanol I grow corn to produce. I’m well aware that the Netherlands imports both feeds and fuels that are produced elsewhere. It’s why I brought up outsourcing of pollution on the first page of this thread.

In this thread I’ve discussed how China has much lower emission standards than the Netherlands, but the Netherlands imports soybean meal from China, meaning the importation of feed from China will actually have a worse overall negative climate impact than production in the Netherlands.

I addressed much of your concerns in post #15 of this thread.

I’m probably not the guy on PF you should claim doesn’t understand agriculture. I farm double the acres of the average US farm size, run 5 times the number of beef cows of the average US herd size (on native pasture like Little House on the Prairie LOL), run a small dairy herd fed a ration of alfalfa, rye grass, and corn endilage (not grazing grass) and have around a couple hundred other animals of 10 or so different species as well, including dairy goats and sheep.

That said, as grass and tree based grazing systems are the best food production model for improving the environment I have been converting some farmed acres back to grass based grazing systems. Leveraging the carbon and nitrogen cycles isn’t something I just talk about on the internet. It’s what I do to make money and activity improve the environment every day.

Deforested land that is now severely nutrient deficient and that is being subjected to sod cutting to keep it nutrient deficient is abused. There’s nothing to prove. All land in the Netherlands has been abused. If deforestation in Brazil is abuse of the land, it’s abuse in the Netherlands.

I agree the Dutch are not in their right mind. They are trying to keep abused land in a non productive state.

I’m sure they are aware heathlands are unproductive artificial ecosystems that are less biodiverse than forest ecosystems, but they still prefer to expend vast quantities of fossil fuel to prevent heathland from becoming productive grassland or more biodiverse forest.

I’m sure the Dutch are aware of the fact GMO grain crops have better nitrogen use efficiency, requiring less fertilization with Haber and Bosch’s magic brew. But they prohibit the planting of such crops, which results in more nitrogen fertilizer use in the Netherlands. It’s not ignorance that is the problem in the Netherlands, it’s poor decision making.

I’m sure the Dutch understand the majority of their country was once forests and that forests are more biodiverse than any other terrestrial ecosystem. But they choose to force their land to remain barren of trees for the most part and “protect” less biodiverse artificial man made ecosystems. They are almost certainly not ignorant, they just make bad decisions because their priorities are messed up.

Nope. It all came from sources you have provided but didn’t read, even after I’ve encouraged you to. You brought up Van Gogh specifically.

If a healthy environment is the goal, there should be A LOT more trees in that picture. I’ve twice now mentioned silvopasture systems. This is a very simplified source for learning about silvopasture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture

Hopefully reading this will help you understand a bit more why I mentioned them repeatedly.

No. Nitrogen is allowing more productive plants like grasses and trees to grow on land intentionally depleted of all nutrients and carbon (organic matter) for centuries. As I said, the Dutch prefer unproductive unnatural less biodiverse ecosystems to productive natural biodiverse ecosystems. Nitrogen is not killing anything. It’s making it harder for the Dutch to maintain the unproductive state of some lands like heathlands. Nitrogen is not killing anything. It’s allowing more productive plants to outcompete unproductive plants.

Cute. Bags of feed. I deal in that stuff by the ton at the feed level and by the tens of thousands of bushels at the commodity grain level.

 

Baudet warns the world: “We are in this fight together. We saw it during the Covid scam for two years. We’ve seen it with mass migration everywhere. We are now being disowned from own creation and production of our own food and production of our lands. Across the board, a radical agenda is being pushed, which is called the ‘Sustainable Development Goals‘, which scientifically is bonkers. There is no CO2 problem but they are creating this madness about it. Ultimately you’re going to see a very small group of people who own almost everything, will be richer and richer and more and more in control of our lives, and we will be weaker and more lonely, poorer without democracy, without proper ways to express ourselves, and censorship. If you zoom out you see this trend toward bureaucratic dictatorship being imposed on all of us and only if we unite and surpass all of these differences that have divided us for years, and we fight this together and succeed – and we must do it. It’s the single most existential fight in the history of civilization. They want to be ready in 2030. The globalist takeover. We have 8 years to fight this – let’s do it together.“



Holy Shite!

Do not mess with Dutch Farmers…

 

The livestock is indeed blasting the nitrogen into the environment. If you disregard their oil products, it's cheese that is the biggest thing they export.
Cheese from cows. And the livestock is the biggest cause of the problem.

40% of the nitrogen precipitation on nature reserves comes from livestock farming.
https://nzfarmlife.co.nz/farmers-war-in-the-netherlands/

You still got absolutely no clue about this entire subject.
Methane doesn't have Nitrogen.
Methane = CH4 (part of the carbon cycle)
Nitrogen = N

Things containing Nitrogen:
Dinitrogen = N2
Ammonia = NH3
Ammonium = NH4
Nitrogenmonoxide = N0
Nitrogendioxide = N02

You only got an unfounded opinion.
I sourced that 40% of the nitrogen that gets dumped in nature comes from livestock.

Negative. The Netherlands is exporting a heck of a lot of food. The nitrogen problem is tackled if they cut back to like 30%. At that point, it still would be exporting more food vs what they import. This means that is the world farms like The Netherlands, that there is no nitrogen problem and there is enough food for all and more.

You either go prove the land is abused, or I will conclude that you made it up.

you failed to prove it's abused.

You dragged in Hoge Veluwe national park.
This is it according to wikipedia.


It's sandy like a desert and so obviously an excellent environment for a heathland because it's very low on nutrition for plants and obviously not a fit to be grassland.
Your idea that this is "abused" is as far as I can see, unfounded. You don't create sand by cutting down trees obviously.

I'm still waiting for you to post exactly where it says the park is abused. So far you haven't and so it remains an unfounded opinion.

You are not responding that it's where the farmers are at, is where the land is abused. It used to be forests. And they are nitrogen producing pollutants now destabilizing the entire eco system.

We are not discussing just a bit of nitrogen into the system, helping plants.
We're discussing excess nitrogen. And I sourced it's counterproductive.
The excess nitrogen is what is going on.

You are conceding that this is where the nitrogen comes from that is polluting the country.
It's not a closed cycle. Letting so called "pioneering species" live is not going to solve that farmers keep on polluting the country with more and more nitrogen.
The only thing that will solve this, is making farmers stop polluting, with less livestock.

 

No. It does not “come” from livestock farming because animals DO NOT produce nitrogen.

Here is my initial statement on gas produced by animals.

Flatulence from animals (including you) is around 50% Nitrogen.

https://www.unitypoint.org/livewell/article.aspx?id=f4ac971f-95a4-49ad-b08d-2be2467257e0

YOU introduced the term “methane” to this discussion, not I. I simply pointed out that flatulence and methane it contains are a LOSS from animals, not an input.

No. Nitrogen does not EVER come from livestock. What goes in an animal comes out. Nitrogen can not “come” from animals. Period.

LOL. Where will the food come from that is exported now but won’t be in the future? You think people who buy food from the Dutch are just going to stop eating? No. They are going to buy food from someone else. Probably Brazil or China that have worse pollution controls than the Netherlands.

Is burning if the rainforest abuse? Yes or no?

Is burning of rainforest abuse? Yes or no?

It was originally forest. It would be grass and trees now if it hadn’t been burned off and sod cut for centuries. Heathlands are poor soil because humans have spend vast amounts of time and energy KEEPING them unhealthy. Grass that naturally grows is removed by mechanical sod cutting. Trees that naturally grow are removed by mechanical cutting, burning, and mob grazing.

Is burning rainforest abuse? Yes or no?

No. Deforestation centuries ago destabilized the entire ecosystem. Does burning of rainforest destabilize the ecosystem? Yes or no?

Yes we are discussing nitrogen helping plants. It’s helping trees and grass grow in places trees and grass once grew in the Netherlands. The Dutch don’t like trees and don’t like grass much either in many places. So they kill trees and grass so sandy unproductive soils can remain unproductive.

Nitrogen is not killing any valuable plants in the Netherlands. Period. It’s allowing more productive plants to grow.

No. Nitrogen is “coming” from the magic brew of Haber and Bosch. Animals can not add nitrogen to systems. Yes the Dutch outsource pollution. I have to deal with their dirty practices personally. But they could solve their problems if they didn’t hate trees and productive grass/tree grazing systems. But they can’t get over their hate for trees.

And yes, when there is too much nutrient—be it carbon, nitrogen or even phosphorus, more plants is the answer. It’s a cycle remember.

 

I just sourced that 40% of the nitrogen pollution comes from livestock.
I never stated they are creating nitrogen out of nothing. You're just being childish about it.

So hello pollution.

YOU said " I CLEARLY stated methane is a nitrogen LOSS from animals"
So you clearly got no clue at all about chemistry.

There you go.
The nitrogen that goes in, is trapped in food.
What comes out is transformed in to different nitrogen compounds
polluting the environment.

You're welcome.

That's their problem. And they would make enough food for themselves if they applied the Dutch way of farming INCLUDING the 30% cutback on the livestock.

I see you are still not proving a park like Hoge Veluwe has suffered from abuse.
I asked plenty of times. I can only conclude that you can not prove this and made it all up.

Uh no. The sand was dumped there as dunes / old coastline. So much sand makes it poor soil.
While you're not proving that you are right. So it's just not the case.
The famers took the land where there were forest, obviously.

Yes, and the farmers did it. And are now destabilizing the heathlands where they couldn't farm because of all the sand.

Nope. We're discussing farmers polluting the environment with nitrogen.
The chard underneath shows that the nitrogen that gets into the environment is totally out of control.

I sourced excess nitrogen does exactly that.

The magic brew containing nitrogen is used on plants.
Plants then end up with the nitrogen.
Livestock eats it, and fumes it out with N0, N02, NH3 and NH4 etc.
And the Dutch has so much livestock that the nitrogen is polluting the environment.

There you go.

That's your opinion.
I sourced you're wrong on the nitrogen side.
Too much nitrogen kills plants.


And it's not a cycle, since farmers are adding that magic brew.

 

No, I’m being factual about it. Animals do not produce nitrogen. Period. Any source claiming any nitrogen or nitrogen pollution “comes” from animals or is “produced” by animals is denying science.

No. Flatulence is not pollution. It’s a natural part of the carbon and nitrogen cycles.

Yes I should have been more clear. You wanted to refer to flatulence as methane and I allowed it. You introduced the term methane into a discussion on nitrogen, not me.

I used the term flatulence to include all gaseous components.

I’m glad you are beginning to accept the fact animals don’t produce nitrogen as you have repeatedly claimed.

Nitrogen waste from animals is a valuable resource, not a pollutant. Animal waste to me has great value because I’m competent enough to apply it to fields I wish to be productive. I don’t want unproductive land that is constantly denuded of productive plants.

No it’s the planet’s problem. I thought we were convened about global warming etc.? LOL

Not every country has the water resources the Netherlands have.

The Dutch way of farming is to destroy all the forests and most of their soils. You criticize this action in rainforest areas and celebrate it in temperate forested areas like the Netherlands. Either deforestation is ok or it’s not. You can’t criticize it in the Amazon and support it as good in the Netherlands.

The whole country has suffered abuse. If destroying forests in the Amazon is abusing the land, it is in the Netherlands as well. Almost all heathlands are man made ecosystems. Here is a link from the UK but it applies equally to the other side of the Channel.

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/habitats/heathland-and-moorland

Heathlands are unnatural ecosystems requiring repeated abuse to keep from reverting back to forests that would enrich the soil and make the land more productive in the future. Again, silvopasture would be ideal. Heathlands are being preserved based on people’s feelings. Not based on the science of what’s best for the planet.

No. It’s poor soil because man made it that way on purpose. It was much healthier before man killed all the trees and started burning it off all the time. Imagine all the carbon added to the atmosphere over the centuries of burning heath to keep it infertile.

Heathlands would make far better silvopasture systems. More productive for agriculture, sequester far more carbon, and alleviate the excess nitrogen problems in the Netherlands as well.

Nitrogen is causing INCREASED plant growth. It is NOT killing productive plants. It is making it more difficult for the Dutch to keep ecosystems like heathlands unproductive.

Are you sure? Several post back you claimed it had NOTHING to do with fertilizer! Nitrogen isn’t really polluting their environment. It’s making unnatural intentionally created unproductive ecosystems harder to keep from becoming productive. It’s making trees grow in a country that HATES trees and always has.

It isn’t killing productive plants in the Netherlands. Your sources are people that HATE trees and productive land/soils.

It’s not a cycle because they won’t let plants use the excess nitrogen. They kill the repairmen.

Where I live it’s a cycle because we don’t hate trees and productive land. We don’t want land that has been deforested and then burned for centuries to keep it growing only unproductive species. We like productive land fertilized by animal waste and nitrogen fertilizers. We are so efficient at it the Netherlands outsources it’s pollution to us. Because we know more about how to handle it.

 

The Dutch People are also rising up against Gentry Privileged Elitism that says "fine for me to pollute but you must do without to offset my excess.

Shot: Governor Hochul Announces Launch of Multi-Year Study to Explore How Climate Change Affects New York State Communities, Ecosystems, and the Economy.
—The New York Governor’s office, November 4th, 2021.

Chaser: Hochul flies on NY’s dime as everyone struggles to fill gas tanks.

"While New Yorkers are reeling from sky-high gas prices that force them to choose between driving to work, a trip to the store or a family vacation, Gov. Kathy Hochul has been hitching rides on their dime and avoiding traffic altogether by flying to most places."

"The governor hit the friendly skies, either on a state helicopter or airplane, a whopping 140 times in the first seven months since she took office last August — with costs to taxpayers estimated at upwards of $170,000, records reviewed by The Post show."

“The governor’s personal frequent-flyer program is immune to things like rising gas prices, cancellations, delays and lost luggage,” Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay (R-Oswego) told The Post."
—The New York Post, today.

"I’d be more willing to believe global warming is a crisis, when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves. In the meantime, I don’t want to hear another word about my carbon footprint."

https://instapundit.com/531853/

Sounds like the Assembly needs to cut her travel budget.

 

That's not factual.
You suggest livestock isn't part of the nitrogen "cycle"
The livestock produces N0, N02, NH3 and NH4
This is labelled in short as "nitrogen".
And this "nitrogen" is fumed at such high quantities that it is polluting the environment.
Period.

That's your opinion vs my source saying An excess of these substances [nitrogen] in the soil disrupts nature, causing plants and animal species to disappear. It is also harmful to our health (source: RIVM).

I used methane as an example to show that even when livestock creates methane. It's part of the carbon cycle.
Just like livestock creates N0, N02, NH3 and NH4, part of the nitrogen "cycle".

I asked you to prove that the Dutch destroyed their soil, and you are not.
So I can only judge that you say one thing, but are conceding that it's not the case.

I'm not seeing where it says where the Dutch have destroyed their soil.
In fact, the site is from an organization that's in the UK.

I asked you to prove that the Dutch destroyed their soil, and you are not.
So I can only judge that you say one thing, but are conceding that it's not the case.

I am sure. I sourced: 40% of the nitrogen precipitation on nature reserves comes from livestock farming.
It's not as if you got a source disputing this.

It's not a cycle in The Netherlands. The Dutch farmers do not feed the livestock with the plants and trees where the nitrogen ends up at. So it's just piling up there.
And excess of these substances [nitrogen] in the soil disrupts nature, causing plants and animal species to disappear. It is also harmful to our health

 

I’ve never said animals are not part of the nitrogen cycle. In fact my point that animals DO NOT produce nitrogen is predicated on livestock being part of the nitrogen cycle.

Nitrogen is “polluting” in the Netherlands because humans are mismanaging fertilizer inputs and animal waste. I’ve already explained urease inhibitors and the FACT most nitrogen loss associated with livestock is a result of microbial activity, not the actual animals. The Dutch could better manage waste at the microbial level and they could let intentionally degraded unproductive land be a part of the nitrogen and carbon cycles again as nature intended. But they hate trees and productive grasslands with a passion. What they love is intentionally deforested and abused land like the Brazilians are creating today. The Netherlands made a mess of their land and they love the mess so much they won’t let nature repair the damage.

Nothing I’ve posted is my opinion. If you actually read your source like I encouraged you to do you would find they are referring to heathlands that are unnatural ecosystems intentionally deforested and kept in a state of low fertility. The same exact practices you don’t like in Brazil you think is natural in the Netherlands. You are essentially saying deforested land must be kept unproductive. Do you want Brazil to destroy more rainforest and take actions that ensure it will NEVER grow back?

Fine, you are welcome to interject irrelevant material. But flatulence is more than methane. It’s 50% nitrogen. That was the point. You went off on lighting farts which is irrelevant to the fact flatulence is a loss of nitrogen (and carbon), not an input like you intimated.

Yes that source was from the UK. Did you figure that out by reading my post where I clearly stated it was from the UK but doesn’t matter because European heathlands are all virtually the same? All heathlands in Europe are unnatural ecosystems and the definition is the same whether in England, the Netherlands, Germany, or another European country.

Here are some more sources. I shouldn’t have to educate you on heathlands but I guess you’ve left me no choice.

https://repository.naturalis.nl/pub/534943/MBMHU1977450001001.pdf

The above source specific to the Netherlands will confirm heathlands there are mostly anthropogenic. All inland heathlands are. Your “Van Gogh” containing park is near Arnhem which is eastern Netherlands (far inland) and thus an anthropogenic heathland resulting from deforestation. I’m not going to post pull quotes from this source because they won’t format for PF.

Another source.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2664.1998.tb00020.x

More on the dunes you referred to. They are also a result of abuse of the land. A combination of deforestation followed by abuse of resultant heathlands by burning and overgrazing. You will have to follow the link to the full text PDF.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...nvasive-species.pdf?origin=publication_detail

The entire ecosystems of heathlands and dunes are man made and the result of deforestation, burning, sod removal, overgrazing and topsoil removal. All the above are what you and others criticize in places like Brazil. Yet you fully support such abuse of the land in the Netherlands. It’s bizarre.

Your support of the land abuse in the Netherlands would be synonymous with establishing parks and “nature preserves” on deforested, overgrazed, burned areas of previous Amazon rainforest and doing everything possible to ensure trees could never grow back there.

I’m going to ask you again. Is burning up forests, overgrazing what’s left, and removing topsoil so no tree can grow there again abuse or not?

I provided sources showing animals DO NOT produce nitrogen. No nitrogen “comes” from livestock. Excess nitrogen only comes from commercial fertilizer. That’s it. Those “nature preserves” are the equivalent of slashed and burned rainforest. Your “sources” hate nature, trees, and productive natural ecosystems. They prefer degraded abused ecosystems.

They won’t let it be a cycle. Land that could be used for livestock production and could be used as a nitrogen and carbon sink is intentionally being kept in an unproductive state. An unproductive state brought on by practices just like those destroying the rainforest are using. Criticism of one country and support of another for doing the EXACT same thing is insanity. When will you start publicly supporting destruction of the Amazon rainforest?

The nitrogen in the Netherlands is not “disrupting nature”. It’s only making it more difficult for the Dutch to fight off nature’s attempt to heal land abused by the Dutch for centuries through deforestation, burning, topsoil removal, and overgrazing. The Dutch hate nature—always have.

 

To be specific. These humans you speak off are farmers. I already sourced the bulk of the nitrogen polluting comes from those animals.
So the solution to stop the polluting is cutting back on the animals which means probably less farmers.

It's not so hard to understand, but there is you who can see 1-1, but can't deduct.

If anything the farms are unnatural ecosystems and they are destroying the other ecosystems

I used the lighting fats as an example that even though us humans do not produce carbon, we do produce methane. In the same way that cows produce N0, N02, NH3 and NH4. And these 4 things are dumbed down and called "nitrogen", for the sake to not endlessly name all the chemicals cows produce with nitrogen in it.

you didn't prove this.

They both read that those inland area's were totally sandy, until Dutch farmers raped that ecosystem.
Forests do not grow on sand, buddy.

Uh no. It shows that the sand there is a natural occurrence. And we all know that sand is dead low on nutrients. It's perfect for heath.

You can ask me whatever. But it doesn't change the fact that farmers are an unnatural ecosystem.
And they are polluting their surroundings with an excess of nitrogen.

It's in their manure. You said yourself "Nitrogen is “polluting” in the Netherlands because humans are mismanaging fertilizer inputs and animal waste"

There is no cycle, since farmers keep dumping nitrogen into the ecosystem which is not part of their cycle.

That remains your opinion vs my sourced fact:
And excess of these substances [nitrogen] in the soil disrupts nature, causing plants and animal species to disappear. It is also harmful to our health

Does it look like I care about your opinion? lol

 

Europe does have a fertilizer salt problem with much of its agricultural lands. It is part of the reason that they have been so heavy-handed in pushing for organics.

 

No. No nitrogen comes from animals. It’s not possible. The real solution is not less animals. It’s using nitrogen management tools like urease/nitrification inhibitors, aerobic composting, reforestation, crop rotation, and silvopasture systems to allow food production without decreasing animals or farmers or food production.

Decreasing animals and farmers in the Netherlands is a fool’s solution because that will just require more animals and farmers somewhere else like China that hates nature even more than the Dutch.

Your “solution” is like solving the homeless problems in Seattle by putting downtown bums on a bus and hauling them to the suburbs and dropping them off with their bags and carts.

No. No natural ecosystems are being destroyed. Natural forests were destroyed by deforestation hundreds of years ago. The land has been INTENTIONALLY kept infertile by sod cutting, burning, and overgrazing for years. This abused land is trying to heal itself and return to its natural state—forests. But the Dutch HATE trees.

As I said, irrelevant to the FACT I posted that flatulence is a nitrogen loss from ALL animals, not an input.

No. My links did. They clearly discussed heathlands in Germany, Netherlands, England, etc. in the same context. Anyone familiar with European ecosystems knows heathlands are deforested unnatural ecosystems that can only exist with the aid of humans burning them, removing the topsoil containing nutrients, overgrazing, and cutting trees that sprout there. This is a fact I should not have to tell you but I posted numerous links and pull quotes confirming this.

Yes forests most certainly grow on sand. This land was originally forest. You didn’t read my links.

And

The Dutch have been cutting, burning, overgrazing, and removing topsoil for generations to keep forests from growing in the sand. The trees love to grow in the sand, but the Dutch hate trees.

The sand was forest. The Dutch killed the forest. They removed topsoil. They burned the land over and over. They overgrazed it. And trees still grew there if not removed by humans.

The sand was originally healthy forests. The Dutch killed them and intentionally DECREASED fertility of the soil because they hate trees and productive soils.

If these sands were perfect for Heath they would have had heather growing on them originally instead of forests. LOL. If these sands were perfect for heath the Dutch would not have to burn them, cut trees off them, overgraze them, and cut sod off them to keep trees and grasses from growing there.

So you support Brazilian farmers slashing and burning forests. Thanks for admitting that. You are probably of Dutch ancestry as you seem to hate trees as well.

The land the Dutch are trying to keep trees out of are trying to return to their natural state. The Dutch don’t want nature at all. Their problems could be remedied by letting nature help heal their ecosystems they have been abusing for centuries.

Farming doesn’t have to be unnatural. That’s the point. But the Dutch can’t stand natural.

“Polluting” in quotation marks to denote that is someone else’s claim not mine. Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus etc. are naturally occurring and necessary to life. They are not pollutants. Only people who mismanage them refer to them as “pollutants”.

There is no cycle because they won’t allow plants to use the available nitrogen. And because they INTENTIONALLY depleted soils of nutrients, including carbon and nitrogen, their problems are more difficult to fix.


The sandy soils would be great places for excess nitrogen to be used. Sandy soils are less prone to denitrification and if the Dutch would stop removing carbon as organic matter from heathlands the problems with nitrate leaching would resolve themselves because organic matter is how nature controls leaching if nitrates into groundwater. But the Dutch don’t want nature’s solutions. Never have, probably never will.

I have not posted any opinions. There is no point in posting opinions on matters of science. That’s why I post facts that are verifiably correct. My facts are verified by the numerous links and pull quotes I’ve provided showing heathlands are not natural or healthy.

I’m saddened you are opposed to forests and support slash and burn tactics in the Netherlands as well as the Amazon. I think it’s sad people actually support KEEPING deforested lands in an unnatural, unhealthy state.

 

You said yourself "Nitrogen is “polluting” in the Netherlands because humans are mismanaging fertilizer inputs and animal waste"

Totally not. The Dutch -with less livestock- would still be exporting their excess produced food, while not polluting the environment.
China can just copy the Dutch way without polluting the environment too.

I sourced that this is happening. I do not care about your opinion

It is totally relevant. The flatulence and animal waste from all that livestock is polluting the environment with nitrogen.

you indeed sourced the heathlands are there because the area is full of sand.
I posted pictures that there is a lot of sand there from the parc that you brought up.
Forest do not grow on sand, 557, they just do not. Get over it.

absolutely not. lol

Not just any Dutch people.... farmers did this!! lol

You sourced that the farmers tossed manure on the sand to make it fertile. lol
And now again, the nitrogen of the farmers is making the sand too fertile and destroying that ecosystem.

Lies. Go quote me on this if you can. lol

growing trees on sand is unnatural.

Hear hear....
By cutting down a heck of a lot of livestock it can be done naturally.
But not like this.

It's not just my claim. I proved that it is.
I already sourced excess nitrogen kills plants.
you have not debunked this at all.

That nitrogen is unnaturally added to the environment, in excess amounts, killing plants / the ecosystem.
The farmers need to stop that. Get over it.[/QUOTE]

 

It was not my claim. That’s why I put quotation marks around the word “pollution”. That’s the point of quotation marks. They are used when you are quoting some other source.

If they cut production 30% there won’t be excess. China is already the worst nitrogen “polluter” on the planet, generating 1/3 of global excess! LOL Good idea, let’s get China to grow more food.

You sourced that the Dutch are trying to keep deforested, abused land in an unproductive state.

I’ve not posted opinions.

I’ve posted numerous links showing heathlands are unnatural ecosystems that can not and do not exist without humans burning, cutting, and overgrazing to prevent tree and grass growth.

If there is pollution it’s a result of mismanagement. Animals don’t produce nitrogen nor do they emit significant amounts of ammonia, etc. The vast majority of nitrogen release from manure is the product of microbial activity that could be managed as part of the natural nitrogen cycle. The heathlands would be a perfect part of that natural nitrogen cycle if the Dutch believed in natural cycles and ecosystems. But like the Brazilians, they hate trees! Cut them. Burn them. Never let them grow back! That’s their mantra.

The heathlands exist because the Dutch have cut, burned, mob grazed, sod cut, etc. for centuries in an attempt to keep trees from growing where they once did. Heathlands were forests. They revert to forest if left alone. Heathlands can only exist if humans constantly REMOVE trees from them.

LOL. Who told you forests don’t grow on sand?

This was sand dunes left to their own devices that became forests as soon as humans stopped killing sprouting trees.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250003

Here again is a quote from my last post showing that the sand belts were originally forested.

The sands that are dunes and heathlands now were forests before humans killed the trees. Do you know what anthropogenic means?

Show me evidence!

Not just farmers. Iron smelters killed a large percentages of Dutch forests.

Nope. Better read that again. They cut sod off the sandy heathlands and hauled it to barns for the sheep to defecate and urinate on. Then they put it on their fields. Fertilizer was NEVER added to heathlands. They were mob grazed for only a few hours a day so that very little manure was deposited on the heathlands. The heathlands have been intentionally denied any added nutrients for centuries and nutrients there have been intentionally removed by sod cutting.

Heathlands ARE destroyed ecosystems. They were once forests. Just like farmers in Brazil destroy forest, the Dutch did as well. The heathlands revert to forest naturally if humans stop burning, sod cutting and overgrazing.

If you support heathlands you support slash and burn destruction of the Amazon. It’s the exact same practice.

No. From my link I’ll post this AGAIN.

Heathlands and sand dunes in the Netherlands were originally all forests until humans removed the trees.

Trees grow well in sand all over the world. I live not far from the western hemispheres largest hand planted forest. It’s planted entirely in sand and has been thriving since 1903.

There are even forests called “sand forests” that grow on sands in South Africa, Brazil, and Columbia.

The Dutch need to learn to manage nitrogen, not get rid of animals.

No. You posted a link to nitrogen toxicity. Not anything to do with plants dying in the Netherlands. Nitrogen in the Netherlands is causing plants to GROW, not die. The Dutch hate trees trying to grow on land they deforested, burned, and overgrazed, so kill them.

Nitrogen is not killing any plants in the Netherlands. It’s making it more difficult for the Dutch to keep deforested areas free of trees. That’s it. That’s what YOUR SOURCE that you never read says.

Until you can supply evidence of these things we are done.

1) Show evidence trees don’t grow on sand in the Netherlands

2) Show heathlands were not originally forests

3) Show exactly what plants are suffering from NITROGEN TOXICITY in the Netherlands.

4) Show a process by which farm animals produce nitrogen and excrete more than they consume.

5) Show that heathlands can survive without human intervention and don’t grow trees naturally if left alone.

6) Show that the abuse of the land by deforestation in the Netherlands differs fundamentally from deforestation in the Amazon.


Good luck. Until you can provide evidence for your above claims don’t bother responding.

 

With that you are still saying that the manure contains nitrogen.
So you actually said that livestock produces nitrogen containing manure.
It's also in their farts. I call that livestock is producing nitrogen.

There still would be an excess amount of food. The Dutch are the 2nd largest exporter of food. Only the US over produces more. While the The Netherlands is like not even half of California.

The sand is not abused. You failed to prove this.
In fact you sourced that farmers have been polluting the sand with manure for a heck of a long time.

You are contradicting yourself again. Ammonia = nitrogen.
And the Farmers got so many animals that they are polluting the environment with too much nitrogen.
While livestock also produces ammonium, N02 and N0. It's all nitrogen.... from livestock.

You sourced the farmers tossed manure on the sand to make it fertile.
They have been polluting it for some time now.
It's unnatural. Trust your own source.

You just sourced again that farmers logged it so they can let their livestock roam on around.
I dunno how you do not conclude the farms need to go, so that trees can grow back.

It's your own source about farmers tossing their manure on sand to make it fertile.

It is now. The amount of nitrogen the farmers are tossing in the environment goes through the roof, and they are not getting it back from the fields. It's a 1 way direction. And the excess nitrogen kills.

Nope. You posted "They cut sod off the sandy heathlands". They didn't feed trees.

I'm not seeing you quote me, so I guess we need to assume you lied.

You sourced that farmers enriched it with manure.

No. That's from a source in the UK.

It is not natural in the Netherlands. Stop bringing up totally different ecosystems and claim it's the same in The Netherlands.

livestock poops, pees and farts. It all got nitrogen.
So it does mean less animals if you want less nitrogen.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2022/06/whats-all-the-fuss-about-nitrogen-in-the-netherlands/
While nitrogen is essential for plants to grow, it is also one of the main threats to biodiversity. Nitrogen pollution allows nitrogen-tolerant plants to survive and out-compete more sensitive plants and funghi. Nitrogen is soluble and can impact on fish and aquatic life. It encourages plant growth, including algal blooms, which choke water courses and kill fish.


And you sourced that pine trees are out competing more sensitive plants and so people were there to cut down pine trees. Remember?