Netherlands considers compulsory purchase of farms

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Annee

Have you ever visited the Netherlands? I have, several times and driven through the countryside. The stench is overwhelming; the whole country smells of pig manure. It's awful. I would never willingly return.

I am a realist.

I support science.

Environment issues are real -- not a conspiracy.

That's actually hilarious. You're a realist and you support science. Who's science to you support? Is there a "real" science or is it all just politicized science? Science reminds me of an old but true saying. "History is written by the victors, not the losers" "Scence is manufactured by the scientists to fit the accepted narrative of the day." In the 1970's the Scientists, to support the Agenda of the Club of Rome, concluded and proclaimed Global Cooing and the commencement of a new Ice age. It was "science" of the day.

Why is science hilarious?

Environmental Sciences is a stand-alone major that draws on fundamental scientific knowledge in mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology coupled with specialization in a particular area of science to provide advanced scientific and quantitative understanding of contemporary environmental challenges.

Environmental Studies is a major (that must be part of a double major) that provides a broadly integrated understanding to the social, political, and historical facets of our environmental challenges with focus on policy, law, and sociality aspect of these challenges.

Know the difference.

envirosci.wisc.edu...

I truly believe in global warming and the need to do something about it. But, the EU has a shortage of farmland and food. closing farmland and potentially introducing hunger is stupid. It is the type of thing that makes trying to implement sensible strategies politically impossible. All the people that are against it to begin with point to the stupidity and it ends there.

Governments should start with the simplest things first. Heavy coal burning plants, no exceptions for countries like India and China etc. Since trees are good for the environment, getting rid of lawns, which consume 5% of annual fossil fuel usage in the U.S. and replacing lawns with trees is cheap and would likely help quite a bit.

a reply to: dougie6665

With food-bearing trees as well. Napoleon planted apple trees along the roads his troops would be marching back from.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato

monsanto was bad enough on their own, but now that bayer owns monsanto, wonder which old dog is teaching the other old dog new tricks. especially when one old dog used to work for hitler and was allowed to stay in businesses.

Some very revealing internal Monsanto documents found in this documentary mate - also a pretty disturbing video below.

originally posted by: dougie6665

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Annee

Have you ever visited the Netherlands? I have, several times and driven through the countryside. The stench is overwhelming; the whole country smells of pig manure. It's awful. I would never willingly return.

I am a realist.

I support science.

Environment issues are real -- not a conspiracy.

That's actually hilarious. You're a realist and you support science. Who's science to you support? Is there a "real" science or is it all just politicized science? Science reminds me of an old but true saying. "History is written by the victors, not the losers" "Scence is manufactured by the scientists to fit the accepted narrative of the day." In the 1970's the Scientists, to support the Agenda of the Club of Rome, concluded and proclaimed Global Cooing and the commencement of a new Ice age. It was "science" of the day.

Why is science hilarious?

Environmental Sciences is a stand-alone major that draws on fundamental scientific knowledge in mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology coupled with specialization in a particular area of science to provide advanced scientific and quantitative understanding of contemporary environmental challenges.

Environmental Studies is a major (that must be part of a double major) that provides a broadly integrated understanding to the social, political, and historical facets of our environmental challenges with focus on policy, law, and sociality aspect of these challenges.

Know the difference.

envirosci.wisc.edu...

I truly believe in global warming and the need to do something about it. But, the EU has a shortage of farmland and food. closing farmland and potentially introducing hunger is stupid. It is the type of thing that makes trying to implement sensible strategies politically impossible. All the people that are against it to begin with point to the stupidity and it ends there.

Governments should start with the simplest things first. Heavy coal burning plants, no exceptions for countries like India and China etc. Since trees are good for the environment, getting rid of lawns, which consume 5% of annual fossil fuel usage in the U.S. and replacing lawns with trees is cheap and would likely help quite a bit.

Are they closing farmland?

They keep calling it farmland -- but sounds like cattle ranches and pig farms to me.

Another major concern is greenhouse gas emissions. Raising livestock generates 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions that are very bad for the environment.

One of my pet peeves is laws against vegetable gardens in front yards. So, we agree there.

And I agree with your other points.

a reply to: Annee


Hey Annee, regarding 'food' would really be interested in your thoughts on the WEF 'science' you promote and just how well the population of Sri Lanka are doing after initiating those 'policies'.

Am sure vast amounts of farmland are being bought up cheap though.

a reply to: karl 12

progressives want people eating lab grown lumps of hyper processed food..

uk progressives: food is the number 1 threat to the planet

i guess if the get their euthanasia laws through they'll get another source of protein to feed the poor..

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: karl 12

progressives want people eating lab grown lumps of hyper processed food..

uk progressives: food is the number 1 threat to the planet

i guess if the get their euthanasia laws through they'll get another source of protein to feed the poor..

Says a non-progressive.

I just love being told who I am by someone against who I am.

He's talking mostly about ranching -- livestock. Not veggies, fruit, legumes, etc.

The human body requires certain proteins. If you do not eat meat -- these proteins need to be manufactured.

“It turns out, there’s something really massive we can do which is to replace protein-rich and fat-rich foods that we now get from the flesh and secretions of animals with food produced by bacteria.

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: Annee


Hey Annee, regarding 'food' would really be interested in your thoughts on the WEF 'science' you promote and just how well the population of Sri Lanka are doing after initiating those 'policies'.

Am sure vast amounts of farmland are being bought up cheap though.

Is this the GMO controversy?

dp

a reply to: Annee

a tad overly sensitive.. farm free foods aim to replace all crops and livestock not just livestock..

however we spin it factory processed food is what has made the west obese.. to a point its morbidly obese..

moving to even hyper processed chemical foods is not a progressive answer to the problems the west faces..

sensible would have been looking at real land husbandry rather than make it a competition between the worst options factory farming or factory made food its the same unhealthy sh*t that doesn't fix any problem but risks creating more..

Ok so now they are limiting nitrogen usage in Germany .


En gineered FAMINE: German farmers ordered to SLASH nitrogen fertilizer usage to comply with EU green tyrants

Great Reset: Germany Bans Farmers from Properly Fertilising Land to Serve EU Green Agenda


By limiting proper amount of fertilizer they limit...food .

a reply to: Kenzo

They are also laying the groundwork to accomplish the same restriction here in the US.

These people use "science" to justify their actions... but is it really science?

These farms are high polluters because of their intensive livestock farming methods. The intensive methods are highly detrimental to animal welfare and husbandry. It's the "thousands of pigs in a barn" problem.

These intensive farming methods should be banned anyway, so personally pleased to see these farms will be closed if they don't change their ways, albeit under a "pollution" pretext.

When the UK left the EU, Remainers whined on about UK standards slipping. In fact, EU standards were already poor with regard to agriculture. These intensive farms shine a light on some poor farming practices in the EU.

originally posted by: paraphi
These farms are high polluters because of their intensive livestock farming methods. The intensive methods are highly detrimental to animal welfare and husbandry. It's the "thousands of pigs in a barn" problem.

These intensive farming methods should be banned anyway, so personally pleased to see these farms will be closed if they don't change their ways, albeit under a "pollution" pretext.

When the UK left the EU, Remainers whined on about UK standards slipping. In fact, EU standards were already poor with regard to agriculture. These intensive farms shine a light on some poor farming practices in the EU.

The excuse the (WEF run) authorities are using to shut these farmers down is "nitrogen" not "animal welfare". The real reason they're shutting down the farmers is to take their land and build mega smart cities where not animals but humans will be farmed as cattle. You are siding with the WEF globalists at your own detriment.

a reply to: Maxmars


At least it beg's the question, which is the lesser evil of two, some pollution or having food crisis and possible economic crisis .

It's allready bad year in some countrys with less food, so the timing of this is to me bad.

originally posted by: ChristianSupremacist
The excuse the (WEF run) authorities are using to shut these farmers down is "nitrogen" not "animal welfare".

Intensive farming creates excessive nitrogen pollution. Poor welfare standards encourages intensive farming.

Improve animal welfare, and you reduce pollution. Simple.

It does not matter how the Dutch government does it, but cutting nitrogen pollution will result in less intensive farming. From an animal welfare perspective, that is good. The US could learn something from this, as US farming practices are just as bad.

a reply to: Kenzo

I think the real foundation of these efforts is commerce.

The proponents of the ideas behind this need, characterized as an 'imminent threat,' are not scientists. They use science to justify the 'vector' of this solution, but the 'magnitude' of the solution they offer is not consistent with 'benevolence' or 'remediation.'

To make them 'reasonable' they use an argument rife with opinion, hyperbole, and straw men.

(I don't mean to create a presumptive illusion of talking points for the conversation but... just for kicks...

Farmers:
1 - Have we, as a people, behaved in a way unilaterally contrary to society?
- No, it cannot be said that you are villains or acting to destroy the ecosystem.
2 - Do the farming methods we use exploit the environment egregiously - given the returns we require to survive?
- No. Under the economic circumstances this is what must be done to thrive.
3 - Can those farming methods be improved without threatening our ability to compete and survive in our host economy?
- No. The potential solution offered is for us to cease existing. We can only operate as we do if we are to continue existing, changing methods now ill only lessen future ecological impact, not eliminate it.
4 - Do we expect the terms of our citizenship include protection from abuse?
- Yes. We pay our taxes, we participate in society constructively, therefore we should be protected from abuse and attack - just as any other citizens are and have been.
5 - Do we not generate value for our labor, supporting millions of consumers' lives?
- Yes. The farming industry we comprise cannot be characterized as a 'failure' in any sense of the word. We produce food... You eat it.
6 - Do we not own the property we use?
- Yes. The ability of the nation's government to seize private property - and real estate most specifically - can only be considered reasonable as a matter of national security, the key word being "national."

WEF proponents:
7 - Are we not acting on behalf of a global organization?
- Yes, an unelected subset of a global entities has spearheaded a public campaign to "put an end to" those farming practices which are being used by what is arguable one of the most successful farming operations in Europe. Not to 'assist in diminishing the severity of their impact' but instead to eliminate it summarily.
8 - Are we not 'experts' in the subject matter?
- No. You have access to a stable of scientists, many beholden to your enterprises. These scientists form a backbone of support for your efforts, those who oppose are not included. You use the part of science that supports only your position. Part of science is not science.
9 - Are we not protecting the future of our ecological world?
- No. You are not protecting the planet or anything else. In the scale and impact on our global community successful farmers are small potatoes especially given the value of what is produced... food. Reasonable prioritization of efforts would dictate that you apply these draconian possibilities for the true offenders of scale. Compared with the oil industry, for example, farmers are but a secondary concern - and then only because of the economic situation engendered by the "global" commerce community.
10 - Aren't we fulfilling the function of serving the global community?
- Yes. Demanding attention to ecological abuse is something that someone should be doing. The fact that this impetus comes from global entities joined in commerce, demanding of signatories the compliance to destroy commerce you don't own, speaks volumes.

Anyway... I've prattled on long enough... Thanks for entertaining my thoughts!

Good luck Netherland farmers. Compromise isn't a sin... teach that lesson to them.

a reply to: Maxmars


Thanks , that`s good thinking, all the angless .


It feels like doing anything drastic maneuvers, high speed with the farming is not a good way, but risky . In Sri Lanka everything happened fast ..

Why dont they just build pilot / testing area somehere first, with no risk to society. this high speed tactic will cause problems .

Yes they're all so very worried about climate change while they fly from city to city on jets and eat wagyu and lobster and live in carbon emitting mansions and have a larger carbon foot print than some cities do

Don't fool yourself into thinking the science is legit. Historically when faced with a problem we innovate, we don't close down the whole world while WEF cronies live like kings and tell us to eat bugs. Climate science = the science (covid "science").

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

We can even feed our dogs insect protein now.

bugbakes.co.uk...

What a sick world.

Cheers