T.E.S. : Would you say that the F2F plan is too strong on regulation in order to organize decrease and would need to rely more on science and technology solutions ?
P.C. : It is very difficult to measure nitrogen emissions and to claim a certain farm is above a certain treshold. A lot of the measuring has been criticised as unscientific and unprecise. Technology could help to measure but apparently it is simply not easy. Also to define what constitutions “vulnerable” nature is not evident. Some kinds of nature thrives as a result of nitrogen, other nature disappears. A lot of this is very subjective.
T.E.S. : Back in July 22, Ralph Schoellhammer, from the Webster University of Vienna has commented in Newsweek (2) «After all, the Netherlands accounts for just 0.46 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions, and while a further reduction might be desirable, it will not be decisive in combating climate change over the next eight years. »
P.C. : Climate change is partially separate from this. The issue is nitrogen emissions, but another reason why so many Dutch, even in urban areas, voted for the farmers party, is that it is also hostile to technocracy. Many new regulations, often from the EU, are driving up the price of housing and transport in the name of combatting climate change. Often, these have been agreed at the EU level, far away from the scrutiny of the media and national parliaments, by ministers that were either happy to approve those arrangements or incapable to counter the great pressure of EU Commission officials, aided by NGOs that are often supported by the same EU Commission.
By kees torn – https://www.flickr.com/photos/68359921@N08/48826532952/in/photolist-2hoCKa3-2hoA2rJ-2hoBXab-2hoA2qM-2hoBX7A-2hoA2oN-2honxtx-2ho4T3p, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82797749
This post is also available in: FR (FR)