A post on X on Tuesday by Dutch commentator Armand van Westen that has been circulating revisits the nitrogen debate in Dutch agriculture. Responding to a video by physicist and science journalist Arnout Jaspers – author of De Stikstoffuik (The Nitrogen Trap), the 2023 book that became a number-one bestseller in the Netherlands – van Westen makes a point that’s as simple as it is explosive: there is no real stikstofcrisis.
‘Stikstof’ has become shorthand for this entire heated debate about nitrogen pollution from farming, EU nature rules and the clash between environmental protection and agricultural and economic interests. The Dutch Government aims to reduce nitrogen deposition on ‘nitrogen-sensitive’ Natura 2000 protected areas (part of the EU-wide network of nature sites) so that it falls below ‘critical loads’, with targets set in national law following EU obligations. The subtitle of Jaspers’ book says it plainly: “Politicians in thrall to the eco-lobby.”
As Jaspers painstakingly documents, stikstof (literally meaning ‘choking substance’) is a crisis of defective regulation and runaway litigation masquerading as an ecological emergency. The former minister Ronald Plasterk – a biologist – endorsed Jaspers’s work as “a sensible book full of sober facts that demonstrates the absurdity of the policy”. The Dutch Government, for its part, was so rattled that the Minister for Nature and Nitrogen, Christianne van der Wal-Zeggelink, was formally pressed by parliament to issue a written rebuttal of another critical work on the same file.
That other work was Niemand in de Cockpit (Nobody in
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Climate Alarmists try to assert that the continuing release of CH4 and N2O will contribute massively to Global overheating. They are indeed powerful heating agents in the atmosphere. But Climate Alarmists are in error because they do not account for the inherent chemistry CH4 and N2O in the Oxygen rich atmosphere: they react and dissipate so they can only sustain minor residual levels measured in parts / billion by volume.
At these low concentrations their warming effect is real but limited to a combined static level of ~0.52°C.
Methane is continually released with natural gas leakages, the processes of natural decay, all forms of organic life and some leakages from industrial processes. The oxidation of Methane is even visible as “wil o’ the wisp” over swampy areas.
Nitrous Oxide is continuously generated by organic decay in the natural Nitrogen cycle, from the ~8 million daily lightning strikes and by the partial combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.
As CH4 and N2O both react chemically in the atmosphere, they are almost entirely purged: their residual levels are limited to relatively few parts / billion in the atmosphere. If Methane and Nitrous Oxide were not subject to this rapid chemical breakdown, their continual releases would have long since accumulated to… Read more »
And in the UK, Eco and Veggie / Vegan activists who infest the Quangocracy intend to cull and effectively eliminate the Dartmoor Ponies, and to force farmers to stop producing beef and instead grow lentils …. which a vast majority of the British population don’t routinely eat.
These eco loons do not understand that livestock are essential. Without cows, sheep etc. land goes to scrub and becomes unproductive. I suspect the problem in Dartmoor is under-grazing, not over-grazing.
Look at the proportionality of actual temperature effects of greenhouse gasses. Starting with Water and Clouds at 90%+ of the essential effect that keeps the Earth habitable.
This shows the irrelevance of trying to control Methane and Nitrous Oxide.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/proportions-of-the-temperature-contributions-of-greenhouse-gasses-h2o-co2-n2o-ch4/
It’s important to be as transparent as possible so we are as unassailable as possible, and not to behave like media actors who will for example introduce a Green activist with a BA in gender studies as a ‘climate expert’. In that spirit, you can’t simply describe Thierry Baudet as a ‘jurist and [former] Forum for Democracy leader’ without mentioning that he has – presumably deliberately as he’s not unintelligent – made an utter clown of himself since entering politics. You also have to acknowledge that his co-author Lidewij de Vos, while much, much less of a nutter, is the current leader of Forum, a political opposition party, so not just an independent biochemist.
I wonder to whom does the Dutch state pay the 10million euro fine since the state makes the laws?
I believe it would be held in a kind of trust and the court would decide what to spend it on, e.g. climate initiatives. We also have to pay penalties to the EU if we don’t meet our obligations to them. The EU didn’t enforce that for years, until suddenly they did and the government had to cobble together a plan pretty much overnight, which is a big part of why it’s called a crisis.
These green zealots and judges are in a minority. The farmers and their supporters are a large majority. They have the pitchforks and will need to use them if necessary.
Pitchforks are all very well, but the Dutch Police have guns and some will and have used them against the farmers
There will always be a turning point, but what will that be. Extended blackouts should do it, or severe food shortages.
It would also be helpful if more politicians understood what CO2 can and cannot do. It’s heating potential is now minimal. If only they would have the courage to state this.
Blackouts are unfortunately the only way the rainbow drones of our younger generation are going to realise where their energy comes from. The trouble is the government’s smart meter ruse is designed to turn one large potential blackout into millions of tiny ones and switching you off at your house.
Has anyone published their climate model output from plausible inputs? What is the real ‘problem’?
I cannot believe that computer models can accurately predict what will happen. In my admittedly limited experience, what happens is you create a model and estimate the data to get an answer that is plainly ridiculous. So you tinker with the data and algorithms until you get an acceptable answer. In other words, your desired output is an input. Well, I used to do that anyway. I believe the same is true with climate models.
Quite agree, I’ve done a lot of modelling and nothing is a prediction, it is a projection of the inputs through the lens of the algorithms. It sounds like there are many versions of climate models which use a standard set of inputs, I was just wondering what they project with an IPCC-plausible set of variables.
It’s all garbage. If you recall the discovery of the Higgs Boson by actual scientists required a 5 sigma certainty. Explained by Google 5 sigma is:
“In particle physics, 5 sigma (\(5\sigma\)) is the gold-standard statistical threshold required to claim the discovery of a new particle or phenomenon. It indicates that an observed signal is 5 standard deviations away from what would be expected by random background noise. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Details
Climate scientists couldn’t come anywhere close to this yet demand we treat their theories as fact.
Great explanation of climate idiocy!