|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 27, 2023 14:40:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 27, 2023 14:48:15 GMT
sandypine; __"No. Both the EU and the Dutch government agree that cow burps are deemed the biggest driver of climate change."__ But farmers unintentionally poisoning the waters is a big part of the problem in the Netherlands. That may be true to some degree but unintentionally poisoning waterways does not normally lead to compulsory expropriation of one's property. What usually happens is the methods that result in that are regulated. So you are in favour of the Netherland's regulations on nitrogen pollution? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 27, 2023 14:55:00 GMT
That may be true to some degree but unintentionally poisoning waterways does not normally lead to compulsory expropriation of one's property. What usually happens is the methods that result in that are regulated. So you are in favour of the Netherland's regulations on nitrogen pollution? In favour? There is undoubtedly 'pollution' but what it is and to what level is moot. I do repeat however that if a farm here polluted waterways we would not take his farm off the owner and his family, would we? I am not so sure nowadays. There are arguments that the land is wanted for development of a planned supercity and that is certainly a proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 27, 2023 15:05:47 GMT
So you are in favour of the Netherland's regulations on nitrogen pollution? In favour? There is undoubtedly 'pollution' but what it is and to what level is moot. I do repeat however that if a farm here polluted waterways we would not take his farm off the owner and his family, would we? I am not so sure nowadays. There are arguments that the land is wanted for development of a planned supercity and that is certainly a proposal. The farms need only comply with the regulations to avoid any such sanctions. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2023 15:11:24 GMT
In favour? There is undoubtedly 'pollution' but what it is and to what level is moot. I do repeat however that if a farm here polluted waterways we would not take his farm off the owner and his family, would we? I am not so sure nowadays. There are arguments that the land is wanted for development of a planned supercity and that is certainly a proposal. The farms need only comply with the regulations to avoid any such sanctions. ...and if they put a jackboot up their anus, they only need fit their anus around the boot to avoid discomfort. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 27, 2023 15:18:28 GMT
In favour? There is undoubtedly 'pollution' but what it is and to what level is moot. I do repeat however that if a farm here polluted waterways we would not take his farm off the owner and his family, would we? I am not so sure nowadays. There are arguments that the land is wanted for development of a planned supercity and that is certainly a proposal. The farms need only comply with the regulations to avoid any such sanctions. What? Not complying with regulations normally starts at a fine, then another fine, then possibly a bit of time. Rarely is a family home and land taken. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 27, 2023 15:28:23 GMT
Isn't this more of a Conspiracy Theory sort of topic? Why? Similar has been well documented in the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 27, 2023 15:30:01 GMT
In favour? There is undoubtedly 'pollution' but what it is and to what level is moot. I do repeat however that if a farm here polluted waterways we would not take his farm off the owner and his family, would we? I am not so sure nowadays. There are arguments that the land is wanted for development of a planned supercity and that is certainly a proposal. The farms need only comply with the regulations to avoid any such sanctions. Yes, you need only comply and all will be well.
Now just step into the showers please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2023 16:04:07 GMT
You would have thought that regulations likely to close down a third of a nation's agricultural sector might come under review and end up being modified.
Disbarring malicious intent, of course
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 27, 2023 16:17:18 GMT
Control the food supply. Control where you can go. Control where (and if) you can bank.
As I've said: We're sleepwalking into 1984.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 27, 2023 16:37:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 27, 2023 16:57:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 27, 2023 17:02:01 GMT
The farms need only comply with the regulations to avoid any such sanctions. What? Not complying with regulations normally starts at a fine, then another fine, then possibly a bit of time. Rarely is a family home and land taken. Starts? Dutch farmers have had 4 years to comply. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 27, 2023 17:07:36 GMT
If they can't comply with the regulations then their land will be bought from them.
That's pretty generous for farmers who have been polluting the environment for decades.
The days of getting rich by damaging the land are over.
Praise be to Gaia.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 27, 2023 17:16:18 GMT
What? Not complying with regulations normally starts at a fine, then another fine, then possibly a bit of time. Rarely is a family home and land taken. Starts? Dutch farmers have had 4 years to comply. My neighbour has had seven years to comply with planning regulations. It is estimated that 28,000 farms will be affected and just under half will have to close. It is not so simple as the farmers are being forced to meet those regulations so that industry can carry on unaffected and it is the UN insistence that the climate change reductions are vital. |
|
