|
|
Post by bancroft on Dec 13, 2022 16:44:34 GMT
I have read that Denmark is next in line for the targeting of farmers over the nitrogen issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 21, 2022 0:14:20 GMT
So did I read it right, the EU have mandated a max volume of shit and hot air production directive, which the Netherlands government has chosen these restrictions in order to meet. It seems to me dissolving this federal wannabe will work wonders in reducing both shit and hot air But on a practical level there’s a serious amount of wings to be had from turning that shit into organic compost |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 21, 2022 10:32:28 GMT
The EU has been pursuing policies that encourage green and clean farming, starting with the ban on neonicatoids and some fertilisers, support for planting hedges and trees including money the UK enjoyed before it left.
For a long time it has has policies on clean water in seas, lakes and rivers which the UK seems to have quickly forgotten.
It has programmes for replanting all tree commercial use and keeping ditches and banks clear to prevent flooding.
One of its primary objectives for the last five years has been protection of the environment.
It is best to know the facts before you comment. I challenge anyone to tell us the political context which has made the Dutch government consider this plan. It isn't the EU policy to close the farms, it is the Dutch decision to use this method of reducing nitrogen run offs into water courses which kills fish and disrupts the eco balance in all that Dutch water. It is one part of the EU's environmental programme. And frankly we should be eating fewer cows.
The government made their decision based on what they know about the country. Far more than most of us. Nor am I a scientist who knows another way of reducing nitrogen in fertiliser. It is the main ingredient in all fertilisers including the ones we all use.
Farmers will be paid full value for their business and don't have to move house, just stop farming. Nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 21, 2022 16:49:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 21, 2022 20:51:04 GMT
Please dont quote text from six years ago. They are a different age when it comes to the environment. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 21, 2022 23:37:33 GMT
The EU has been pursuing policies that encourage green and clean farming, starting with the ban on neonicatoids and some fertilisers, support for planting hedges and trees including money the UK enjoyed before it left. For a long time it has has policies on clean water in seas, lakes and rivers which the UK seems to have quickly forgotten. It has programmes for replanting all tree commercial use and keeping ditches and banks clear to prevent flooding. One of its primary objectives for the last five years has been protection of the environment. It is best to know the facts before you comment. I challenge anyone to tell us the political context which has made the Dutch government consider this plan. It isn't the EU policy to close the farms, it is the Dutch decision to use this method of reducing nitrogen run offs into water courses which kills fish and disrupts the eco balance in all that Dutch water. It is one part of the EU's environmental programme. And frankly we should be eating fewer cows. The government made their decision based on what they know about the country. Far more than most of us. Nor am I a scientist who knows another way of reducing nitrogen in fertiliser. It is the main ingredient in all fertilisers including the ones we all use. Farmers will be paid full value for their business and don't have to move house, just stop farming. Nice. I can remember back in the 80s when farmers were saying the EEC through CAP were encouraging the grubbing up of hedgerows so that farms could increase their acreage under production and claim more subsidies. Some argue it was EU policies of river dredging and environmental protection that caused the widespread flooding in the Somerset Levels a few years back. Most countries have seen declining cattle numbers for the last few decades (US has dropped about one third) so we are eating fewer cows and the methane they produce is balanced out after a dozen years or so by the breakdown of the methane in the atmosphere so it is a closed loop. You do not have to close and compulsory purchase farms to control fertiliser run off and protect the environment. You do have to do that if you wish to use the land for something else. That something else will no doubt come to light a few years down the line and the conspiracy theorists now will be the prophets. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 22, 2022 8:25:26 GMT
A reference to the declared aims and objectives on the environment written into EU policy would show clearly the direction it is go8ng in.
Reference to the 1980's or even 6 years ago is history.
The EU has voted on the principle. Each country can implement the principle in its own way.
If you think you know about environmental issues enough to advise countries about how to apply what they agreed to apply in their own country, you are free to write to the government department concerned.
By the way, dredging rivers deepens them and prevents overspill and flooding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 22, 2022 15:11:56 GMT
We're discussing the reality of EU policy, not the aspirations of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 22, 2022 16:21:37 GMT
A reference to the declared aims and objectives on the environment written into EU policy would show clearly the direction it is go8ng in. Reference to the 1980's or even 6 years ago is history. The EU has voted on the principle. Each country can implement the principle in its own way. If you think you know about environmental issues enough to advise countries about how to apply what they agreed to apply in their own country, you are free to write to the government department concerned. By the way, dredging rivers deepens them and prevents overspill and flooding. History is what the EU has done in its name. What has the environment to do with harmonising trade rules and customs unions? The environment is a national consideration. The problems was the controls they placed on the dredging of rivers. The Somerset levels were flooded for the first time in years due to the EU who were responsible for the policies around the environment and river dredging restrictions and the CAP. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 22, 2022 22:39:09 GMT
We're discussing the reality of EU policy, not the aspirations of it. The reality has not yet been achieved. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 22, 2022 22:42:12 GMT
A reference to the declared aims and objectives on the environment written into EU policy would show clearly the direction it is go8ng in. Reference to the 1980's or even 6 years ago is history. The EU has voted on the principle. Each country can implement the principle in its own way. If you think you know about environmental issues enough to advise countries about how to apply what they agreed to apply in their own country, you are free to write to the government department concerned. By the way, dredging rivers deepens them and prevents overspill and flooding. History is what the EU has done in its name. What has the environment to do with harmonising trade rules and customs unions? The environment is a national consideration. The problems was the controls they placed on the dredging of rivers. The Somerset levels were flooded for the first time in years due to the EU who were responsible for the policies around the environment and river dredging restrictions and the CAP. It was flood3d due to NOT dredging and heavy rainfall. I agree. There is an EU principle. How members achieve it is their choice. The NAME belongs to the sovereign decisions of the members. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 23, 2022 12:03:33 GMT
We're discussing the reality of EU policy, not the aspirations of it. The reality has not yet been achieved. What an odd statement. "The aspirations have not yet been achieved" would have made sense. But reality is reality, whatever the outcome of policy. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 23, 2022 13:04:00 GMT
Reality is that the uk has just announced a target date to clean up its inshore and off shore waters by... Sometime in the 2060's. Current targets have been widely missed. www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/englands-poisoned-waterwaysSuch are the benefits of control. The UK can foul its waterways with impunity. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 23, 2022 14:58:58 GMT
History is what the EU has done in its name. What has the environment to do with harmonising trade rules and customs unions? The environment is a national consideration. The problems was the controls they placed on the dredging of rivers. The Somerset levels were flooded for the first time in years due to the EU who were responsible for the policies around the environment and river dredging restrictions and the CAP. It was flood3d due to NOT dredging and heavy rainfall. I agree. There is an EU principle. How members achieve it is their choice. The NAME belongs to the sovereign decisions of the members. It was the restrictions on teh methods of dredging and the disposal of the spoil that were the limiting factors and these were as defined by the EU. I ask again what has the environment and waste disposal got to do with harmonisation of trade and customs? |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 23, 2022 16:43:40 GMT
Productivity and quality of agriculture.
There will come a time when the standards of agricultural production in the EU will not meet the EU levels due to being irrigated and fertilised by unwanted chemicals.
Maybe it might be better if the government bought some farms that pollute the water instead of criticising Holland's effort.
|
|
