Dutch nitrogen policy leads to environmental disaster

Hopefully we will get the coronavirus under control soon, but what will happen to humanity after that? Research has shown that around the year 2100 the earth has warmed up so much that there will be more deaths from the heat than now from corona. Not a pleasant prospect, but I fear that these forecasters will be right if Dutch politicians continue with the nitrogen policy. This leads to an environmental disaster.

The number of cars in the world will only increase further, due to the increase in prosperity in countries such as China and India. When these countries achieve the same prosperity as we westerners, traffic and industry worldwide will more than double. And with that, the environmental pollution by nitrogen will also increase sharply, resulting in global warming. Politics The Hague and the media put the nitrogen on 1 big pile: NH3 and NOx. They want to remove nitrogen from agriculture and transfer it to industry, road construction and housing. However, this is a very big fallacy.

Natural cycle
On paper it is correct: 1 kilo against 1 kilo. But in reality it is completely different. Even the NH3 has to be split into biogenic NH3 and not biogenic NH3. The NH3 of agriculture is the biogenic NH3 and has a closed natural cycle of about 10 years, according to research by the American climate guru Frank Mitloehner. This means that 10 years after the formation of NH3, it has completely disappeared from the atmosphere.

It's like this: the cow poops, it gets into the air, then falls to the ground and lets the plant grow. At the end, the cow eats the vegetable feed and then defecates it. In other words, a natural closed cycle. Only a single plant that avoids nitrogen is affected by this. However, you may wonder whether this plant stands a chance at all in a country as densely populated as ours.
                                                                                                                   
The non-biogenic NH3 is released from the leakage of thousands of wells, where oil has been drilled and continues to leak, from industry, recyclers and other sectors. This NH3 does not have a natural cycle, but will precipitate extra on the bottom. Depending on the cause, this cycle lasts much longer than 10 years. NOx, on the other hand, is created by traffic, our heating and the generation of electricity. NOx is created because we extract all kinds of raw materials from the earth and then burn them. The result is a large nitrogen emission that does not have a natural cycle. It takes about 1.000 years for the earth to absorb this again.

No global warming due to livestock 
If the livestock remains the same, agriculture will not cause global warming, I dare say. After all, the nitrogen emissions that are added every year also disappear again. Emissions from industry and traffic take 1.000 years to break down. These emissions build up in our atmosphere and are the main cause of global warming, I have read in scientific sources. The non-biogenic NH3 is then added extra. At this rate of emissions, in the year 2100 it will indeed be very exciting with the survival of the people. This is because NOx and non-biogenic NH3 take too long before it is broken down.

Since 1990, agriculture has already made an enormous contribution to combating global warming, because agriculture has already achieved an NH3 reduction of more than 60%. If there were no livestock farming, the Earth might have been 2 degrees warmer by now. I cannot provide proof of this, but I am convinced of it. With even better techniques, our agriculture can help slow global warming until we find ways to eliminate NOx emissions.

Reducing livestock is not a solution, however, because people need food. Vegetables alone are not possible, because there are too few areas on earth that are suitable for arable farming. The ground is too dry, or too wet, too many stones, too barren, too steep, too little bearing capacity and so on. In short: these areas are only suitable for livestock. In addition, there is a lack of fertilizers to grow crops. In addition, livestock converts waste into animal protein, such as residues from the food industry and crops that are indigestible for humans.

Exchanging nitrogen is not possible
What political The Hague and the provinces want is a 1 on 1 exchange of nitrogen (biogenic NH3) from agriculture for nitrogen (NOx and non-biogenic NH3). This is an outright environmental disaster. The biogenic NH3 from agriculture, which does not cause global warming, goes away and returns NOx and non-biogenic NH3 from traffic, industry, households and power plants. And this nitrogen is responsible for global warming.

On paper it's right, nitrogen against nitrogen. Also for the judge who has reprimanded the Dutch government. But in practice this leads to global warming. So it is not a 1 to 1 exchange, but a 0 to 1 exchange. Just think about this. And then the provinces proudly report in the newspaper that they have bought nitrogen from farmers for housing and industry. Totally irresponsible. If this continues, there will indeed be around 2.100 more deaths from heat than there are now from the corona virus.  

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.