Are there two standards in nature?

The newspapers say big: We are going to plant tens of thousands of trees to capture more CO2 and thus save the climate. Last Tuesday, February 4, Minister Schouten presented her vision on the future of Dutch forests, entitled 'State and provinces: 10% more forest in the Netherlands'.

A growing forest with trees absorbs CO2 and supplies oxygen (the carbon dioxide assimilation). A mature forest is unfortunately almost in balance. The oxygen that the trees provide in the growing season, they absorb again in the winter due to the rotting of the leaves and dead trees. All climate activists, environmental organizations and the media label this as the solution to the 'climate problem'. Agriculture must make way for nature. What an incomprehensible world.

Crop absorbs more
Do we realize that all common agricultural crops also absorb CO2 and return oxygen? One hectare of agricultural crops absorbs even more CO2 than one hectare of forest. One hectare of nature reserve is CO2 neutral, because a nature reserve absorbs just as much CO2 as it emits.

Politicians say about agricultural crops, which absorb much more CO2, how polluting is agriculture. All CO2 absorbed by agriculture is simply not counted. They only include emissions. That is now measuring with 2 measures. Only measure with the values ​​that work in favor of politics.

Then I read that when all people have left the Netherlands and all agriculture, industry and traffic have left the Netherlands, most Natura2000 areas will still receive too much nitrogen for the desired plant vegetation that the environmental organizations are aiming for. In short, what the environmental organizations wish and pursue is completely unrealistic and can never be implemented. By the way, that our livestock production emits too much nitrogen are assumptions and there is no proof whatsoever.

Multibreeding not to blame
Extensive research has been carried out in Drenthe into the nitrogen deposition and ammonia dispersion of 5 dairy farms adjacent to the northern side of Natura2000 area Dwingelderveld. It turned out that livestock farming was not at all to blame, but The Hague did not allow this report to be made public.

Wouldn't it be better for the environment if we turn the Natura 2000 areas into agricultural land (after all, the objectives can never be achieved anyway) and areas where forests are planted? And then - if people have enough food - grow raw materials for the power plants? After all, the CO2 emissions of the power plant are then compensated by the CO2 that the agricultural crops absorb again. After all, in nature everything has to be a closed cycle.

Mineral cycle
Another strange story: If an agricultural crop is made into biofuel, the CO2 tax is zero. Completely clean fuel with zero CO2 tax, according to the government. If this same agricultural crop is used for our daily food, this crop does have a large CO2 emission, according to the government. How is this possible? Same crop, same fertilizer, same seed?

The farmer loses in his mineral cycle all the minerals that are in the products that he supplies to the consumer. That is why he has to buy fertilizers to make his cycle sound, because we humans buy his products but do not return minerals to the farmer. We humans are the waster. And then blame the farmer.

Climate activist, nature organization and media: you return nothing to nature but pollution and waste. You also do not return anything to the farmer. Shame on you. I'm ashamed of it.

Jaap Major
Low Zuthem

Boerenbusiness

below Boerenbusiness opinions are posted from authors who, in principle, give their opinion once Boerenbusiness.nl or from people who prefer to remain anonymous. Name and place of residence are always known to the editors.

© 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.