Search
Close this search box.

Search Results for: netherlands farms

Netherlands to forcefully shut down 3,000 farms

https://thecountersignal.com/netherlands-to-forcefully-shut-down-3000-farms/ By KEEAN BEXTE To comply with the European Union’s radical climate laws, the Dutch government of World Economic Forum acolyte Mark Rutte will force up to 3,000 farms to shut down for good. Farmers will be made an offer on their farms, which the government claims is “well over” market value. According to nitrogen minister Christianne van der Wal, the government purchase will be compulsory. “There is no better offer coming,” claimed van der Wal. Recent EU nature preservation rules require member states to reduce emissions across sectors of the economy. As one of Europe’s most prominent farming nations, half of the Netherlands’ emissions come from agricultural activity. Rutte has warned that those who refuse to comply could face government force. When the Dutch government announced a nitrogen fertilizer reduction mandate, the country saw nationwide protests from farmers. Former agricultural minister resigned from his position as a result of the movement. The Dutch farmer protests received international attention, with protests popping up in Canada in support of the uprising. Rutte’s government policies have many observers concerned about the direction he is taking the country. Earlier this month, the country’s finance minister Sigrid Kaag proposed a law to allow banks to spy on transactions of citizens which totaled more than €100. Privacy watchdog Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens called the bill an unprecedented “surveillance of the Dutch” people.

Netherlands attempting to SHUT DOWN 11,200 farms to meet climate goals – 1/5 of total number of farms

https://petersweden.substack.com/p/dutch-farmers-11200 By Peter Imanuelsen If you have followed my reporting you probably know about the protests happening in the Netherlands. Tens of thousands of farmers have taken to the streets to protest against new climate goals which will force farmers to shut down their farms. They have set hay bales on fire on motorways and dumped manure and even blocked supermarket distribution centers. Around 1/5 of farms will be forced to shut down! According to calculations done by the Finance ministry, a whopping 11,200 livestock farmers will be forced to shut down by the government to reduce nitrogen emissions in order to meet European environmental rules. Another 17,600 farmers would need to reduce the amount of animals they keep to meet these climate goals. And this is bad. Because there are about 54,000 farms in the Netherlands, meaning that around 1/5 of all farms will be forced to shut down and almost 1/3 of farms forced to scale down and reduce livestock. Meaning that thousands and thousands of farmers will be loosing their livelihoods in order to meet government climate goals. They are literally going to make people loose their livelihoods in order to meet climate goals. That is crazy. Not only that, think about all the food that will be lost as a result of this. We are already facing a food crisis due to sky high fertilizer prices and grain shortages due to the war in Ukraine. We need more food now, not less! The climate change fanatics are trying to bring us back to the middle ages. The state is planning on forcing farmers to sell their farms to the state (buying them out). State sanctioned appropriation of farms and land. Now where have I heard about that kind of thing before…? Oh yes, under Communism. I told you that this is Climate Communism and that The Great Reset is just another word for Global Communism. And it seems like people in the Netherlands are not happy with these government plans, as the political party of the Prime Minister in the Netherlands, VVD, has reached a new all-time low in the polls. If there was an election now, they would lose 13 of their 34 seats in parliament. A whopping 7 out of 10 voters say that they are dissatisfied with the Cabinet of the Prime Minister. Meanwhile the new party called Farmer-Citizen Movement is now polling in second place. Farmers held a meeting with the government on Friday, however some farmers are not satisfied with the results and are talking about more protests, with a farmers group that claims to represent 95% of agriculture pledging the ”toughest demonstrations ever”. So the state is planning on forcing farmers to shut down under the excuse of climate change. Forcing them to sell their farms. Essentially this is a form of seizing the means of production. It is basically Communism. Climate Communism. And we all know how that has gone when the state has seized farms before. Look no further than what happened under Stalin in Ukraine or under Mao in China. It is not all bad news however. I guess we will be getting brand new factories producing bug snacks. Or we might get more of ”sustainable” supermarkets like the one named Picnic in the Netherlands which got €600 million in investments, the majority coming from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation! This supermarket focusing on things like vegan food and delivering food in electric vehicles. And guess what! A millionaire investor at Picnic who has also been the director there, is family with a Dutch Minister who has been involved with these new nitrogen laws. You will eat the bugs and you will be happy. You will own nothing and you will be happy.

The Great Food Reset has begun – Net Zero restrictions on farms designed ‘to squeeze small farmers from the market, allowing them to be bought out by multinational agribusiness giants’

https://unherd.com/2023/03/the-great-food-reset-has-begun/ BY THOMAS FAZI We all lose from the global war on farmers France is in flames. Israel is erupting. America is facing a second January 6. In the Netherlands, however, the political establishment is reeling from an entirely different type of protest — one that, perhaps more than any other raging today, threatens to destabilise the global order. The victory of the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) in the recent provincial elections represents an extraordinary result for an anti-establishment party that was formed just over three years ago. But then again, these are not ordinary times. The BBB grew out of the mass demonstrations against the Dutch government’s proposal to cut nitrogen emissions by 50% in the country’s farming sector by 2030 — a target designed to comply with the European Union’s emission-reduction rules. While large farming companies have the means to meet these goals — by using less nitrogen fertiliser and reducing the number of their livestock — smaller, often family-owned farms would be forced to sell or shutter. Indeed, according to a heavily redacted European Commission document, this is precisely the strategy’s goal: “extensifying agriculture, notably through buying out or terminating farms, with the aim of reducing livestock”; this would “first be on a voluntary basis, but mandatory buyout is not excluded if necessary”. It is no surprise, then, that the plans sparked massive protests by farmers, who see it as a direct attack on their livelihoods, or that the BBB’s slogan — “No Farms, No Food” — clearly resonated with voters. But aside from concerns about the impact of the measure on the country’s food security, and on a centuries-old rural way of life integral to Dutch national identity, the rationale behind this drastic measure is also questionable. Agriculture currently accounts for almost half of the country’s output of carbon dioxide, yet the Netherlands is responsible for less than 0.4% of the world’s emissions. No wonder many Dutch fail to see how such negligible returns justify the complete overhaul of the country’s farming sector, which is already considered one of the most sustainable in the world: over the past two decades, water dependence for key crops has been reduced by as much as 90%, and the use of chemical pesticides in greenhouses has been almost completely eliminated. Farmers also point out that the consequences of the nitrogen cut would extend well beyond the Netherlands. The country, after all, is Europe’s largest exporter of meat and the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world, just behind the United States — in other words, the plan would cause food exports to collapse at a time when the world is already facing a food and resource shortage. We already know what this might look like. A similar ban on nitrogen fertiliser was conducted in Sri Lanka last year, with disastrous consequences: it caused an artificial food shortage that plunged nearly two million Sri Lankans into poverty, leading to an uprising that toppled the government. Given the irrational nature of the policy, many protesting farmers believe it can’t simply be blamed on the urbanite “green elites” currently running the Dutch government. They suggest one of the underlying reasons for the move is to squeeze small farmers from the market, allowing them to be bought out by multinational agribusiness giants who recognise the immense value of the country’s land — not only is it highly fertile, but it is also strategically located with easy access to the north Atlantic coast (Rotterdam is the largest port in Europe). They also point out that prime minister Rutte is an Agenda Contributor of the World Economic Forum, which is well known for being corporate-driven, while his finance minister and Minister of Social Affairs and Employment are also tied to the body. The struggle playing out in the Netherlands would seem to be part of a much bigger game that seeks to “reset” the international food system. Similar measures are currently being introduced or considered in several other European countries, including Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Britain (where the Government is encouraging traditional farmers to leave the industry to free up land for new “sustainable” farmers). As the second-largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, after the energy sector, agriculture has naturally ended up in the crosshairs of Net Zero advocates — that is, virtually all major international and global organisations. The solution, we are told, is “sustainable agriculture” — one of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which form their “Agenda 2030”. This issue has now been pushed to the top of the global agenda. Last November’s G20 meeting in Bali called for “an accelerated transformation towards sustainable and resilient agriculture and food systems and supply chains” to “ensure that food systems better contribute to adaptation and mitigation to climate change”. Just a few days later, in Egypt, the COP27 annual Green Agenda Climate Summit launched its initiative aimed at promoting “a shift towards sustainable, climate-resilient, healthy diets”. Within a year, its Food and Agriculture Organization aims to launch a “roadmap” for reducing greenhouse emissions in the agricultural sector. The endgame is hinted at in several other UN documents: reducing nitrogen use and global livestock production, lowering meat consumption, and promoting more “sustainable” sources of protein, such as plant-based or lab-grown products, and even insects. The United Nations Environment Programme, for example, has stated that global meat and dairy consumption must be reduced by 50% by 2050. Other international and multilateral organisation have presented their own plans for transforming the global food system. The EU’s Farm to Fork strategy “aims to accelerate our transition to a sustainable food system”. Meanwhile, the World Bank, in its climate change action plan for 2021-2025, says that 35% of the bank’s total funding during this period will be devoted to transforming agriculture and other key systems to deal with climate change. Alongside these intergovernmental and multilateral bodies, a vast network of “stakeholders” is now devoted to the “greening” of agriculture and food production — private foundations, public-private partnerships, NGOs and corporations. Reset the Table, a 2020 Rockefeller Foundation report, called for moving away from a “focus on maximising shareholder returns” to “a more equitable system focused on fair returns and benefits to all stakeholders”. This may sound like a good idea, until one considers that “stakeholder capitalism” is a concept heavily promoted by the World Economic Forum, which represents the interests of the largest and most powerful corporations on the planet. The Rockefeller Foundation has very close ties to the WEF, which is itself encouraging farmers to embrace “climate-smart” methods in order to make the “transition to net-zero, nature-positive food systems by 2030”. The WEF is also a big believer in the need to drastically reduce cattle farming and meat consumption and switch to “alternative proteins”. Arguably the most influential public-private organisation specifically “dedicated to transforming our global food system” is the EAT-Lancet Commission, which is largely modelled around the Davos “multistakeholderist” approach. This is based on the premise that global policymaking should be shaped by a wide range of unelected “stakeholders”, such as academic institutions and multinational corporations, working hand-in-glove with governments. This network, cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, consists of UN agencies, world-leading universities, and corporations such as Google and Nestlé. EAT’s founder and president, Gunhild Stordalen, a Norwegian philanthropist who is married to one of the country’s richest men, has described her intention to organise a “Davos for food”. EAT’s work was initially supported by the World Health Organization, but in 2019 the WHO withdrew its endorsement after Gian Lorenzo Cornado, Italy’s ambassador and permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, questioned the scientific basis for the dietary regime being pushed by EAT — which is focused on promoting plant-based foods and excluding meat and other animal-based foods. Cornado argued that “a standard diet for the whole planet” that ignores age, sex, health and eating habits “has no scientific justification at all” and “would mean the destruction of millenary healthy traditional diets which are a full part of the cultural heritage and social harmony in many nations”. Perhaps more important, said Cornado, is the fact that the dietary regime advised by the commission “is also nutritionally deficient and therefore dangerous to human health” and “would certainly lead to economic depression, especially in developing countries”. He also raised concerns that “the total or nearly total elimination of foods of animal origin” would destroy cattle farming and many other activities related to the production of meat and dairy products. Despite these concerns, raised by a leading member of the world’s top public health body and shared by a network representing 200 million small-scale farmers in 81 countries, EAT continues to play a central role in the global push for the radical transformation of food systems. At the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit, which originated from a partnership between the WEF and the UN Secretary-General, Stordalen was given a leading role. SUGGESTED READING George Monbiot’s farming fantasies BY JOHN-LEWIS STEMPEL This complete blurring of the boundaries between the public and the private-corporate spheres in the agricultural and food sectors is also happening in other areas — with Bill Gates standing somewhere in the middle. Alongside healthcare, agriculture is the main focus of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which finances several initiatives whose stated aim is to increase food security and promote sustainable farming, such as Gates Ag One, CGIAR and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. Civil society organisations, however, have accused the Foundation of using its influence to promote multinational corporate interests in the Global South and to push for ineffective (but very profitable) high-tech solutions which have largely failed to increase global food production. Nor are Gates’s “sustainable” agricultural activities limited to developing countries. As well as investing in plant-based protein companies, such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, Gates has been buying huge amounts of farmland in the US, to the point of becoming the biggest private owner of farmland in the country. The problem with the globalist trend he embodies is obvious: ultimately, small and medium-scale farming is more sustainable than large-scale industrial farming, as it is typically associated with greater biodiversity and the protection of landscape features. Small farms also provide a whole range of other public goods: they help to maintain lively rural and remote areas, preserve regional identities, and offer employment in regions with fewer job opportunities. But most importantly, small farms feed the world. A 2017 study found that the “peasant food web” — the diverse network of small-scale producers disconnected from Big Agriculture — feeds more than half of the world’s population using only 25% of the world’s agricultural resources. Traditional farming, though, is suffering an unprecedented attack. Small and medium-scale farmers are being subjected to social and economic conditions in which they simply cannot survive. Peasant farms are disappearing at an alarming rate across Europe and other regions, to the benefit of the world’s food oligarchs — and all this is being done in the name of sustainability. At a time when almost a billion people around the world are still affected by hunger, the lesson of the Dutch farmers could not be more urgent, or inspiring. For now, at least, there is still time to resist the Great Food Reset.

Germany cutting back meat production to fight ‘global warming’ – To reduce all livestock on German farms by 50%

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/11/21/germany-cutting-back-meat-production-to-fight-global-warming-n512518 By JAZZ SHAW Germany is still caught up in the demands of the climate change lobby to reduce its carbon footprint drastically in the coming years. One part of this initiative, similar to calls we’ve seen from activists in the United States, was a mandate to reduce all livestock on German farms by 50%. Farmers have been protesting the decision in the same way they recently did in the Netherlands this summer, but the initiative is moving forward beginning this year. Now, to the great surprise of nobody who has been paying attention, the German Meat Industry Association has reported that the country will be facing a severe meat shortage by the time spring arrives and consumers should expect prices to skyrocket, potentially doubling in some cases. It would appear that some people in the German government have never heard of something called the law of supply and demand. But at least they’re going to defeat global warming, right? (Financial Trends) Die Welt, citing the German Meat Industry Association (VDF), reported this week that within the next four to six months Germany will face a meat shortage, and prices will skyrocket. Hubert Kelliger, a VDF board member and head of group sales at meat seller Westfleisch said, “In four, five, six months we will have gaps on the shelves.” Pork is expected to experience the worst shortages. The issues in meat supply are due to Berlin insisting on reducing the numbers of livestock by 50% to reduce global warming emissions. Experts are warning this policy will result in mass shutdown of meat-producing companies, and that will produce a 40% rise in the price of meat. Shooting that large of a hole in the supply chain is projected to produce a cascade of negative effects. The anticipated shift will result in more than just the price of pork and beef going through the roof. German markets will have to rely more heavily on imported meat, driving costs up further while improving the economies of their neighbors that continue with normal ranching. But on top of that, the domestic supply of natural fertilizer will be cut in half. This is projected to lead to reductions in the volume of vegetables that will be produced. The lack of natural fertilizers (i.e. manure) will force farmers to switch to more expensive artificial fertilizers. As a bonus to all of this badness and madness, the artificial fertilizers require the use of large amounts of ammonia (which is converted to urea), and all of that ammonia is produced via a process that requires the burning of significant amounts of natural gas, thereby negating much of the carbon reduction goals that are driving this decision. So to sum all of this up, in its efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, Germany will bankrupt many of its farmers, have less meat available for consumers who will be paying nearly twice as much for it, and they’ll significantly increase the amount of fossil fuels they burn. And all of this will be happening at a time when German consumers are already struggling with high rates of inflation and rising prices. Also, they will be much more dependent on imports from other countries, so any disruptions in the supply chain will hit them all the harder. Didn’t the Germans notice what happened when they tried to shut down fossil fuels and their nuclear power plants? Some of them had the nerve to seem surprised when they were forced to begin turning out the lights and warnings were issued about people potentially freezing to death this winter. I find it difficult to have too much sympathy for Germany at this point. The war in Ukraine and the resultant rejection of Russian oil and gas has certainly produced undesirable results in that country. But these climate initiatives are only adding to their misery on top of the anticipated shortages. How many self-inflicted wounds are German voters willing to put up with before they start voting all of the climate crazies out of office?

Dutch Farmers mass protest with tractors against regulations that will reduce farms and food

https://joannenova.com.au/2022/07/dutch-farmers-mass-protest-with-tractors-against-regulations-that-will-reduce-farms-and-food/ By Jo Nova Don’t wait for your government Newspeak channel to tell you On Twitter #Netherlands, massive protests are underway. Farmers have been told to shut farms to reduce nitrogen emissions and they’ve taken to the streets. (It’s not clear if this is purely about fertilizer runoff, or climate change as well.) The word is that supermarket shelves are emptying fast, roads are blocked, but that 75% of the public generally support the farmers and are joining in on foot in some places. Farmers are dumping hay bales in the streets and spraying manure on government offices. There are claims (with footage) that the Dutch government has brought in armored vehicles and is using tear gas. Some video allegedly shows masked police zero in on single peaceful protestors and pull them out. Express.UK Now ANOTHER crisis hits EU! Hundreds of tractors block the German/Netherlands border FARMERS in the Netherlands have staged a huge protest with thousands of tractors lining up to block the German/Netherlands border in campaign against the government’s controversial nitrogen policy. Protestors demonstrated in front of several public buildings with manure and slurry after politicians voted on proposals to slash emissions of damaging pollutants, a plan which could force farmers to cut their livestock herds or stop working altogether. Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s Government says the emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, which livestock produce, must be drastically cut back close to nature areas, which are part of a network of protected habitats for endangered plants and wildlife stretching across the EU. Dutch farmers turned out in their thousands to speak out against the World Economic Forum (WEF) climate change policies of their government.   Dutch Netherlands Farmers Protest Flat White, The Spectator How the ‘green’ EU starves the world There’s a food crisis brewing, but you wouldn’t know it with the way the European bureaucracy is behaving. Dutch farmers – who sit as the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world and largest meat exporter in Europe – have brought the Netherlands to a standstill, protesting against Climate Change regulations. The newly elected government has set up a 55-60 per cent emissions goal by 2030, 70 per cent by 2035, and 80 per cent at 2040. To meet these arbitrary climate targets, they have created a self-inflicted disaster that will see the government drag its agricultural sector up the temple stairs, tear it to bits, and let whatever bloody stumps are left to tumble down the steps for the pleasure of the United Nations climate gods. Farms which have been feeding the world for hundreds of years are going to be unceremoniously shut and their owners ruined because a couple of bureaucrats decided they didn’t like the nitrogen and ammonia emissions produced by growing food. The press have attempted to demonise farmers for defying the EU’s virtuous green push – but the Dutch people aren’t listening, with support for farmers still over 75 per cent. ….             h/t Tonyb, another Ian. 10 out of 10 based on 94 ratings

Protesting The Non-Crisis Nitrogen ‘Crisis’ In The Netherlands

  https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39242/ By William M. Briggs On the Fourth of July, a group of angry Dutch farmers and fishermen, presumably dressed as colorful Frisians, and in the grip of angry exuberance, burnt bales of hay on roads, and blocked up highways with tractors and farm equipment, shutting down traffic throughout the country. Ports and borders were stopped up. As fun as that was, it doesn’t beat this:   This was all in protest of the government’s declaration that nitrogen is a “crisis“, and so threatening to confiscate farms to “solve” the “crisis.” Prediction: Later, it will be said to be a coincidence when the government eventually disposes of the confiscated farms by selling them to rich people. What makes it all funny is that—sit down for this—there is no nitrogen “crisis” in the Netherlands. “Briggs, how do you know there is no nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands, when Experts there have declared that one exists?” Thank you for that question. Here’s how. 1. Nitrogen Critical Loads: Critical Reflections on Past Experiments, Ecological Endpoints, and Uncertainties, a peer-reviewed review paper by (chemist) Jaap Hanekamp and Yours Truly. Abstract: Nitrogen Critical Loads (NCL), as purported ecological dose-response outcomes for nitrogen deposition from anthropogenic sources, play a central role in environmental policies around the world. In the Netherlands, these NCL are used to assess, via calculations using the model AERIUS, to what extent NCL are exceeded for different habitats as a result of different sources such as industry, agriculture, traffic. NCL are, however, not well defined, and are subject to hitherto unrecognized forms of uncertainty. We will address this with reference to a number of key studies that forms the basis for several NCL. We will subsequently propose amendments that could be applicable to future nitrogen studies and their enhanced relevancy in decision making. Nitrogen “critical” loads are one of the key metrics the government and Experts use to declare a “crisis.” Here’s a an executive summary letter on that paper (same journal; full pdf). And here’s a popular article on that paper. 2. The model AERIUS/OPS model, mentioned above, and another metric use to declare a “crisis”, is not good. Here’s one representative picture from a new paper we are working on which assess that model (the picture is not ours, but from an experiment to test the model): Y-axis are predictions of SF6, and the X-axis are the observations, at some distance from a power plant. That look like a good prediction to you? To me neither. 3. National land grabbing or the anti-politics of nitrogen policy. (This is from Hanekamp’s blog, written in an obscure language that no one of my acquaintance will admit to knowing, so what you see is a machine translation.) As part of the “crisis”, areas designated as “sensitive” to nitrogen must be protected by being surrounded by naturea areas. “A tiny sliver of 3.84 hectares near the Frisian coast, H7140A (vibrated peat), has been designated as nitrogen-sensitive…Despite the small surface area of this habitat, a protection strip of no less than 28,000 hectares in total is deemed necessary by ministers” to form this protection zone. Would you call this overkill? Or even overdreven? So would I. 4. Another (brief) review paper by the same Definitive Duo: Outlining A New Method To Quantify Uncertainty In Nitrogen Critical Loads. Abstract: We highlight deficiencies and improvements of a nitrogen critical load model. An original model using logistic regression augmented observations with fictitious data. We replace that with actual data, and show how to incorporate uncertainty in nitrogen measurement into the modeling process. In the end, however, we show a basic logistic regression model has irremovable deficiencies, giving positive probability of harmful effects of nitrogen even when no nitrogen is present. That last line is amazing, ain’t it? 5. Another peer-reviewed beauty: A volatile discourse – reviewing aspects of ammonia emissions, models and atmospheric concentrations in The Netherlands. (Journal link.) From the Abstract: In the Netherlands, there is a vigorous debate on ammonia emissions…We show that uncertainty in published results is substantial. This uncertainty is under- or even unreported, and as a result, data in national emission inventories are overconfident by a wide margin. Next, we demonstrate that the statistical handling of data on atmospheric ammonia concentrations to produce national yearly atmospheric averages is oversimplified and consequently atmospheric concentrations are substantially overestimated. Finally, we show that the much-discussed ‘ammonia gap’ – either the discrepancy between calculated and measured atmospheric ammonia concentrations or the difference observed between estimated NH3 emission levels and those indicated by atmospheric measurements – is an expression of the widespread overconfidence placed in atmospheric modelling. Over-certainty abounds. And is embraced by people who love to yell “Crisis!” 6. Another paper: Uncertainty in the MAN Data Calibration & Trend Estimates. Abstract quote: “We investigate trend identification in the LML and MAN atmospheric ammonia data. The signals are mixed in the LML data, with just as many positive, negative, and no trends found. The start date for trend identification is crucial, with the trends claimed changing sign and significance depending on the start date.” These stations measure ammonia (one of the forms of nitrogen in the “crisis”) in the Netherlands. 7+ Response to van Pul, van Zanten and Wichink Kruit, and Comment on Goedhart and Huijsmans (2017) That’s enough, but we have others, and more to come, too. Soon. Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Republican Lawmakers Should Think Twice Before Buying Into Biden’s Green Energy Fantasy

https://dailycaller.com/2024/06/10/opinion-republican-lawmakers-should-think-twice-before-buying-into-bidens-green-energy-fantasy-craig-rucker/ By CRAIG RUCKER – PRESIDENT, COMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROW China, India and dozens of other countries still depend heavily on coal to generate electricity, power their economies and ensure people decent living standards. That this is true in the developing world is news to no one. But even in Europe the tide is turning. (RELATED: DAVID BLACKMON: Supreme Court Has A Chance To Torch One Of The Left’s Favorite Legal Tactics) Take Germany, for instance, which has been reactivating its lignite-fired power plants to help it through the winters in recent years. In the Netherlands, angry citizens elected a new government that has ended mandates for heat pumps, subsidies for electric vehicles and edicts forcing farmers to kill off livestock and shut down farms. So, the now-ousted politicians claim they were “leading efforts” to avert a “climate crisis.” The Dutch climate revolt is reverberating across Europe. (RELATED: Sleeping MAGA Giant Of Europe Finally Awakens, And The Global Left Could Not Be More Terrified) However, President Joe Biden remains determined to impose still more climate and energy rules that will cost trillions of dollars — even though polls consistently show Americans are not willing to pay even $10 per month more on their electric bills to combat climate change. Why, then, do some Republicans choose to hype climate alarm and pursue a green energy fantasy? Republican Gov. Doug Burgum wants North Dakota to sequester carbon dioxide from petroleum operations and take other steps to become carbon-neutral by the end of 2030. A self-described young conservative wants the Republican Party to “lead the fight against climate change.” Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia still supports a huge 176-turbine wind project off his state’s Atlantic coast. This is pathetic for a party that boasts that it is pro-economic growth. Worse, vital facts get left by the wayside. Energy analysts have known for a long time that the cost of replacing coal and natural-gas generators with wind and solar installations will likely add hundreds of dollars to monthly electric bills —and cause enormous U.S. and global wildlife, environmental, human health and other problems. Wind and sunshine are available at levels needed to generate electricity only 7-10 hours per day, on average, at totally unpredictable times. On the hottest and coldest days, there’s often no wind. Wintertime sunshine in northern latitudes is too weak to generate much electricity. America’s electricity needs are steadily increasing, and green energy will more likely lead to rationing than abundance. Coal, gas and nuclear power plants can be built close to cities, factories and data centers, with short transmission lines to ensure nearly 24/7 electricity. They provide reliable, affordable electricity for 40 years or more. Wind and solar installations must generally be far away from energy consumers, requiring hundreds of miles of new transmission lines. They last 15-25 years, at most. Because they are weather-dependent and intermittent, they must be backed up by coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric for windless, sunless periods. Reliability of U.S. wind turbine electricity generation in 2023 was one-third of its rated capacity. If a turbine’s nameplate capacity was 12 megawatts, it generated only 4 MW. If a big wind installation was to provide enough power for 150,000 homes, it generated only enough for 50,000. If communities needed electricity 8,760 hours per year, they got it only 2,920 hours–in spurts, at totally random, unpredictable times. If they didn’t have sufficient backup generation, they got blackouts. Sufficient backup without fossil fuels or reliable energy might work, but would require massive battery storage. This is not economical. Batteries for backup electricity storage nationwide and balancing an increasingly complicated and fragile U.S. grid would likely cost up to $290-trillion, depending on which hourly electricity-generation data and other estimates are used. Going to a completely wind-solar-battery economy also requires upgraded national, local, neighborhood and household electric lines, transformers and other systems. More trillions of dollars. Extracting and processing raw materials to build all this equipment will require thousands of new mines in America and throughout the world. Just meeting today’s EV and other copper needs–without adding the total green energy transition–means the world would have to mine 115% more copper by 2050 than in all of human history up to 2018. Add in all the other raw materials, and the mining requirements become astronomical — a dozen times more materials than if we’d just build more gas and nuclear plants. Families, factories, hospitals, schools, businesses and communities cannot afford the skyrocketing electricity prices the green energy transition would impose. America cannot afford the land and wildlife impacts. Our planet cannot afford the mostly overseas human rights violations, fossil fuel requirements, or land, air and water pollution from all the mining, processing and manufacturing. Legislators — especially Republicans — must resist the trend to be politically-correct on the climate issue. Instead, they must lead the way in analyzing these mind-boggling costs, explaining them to voters and bring sanity to the fearmongering used to justify the rush to wind and solar alternatives that are anything but clean and green. Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).

Tell the world, the Dutch tractor protests and a War on Net Zero won

Tell the world, the Dutch tractor protests and a War on Net Zero won By Jo Nova Six months after Geert Wilders won the Dutch election he has finally negotiated an agreement with a few minor parties to form government and the unthinkable has happened. The centre-of-the-road conservatives (referred to as “far right extremists”) got elected to unwind the worst excesses of the totalitarian left. Henceforth, the forced farm reclamations will stop, mandated heat pumps are out, electric car subsidies are going and in a brave scientific move, no one will be culling livestock to change the weather. The Netherlands won’t have to pursue stronger environmental policies than the rest of the EU so their leaders can show off at cocktail parties and get jobs with the UN. The Netherlands will still be tied to crazy EU rules, but those elections are coming next month. And official government ministers are so much harder to ignore in EU negotiations. The landscape has changed. The Telegraph in the UK gets the message: The Tories should go to war on Net Zero. This applies everywhere else too. Tony Abbott didn’t win a 90 seat landslide victory in Australia by trying to do half a carbon tax. He won because he said he would Axe the Tax. (And Stop the Boats.) The political candidate who goes to war on Stupid Plans has the freedom to point out the all the stupidity. The weaker man with a halfway plan is still agreeing with the witchcraft, he’s just suggesting a different spell. No wonder it doesn’t sell. To arrange the deal Wilders gave up the Prime Ministership (a win no doubt for the namecalling mud slingers), but he appears to be the one in charge nonetheless. We hope he gets his day… h/t to NetZeroWatch Dutch farmers force heat pumps about-turn Meike Eijsberg London and James Crisp, The Telegraph The Netherlands will tear up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps as part of a war on net zero by Geert Wilders and the Dutch farmers’ party. Six months after his shock election victory, Mr Wilders this week struck an agreement to usher in a Right-wing coalition government of four parties. “We are writing history,” he said as he announced the programme for the new government. The new coalition marks the first time that a party focused on the interests of the agricultural sector has got into power in the Netherlands. Earlier this year, mass farmers’ protests swept Europe. The coalition pact includes pledges to reverse green policies introduced under the previous government to hit EU climate targets, including compulsory buyouts of polluting farms. It also plans to end subsidies for electric cars in 2025 and rejects an EU demand that the Dutch reduce livestock numbers to cut pollution. The Tories should go to war on net zero excess Editorial, The Telegraph But now even Western countries are starting to turn against the worst excesses of the green movement. The new Dutch coalition has released its programme for government, and at the heart of it are a swathe of pro-consumer, pro-energy security policies, reversing some of the bizarre environmental schemes introduced by its predecessors. Among them was a programme to compulsorily purchase farms to meet EU climate targets. The result was a farmers’ revolt and a new insurgent political party. The coalition agreement tears up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps, and scraps an obligation that the Netherlands should pursue a “more ambitious environment policy” than the rest of Europe. Young voters are shifting right and breaking “taboos” Geert Wilders party did better among 18 – 35 year olds than among some older groups. If all ages matched the younger vote his party would have won four more seats. At Politico writers are worried that trends like this, which are also seen in Portugul and France mean the “taboos against voting for populist anti-immigration parties is fading”. Which begs the question of who decided that was taboo in the first place? Their biggest fear is that even young voters are breaking out of their educational pens. They paint this as a devious “far right” opportunity, instead of what it really is, the young rebelling against a lifetime of propaganda. The old jargon and namecalling formula to bully the workers into submission isn’t working any more. Geert Wilders turned all corners of Dutch Society into far right voters By Hanne Cokelaere and Eva Hartog,  Politico Across Europe, far right parties are advancing with support from young — and first time — voters. Despite being one of the EU’s wealthiest countries, the Netherlands’ shortage of affordable housing has become a key concern. Amid rising prices, many have an increasingly cynical outlook on life. Unlike their parents and grandparents, this generation feels less restricted by party loyalties, making them more of a wild card and therefore an attractive pool of new voters for anti-establishment candidates. “The older voter, who was still loyal, is dying; younger voters are going in all directions,” said Josse de Voogd, a Dutch researcher who has made electoral geography his specialty. For far-right parties, that presents an opportunity. Wilders’ success took many by surprise, but it is indicative of a broader trend: The taboo of voting for populist, anti-immigration parties is fading. In the June EU election, the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy group is projected to reap the electoral benefits of increasingly broad support; also among young voters. In Portugal, exit polls from the March election suggested that under-30s accounted for approximately 25 percent of those who voted for the far-right Chega party. Young voters are looking for a strong leader and few men are as strong as Geert Wilders — the man who received countless death threats and lives under permanent guard, but keeps going. It is easy to imagine the new Prime Minister (whoever that is) living in the shadow of the real leader, the man who takes risks.

Watch: Morano on Rebel TV: ‘Farmers aren’t taking it anymore’ – Update on EU farmers’ protest

Rebel TV – The Ezra Levant Show – Broadcast Feb 29, 2024  ‘Farmers aren’t taking it anymore’: Climate Depot founder gives update on EU farmers’ protest ‘Europeans probably wake up every day and thank God that Justin Trudeau isn’t their leader, because right now they would be declared domestic terrorists under a first-ever invoked Emergencies Act in Europe,’ stated Marc Morano. On The Ezra Levant Show, Ezra asked Marc Morano, Founder of Climate Depot, to explain what’s going on in Europe, as we’ve been seeing images of farmers protesting in creative ways, such as dumping manure on politicians’ buildings. Additionally, he requested an update on the farmers in Belgium, since it reminds him of the vibes from the Canadian truckers. “Europeans probably wake up every day and thank God that Justin Trudeau isn’t their leader, because right now they would be declared ‘domestic terrorists’ under a first-ever invoked emergencies act in Europe,” Morano replied.  “They would be facing not having access to their own money, having their insurance cancelled. So the good news is Justin Trudeau’s not there to crack down on them. That’s the first point I wanted to make.” Morano added that what’s happening in Europe right now with this farmer rebellion is what he “wished had happened back in March and April of 2020” with the general public standing against the public health tyranny that was COVID, lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and the cancellation of weddings and funerals. “The farmers aren’t taking it anymore. And what they’re not taking is the net-zero agenda that was born out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. And then, of course, moving forward all the way to the UN Paris Agreement,” he added. In many countries, politicians agree to UN climate summits, but then these agreements become law at home, forcing farmers to reduce emissions, Morano explained. He also emphasised that these are “climate compliance costs, meaning small family-run generational farms can’t afford the cost to absorb all of these costs and new ways and new technology that’s supposed to capture the nitrogen. And what ends up happening is they’re facing extinction.” He continued: The big boys come in—the billionaires, the equity assets, the big agribusiness corporations—which is exactly what the forces of the United Nations/World Economic Forum want because they can control them. And this is what happened in the Netherlands. They were facing 10,000 small to medium family-run farms, which had been operating for generations, being shut down. The farmers in the Netherlands fought back, and I think the farmers in the rest of Europe watched what happened. The farmers in the Netherlands formed their own political party, the BBB. They’re now a governing coalition and they’re stopping the net-zero madness. So in Belgium, France, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and at the headquarters of the EU in Brussels, they are letting it be known that they are not going to allow the net-zero agenda to shut them down. And they’re trying to move nitrogen down the same pedestal as they put CO2. WATCH: 'Farmers aren't taking it anymore': Climate Depot founder gives update on EU farmers' protest "Europeans probably wake up every day and thank God that Justin Trudeau isn't their leader,' says Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot). MORE: https://t.co/8CaeoM5w6o. — Rebel News Canada (@RebelNews_CA) March 1, 2024

Watch: Morano on Canadian’s Rebel TV on how Net-Zero ideology & big government-corporate collusion are rationing our lives: ‘It’s happening in transportation, it’s happening in food, and of course, it’s happening in energy.’

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_dutch_farmers_protests_made_for_an_anti_net_zero_success_story_but_theres_more_to_be_done The Dutch farmers’ protests made for an anti-net-zero success story— but there’s more to be done Marc Morano explained that the purpose of net-zero ideology is to create big government-corporate collusion: ‘It’s happening in transportation, it’s happening in food, and of course, it’s happening in energy.’ On last night’s episode of The Ezra Levant Show, guest host Sheila Gunn Reid spoke with Marc Morano, publisher of ClimateDepot.com about the success of the farmers’ protest after the EU removed ‘green regulations’ that sparked civil unrest. Marc told Sheila about the net-zero agenda, and what happened in the Netherlands when the government tried to force it on the people: Just overall, net zero means the intentional collapse or severe restriction of energy, food, transportation, and freedom of movement. In the case of food, they’re looking for severe rationing of food. They’re going after nitrogen-based fertilizer which they say creates nitrous oxide, which is a warming agent. So that means cutting back on fertilizer means cutting back on high-yield agriculture, which in short means cutting back on plentiful food, which has been part of the Green Revolution that’s fed billions throughout the world, particularly since the 1960s. So in the case of the Netherlands, they were facing up to 10,000 family-run small and medium farms being decimated by the quote climate compliance costs of net zero, and the farmers didn’t take it. They brought the tractors out, they blocked highways, they went to the country’s capital and they went beyond that. They formed their own political party, the BBB, and they are part of a governing coalition now in the Netherlands stopping this. This has inspired and this is the success story of the year of the climate movement right now. Sheila responded: Like there’s just so much of the environment movement that is disgusting from what they want me to eat, to what they want me to do with my toenail clippings. Like, it is gross. And I’m a farmer, but more than being a farmer, I’m also a conservationist. I’m the sixth generation on the land where I live. I have a real tough time taking advice from people who don’t ever get off the pavement telling me that they know what’s best for my land. Marc explained the true goals of the net-zero agenda and why big corporations are backing it: They want this because they want to control the food supply when you get rid of all these small farmers, what’s gonna happen to them? Either they become strip malls or you’re going to have the big conglomerates, equity asset firms, the big corporations coming in and taking over. We had this happen with the US fracking during lockdowns with a huge drop in demand. We had a lot of smaller companies and landowners releasing and then you have instantly the big guys come in. This is why Exxon Mobil has always supported carbon taxes, has always supported UN Paris climate agreements with the UN because they can afford the climate compliance costs and they have the best lawyers and lobbyists. And so this is kind of like the COVID lockdowns [goal] to crush all the small businesses and the mom and pop and the small operators and consolidate to a huge corporate conglomerate that’s easy to control, and you can have great corporate-government collusion. It’s happening in transportation, it’s happening in food, and of course, it’s happening in energy.

For more results click below