NOS . News•
Nature organizations do not intend to give the treasury any space tomorrow in their nitrogen consultation, led by Johann Remix. Last Friday, the LTO, among others, sat down at a table with Remkes and the farmers’ organization is calling for major adjustments to nitrogen plans. But if it were up to nature’s most important nitrogen organization – Mobilization for the Environment – these adjustments would not be made.
“We just have to get over it,” says Johann Wollenbrück, Chairman of the MOB Board of Directors. “Livestock numbers simply have to be drastically reduced, a large number of farmers have to stop, and the farmers who remain have to switch to a sustainable system. There is no alternative.”
Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Nature and the Environment and Natuurmonumenten said last week to news hour That goals cannot be improved. “We’ve come to consider a move, but we’re not sitting at the table to compromise,” said Andy Balmain, director of Greenpeace.
Lawsuits as leverage
MOB is of course not responsible; Ultimately, the Cabinet will have to make the decision. But MOB and a number of other natural organizations have important leverage: lawsuits. In recent years they have carried hundreds of them, and oftentimes judges have proven them right.
It is precisely because of these lawsuits that decisions must be made now and the government has to make painful decisions. Only if less nitrogen is emitted in the coming decades will nature be able to recover and nitrogen space will be created again for housing, for example.
The government’s plans are ambitious: 50% less nitrogen emissions by 2030. Then 70% of the nitrogen-sensitive natural areas must be covered with less nitrogen so that the area can recover. Nature organizations would like to see more ambition, but are somewhat excited about the plans now in place.
Only: There is no confidence that those plans will actually be implemented. Vollenbroek: “First look, then believe. So for now we will continue to litigate. First, we must reduce ammonia and nitrogen oxide emissions from industry, transportation and agriculture, and only then will we stop litigating. And we will solve ourselves.”
The nitrogen law passed by the House is already a huge compromise.
farmers organizations last week It is precisely for the remix that they expect to weaken the plans. According to them, nitrogen emissions can be reduced, but not by 50 percent. The plans should also only be carried out later and there should certainly not be the question of the forced acquisition of the farmer.
Remkes and the government must navigate two parties that do not want to give up space. Not farmers, but certainly not nature regulators either.
“There’s no place, no,” says Fallenbrook furiously. Nitrogen’s Law who passed by the room It really is a huge compromise. It’s going very slowly. You will not, after you have made a treaty, break that treaty, open it, and negotiate again, while nature is on hold.”
Also check out this nitrogen crunch timeline:
From court decision to highway action, nitrogen crisis timeline
“Lifelong zombie fanatic. Hardcore web practitioner. Thinker. Music expert. Unapologetic pop culture scholar.”
The Bitcoin Treasure Hunt and the Chinese Panic
Is the end of Rutte IV in sight? Who still believes in this government?
Where DSM and Shell lose their crown, Heijmans becomes regal | Economy