The threats to environment and climate policies around the world, posed mainly by the spread of populist movements in Europe and the absurd ideas of President Donald Trump in USA, may slow the pace of action but cannot stop it. The most important mechanism that helps in this area is the presence of proper legislation and laws that have been put in place in recent years, allowing violators to be brought to justice. This applies to individuals as well as companies and governments.
Just as the Dutch government was unable to evade European obligations to reduce nitrogen emissions after agreeing to them, it will not be easy for Trump administration to pass its suicidal measures against the environment and climate. It will face countless legal suits, whether at the level of the central government or the 50 states, knowing that those enjoy, in countless areas, wide freedom in decision-making. While commitment to environmental and climate agreements and treaties is voluntary, national and local laws are mandatory, and those who violate them are subject to penalties.
Some political parties who joined the Dutch government coalition promised farmers to ease restrictions on nitrogen emissions, which are mainly caused by certain types of chemical fertilizers and livestock manure, coming especially from cows. Their goal was to appease some groups of farmers to win their votes, contradicting science as well as violating the principles of sustainability.
The Dutch branch of Greenpeace launched a major national campaign under the slogan "No Future Without Nature." The organization went on to file a lawsuit against the Dutch government for not taking the necessary steps to reduce nitrogen levels in the Netherlands. After thorough investigations and deliberations with scientists, experts, universities, local government bodies and representatives of civil society organizations, the court found conclusive evidence that large parts of Dutch nature have been seriously degraded by nitrogen, in addition to its effects in accelerating climate change. Based on this, the court ruled that the government must implement, without delay, the laws it had put in place to halve nitrogen emissions in the most sensitive locations by 2030. The ruling is not only moral, but it also obliges the government to pay fines in the millions starting in 2030 if the targets are not met. The popular support that the strong and clear ruling has received prevented the state from immediate appeal, because its chances of success are almost non-existent.
Greenpeace was supported in the lawsuit by Dutch agricultural organizations committed to preserving the environment, representing thousands of “green farmers,” who oppose the intensive farming trends of industrial agricultural companies, and some major investors. “Green farmers” believe that the future of agriculture depends on the continued health of nature and the balance between its components. They describe the practice of large companies and farms, which the government sought to appease in order to gain their votes and favour, as slaughtering a gold-laying hen in order to quickly obtain what is in its belly. While this savage practice might bring immediate higher returns, it leads to the loss of sustainable source of livelihood, just as advocates of “intensive agriculture” destroy healthy nature to drain its resources.
Discussing agriculture and climate, we recall that some governments and greedy investors have taken the need for food security as an excuse to bypass the restrictions and conditions necessary to maintain the balance and regeneration of natural resources, not to mention avoiding climate disasters. Under the cover of achieving food security, major projects in the Arab region have neglected the issue of water security, which requires choosing crops that are suitable for the specific types of soil and characteristics of water sources, besides using water-saving irrigation methods, instead of only focusing on the financial income from profitable agricultural crops. Accounting for the cost of losing non-renewable water and soil degradation, we arrive at a huge loss that cannot be compensated for by any immediate profits.
Large companies had cultivated vast areas in barren Arab lands, depleting non-renewable groundwater for irrigation, again under the pretext of food security. However, governments bought crops at heavily subsidized prices that were several times higher than those pf the global markets, which encouraged companies to increase production above what was needed, thus benefiting from the price incentives. All of this was done at the expense of the deterioration the basic pillars of water security and disregard of nature health, with benefits limited to major investors, not farmers.
We conclude with the Netherlands, where we started. The current government has tried to promote food security as an essential part of its plan, based on an interpretation that is contrary to reality. It intended to delude people that placing restrictions on emissions from some types of agricultural crops and limiting numbers of cows and pigs pose a threat to food security. However, this argument quickly fell under the hammer of reality, which is that the Netherlands currently produces several times what its people need of most crops, and thus exports the largest part of it. If it is keen to provide food security for other countries, it should invest in production in those countries, instead of destroying natural habitats to increase local cultivated areas. Food security should not be limited to increasing herds of cows and pigs, which threaten natural habitats and the climate. An alternative is to reduce meat consumption to both enhance human health and preserve the environment, and to shift to other agricultural and economic activities that are less harmful.
I know that my words will not please President Trump, who considers unlimited consumption of beef and processed hamburger as one main components of food security according to the American way. But this does not work in a world threatened by climate change, and swarming with millions of hungry people looking for a piece of bread”- unless the "Trumpian" ultimate solution is to send them all to hell, or exile them to other planets in order to "cleanse" the Earth of them, so that he and his companions can monopolize its bounty.
This madness can only be confronted through international cooperation among sane states, supported by the people, to impose environmental and climate justice alongside human rights.
