CO2 emissions must be significantly reduced

Few subjects have as much knowledge available as climate change. Nevertheless, it sometimes seems that this knowledge is starting to take on the status of something you can vote on!

“The nitrogen emissions from the agricultural company seriously harm biodiversity” Agree or disagree??

As much as we advocate that scientists and politicians keep the conversation open with climate deniers and are empathetic towards the farmers; bargaining with irrefutable truths should not be the price that politicians are willing to pay.

Greenhouse gases?

Global warming is directly related to the emission of CO2 and other gases1, collectively referred to as greenhouse gases. 76% of the warming over a period of 100 years is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion, land use (deforestation, plowing) and industrial processes (62, 11 and 3 percent of total warming, respectively). Methane (CH4) comes from livestock, combustion of biomass and rice fields (16% of total warming), nitrous oxide (NO2) and ammonia (NH3) comes from fertilizers (6%). Fluorinated gases come from refrigerants and industrial processes (2 %).

The consequences of global warming

The consequences of global warming are visible in many places: fierce wildfires, hurricanes followed by floods, crop failures due to excessive heat. In cities, the main problem is the development of heat islands, alternating with storms and prolonged downpours, which the often-outdated sewer system1 cannot cope with. The consequences have been exacerbated considerably by the unwise way in which living space has been arranged, such as the building of houses in places with a high risk of flooding and the 'petrification' of large parts of the urban area.

Nitrogen

Nitrogen enters the atmosphere in the form of ammonia (NH3) and nitrous oxide (NOx). Part of it falls. If a certain concentration of precipitated nitrogen – the critical deposition value – is exceeded, this will lead to a disruption of the mineral balance in the soil, greatly reduced crop vitality, a higher frequency of diseases, disruption of the food chain and ultimately a reduction in animal and plant species.

Measure critical deposition values differently

This is an important discussion point, which may lead to an opening. According to many, the critical deposition value is not a good way to measure damage to nature. The government is therefore looking for an alternative measuring method that is acceptable to everyone. A different measuring method may lead, at least temporarily, to a somewhat greater tolerance with regard to nitrogen emissions. As a result, construction activity may be allowed again to give farmers some space.

Incidentally, the damage to nature has already been demonstrated many times. Biodiversity in Natura 2000 areas is rapidly declining; oak forests die, nettles and blackberries overgrow the heath. So it is incontrovertible that emissions must be reduced.