New documentary ‘Nitrogen 2000’ exposes the Dutch government’s war on farmers

From LifeSiteNews

Ultimately, the documentary highlights a power struggle where fear and environmental narratives are used to justify land control, leaving farmers marginalized and resources controlled by a select few.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Dutch cattle farmers own 70 percent of Holland, but the government is pushing for a forced buy out of 50 percent of their land, claiming it’s necessary to reduce pollution.
Experts say the move to get rid of farmers isn’t about the environment but, rather, taking control of valuable land.
The government’s computer models, which are used to support its plan to reduce nitrogen by buying up farmland, are based on a flawed assumption that nitrogen migrates from one field to the next.
The push to remove farmers from their land is being driven by NGOs, which are primarily funded by the government, making them government extensions.
A $25 billion government fund, created using taxpayers’ money, has been established to buy farmers’ land; once a farmer sells their land, they’ll be legally prohibited from establishing a farm anywhere else in Europe.

(Mercola) — Nitrogen 2000 is an important 45-minute documentary on the Dutch farmer struggle of 2019-23. Dutch cattle farmers own 70 percent of Holland, but in 2019, the government began pushing for a forced buyout of 50 percent of their land, claiming it’s necessary to reduce pollution. But for the approximately 60,000 farmers in the Netherlands, agriculture is a way of life, often passed down through the generations – one that’s necessary to supply food for the population.

According to a press release for the film, “Dutch farmers produce the most food per hectare of farmers anywhere, and the Netherlands is the world’s second largest exporter of agricultural products.”

Farms are interwoven into the fabric of their communities, such that “everyone, even if you live in the city like in Amsterdam or in Rotterdam, in a five-minute drive you will see cows, you will see farmland… it’s so ingrained in our society, in our way of life, that farmers are part of our culture. Everyone has someone in their family who was once a farmer,” says political commentator Sietske Bergsma.

But as professor Han Lindeboom, a marine ecologist at Wageningen University & Research, explains in the film, “The government has taken the stance that we have a huge problem with nature and that due to EU regulations we should save nature. And nowadays we want to solve that problem by simply eliminating a large amount of farms.”

The Dutch government claims it needs to nationalize half of cattle farmers’ land – an amount equal to about one-third of Holland – in order to reduce nitrogen, but experts say this plan is seriously flawed.

Is nitrogen really the problem?

Carbon and nitrogen have been declared environmental enemies by officials worldwide, prompting an array of restrictions. The U.N. has stated that nitrogen must be managed in order to save the planet, and nitrogen is described as “one of the most important pollution issues facing humanity.” Nitrogen not only is found in fertilizers, but it also makes up about 70 percent of air and is essential for plant growth.

“The nitrogen is only a problem for a few plants,” Lindeboom explains. “There are certain plants that don’t like it and they disappear. Other plants like it and they appear. So, basically what you’re doing is changing nature.”

“They have declared that nitrogen is the major problem,” Lindeboom, an adviser to NIOZ, the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, continues in the press release. “Well, I am an expert in nitrogen and I dare to say it is not.” According to Lindeboom, the government’s computer models, which are used to support its plan to buy up farmland, are based on a flawed assumption that nitrogen migrates from one field to the next.

The EU is also the site of the largest network of protected areas globally, an area known as Natura 2000, which covers 18 percent of EU land. In Holland alone, there are 162 Natura 2000 areas. In 118 of them, it’s said there are organisms living that don’t like too much nitrogen.

“In 2021, the European Union’s Natura 2000 network released a map of areas in the Netherlands that are now protected against nitrogen emissions. Any Dutch farmer who operates their farm within 5 kilometers of a Natura 2000 protected area would now need to severely curtail their nitrogen output, which in turn would limit their production,” Roman Balmakov, Epoch Times reporter and host of “Facts Matter,” says.

Government forcing out farmers

Many Dutch farmers are now facing the loss of their farms over the controversial nitrogen rules. Farmer Jos Block says:

We have a lot of problems with the nitrogen rules because our farm is near to and in Natura 2000. And that is really a problem for us. This is my land. I’m the owner. But this is also a nature land, the Natura 2000. In this area, the government says we need to reduce 95% of the nitrogen that’s coming out of the stables.

But experts, including Lindeboom, say this is “absolutely not necessary to save nature” and the government is “picking on farmers much too much.” Dutch dairy farmer Nynke Koopmans with the Forum for Democracy is among those who believe the nitrogen problem is made up.

“It’s one big lie,” she says. “The nitrogen has nothing to do with environment. It’s just getting rid of farmers.” Another farmer said if new nitrogen rules go into effect, he’d have to reduce his herd of 58 milking cows down to six. Nitrogen scientist Jaap C. Hanekamp, Ph.D., was working for a government committee to study nitrogen, tasked with analyzing the government’s nitrogen model. He told Balmakov:

The whole policy is based on the deposition model about how to deal with nitrogen emissions on nature areas. And I looked at the validation studies and show that the model is actually crap. It doesn’t work. And doesn’t matter. They still continue using it. Which is, in a sense, unsettling. I mean, really, can we do such a thing in terms of policy? Use a model which doesn’t work? It’s never about innovation, it’s always about getting rid of farmers.

The Dutch government has been gradually tightening its grasp on farmers for some time. Every year, farmers must report details about the number of cows they farm and how many they plan to have in the future. The government also dictates what types of crops farmers grow and requires complicated and expensive manure testing for phosphates and ammonia, driving up farmers’ costs and reducing their income.

Government-funded NGOs are lobbying to get rid of farmers

The push to remove farmers from their land is being driven by NGOs, which are primarily funded by the government, making them government extensions. A $25 billion government fund, created using taxpayers’ money, has also been established to buy farmers’ land.

Once a farmer sells their land, they’ll be legally prohibited from establishing a farm anywhere else in Europe. Meanwhile, the NGOs may even end up farming the land once they’ve pushed the farmer out of the picture. According to the film’s press release:

NGOs – namely Dierenbescherming, Varkens in Nood, Greenpeace, Vogelbescherming, Natuurmonumenten – are the primary organizations lobbying for the nitrogen policy. Their budget is funded by the Dutch government. Once a farmer is bought out, the NGOs become custodians of the land and, in some cases, put cows back on the land to manage it.

Commenting on this policy, farmer Bolk said, ‘I do the same as the nature organizations in Holland… I think it’s very strange that a farmer is not allowed to do it but a nature organization can do the same as I do and then there is no nitrogen problem.’

The real agenda, however, may be traced back to the Club of Rome, a think tank that aligned with neo-malthusianism – the idea that an overly large population would decimate resources – and was intending to implement a global depopulation agenda.

“They came up with this incredible document where they actually said, ‘We need a new justification for this all-powerful state,’” international journalist Alex Newman says. “So, the new excuse is going to be because the environment is going to be harmed and because climate is going to hurt us.” Balmakov continues:

I could not believe what I just heard, that world leaders really laid out this globalist plan in plain English in a physical book, way back in 1991. I went on Amazon. And there it was.

‘The First Global Revolution,’ which states, and I quote, ‘In searching for a common enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like, would fit the bill. And therefore, the real enemy is humanity itself.’

In its quest to reduce nitrogen, the Dutch government is targeting farmers, not industry, such as brick factories, which also produce nitrogen to build new houses. The reason, many believe, lies in the land itself.

Is the nitrogen crisis a cover for land control?

Innovative farming methods and changes in food can reduce livestock emissions. But even when farmers have told the government they’d get rid of their cows – just not their land – the government refused.

“Under the guise of democracy and liberalism, they are taking away rights,” political commentator Sietske Bergsma says. “And most people are fine with it because they feel this sort of responsibility – maybe because it’s so ‘progressive’ to care about the climate – so they’re willing to actually sacrifice their own well-being.”

The narrative is based on fear and telling people what they must do in order to be safe. “We’ve paid a really high price for this because we gave up all our freedoms to feel safe,” Bergsma adds. “And obviously this safety is also very fake because you can’t be safe without being free. It’s not about saving the planet. It’s about government control because that’s in effect what is happening.”

Once the farmers are pushed out, globalists suggest eating bugs will protect the planet by eliminating the need for livestock, cutting down on agricultural land use and protecting the environment. The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization also encourages the consumption of insects and insect-based foods, and the momentum to get farmers off their land is continuing to gain steam.

In 2023, the European Commission approved two Dutch schemes to buy out farmers’ land. While some farmers staged protests against the plans to reduce nitrogen emissions, more than 750 Dutch farmers had signed up for the buy-out scheme as of November 2023, with about 3,000 expected to be eligible for the program. Similar programs are also being discussed in Canada, Ireland, and the U.S. But ultimately, as environmental journalist Rypke Zeilmaker explains:

It’s not about nature protection. Only the ones who, in this process, have acquired the most money will have the ruling power. It comes down to control of resources in the hands of the few. Look at the power of the NGOs. Who do they really support? Who’s pumping money into them? It’s always governments and billionaires doing it…

So, this is the relation between government and NGOs. To an extent you can sell the public. You can buy the public opinion… It’s all about fear. It’s about making people fear for the future so that they would agree with policies that, if they are sober, they would never agree with.

Reprinted with permission from Mercola.

Related Topics:#DrJosephMercola #DutchGovernment'sWarOnFarmers #LifeSiteNews #Nitrogen2000 feature

Up Next

Argentina’s new President Javier Milei and his plans to fix a broken economy

Don't Miss

Canada used to punch above its weight, but our defence capacity now seems an impossible dream: Richard Fadden

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections, predicting fossil fuels will dominate well after 2050

Business / 1 hour ago

Trump: Americans to receive $2,000 each from tariff revenue

Housing / 1 hour ago

Trump advancing 50-year mortgage to help more Americans buy homes

Agriculture

Farmers Take The Hit While Biofuel Companies Cash In

Published on November 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Fournier

Canada’s emissions policy rewards biofuels but punishes the people who grow our food

In the global rush to decarbonize, agriculture faces a contradictory narrative: livestock emissions are condemned as climate threats, while the same crops turned into biofuels are praised as green solutions argues senior fellow Dr. Joseph Fournier. This double standard ignores the natural carbon cycle and the fossil-fuel foundations of modern farming, penalizing food producers while rewarding biofuel makers through skewed carbon accounting and misguided policy incentives.

In the rush to decarbonize our world, agriculture finds itself caught in a bizarre contradiction.

Policymakers and environmental advocates decry methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock digestion, respiration and manure decay, labelling them urgent climate threats. Yet they celebrate the same corn and canola crops when diverted to ethanol and biodiesel as heroic offsets against fossil fuels.

Biofuels are good, but food is bad.

This double standard isn’t just inconsistent—it backfires. It ignores the full life cycle of the agricultural sector’s methane and carbon dioxide emissions and the historical reality that modern farming’s productivity owes its existence to hydrocarbons. It’s time to confront these hypocrisies head-on, or we risk chasing illusory credits while penalizing the very system that feeds us.

Let’s take Canada as an example.

It’s estimated that our agriculture sector emits 69 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually, or 10 per cent of national totals. Around 35 Mt comes from livestock digestion and respiration, including methane produced during digestion and carbon dioxide released through breathing. Manure composting adds another 12 Mt through methane and nitrous oxide.

Even crop residue decomposition is counted in emissions estimates.

Animal digestion and respiration, including burping and flatulence, and the composting of their waste are treated as industrial-scale pollutants.

These aren’t fossil emissions—they’re part of the natural carbon cycle, where last year’s stover or straw returns to the atmosphere after feeding soil life. Yet under United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines adopted by Canada, they’re lumped into “agricultural sources,” making farmers look like climate offenders for doing their job.

Ironically, only 21 per cent—about 14 Mt—of the sector’s emissions come from actual fossil fuel use on the farm.

This inconsistency becomes even more apparent in the case of biofuels.

Feed the corn to cows, and its digestive gases count as a planetary liability. Turn it into ethanol, and suddenly it’s an offset.

Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR) mandate a 15 per cent CO2e intensity drop by 2030 using biofuels. In this program, biofuel producers earn offset credits per litre, which become a major part of their revenue, alongside fuel sales.

Critics argue the CFR is essentially a second carbon tax, expected to add up to 17 cents per litre at the pump by 2030, with no consumer rebate this time.

But here’s the rub: crop residue emits carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide whether the grain goes to fuel or food.

Diverting crops to biofuels doesn’t erase these emissions: it just shifts the accounting, rewarding biofuel producers with credits while farmers and ranchers take the emissions hit.

These aren’t theoretical concerns: they’re baked into policy.

If ethanol and biodiesel truly offset emissions, why penalize the same crops when used to feed livestock?

And why penalize farmers for crop residue decomposition while ignoring the emissions from rotting leaves, trees and grass in nature?

This contradiction stems from flawed assumptions and bad math.

Fossil fuels are often blamed, while the agricultural sector’s natural carbon loop is treated like a threat. Policy seems more interested in pinning blame than in understanding how food systems actually work.

This disconnect isn’t new—it’s embedded in the history of agriculture.

Since the Industrial Revolution, mechanization and hydrocarbons have driven abundance. The seed drill and reaper slashed labour needs. Tractors replaced horses, boosting output and reducing the workforce.

Yields exploded with synthetic fertilizers produced from methane and other hydrocarbons.

For every farm worker replaced, a barrel of oil stepped in.

A single modern tractor holds the energy equivalent of 50 to 100 barrels of oil, powering ploughing, planting and harvesting that once relied on sweat and oxen.

We’ve traded human labour for hydrocarbons, feeding billions in the process.

Biofuel offsets claim to reduce this dependence. But by subsidizing crop diversion, they deepen it; more corn for ethanol means more diesel for tractors.

It’s a policy trap: vilify farmers to fund green incentives, all while ignoring the fact that oil props up the table we eat from.

Policymakers must scrap the double standards, adopt full-cycle biogenic accounting, and invest in truly regenerative technologies or lift the emissions burden off farmers entirely.

Dr. Joseph Fournier is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. An accomplished scientist and former energy executive, he holds graduate training in chemical physics and has written more than 100 articles on energy, environment and climate science.

Agriculture

Was The Ostrich “Cull” A Criminal Act?

Published on November 9, 2025

Todayville

Trish Wood is Critical

Trish Wood

Based on our Criminal Code — the answer is yes!

There is little doubt in my mind that what occurred at Universal Ostrich Farms represents a violation of our Criminal Code. This is not hyperbole for clicks — but rather a conclusion based on years as a science writer and judicial reporter.

The idea of code violations really took hold for me yesterday when I read a note posted by a follower from a Canadian veterinarian who is outraged over the cruelty and bad science that underpin this ugly chapter in our history.

But first: There are reports from the ostrich farm that there were two rounds of shooting. One at night, in the dark and another in the morning. If true, this suggests a horror. That some birds weren’t killed instantly. Did some lay dying overnight and “finished off” in daylight? Help me understand how this could even happen? Why were some of the corpses beheaded – which is an unapproved method of killing. Were some found alive after the snipers left and beheaded by CFIA staff?

It’s been reported, but not verified, that roughly 1000 rounds (bullets) were fired to kill between 300 and 350 birds. Simple math says — three shots each, give or take. But we know it wouldn’t have worked out that way. Some would have died instantly and others would have been shot repeatedly — perhaps fighting and writhing until the end. This outcome should have been predicted. We need to see the plan. What instructions were the shooters given and by whom?

This “culling” requires a criminal prosecution and I do hope that someone visits a local lawyer about how to push a Crown for charges. There will be government recordings and they should be made public. I suspect this event went badly off the rails.

Because they were firing at night, in order to prevent media from attaining the gruesome truth, it’s likely some of the marksmen missed their targets even with portable lighting and scopes. That kill shot might have been the head — which is quite small and always moving. The body is less likely an instant kill but an easier target.

We must demand both the criminal, animal cruelty investigation and a public inquiry, under oath to determine how CFIA argues this was necessary. I do hope the veterinary science schools will step up — especially Guelph which is considered one of the best in the world.

Below is the criminal code on animal cruelty.

After an international conference on Avian Flu — a Swedish vet and academic wrote a paper on acceptable killing methods. Shooting birds is listed under “Less Acceptable”. Here is the link.

CFIA’s own handbook says killing by shooting should only be used as a last resort. From a CTV story.

The manual says gunshots should be considered “as a last resort” for euthanasia, while breaking a bird’s neck is also appropriate in some situations, and is listed among methods “when dealing with larger birds such as emus and ostriches.”

It’s difficult to know what actually happened during the actual killing but accounts of the infamous 1932 Emu War in Australia suggest the birds would have been very aware they were about to die. We can understand better the bird’s experience of it by looking at that case given the similarities between these species.

The military was deployed with machine guns to cull emus that had been ruining local farm crops. History reports that the emus won the battle because they were using strategy and tactics to stay alive including posting lookouts. From Britanica, link here.

“It soon became clear that one emu in each group served as a lookout to warn the others, giving them time to escape. Meredith stated publicly that the emus could “face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks.” Such statements made military action against the emus increasingly unpopular, with opponents arguing that such treatment of emus was inhumane.”

These are intelligent creatures with a will to live and to protect themselves.

Emus proved difficult to kill during the Emu War for a combination of reasons related to their natural resilience, speed, unpredictable behaviour, and the unsuitability of the military’s tactics and equipment.

This is another Jenga pull in our country’s downfall at the hands of robotic bureaucrats and “scientists” who long ago parked their humanity in service of groupthink and politics.

Why didn’t CFIA take advantage of offers to keep the birds alive by moving them to the United States? The same reason the Liberal government invoked violence and the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors even though there was a deal being struck with the city and Convoy leaders wanted to talk.

It is the flex. The kind used around the world by tyrants to keep uppity citizens frightened and docile — which Canada most certainly is these days.

We are a signatory to a treaty with the animal equivalent of the WHO – called the World Organization for Animal Health, headquartered in Paris. This is to protect our poultry producers and their markets.

It is this international body that governs how CFIA behaves. And it rules with the same kind of fear mongering propaganda that the human version does. A good idea — badly executed and designed to save industry at any cost. Culling sick animals is sometimes necessary. But that’s not what happened at the ostrich farm.