Enviromental(sic) groups got EU subsidies to lobby for Timmermans' green plans: report
The money came from a pot for climate and environmental subsidies, and many came with conditions, the newspaper wrote. For example, the European Environmental Bureau - an umbrella organization of green organizations in Europe, including Milieudefensie and Natuurmonumenten from the Netherlands - was explicitly instructed to provide at least 16 examples of how the European Parliament has made green legislation more ambitious thanks to their lobbying. The umbrella group also promoted Timmermans’ Nature Restoration Act and had to steer the farmers’ debate in the green direction, according to the contract the Telegraaf has in its possession.
As a member of the budget control committee, NSC Member of the European Parliament Dirk Gotink and several colleagues are now investigating the subsidy contracts with environmental groups. “There were even lobby lists with names of politicians who had to be approached,” he told the Telegraaf. “This is not a smear campaign against the environmental movement. Of course, they are allowed to lobby. I am targeting the European Commission. This seems to be a highly orchestrated interplay between a green coalition led by Timmermans and a left-wing majority in the European Parliament.”
Timmermans is now back in Dutch politics as the parliamentary leader of GroenLinks-PvdA - the biggest opposition party to the Schoof I coalition, which includes the NSC.
“I want to know whether this also applies to other themes, such as migration,” Gotink said. “Brussels is the lobbying capital of Europe: is this a bad apple or is it a widespread practice?”
The European Environmental Bureau responded to the Telegraaf’s accusations with criticism. “A flourishing democracy requires resources that enable the voice of citizens to reach decision-makers,” Secretary General Patrick ten Brink said in a written response. “Unlike actors with much resources, such as foreign governments and multinationals, European citizens and their civil society organizations often do not have sufficient resources. EU support is needed to ensure a level playing field.”
Did the farmers have a level playing field, or were they plowing uphill all the way because you supported the green madness that farmers are a major factor in climate change?
Dutch government ordered to cut nitrogen emissions
by 2030 or face $10M penalty
Jan. 22 (UPI) -- A European court has ordered the Dutch government to cut nitrogen pollution in designated protected areas or face a $10 million penalty, according to new information.
"This ruling is a celebration for nature, and finally there is clarity," Andy Palmen, director of Greenpeace Netherlands, said Wednesday.
The non-governmental organization revealed in November its intent to take the administration of Prime Minister Dick Schoof to court due to "excessive nitrogen emissions" and over the government's "inadequate nitrogen approach," arguing that the "most vulnerable" parts of Holland's nature preserves were "in danger of being irreparably damaged or even disappearing if no action is taken quickly."
The Hague verdict will require Schoof's government to make certain at least half of the country's vulnerable habitats fall below a harmful nitrogen threshold by 2030.
Palmen says the ruling means the government will have to "come up with proposals that will finally give farmers clarity and support them in a fair way in the necessary transition to ecological agriculture."
However, an appeal on Wednesday's ruling is viewed as likely.
Excessive nitrogen emissions, meanwhile, are largely caused by livestock farming mixed with transportation and industrial pollution.
This follows similar efforts in nations such as France, Germany and Ireland.
A 2021 ruling by the European Union's Court of Justice determined that Germany had for years "systematically and persistently" violated pollution limits and allowed excessive nitrogen dioxide to be emitted across German cities such as Berlin, Stuttgart, Hamburg and Cologne.
On Wednesday, Palmen added that the Netherlands has been "postponing" measures that left society, particularly Dutch farmers and companies, in a state of "uncertainty," he said, after a series of 2019 rulings trigger a wave of new measures which lead to massive farmer protests.
It arrived after Schoof's right-wing Cabinet in June last year slashed a more than $25 billion transition fund put in place by ex-Prime Minister Mark Rutte. That fund was designed for supporting sustainability efforts and buying land.
Schoof instead opted to focus on tech solutions or other voluntary measures hoping to cut back on nitrogen emissions without stoking civil unrest in parts of the small European country roughly the size of Maryland.
Greenpeace, however, requested that the court test the government's nitrogen policy against the European Birds and Habitats Directive. The Netherlands has roughly 160 spots that could fall under it.
So, it's not the people Greenpeace is concerned about, it's the birds! Perhaps they should drop the "peace" from their name.
The annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen across Europe was between $98 billion and $450 billion, according to a 2011 study by the European Nitrogen Assessment. It concluded nearly 15 years ago that nitrogen pollution at the time was costing each European citizen anywhere from $200 to $1,000 annually.
One would think the EU would notice a line item like that in their budget.
Palmen said that systemically ignoring the nitrogen emission problem has in recent years caused further deterioration in nature.
In November, Greenpeace called it at a hearing the "last chance to save the most vulnerable habitats because if nitrogen emissions don't go down, we risk losing unique plants and animals."
"By not making choices, urgent measures must now be taken," Palmen said Wednesday. "We expect the government to finally take responsibility in the action plan and ensure that all relevant sectors, including agriculture, traffic, aviation and industry, make a fair contribution."
The international environmental action group was born in Canada in 1971 when a ragtag group of anti-nuclear protesters calling themselves the 'Don't Make A Wave Committee' sailed into the Amchitka nuclear test zone in Alaska in an attempt to stop testing.
"It has been so long that the judge has now intervened," Palmen said on the verdict. "It is a celebration without cake, because it should not be necessary for the judge to intervene again."
Without cake - because they need farmers to grow the wheat?
No comments:
Post a Comment