Politicians order that dog owners not walk their dogs in the forest, because...whut?

Politicians are among the dumbest sons of bitches on the planet.  Here's example #5,408,485:

In the Netherlands last week, politicians in the province of North Brabant ORDERED that residents would no longer be allowed to walk with their dogs in the local forest. 

The hoot is the *stated reason* given by the moronic pols:  They claim "dogs increase Global Warming.  Seriously.

https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/01/dutch-dog-owners-shock-at-forest-ban-while-wolves-roam-free/ 

Wait, do they drive cars?  Heat their doghouses?  Fly across the ocean to attend award ceremonies for themselves?

Nope, the pols claim the reason for the ban is...wait for it..."nitrogen emissions" from dogs.

And at this point rational people who paid at least a bit of attention in highschool recall that 80% of the atmosphere is relatively inert nitrogen, so how can nitrogen be a problem--let alone how the pols think dogs can have any effect on nitrogen in any case, eh?

Turns out nitrogen per se isn't the problem, but a molecule of nitrogen and oxygen called nitrous oxide (N2O), which the warmies scream is an even worse greenhouse gas than the dread poison CO2.

Dog owners: "So how are dogs emitting N2O?"

Greenie/wokie politician: "All animal waste contains nitrogen compounds, and many of those decompose into N2O.  So there ya go, deplorable: tons of dog waste are killing duh Erf."

Dog owner thinks a minute: "Don't all animals produce the same type of waste, including humans?  If so, why are you blaming just dogs?"

Politician: "Uh...well...uh...we're not.  We've passed a law ordering all dairy farmers to cull half their milk cows to reduce nitrous oxide emissions.  So SEE, deplorables, we're being equally dictatorial to everyone!"

Wheat farmer:
>>"Wait...by 'cull' you really mean 'kill,' right?  So you're gonna force dairy farms to kill half their cows.  You know that's gonna make the price of milk and cheese explode, which is gonna piss off a LOT of voters.  Wow.
  >> Fortunately we farmers don't raise cows, just nutritious, non-polluting food crops.  So it's good that your new RULES aren't gonna put US out of business!
  >>See, fortunately we only use *nitrates*--NO3, not that climate-killing N2O.  We've used nitrates for decades as fertilizer, to increase crop yields, so everyone known it's safe.  So it's a relief to know you reeally smaht politicians aren't blaming US!  Are you?"

Wokie politician: "Uh...well...uh...actually nitrates break down into N2O too, so our new law DECREES that farmers must cut your use of nitrate fertilizer in half too."

Farmer: "Wait...do you morons realize that will cut crop yields almost 40%?"

Pol: "We don't believe that'll happen, and we've hired a VERY pricey PhD professor as a consultant, and he assures us that crop yields will only drop 30% at most."

Farmer: "Ahh.  And how long did this professor farm for a living before becoming a PhD?"

Pol: "Oh he's never actually been a farmer.  He just knows all about farming because he's got a PhD in Agricultural Management!  You wouldn't argue with someone who has a PhD, would ya?"

Dog owner: "So you've banned dogs from the forest.  But they're gonna produce the same waste regardless of where they poop, so how is your law gonna stop their waste from turning into this gas you claim is gonna kill the planet, just producing the gas somewhere else?"

Pol: "Uh...it doesn't.  So we're working on a law that will make dog owners pay the government for the damage their dogs do to Erf's climate.  Along the lines of the U.K's TV license, $250 a year or so."

Farmer: "So what will you do about *human waste*?  You gonna charge people an extra $250 a year in poop tax?"

Pol: "Actually since people make far more waste than small dogs, the tax we have in mind will be closer to $2,000 per year.  So we expect most couples will have fewer children."

Farmer: "What about 'immigrants' who are already living on welfare paid by taxpayers?  How will they be able to pay your new waste tax?"

Pol: "Of course *they* won't have to pay.  Or I suppose we could give 'em another $2,000 a year per family member and then have 'em pay it back.  Of course we'd have to hire another 5,000 government employees to administer that, but it's a good idea.
   "Also, our scientists are working on a chemical toilet that will turn N2O into harmless nitrogen gas.  It looks like in mass production we can get the price down to around $23,000.  But we'd give people three years to replace their existing toilets with the new type, because we care about the little people." 

Farmer: "Are ALL you politicians this crazy?"

Pol: "That's HATE SPEECH, deplorable!  I hereby sentence you to three years in prison!"

[Sound of gunshot.  Large hole appears in Politician's head.  Everyone in the hearing room looks at each other in astonishment.]

Dog owner: "I saw nothing."

Farmer: "Same here."

Audience members: "Absolutely."
===

SOooo...I gather most of you think this is fantasy.  Satire.  Impossible.  Well you morons need to get your heads out of your video games or your TVs or phones and open your damn eyes.

The new boogeyman by duh exspurts at dat faaabulous U.N. iz now "nitrogen pollution."  Here are the communist pencil-dick tyrants at the U.N. on the threat to damn near everything posed by "nitrogen pollution:"
     >>We need to take action NOW to #BeatNitrogenPollution, to *mitigate climate change!*  It's an issue we can't afford to ignore a moment longer!  If we don't limit nitrogen pollution right away, we'll face a *cascade of negative impacts* that will *threaten the environment, the economy, our well-being and livelihoods--from degraded ecosystems to polluted soil, water and air, and species loss."*>>

<<Any of those plaintive bleats sound familiar?  Sure, that's the same horseshit they were spouting about Global Warming--which, as you may have noticed, has now been replaced by "climate change"--since it has slowly become apparent that the planet is NOT overheating the way the control freaks screamed it would.  But their grift has become SO profitable that instead of saying "Ah, guess we were wrong on that one!" they just changed the name but kept the same controls in place.
   So now whatever the weather does (yeah, I know: weather isn't climate), the control freaks can claim "SEE? We WARNED YEW!"

More UN crap:
>>Nitrogen pollution contributes to the *triple planetary crisis* of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste.>>

EVERY time "nitrogen" is mentioned, the next word is "pollution."  Sorry, your fearmongering long ago lost its power over rational adults, assholes.
  
Here's what the U.N. screams under the heading "Biodiversity and ecosystems:"

Together with habitat destruction and climate change, nitrogen pollution is one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss on the planet today.

Ahhh, "biodiversity loss," y'say?  Oh, I see there's a button you can click if ya wanna "read more," eh?  Let's see the explanation!  And here's the entire explanation:

According to a recent study, ecosystems such forests, heaths and surface waters are more sensitive to atmospheric nitrogen pollution than previously thought.

Wait, that's not even remotely an explanation.  It's a "naked assertion."  Big damn difference.  But they go on (of course):

"Earth system scientists say that the world’s planetary boundaries for interference with the nitrogen cycle have already been surpassed, meaning that there is a high risk of irreversible changes to ecosystems and biodiversity."

"Interference with the nitrogen cycle," y'say? Wow.  One could as easily say humans are "interfering with the energy cycle" by generating electricity, or heating your dwelling, eh?  

It's just a small step from here to demanding that humans live in caves and eat grubs, because anything else is decreed to be "interfering."  It's brazen fear-mongering.

So, experts, do tell us:  What fraction of global heat trapping is done by nitrous oxide compared to, say, water vapor, eh?

And if we use your model, how much do you claim the average temp will rise by 2050 at current concentrations of nitrous oxide, eh?  Now how much temperature rise if we assume that concentration were to *double?*  Publish the computer program of your model so people who know how to take those apart can see where you're making assumptions to support your conclusions (a.k.a. bullshitting).  

https://unece.org/media/environment/Air-Pollution-Convention/press/372350