Hacker News Reader

Comment by tinco | Hacker News Reader

In The Netherlands there is an area that is a key part of the lifecycle of a specific bird called the "Grutto". It is not really endangered, but it is at risk, and if The Netherlands did nothing to protect it, then we would be the cause of its extinction.

The way we protect it is that all farmers can report a Grutto nest on their land. Then the government sends volunteers to find the nest. If the volunteer finds the nest, the farmer gets 1200 euro.

It's a simple scheme but I think it's very effective. It's a significant amount of money, the farmer will be looking out for the nests, and will make sure they don't get caught in their machinery.

I'm not entirely sure what the economics would be for bee hives. 1200 euro to put some stakes in the ground and make a small detour with your tractor, sacrificing maybe 10m2 of harvest makes sense. Not treating an entire field with insecticides might not.

View on HN

We could also forbid the insecticides killing the bees, and let consumers pay the higher prices on agricultural products.

That is not the way things work in the US.

The mfrs will cry “job losses” due to discontinuing production. Farmers will cry poor. Nothing will happen.

Isn’t it though? When was the last time you could go buy an AC unit with CFCs in it or leaded gasoline? Both of these products were banned for environmental reasons, both had huge industrial opposition to their ban, and we’ve managed to live just fine without them.

The US at the time of those bans and the US now are practically different countries.

I was not around for the lead ban, but I remember the CFC ban and it was an utterly different era. An international plan, too. The SOx trading scheme comes from that era as well; today we have state laws against environmental plans.

I'm aware of the power of corporations in the US and elsewhere, but didn't they manage to forbid a lot of things over the years anyways?

Lead paint, freon refrigerators etc.

I’m talking about the USA of the last 20 years. Some things like an international ban on CFCs was, in retrospect the last gasp of the old order.

> We could also forbid the insecticides killing the bees

It's not so clear they actually are, France banned neonicotinoids in Sep of 2018, but as far as I can tell it has not changed anything in terms of bee deaths in France.

I feel like this natural experiment should be more studied so we can tell if neonicotinoids are the problem or not.

Or maybe buy land, plant some clovers and stick some bee hives on it.

The pervasive attitude of dealing with problems real or imagined with “who can the state punish?” rather than “what can I do to can I fix this?” is disturbing.

The bees will still fly to the next field over, land on sprayed crops, and get poisoned.

Only about 16% of Maine has active agricultural operations. Or if you want to take out the guesswork, buy some downtown blight in some city, demolish it, vegetate the site and donate it to the municipal parks and recreation department.

I'm not saying we shouldn't set aside land in the way you're describing. But continuing to use the pesticides at the same time seems deeply counterproductive.

Just a note, most but not all bumblebees are eusocial or social, but a majority of bee species aren't. That makes finding nests way more difficult, for those species.

If the insecticides are what's killing with the bees though, staking out a 10 m2 section of your field will do nothing to preserve them.

Exactly, the incentive would have to be much larger to get farmers take the risk and save the bees.

The four most dangerous neonicotinoid pesticides have been banned in The Netherlands since February 2020.

https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com