7 ms·
As a Dutch person I can confirm this article is: 1) Roughly correct chronologically. 2) COMPLETELY devoid of the actual political reasons behind this being done
by apexalpha 21d ago
As a Dutch person I can confirm this article is:
1) Roughly correct chronologically.
2) COMPLETELY devoid of the actual political reasons behind this being done.
- deleted 21d ago[deleted]
- _joel 21d agoWhich are? (Brit here asking though curiosity)
- apexalpha 20d agoSince you're British just imagine finding gas in Northern Scotland (on land, not on sea!) but control over it is in London. Imagine how that would roughly unfold over a period of 70 years. Sorry, I'm on mobile and it's a complex issue. This covers a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field#Phasing_out_gas_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field#Phasing_ou...
- serial_dev 21d agoThen, please, tell us what you think the political reasons are behind this being done??
- contravariant 21d agoIf the local population saw more of the economic benefits, was taken more seriously when they complained about earth quake risk, and was compensated more readily when the earth quakes resulted in actual damage, then maybe they would have been more willing to allow the gas fields to exist as a strategic reserve. As it stands the local population has little more to show for it than demolished homes and damaged monuments and having an economic disease named after them.
- wjnc 21d agoI agree. The Dutch government still has a pretty sinister way of using divide and conquer against parts of society (NOx, Groningen / gas, Tata, ‘Toeslagen’; further back: closing of the mines, Indonesia). Our government finds it very hard to govern in compliance with the rules it made for themselves. Perhaps the nature of a complex system and also a general democratic phenomenon. But there is something typically Dutch in just not being able to fix a problem in the way the administration works.