But that is the whole world. I live in the Netherlands, and I don't want all of our nature to die, because I enjoy it and I want my children to be able to enjoy it. So I still want less production in the Netherlands.
Also because much of it is meat production, fed on imported soy from the other side of the world. And mostly for exporting. It must be possible to produce the meat elsewhere.
Moreover, our nature areas are generally smaller and closer to agriculture. Therefore, nitrogen output has (had) a lot more impact on nature here than in other countries.
More information can be found in this news article (Dutch): https://nos.nl/artikel/2307260-kan-de-ruime-duitse-stikstofn...
Isn't this just because it is producing highly efficiently, at least in terms of land use? If you move the production elsewhere, it will consume the same amount if nitrogen on a wider area, so with worse impacts on wildlife and biodiversity.
Unless I'm missing something, maybe it would be better to assign the emission penalty of a product to the consumer rather than the producer?