Is carbon mentioned anywhere in the OP's article?

All I see are references to nitrogen, which I take to mean reactive nitrogen. Reactive N is, generally, all forms of N aside from the molecular N of our atmosphere (N₂). It can lead to everything from unsafe drinking water to ground-level ozone to algal blooms to a potent and persistent greenhouse gas.

Major sources of reactive N include agriculture, human sewage, and industrial waste...in that order. Within the ag sector, the great majority of reactive N comes from the Haber-Bosch process of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer production.

I know Europe has been trying for some time to limit N fertilizer use. I assume they are also going beyond primary treatment of their sewage to include methods that reduce reactive N in the effluent. I don't know whether there are efforts to use human waste as fertilizer and at least close the loop on N and phosphorus, another environmental concern. Have they explored growing crops that require less added N? Is there public resistance to eating crops produced by sewage? Is the farmer buyout seen by the Dutch population as more palatable than instituting stricter human waste and industrial waste controls?

I don't know. I suspect that there is a lot that few of us here know. So, before screaming it's all about control or bringing carbon into a debate about nitrogen, I suggest we do our homework and have some facts ready before taking strong opinions.