> Reducing crime is also good, but I'm sure you'd agree that the methods employed matter very much.

Of course, which is why I ask for specifics; I am not unaware of these things, but I am unaware what exactly you have in mind with a vague general statement.

I know the most about the Dutch case, which is not about greenhouse gases but nitrogen and its effect on soil quality (but that's a relatively minor detail for the purpose of this conversation) and that has been a point since at least the 90s. For decades serious measures had been delayed under protests from the farmers, until things really came to a head a few years ago.

Anyway, there were huge protests, for measures that had been delayed for decades, and the measures were changed. The newly established "farmers party" is doing reasonably well in polls for the upcoming elections. I don't really see how this is an example of a 'high tolerance for the involvement of government authority in such things as "you shall slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases"' that you mentioned. These have been the largest protests in the country since the 80s, so that seems like an odd definition of "high tolerance", or "unshakable trust".

The Guardian report about Ireland simply says "if we want to meet our goals, then we must reduce greenhouse gases". No one is forcing anyone to slaughter anything. Actually, that wasn't the case in the Netherlands either: it was just about a long-term reduction in the number of farm animals.

This kind of "looking out for the greater good" thing that the government does is hardly unique to the EU, or "positively unthinkable in other parts of the world".