"history suggests plainly enough that [voluntary measures] alone …. do not suffice to effectively deal with the problem"
So says the Environment Court, as the ruling on the validity of Horizon's One Plan is confirmed, irritating hard core Feds no doubt, but cheering environmentalists, like myself, and Eugenie Sage, author of this press release:
"The Green Party today welcomed the Environment Court decision on the Horizons
Regional Council's One Plan.
The Environment Court has ruled that nutrient management provisions in the
Horizons Regional Council One Plan which aim to improve water quality in the
Manawatu-Whanganui region are valid.
"The Court's decision sends a clear signal that business as usual, when it
comes to polluting our rivers and lakes, is not an option. Nutrients entering
our waterways must be managed more responsibly," Green Party environment
spokesperson Eugenie Sage said.
"The decision highlights the inadequacies of a voluntary approach and the
need for effective rules and regulation like the One Plan. As the Court
decision noted, 'history suggests plainly enough that [voluntary measures]
alone …. do not suffice to effectively deal with the problem'.
"Similarly at the national level, we urgently need strong national
environmental standards so that councils have rules to protect water quality
and control nutrient losses, especially for land uses such as intensive
agriculture," said Ms Sage.
"Effective national rules would guide regional councils and help avoid
regional plans being relitigated in every region.
"Excuses that 'it's too hard or complex to act' were rightly dismissed by the
Court.
Referring to land management issues around Lake Horowhenua, the Court
explicitly said that claiming that problems are too complex 'is absolutely
not a reason to say … it's too hard … and do nothing about something that
unquestionably must be contributing to the problem'."
"The Land and Water Forum could usefully consider the Court's decision to
ensure that its recommendations around rules are strong enough."
"The decision is a win for all New Zealanders who love our lakes and
waterways and want water quality to improve so that they and their children
can enjoy them to swim, fish, gather kai from," said Ms Sage.
.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Robert, I have a question that you may be able to answer relating in a small way to this thread.
Is it possible to distinguish bewteen the nitrate leaching from legums growing on riverbeds such as broom, gorse, or lupins, and the leaching from various farming practices?
Yes.
As Ms Sage doesn't appear to be concerned with the problems sourced from Cities and Towns, I am not to sure that she is living up to her name.
Tired Farmer/Colin McIntyre.
Just teasing.
The debate around riparian gorse/broom and lupins has come down on the side of 'it's not a significant issue'.
Your question is interesting though - can the nitrates be differentiated?
I suspect not. You might be going to postulate that the fencing of waterways, where it promotes the growth of broom and gorse, is a negative activity, who knows?
I would say (again) that the release of nitrates from legumanous shrubby tress is not the issue you suspect it to be, largely due to the soil biota that develop underneath such 'stands' - biota that sequester nitrogen - biota that don't exist in pasture grasses.
Hope that helps :-)
Tired Farmer - she's named after a herb. You read too much into her parents intentions :-)
I would suggest that Ms sage is very interested in 'problems sourced from cities and towns', being an ex-Environment Canterbury councillor, representing the urban constituency.
" biota that sequester nitrogen" dont exist under pasture!
Mr Guyton,, completely wrong once again.
Thanks for the teasing Robert, something you excel at!!
This question is one that ES sill need to investigate further soon I believe!
Anonymouse - there are biota that exist only under and in association with trees and shrubs, for example, mycorrhizal fungi that associate with woody plants, not grasses. I am correct in my claim. You have chosen to misinterpret it for your own ends - typical of you, I must say.
Anonymous - why?
Robert,
Can't resist giving Ms Sage "Herbs"
As she didn't mention Cities in her presentation,one can assume that she adopted the ploy you quoted "Its not of a significant nature", which is used as an escape by many a bureaucrat, when cornered.
Even more inexcusable upon reading her career profile which you provided.
Colin McIntyre.
no misinterpretation,,
Read the direct quote ,, you said ,
" biota that sequester nitrogen , do not exist under pasture ",
Why do you misrepresent the facts so regularly?
Why do continually mislead people when it concerns agriculture ?
anonymouse - you are being stupid, it grieves me to say. And duplicitous as well. It's very poor form to prune quots in order to make them say what you want them to say. The full quote:
"I would say (again) that the release of nitrates from legumanous shrubby tress is not the issue you suspect it to be, largely due to the soil biota that develop underneath such 'stands' - biota that sequester nitrogen - biota that don't exist in pasture grasses."
I annoys me to have to spell it out to you, but I'll do it just the once more. The biota that exists under woody trees and shruns is not the same as that found under pasture. I'm not saying, as you are at pains to claim that I am, that biota that can sequester nitrogen does not exist under pasture.
Try to work it out, anonymouse. It's not that complex.
You are claiming now that I regularly misrepresent the facts. You are behaving poorly, given that you are commenting as a guest here. Unless you can provide evidence of what you are claiming, you should apologise, in my opinion.
biota ,, is a very broad term. and refers to small animals right down to microscopic bacteria .
You are talking about all living things associated with soils.
You will of course accept that there are considerable soil organisms under pasture that sequester nitrogen.I would suggest that because woody leguminous shrubs tend to grow on less fertile areas. there is in fact less nitrogen sequestering organisms associated with them.
You will have to soldier on without an apology.It surprises me how sensitive you are bearing in mind that you criticize everyone else so freely,
anonymouse said...
" biota that sequester nitrogen" dont exist under pasture!
Mr Guyton,, completely wrong once again.
No apology then, anonymouse?
I'll leave it that then. Your words (above) speak for themselves.
Post a Comment