I've not met Karen, but I know she's a kind and thoughtful woman.
Karen wrote a letter to the editor of the Southland Times, defending me from attacks from other correspondents who don't agree with me when I say that I believe the general rate payer shouldn't have to pay for the costs resulting from dairy expansion, and describing her concerns about Southland's deteriorating environment. She very kindly assured me that I have her support now and her vote come polling day. That's very reassuring and I thank her for it. Karen also wrote that she knows of many others who applaud the stand I take and that's very encouraging. Karen described her concerns about river quality, estuary health and farming issues such as over-stocking and shelter-belt destruction, concerns I share. I think there are a lot of people in Southland who want to be represented by someone like me, who thinks from the point of view of a vulnerable environment.
In the same letters section was a terse letter from Bruce Forrester who sniped about "Greenies" and claimed that people cringe when I speak up about these things. Certainly, Bruce cringed, especially where I challenged the rhetoric coming from Don Nicolson. I was happy to see some support for Don though. Every little bit helps. Bruce's was an Act of kindness.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Under what circumstances would ratepayers pay costs resulting from dairy expansion?
ES, as a result of Central Government directives with regard water quality, has to increase its work around, for example, compliance and monitoring. If the industry from which significant and increasing pressure on water quality issues does not pay for that work, the general public will be asked to. I don't believe that it's fair that they do.
Agree. But how is that different from general monitoring? How does one attribute it to expansion specifically?
Even the industry acknowledges the site-specific effects of the farming on the environment, especially on water quality. Why otherwise, would they have been promoting nitrate inhibitors, for example, and nutrient budgets, riparian planting etc. Good on them for that, but ES has a responsibility to also strive to maintain and/or improve water quality.
Post a Comment