At the recent Bluegreen forum in Takapuna, Prime Minister John Key revealed his plan to 'rub out' the clean, green brand that New Zealand has so proudly presented to the world in order to attract tourists and sell our primary produce. Gone will be the attractive idea that we are less spoiled that other countries, that our natural environment is cleaner and greener than elsewhere and that the food we produce here is safer to eat because of it. We're to be branded, "NZ". Key, speaking at the forum, said "NZ's brand is "NZ", not clean/green." according to the hand-written note on the glossy forum document, provided to all attendees, including ES chairman Ali Timms who thoughtfully provided her copy for Councillors to read upon her return to Invercargill. I quizzed Ms Timms at yesterday's meeting of Council and she confirmed that the PM had said just that and that my interpretation of the note was correct.
To my mind, ditching the 'clean green' brand is an indictment of a Government that has not only failed and is continuing fail to protect our New Zealand environment, but is intent on hiding the fact.
Maybe it's the time of day or my inherent thickness, but had to read this post multiple times. Initially thought it was a piss-take, but I fear not?
ReplyDeleteNot at all. It's there in black and white (actually blue, as in ball -point blue, or National Party blue.)
ReplyDeleteSetting the stage for the loss of our GE/GMO free Status.
ReplyDeleteSurely you jest.
ReplyDeleteQuite correct, FBB. That, along with the destruction of the Organic Dairy sector by Fonterra. It'll start with the 'improved' rye-grasses. Can't have anyone opposing that sensible idea!
ReplyDeleteFirst thing he has done right.
ReplyDeleteHopefully we can now also get low cost nuclear power.
We must build a future for our children based on reality and prosperity.
The current policy, and anything proposed elsewhere, has already straddled our descendants with a massive debt burden which is both economically unviable, and morally reprehensible.
It is time for reality.
The ridiculous pipe dreams of the Greenies represent the single biggest threat our nation has ever seen.
Limber Jim (I immediately thought, 'lame james', but I don't want to be disrespectful).
ReplyDeleteThe first word your "Hopefully we can now also get low cost nuclear power.
We must build a future for our children based on reality and prosperity." brought to my mind was FUKUSHIMA. Great example of a future for children. Those young Japanese children who have been exposed to the radiation from the reactors at Fukushima might not share your rosy outlook, James.
I did note though, that you think Key has not done anything right to date. On that we agree. Perhaps changing the branding on something is the best he can do. That's easily undone when the Green Government takes the Government benches next electoral round.
yep you're right RG, GE ryegrasses will be in the vanguard of the GMO invasion. And sooner than many will think is possible all ryegrass pastures will be GE or contaminated with GE. It will be like Canola (Oil Seed Rape) in Canada where it is now very difficult to grow GE free Canola and Organic Canola growing is has been decimated.
ReplyDeleteAs a country we need to really think about it before we go this way.
As someone in the Hawkes Bay GE Free group said we need to think about it beforehand because the chance of removing it later will be as possible as sending the 'possums back to Australia
FBB - I've seriously revised my poorly constructed and erroneous view of you! My mistake.
ReplyDeleteWhat will you do/are you doing to prevent this mistake occurring? I'd like to hear more from you on this.
Readers of this blog are well aware that the "clean/green" label is unsustainable. We have read here of "dirty dairying", seen photos of sludge, dirty lakes, stream banks with livestock access.
ReplyDeleteSeveral years ago, I gave a ride to a young German backpacker. She told me in no uncertain terms that we could not justify our self appraised label. She quoted several instances, I was shocked, and struggled with countering her argument. If we can be challenged on the statement, we are better not to use it. Strive for perfection, but don't claim it prematurely.
England, Ireland, France and Germany appear cleaner and greener than we are. Canada and Alaska appear more pristine. Our Desert Road tussock is not green, but when golden is supremely attractive. Our West Coast beaches, with their ironsand, are of themselves unappealling, but with the adjacent bush clad hills shrouded in mist and with a heavy sea running are simply majestic. Much of our easy countryside looks scruffy, and much of it is poor, and I frequently wonder how we can boast that we are the clean/green and attractive benchmark. Our food is, quite rightly, safer than most, and all our produce - fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, dairy - is nutritious, healthy and flavoursome, readily available fresh, and my overseas visitors remark on this. (And no snakes or other deadly beasties, and no flies (well, almost)).
As this blog emphasises, we have plenty of remedial improvements to make to our natural environment, where standards have been remiss, and this needs all the attention we can give it. Not just from farmers and those who would extract valuable resources from our soils, but also from those who discard their beer cans and RTD bottles on our section, and those of our neighbours, over the holiday period.
If your statement ".....a Government that has not only failed and is continuing fail to protect our New Zealand environment, but is intent on hiding the fact." is true, then "..ditching the 'clean green' brand.." is honourable.
We can promote NZ on what it is, without the need for hyperbole.
Robert the only comment that can be made for Keys ..."Par for the course" ...its what you could expect from a man who made his living by gambling on the stock exchange ...people like that are driven only by love of money and have no sense of community morality and wellbeing.
ReplyDeleteNice attempt a sophistry, anon.I don't often see that. Where your carefully constructed argument falls down, is in your penultimate sentence, where you say, "If your statement "..ditching the 'clean green' brand.." is honourable."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I choked a little when I read that. I admire your gall, but don't swallow your spun effluent.
The behaviour of this National Government with regard the environment could not be described as honorable in any way or form, the realisation of that fact making your claim laughable (wry laughter that is) George Preddey says it well:
"National was elected in 2008 on a "50-by-50" commitmentto reduce New Zealand's carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. Emissions have risen inexorably since then; this country now ranks sixth-worst amongst OECD countries for meeting Kyoto commitments. National's post-2008 initiatives are equally disheartening; repeal of Labour's moratorium on new fossil-fueled electricity; an ETS subsidising big polluters; motorway expansions;mining on conservation lands; expanded off-shore oil prospecting; lignite mining."
He doesn't stop there, but I shall, as should you anon. Your merely piling up the bullsh*t.
He really said this?
ReplyDeleteHave you got any links?
This sounds rather concerning, and also rather election losing.
Yes he did, Shunda, according to our chairman Timms, who was there. I quizzed her at the minuted Council meeting on Wednesday, after seeing the notes she'd written beside the issue in the document given out at the Bluegreen forum.
ReplyDeleteYou appear to have misunderstood my point, dear Robert.
ReplyDeleteYou are saying that this Government has an appalling record on the environment but it should continue to say that NZ leads the world in cleanness and greeness?
Which is it?
"The behaviour of this National Government with regard the environment could not be described as honorable in any way or form..."
ReplyDeleteBefore you misinterpret my comments again, Robert, I did not claim the Government's behaviour with regard to the environment was honourable. I suggested it was honourable to cease saying that it was (by standing behind the clean/green label).
"FBB - I've seriously revised my poorly constructed and erroneous view of you"
ReplyDeleteno prob RG you are not the first to assume that because I am an AGW sceptic and have reservations about the Greens I must also be Pro GE/GMOs.
What am I doing to prevent the entry of GMOs into our farming system?
I am a very small (and aging) fish in the comparatively large pool that is NZ farming so my influence is limited. However i always make views clear when ever the subject comes up in conversation. I have also spoken to an MP about GE. I try to put my views into comments on blogs when relevant. Unfortunately my pathetic typing speed prevents participation in fast flowing blog discussions.
In the past when rearing calves I always looked for alternatives to GM soy which along with GM vaccines are the only GM inputs used by the dairy industry currently. Of course I don't believe those should be used either. The dairy industry's use of GE soy seems to have escaped the adverse publicity that Inghams received for using GM Soy in chicken production. Well this has got a bit wordy so I better stop and tend to my chores!
have a good day
FBB - I am filled with admiration for you and your stance here. I'll return to the matter later if I may. Flat out with the Harvest Festival this weekend.
ReplyDeleteAnon- re branding. I do and did understand your point, but chose to provide some opposition, as you haven't covered the wider ramifications, such as, what is lost by abandoning the status quo branding in favour of key's preferred 'NZ".
Wasn't Key all about 'aspiration'? Didn't pou thrill to his rhetoric then? What happened? Have to leave it now - busy as.
Nice attempt a sophistry, anon.
ReplyDeleteI admire your gall, but don't swallow your spun effluent.
making your claim laughable (wry laughter that is)
Your merely piling up the bullsh*t.
Didn't pou thrill to his rhetoric then?
I do and did understand your point, but chose to provide some opposition, (sic)
What you chose, Robert, was a bit of slagging of the messenger. Perhaps, by expressing contempt, you are acknowledging that your own arguments are unworthy of serious engagement, that you are always right, and that no other opinion is to be tolerated unless it conforms to your perspective.
Well, anon, I don't think you could seriously say that I don't tolerate your opinion. I'd have deleted it, Keeping Stock-style, if that were the case. I made the point that I thought you'd presented a carefully constructed argument - hardly an intolerant response, I'd have thought.
ReplyDeleteI think that, while your point is a logical one, it falls short of a fully fledged idea because it misses some critical parts - you've not discussed, for example, the vacuous replacement 'NZ's brand is 'NZ', nor do you address the reasons for the loss of the once viable 'clean, green' brand. You cast it aside too easily, to my mind. I'd be more accepting of Key's attempt to dump the brand we have had for some time now, if he was to say, 'The mining and drilling, fracking and fin-fish farming etc. I have promoted and facilitated, mean that the environment of New Zealand has not one hope in hell of ever again being described at 'clean and green'. Consequently, I'm giving up on that outdated aspiration. In fact, I'm considering, "New Zealand - we're fracked!' as our brand - waddayafinkboutvatnoozland?"
And yes, a bit of slagging of the messenger. Must've been feeling less forgiving than usual...
ReplyDelete