"The palm kernel used to feed New Zealand dairy cows could be responsible for up to 8.9 million tonnes of previously unreported greenhouse gas emissions.
A study on the controversial stock food questions whether it has been properly accounted for in the carbon footprinting of our $13 billion dairy export industry.
The "worst case scenario" for emissions from the production of palm kernel feed used here is equivalent to 12per cent of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions."
97 comments:
What would happen to palm kernel if it were not bought by dairy farmers? Is there another way to deal with it resulting in less carbon emissions? Or is it simply not NZ's problem if it is not coming here?
It would be integrated back into the soil on site, as any forest waste product should be. The fact that it's shipped overseas (carbon cost) fed to cows (producing methane) and promotes further deforestation as it stimulates the industry (it's 15% of their earnings) means it has a significant and bad effect in more ways than one.
Define 'waste product', surely if it is generating 15% of their earnings it is not a waste product? It would be no different to woodchip or bark peelings in relation to the NZ timber industry.
As for the carbon cost of shipping, I believe this point is invalid because it would still need to be transported back to the forest from processing in Malaysia/Indonesia and then I assume integrating back into the soil would involve some form of cultivation.
The blame for the promotion of deforestation must ultimately lie with the product that generates 85% of the earnings for the palm companies. 15% was never enough to influence decision making, which you should know, as you witness most days in parliament.
There's no need to define waste product - you know what's meant. FDE was described as a waste product until recently. It's make-up hasn't changed.
Jungles are destroyed in oreder to grow palms for oil. Stripping the ;and of organic matter is foolish. Shipping it to New Zealand to feed dairy cows is part of that foolishness. It's a significant loss to the soils that grew the palms. No doubt, the nutrients shipped here in the form of expeller and the loss if the microfauna it could have supported is made up for by importing and applying some fossil fuel based fertilizer. Clever that.
You 'cost of shipping' argument is not convincing. Returning the expeller to the forest is bound to be a simpler process than sending it overseas, and would stimulate the local employment market, where shipping will not. Integrating it back into the soil doesn't sound very challenging to me. Mulch it. You've attempted to make these things sound difficult. I doubt you are right.
As fo "15% not influencing decision making" I take it you are not a businessman. If so, I wouldn't invest in a business where its leader dismisses 15% as of no account. Blame the 85% if you like, but it makes it seems as though you are shifting blame to cover your arse :-)
"Jungles are destroyed in order to grow palms for oil" - True, unfortunately.
"Stripping the land of organic matter is foolish" - True
Robert I don't like this any more than you do, however the reality is that riding your push bike to and fro around Southland ranting your opposition to it aint gonna change a damn thing.
What would happen to the PKE if it did not come to NZ? It would be shipped elsewhere to be used for exact the same thing, as I highly doubt these type of countries will ever (in our lifetimes) bow to the philosophies of the Green movement and change there ways.
It is obviously economic to import this product as nobody would do so to make a loss. This may change. It generates money and jobs for NZ at the present point in time and many people rely on it for their daily bread.
I believe the problem needs to be tackled at its source (Asia), as to how to go about this???
The floor is yours...
Evertime I see a "could be' in a report I know it is a BS report.
If people report a quantify "responnsible for up to 8.9 million tonnes of greenhouse gas", the preciding words "could be" are saying "we really dont know" .
" Anonymous said...
Robert I don't like this any more than you do, however the reality is that riding your push bike to and fro around Southland ranting your opposition to it aint gonna change a damn thing.
"Really, anonymous? There's no value in broadcasting an issue that would otherwise be quietly 'tucked away'? I beg to differ. My experience is, that despite the criticisms that you'll attract, there is movement in response to agitating. The heat goes up, there's background growling, and things slowly change. Not to the extent i would like, but change happens and outspokeness adds its push. I reckon.
"What would happen to the PKE if it did not come to NZ?"
That matters not to someone with ethical standards and a sense of environmental responsibility. It's the great Rightwing Excuse for any and every destructive behaviour - if I didn't do it, someone else will." Feeble.
It would be shipped elsewhere to be used for exact the same thing, as I highly doubt these type of countries will ever (in our lifetimes) bow to the philosophies of the Green movement and change there ways."
Certainly not if we don't make a stand, draw the line in the sand, lead by example as per voting for women, nuclear free etc."
"It is obviously economic to import this product as nobody would do so to make a loss. This may change."
So is the opium trade. Do you support that? Why not?
"It generates money and jobs for NZ at the present point in time and many people rely on it for their daily bread." As they do for making homebake 'P'. Should we turn a blind eye to that? Support it even? Consenting adults, after all. The orangutans don't get to chose when their environment is trashed.
"I believe the problem needs to be tackled at its source (Asia), as to how to go about this???"
The Greens are active in exposing the practices in Asia. Are you saying you are supportive of them and their work there?
"The floor is yours..."
Floor is different from soapbox or bicycle, Anon?
Gerrit - you baulk at 'could be', so I have to assume the Bosun Higgs interests you not at all. All that work making the 17km tunnel, just to disappoint Gerrit...
Hi Anonymous,
the old "everyone else was speeding too officer!" routine :-)
With many things, precedents affect what comes next - "HEY! We in New Zealand have to catch up with Australia!!! They've banned PKE, quick, catch up catch up catch uppppppp!" :-)
Think of legal precedents, like the US Abortion law "Roe v Wade"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
every now and then we get a chance to be the FIRST at something, to make a stand and get others to follow suit. Think of being the first nation on the moon, or the first to give women -half the population - voting rights. How would the world be different if America were SECOND to land human animals on the moon, or if New Zealand were the SECOND or THIRD or FOURTH or TWENTIETH nation to give equal rights to our mothers and sisters and aunts and grandmothers?
Pride is important, being able to look back and see you've done good helps in taking that next step forward.
If New Zealand decided to do something about Palm Oil, you can bet others would follow, especially if we were *proud* of doing something - "buy from New Zealand, we've banned exploitative palm oil products!", others would come a runnin' after us.
it never ceases to amaze me how logic seems to desert people of a green persuasion ,
palm kernal is a by product of palm oil production,,
would it not seem sensible if one was indeed mad enough to miffed about palm kernal.. to actually ban the import of palm oil products ,, \
You will of course be banning every second product currently stocked on our supermarket and chemist shop shelves ,, but hell .. lets save the planet .
by the way PKE before it found a home as stock feed was dumped at sea or burnt ,, obviously much better for the environment . pity u cant make sandals out of the stuff
Hi "BS"
of course it would be good to raise awareness of palm oil in general, so thats exactly what we do ;-)
Take your pick about Vegan activism mentioning Palm Oil:
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=vegan+palm+oil
In this case, with Greenpeace, the nations largest importer of Palm Oil product (PKE) is being asked to avoid the crap, I would presume that its been selected as a winnable campaign, and I have to say its working, Fon Terror have gotten the bejeesus beaten out of their image because of Palm Kernel Extract (or "expeller")
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/take-action/Take-action-online/fonterra/
Should there be more campaigns for personal responsibility? Hell yeah! Hence why I focus on talking with people directly about what *we* can do, not huge monolithic industries used to getting their own way with every tantrum, with every disaster swept under the rug at the publics expense - but the public ourselves.
And what do we get for it, "BS Buster"? :-) The same tired Conservative lot saying "you cant change the world, you cant make ME change what I want to do......" , the same whining! :-)
I'd guess its easier to lobby against a large industry compared to asking people directly about what they can do to help, but which is more effective?
Better to talk to those interested directly I reckon, to get out there and DO it, leaving the moaners to grouse that it cant be done :-)
I do not buy products containing labelled Palm Oil myself, and try to avoid anything with "Vegetable Fats" which are presumably unlisted Palm Oil.
so if i understand you correctly.. it doesnt matter , if you besmurch a whole ag industry who are not in reality causing rain forests to be cut down , because it is actually the palm oil that is the product with the value ,
and if expeller is feed or burnt is in reality of no conseqence when it come to deforestation,
this is unfortunatly why Greenpeace has no credibility .
Nor does any green lobby that relies on lies to promote its cause ..
surely honesy and, integrity should be foundational to any argument supposedly based on higher ideals and expectation.
I am disappionted
BS Buster - Fonterra (or as I prefer to besmirch Fon Terror) are not the ones with the chainsaws out blowing up priceless rainforest, and directly throttling the bejeesus out of Orang's, yet they continue to be the largest bulk purchaser of PKE, hence directly subsidizing those who do such awful things (felling of rainforests, Orangutang strangling)
This is why Greenpeace, the largest environmental protection group went after Fonterra, the largest subsidizer here in this nation.
The gold medal doesnt go to the guy who barely finished the distance, it goes to the fastest, here, the campaign to end PKE being purchased was directed at the largest buyer.
Simple :-)
For other direct examples of our environment being screwed over by our "Agriculture industry" (as in the Non Vegan side), this link might prove useful for showing further links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism
how crazy is that ... attack a company even though whether they use PKE or not will have absolutely no effect on deforestation at all,
let me suggest a better route for you to take..
convince everyone not to use palm oil products .. all and i mean all cosmetic companies ,
in addition convince people not to consume any dairy products , that includes yourself . there are about 400 product manufactured from dairy products . photo processing to medicines
be consistent , take a direct approach,, instead of looking for the company with the best reputation so as to give you relevence only by casting a black mark against them,
convince the rest of the world not to use the product??
What is your bosom buddy Higgs got to do with it the BS in any report that includes the word "could be" in any summation.
Gerrit - all that work to tie down whether 42 was on the button and all they came up with was 'could be'. You'll doubtless have dismissed their work as BS as a consequence of their diffidence.
BS buster (Hey buster! That's bull shit!)
You argue, a Bill English did when the pressure came on over this issue of palm kernel expeller being fed to New Zealand dairy cows, that the real problem is palm oil and that we are all complicit in that market. Hewas, and you are, trying to deflect blame away from the farmer and onto the ordinary bloke and blokess, to protect your industry from criticism. Fact is, the use of both oil and expeller is causing the destruction of orangutan habitat. By all means campaign against the use of palm oil (you're avoiding it yourself, of course), and expect campaigns against the use of expeller by farmers. Whining that PKE is only 15% and would be dumped at sea if farmers didn't use it, isn't a winning argument and carries no weight at all. Front up to the issue, look at it truthfully and own the problem. I know how reliant the industry was on PKE when the season turned against farmers, but it seems to me that using a product like PKE reveals a failure in management by NZ dairy farmers who otherwise pride themselves on independence and initiative. Having to import a low grade product like PKE and contribute to rainforest destruction in the process is...well. quite farnkly, an embarrassment. The storage, movement and use of PKE in our region is quite 'furtive', I think because farmers are embarrassed by having it here at all.
frankly
"You will of course be banning every second product currently stocked on our supermarket and chemist shop shelves ,, but hell .. lets save the planet ."
BS Buster hits the nail on the head! Accidentally, mind you, but credit where credit's due.
If, bsbuster, that's what it took to save the planet, would you support or oppose such an action?Serious question.
Without getting into the rights and wrongs of PKE - I do have to say that its storage and cartage is anything but furtive. The trucks that cart it are fairly well signwritten, the sheds on the way to Bluff that store it are the size of aircraft hangers and the shed out at Nightcaps is truely massive, nothing furtive at all.
Your question above RG is a little pointless as the answer is obvious, however the question is incorrect rendering it pointless.
If NZ farmers decided to stop using PKE, which would be very nobel, it would not slow the palm kernal market even .00001 percent. The market exists for the oil, the PKE sales are the bonus. Shame really because it is a crap replacement for decent crops. Which is where another of your points RG is misguided. Kiwi farmers can easily grow crops for their animals, PKE is just so stupidly inexpensive that they don't have to.
The massive sheds full of PKE, Towack, can't be hidden. They would be, if it were possible. The PKE trucks -0 how are they labled? "Orangtan Habitat"?
I think that most Southlanders would not know PKE was here in such bulk, would not know where it is and would never have been aware that it's been passing them on the road. Furtive, that's why.
What a load of bollocks - sometimes your own view is so narrow - of the three trucks I know that cart PKE - all have 'stock food' or similar on them - sure they dont say PKE - because they cart all types of grain also.
The industry has never tried to hide. I dont know of any freight co that has the produce in their sheds blazened across the walls - I can see it now, Peter Baker Transport writing 'we store tampons' on their walls, or what about the Southland hospital storage sheds "we store chemicals used in abortions".
Just because an arguement doesnt fit in with yours doesnt make it wrong.
Southlanders dont know PKE is here in bulk because frankly, they dont get a damn.
"Stock food" - good one, Towack.
The good people of Southland would be very interested to know what's being stored and transported around the region, fed to cows and turned to milk, if the facts were presented to them. The 'orangutan hair in the milk' video made some inroads, caused panic among the farming community and revulsion among those Southlanders who saw it. Perhaps it's time to run it again. Then we'd see just how 'low key' the industry wishes the PKE issue to be.
Helping my father buy furniture around the region all my life, I've been in many buildings around the province, seen things inside and out.
As the "Old Kew Hospital" was blown to bits, we bought the hospital beds, cabinets, desks and chairs. We were there while the slate tiles were being taken off one roof (a conyevor belt was used, apparently slate is valuable, worthwhile for a company to remove, resell and reuse), while other buildings were already being bulldozed.
One of the operational warehouse storage areas was open, a new truckload of sanitary pads delivered. I remember being creeped out before, working beside the morgue, of my father and I entirely alone in the long linoleum lined corridors, knowing this place was going to be ripped to shit once we scavengers saved a few trinkets from inside.....I had visions from The Shining, the wall of blood which flooded from the elevator.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmlESfLHI4M
NSFH
Hi Robert,
To greatly reduce spam, there's an option in post/comment settings that requires commenters to type letters displayed in a box, ie "AF7KG" before posting. This weeds out the dopey computer script junk comments, which cannot see the letters/numbers in the generated box, nor understand and answer in kind. You could say their hand bone isn't connected to an actual brain bone :-)
Let me know when you'd like help with the idea we talked about too, by email.
Do you not have to do that already, as a commenter, Jordan?
I thought you did.
Am I getting spam? Do mean Towack is a bot?
Robert enough of the drivel... You're starting to lose some cred with this thread. I'm sure the the good people of Southland would like to know half of what is going on in there region, but in your eyes the good people already do.
Right, Anon - no more drivel.
Mr Guyton. how disappionting it is to see you continue your attack on nz agriculture ,
you cite the use of PKE to enabled farmer to feed stock, during this years drought .
unlike you i am pleased they did so,i pleased they didnt have to slaughter millions of dollars of capital stock, and that the regional economy was sustained ,
I am pleased that urban and rural businesses could as a result stay solvent ,, pay mortgages, employ staff, and that as a result this year virually every family in souhtland will not suffer financially because productive agriculture in southland has been maintained .
you on the other hand appear to wish misfortune on any one and anything in nz , that does not shackle itself to some misguided green dogma .
Careful now Rob... No more drivel remember...
Mouse, it would appear Rob is unwell, he suffers from a syndrome relating to tall poppies. It is prudent however to show some concern for our environment, which he does very well but his bias towards slamming the AG sector from his moral high ground is a crock. Start on Joe Public as well Rob, you know, those pot smoking rope heads that actually generate nothing for the country, societies consumers, who feel their conscience is free because they voted green and captain planet will save the day for them.
Ah yes, the great Far Right fail, talking of how no doubt 85 NO! * 95% * of the nation are dole bludging degenerates who were never physically smacked enough as children as they grew up in "socialist" state orphanages rather than a good, solid privatized home, over reliant on the state and expecting a hand out!!!! :-D
Why, if "Animal Agriculture" had to obey the same environmental laws as the rest of us "communists", this country would go tits up by lunchtime!
Of course, oh hiders behind fake names ;-)
Jordan Wyatt
Anonymous@12:22
Your argument exists inside of your own head and nowhere else. I said previously that I understand the role PKE played in tiding-over stock when things were dry, so your implication that I would have been happy to see thousands of animals slaughtered instead, is pure BS. I prefer to debate with rational souls, but to continue anyway...
You claim I wish misfortune on all and sundry, again, an irrational thing to say. I wish good fortune on the Indonesian rainforests and the orangutans that live there, or at least those few that remain. You are getting hot under the collar, but providing your own kindling to start that fire, not using anything I have said for it.
You have not addressed the issue of the orangurtans, nor that of the forests - why not? Avoiding reality, that's why. Come on, Anonymous - I DARE you to talk about those things. I expect you won't.
I meant that for you, 'mouse' - I hadn't noticed your subtle nuance. Ashamed of your real name, are you?
No need to be timorous and mousey here. I'm no Big Green Giant. I'll treat you nice.
Joe Public = pot smoking rope heads.
Classic, Anonymous. You and Bill English see the 'rabble' outside of the gates of your intellectual community in exactly the same way.
The only 'pot-smoking rope head' I know, is Nandor. He'd leave you salts-of-the-earth in the dust in any debate. I would too, but can't grow dreads and don't smoke dope. Mind you, I've seen a few farmers who can and do, so I shouldn't generalize...
yes lets save the planet by attacking nz agriculture . lets criticize everyone, lets all climb on the band wagon beat our breast claiming the moral high ground ,, much easier than actually doing something productive isnt it .if you are concerned about the rain forest , i suggest u go there , talk to those people and lie down in front of a bulldozer. explain to those people that their family must live in poverty to keep the forest and satisfy your green agenda ,
good luck,, i doubt you would return to your insulated comfortable life hard won on the back of nz agriculture here in nz , deforestation is a significant issue but slamming nz agriculture is not a remedy.
why not instead of pumping billions into global warming talk fests and carbon credit .we sell fresh air schemes take that money and give it directly to those people and governments so they can retain their forests / or is that just too sensible and deny the green movement of too much self promoting publicity,not to mention what seems to be the required psychological and emotion laxative associated with much of the green" movement "
robertguyton said...
"ddress the orangutan issue, mousey one!"
anonymouse said...
"Blah blah blah..."
"yes lets save the planet by attacking nz agriculture."
Attacking agriculture? This post quotes and cites factual material from a report on PKE and dairying.
"lets criticize everyone,"
I'm clearly not doing that. I raised the topic of PKE. I didn't apportion blame. You seem to have assumed it.
"lets all climb on the band wagon beat our breast claiming the moral high ground ,, much easier than actually doing something productive isnt it "
Well, yes, broadcasting my concern is much easier than going to Indonesia, as you suggest, and throwing myself in front of a bulldozer. We do what we can
"if you are concerned about the rain forest , i suggest u go there , talk to those people and lie down in front of a bulldozer. explain to those people that their family must live in poverty to keep the forest and satisfy your green agenda ,
good luck,"
I'd rather tslk to the consumer, that is, you guys. It's commonly held that the most effective agent of change is the consumer. Don't you agree?
", i doubt you would return to your insulated comfortable life hard won on the back of nz agriculture here in nz , deforestation is a significant issue but slamming nz agriculture is not a remedy."
Highlighting concerns about agricultural practices here is a valid action to take, if you believe it could be effective. I'm betting you're no stranger to speaking out on issues that you believe you can influence through...speaking out. You just don't like me doing it because you are on the receiving end.
"why not instead of pumping billions into global warming talk fests and carbon credit .we sell fresh air schemes take that money and give it directly to those people and governments so they can retain their forests "
What do you mean, "fresh air schemes? Sounds like you might have a good idea. I didn't btw, pump millions into any global talkfest. You sound confused about this.
"/ or is that just too sensible and deny the green movement of too much self promoting publicity,not to mention what seems to be the required psychological and emotion laxative associated with much of the green" movement "
Your final rant is impossible for me to unravel the meaning of - I like a cryptic challenge, but you've gone to 'quirky' with that one. Try a rephrase.
Address the orangutan issue, mouse (still waiting. Don't disappoint!)
orangutans live in rain forests..
your question has been addressed.[obviously]
you appear to rely heavily on the phrase." you seem confused} as a convenient out to avoid answering a question,
surely to enhance nz agriculture then use the financial benefit from that to provide financial aid ,, agricultural expertise thru investment in research in that region is a far more effective solution to deforestation and reforestation or is that too much of a win win solution for you,?
you see Robert. being critical of everyone is easy,, you never have to actually produce anything positive ,,
being innovative, productive and positive is more difficult ,, not everyone has that ability.
that is the problem with this world ,, more and more talkers ,, fewer and fewer people who do , can do and are willing to do.
remeber this . if anyone is successful in pulling everything and everybody down ,, there has to someone comming behind to rebuild ,, obviously this is not the green movement
Mouse - sneaky! You are avoiding saying anything significant about the orangutans and how their plight might be resolved, in so far as it relates to the use of PKE in New Zealand. Your response, "They live in rainforests", insults our intelligence (yours and mine). Why so anxious to discuss the orangutans?
On the issue of my 'answering questions', good grief man, I'm devoting pages and pages of virtual paper here to answer questions whenever I'm asked them.
As well, my responses are littered with positive suggestions. Your blindness to both those aspects is worrisome.
You asked one question in your 3:02 post:
"surely to enhance nz agriculture then use the financial benefit from that to provide financial aid ,, agricultural expertise thru investment in research in that region is a far more effective solution to deforestation and reforestation or is that too much of a win win solution for you,?"
Aside from the fact that you've crafted it so that it cannot be answered 'cleanly' ('is that too much of a win-win for you' is a weighted question that smacks of arrogance. An open-ended question would be more reasonable, but your intent was clearly to demean), I would say, no, investment in research in that region' is not a good answer. By the time your 'research' has been carried out, there will be no orangutan (don';t be frightened by the name, it's only one of the most wonderful of the Great Apes left on the planet - worth saving, eh!)left and precious little rainforest either. So, no, mouse, that's not a valid way forward. It is a solution that the agricultural community likes though - we'll not do anything about climate change, aside froim research into rumem management, ge pastyre grasses... anything to avoid real action. By all means, research the problem of the orangutans and their habitat, but it'll be conveniently gone by the time you know anything about it. Why not just say 'no' to PKE, mouse. Answer me that!
rumen
i think your concern about orangutans hides your real passion , which is hatred of agriculture and farmers actually,
Im sorry Robert ,, but i dont agree with you.
But i must concede this is your blog and you have every right to a differing opinion, in that respect i guess i am an uninvited guest,
having said that , i have never seen a positive outcome from continual criticism and tearing down of ones own house so to speak, . and as is usual those involved always claim to be doing so for the noblest of reasons .
Surely you have to join me and agree that a solution that sees each side of the argument satisfied as a far better solution,
To promote the assumption that all rain forest is de nuded to provide PKE is dishonest. that orangutan suddenly are under threat because of PKE is dishonest.
when one concentrates on attacking others . clearly the goal is not a solution.
surely a Green party policy of a tax to save the orangutan. or a call for all nz ers not to consume dairy products would be more effective . Or do you want to have your cake ,, or in this case milk and to drink it too?
"i think your concern about orangutans hides your real passion , which is hatred of agriculture and farmers actually"
Now you're being silly, mouse (silly the ony reasonable word to describe your comment, however, I accept that you believe it to be the case. Wrong, but there we go, can't change that from here).
You are not an uninvited guest, mouse, you are very welcome here. You're invited by dint of the blog being public.
Yes, I like a solution that suits all parties and I include the environment and the orangutans in that mix.
"To promote the assumption that all rain forest is de nuded to provide PKE is dishonest. that orangutan suddenly are under threat because of PKE is dishonest."
It might be, mouse, but it's not what I've said.
As to having milk, personally, I don't drink it, 'cept very occasionally in a bought coffee. I'd prefer soy.
i hear that orangutan also like soy Robert.
be careful you arms dont grow .
as for me ,, i think teas becomming my preference.
although lets not talk about what made way for tea, coffee soy and what ever else ,
dont get me wrong ,, i like orangutans . its a pity u cant milk them though, even better if they could do some gardening here and there
of course Orangutangs produce milk Mouse, all mammals do for their young!
I reckon we could get you onto the good stuff, Southland made Oat Milk, yeah? :-)
Our friends at Venture Southland are looking into it, I interviewed Alistar Adam about it here:
http://www.coexisting.co.nz/2012/07/interview-with-venture-southlands.html
We Are Weaned :-)
http://vegetarier-sind-moerder.de/abgestillt/?page=english
Ouch! Nice mammalian science lesson from Jordan - fancy a cockie not knowing that! Mouse probably hasn't realised that his kind too, lactates.
Perhaps, mouse, Jordan's just pulling your tit! Either way, the oat-milk idea sounds interesting. Tea, coffee and soy too are great destroyers of natural habitat too, or rather the barons are. It's the human condition, isn't it. I reckon there's a way to balance agriculture with environment that's waaaay better than we are doing at present, especially here in Southland. It takes some serious re-thinking though and some behaviour changes that would frighten the beejeezes out of most meateaters and mammalian milk drinkers.
well , its a nether confirm or deny policy as far as my back ground goes , because essentially it is about the argument/ opinion/ facts, rather than the vocation i would suggest , but keep trying by all means .
the environment and agriculture .
interesting relabeling , it used to be called the country side , and of course by definition descriptive of the activity ongoing in the country side for 150 years .
now some call it the environment and try to redefine what should occur there ..
the first question that needs to be asked is .. which environment?
are we redefining and who is doing the re defining .. because if it is the urban majourity they would do well to look at where they live and appreciate it has nothing " natural about it atall.
to be concentratng on the countryside and believing it needs re defined and dumbed down from an agricultural perspective surely ignores the elephant in the room which is of course urban areas,
But this is not surpriseing if one accepts that the animosity towards rural enterprise hides behind so much of the green lobby as we see it expressed currently.
surely the green lobby would gain some credibility if it addressed the urban environment .. and why do you not do so robert ?
How do you milk an oat?
mouse -
your talk about the vast majority of New Zealanders (who are urban) simply not getting it is, I believe, incorrect. Its true, in the vast metropolis of Invercargill, there is concrete and steel everywhere (barring my little piece of paradise), but is the "countryside" any more "natural"?
Wouldnt "natural" mean left alone, free of human animal interference?
Think of wild, untouched New Zealand, the REAL "countryside", brambles, bushes, scrub oh my!
To create "farmland", all the trees, all the forest was "cleared", much as these rainforests overseas were. Where there were once wonderful native trees, birds and bees everywhere, now we have somewhat sloping green/brown hills. The "productive" land, as its called, fenced in with concrete, plastic and steel.
Its not too different than the urban Invercargill skyscraper scene, eh? :-)
Mouse, I'd love to see you identify yourself, do you have a blog, a Facebook page or the like? Who are you really? :-)
Its hard to imagine someone doing more for the environment than the Guyton clan, you cant escape their making-the-world-a-better-place, the last time I visited Invercargill Pak n Save, a young Guyton lept down from a wall where he was "free running" beside me, and we talked a little about past meetings of environmental groups he'd attended, or been unable to attend due to PRIOR environmental meetings pencilled in at the same time already! :-)
mouse -
your talk about the vast majority of New Zealanders (who are urban) simply not getting it is, I believe, incorrect. Its true, in the vast metropolis of Invercargill, there is concrete and steel everywhere (barring my little piece of paradise), but is the "countryside" any more "natural"?
Wouldnt "natural" mean left alone, free of human animal interference?
Think of wild, untouched New Zealand, the REAL "countryside", brambles, bushes, scrub oh my!
To create "farmland", all the trees, all the forest was "cleared", much as these rainforests overseas were. Where there were once wonderful native trees, birds and bees everywhere, now we have somewhat sloping green/brown hills. The "productive" land, as its called, fenced in with concrete, plastic and steel.
Its not too different than the urban Invercargill skyscraper scene, eh? :-)
Mouse, I'd love to see you identify yourself, do you have a blog, a Facebook page or the like? Who are you really? :-)
Its hard to imagine someone doing more for the environment than the Guyton clan, you cant escape their making-the-world-a-better-place, the last time I visited Invercargill Pak n Save, a young Guyton lept down from a wall where he was "free running" beside me, and we talked a little about past meetings of environmental groups he'd attended, or been unable to attend due to PRIOR environmental meetings pencilled in at the same time already! :-)
The urban environment mouse, Rob might need an explanation of who this is, or perhaps he could take a look outside the warehouse tomorrow morning or the local emporium selling dragon statues and bongs to see his environments biggest enemies buying Chinese plastic crap to take home and throw in their wheels bins. Curse those farmers who import that waste product to make food from it, curse them, curse them argh!!!
Shoulda smacked him and told him to get off the wall Jay
and there in is the problem.. people who cant tell the difference between and urban environment and a rural one .
yet would tell the world how to live ,,,,,
talk about the cruelty of battery hens .
side by side , in their own little boxes. not too dissimilar to urban living really is it ... how ironic that you cant see the obvious
There's 40 million more people in the world than 1/1/2012 I say feed em milk to keep em sustained for soon they'll be eatin the apes themselves. Sad but true
How do you milk an oat? Don't waste your time on one oat, Anonymous. Do a whole herd.
Jordan suggests that that the rural environment is as 'constructed' as an urban one.
Interesting thought.
I think he's onto something.
Is rural Southland natural, in any way or form?
The sky out there seems largely as it was, but the land?
Hmmmmmmmmmm.....
Hardly an argument Rob, cut the drivel. Rural Southland is a darn sight less constructed and more natural than Invercargill. Take your eye patch off it's seriously affecting your vision
Roberts missing an eye, eh Anonymous? Was it due to escaped "farm property" blocking the road? ;-)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/7256951/Farmer-ruined-my-life-truckie
;-) (Robert with his eyepatch on)
Take a look at Kew Bush as an example of mostly untouched Invercargill, right by Invercargills hospital:
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/9727979.jpg
it looks like mostly untouched Otatara etc, yet boom, its right there in South Invercargill, in the rougher party of the city too, right by our huge hospitals morgue and the sexual illness clinic, how attractive!
I knew of "Kew Bush" as the place where people are found....hanging.....that their were drugs littered everywhere, and that every now and then someone would go for a walk inside to find a purple faced youth swinging from their noose.
I finally checked it out myself, with a friend, for the geocache inside, sort of like treasure hunting, people leave a waterproof container, usually a plastic lunchbox or a metal ammo tin, marking its location on the geocaching website through GPS. People with a smartphone or GPS receiver device can see where it is on the map, as well as knowing "its 10m away....8m away......" etc.
the geocache container itself
http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/accff3ed-d480-43e5-a817-b069e51b39b5.jpg
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=8f164537-8c1d-44a8-a67e-55b0b4d496ab
Geocaching is a fantastic hobby, there are over a hundred hidden containers around Invercargill alone, a few million worldwide, EVERYWHERE. They are in Riverton, Omaui, Bluff, Greenhills, you name it. I have four myself, with plans for more, having found over a hundred now.
Kew Bush was mind blowing for me, to think that this is how Invercargill once was - and in turn, how all of Southland was once covered, before it was quote "cleared" endquote to become quote "productive land", plain green (at best) fields for agriculture.
A plant based diet requires much less land, as you are eating the direct fruits (literally!) of your labour, rather than funneling them through someone else, who you then have to kill, messy, messy!
I love the idea of more of Southland returning to its "natural" untouched state :-)
It's as I suspected, Anonymous. You don't read carefully. My question wasn't, "Is rural Southland more constructed and less natural than Invercargill?
It was, "Is rural Southland natural, in any way or form?"
I worry about you.
There really are some blinkered morons involved in the agriculture industry in NZ, and several have appeared on cue in this thread.
The only reason we import this palm kernel "bio security time bomb" CRAP, is because it is cheap, cheap, cheap.
And NZ dairy farmers just love to save a buck.
Can we feed our cows with NZ grown feed? you bet your arse we can, but do we? no, we are driving NZ grain producers out of business for this imported, cheap, nasty sh!t.
It is unsustainable on so many levels, it is short sighted, ignorant, and destructive to local industry, just not their industry....well...not yet.
We simply never needed to import feed for our animals.
But NZ agriculture is largely uninterested in mixed model farming as part of our farming model, and this is where our entire industry will ultimately come unstuck.
Importing palm kernel is tantamount to economic treason in my opinion, it is a disgrace and is fueled by nothing but greed.
The palm kernel issue is actually very representative of the short sightedness of the dairy industry and reveals the 'gold rush' mentality that underpins the current favoured business model.
Good comments, Jordan and Shunda.
You need to up your game, anonymouse. The townies are exposing your argument as one-eyed and short-sighted (bad combination).
its just a pity the " townies" as you call them dont have their facts right>
avaialbility of grain in recent years is very tight ,and infact last year almost unprocurable im surprised grain is not imported from australia to fill the gap.
PKE and grains are actually feed often times as a combined ration,
all the prepared rations and pellets are in fact PKE, grains . and other stuff like brewers grain and molasses,
please be consistant , with your own logic a only buy nz fuel, paper, computers , cars , clothes, tv s cosmetics,etc etc etc etc
my god man you're bitter!
Shunda had a great point - we USED to be able to grow our own crops, now you're saying our farmers are too incompetent to handle wheat, oats and the like?
As Alister of Venture Southland informed me, around Gore way used to be world record holders when it came to oats, we kicked ass! Somehow we've forgotten our heritage, because you modern day farmers got what fell off the back of the deforestor cheap at your local pub?
http://www.coexisting.co.nz/2012/07/interview-with-venture-southlands.html
Theres a hell of a difference between New Zealand being unable to competitively produce thousand dollar smartphones and tablet computers, and not being able to throw some seed in the ground, water it and tend with care until fruition!
Right, I'm back off outside to do what you farmers apparently cant! ;-)
(all in good fun Mouse, no ill will meant :-) )
and no offence taken,, and i must put in my own disclaimer , if i have offended anyone [ robert] i apologise and will strive to be less personal
where to start ,,,, oat production,,, stopped when the oat mill in gore was sold , the machinery gutted and shipped off somewhere ,
cereal demand is greater than supply ,there are no grain farmers who cannont place every last tonne of grain and in fact it is mostly sold a year ahead before it even sown in the ground ,
now please please you guys ,, u have to stop talking complete tosh so i can actually get some rest ?
I'm not offended, mouse. I'd not last long as a blogger, and an irritating one at that (think grain of sand, oyster), if I became irritated by my guests.
Southland's grain story is a very interested and complex one, I know. The mechanics of it's near extinction are regrettable, I reckon, and hard to reverse. I'm mindful of how hard conventional grain farming is/was on the environment and am cautious about advocating for it. That said, there are better ways to grow grains and other crops than those employed in the recent past. Perhaps that's a topic we could explore, once Jordan's done his good work, and you mouse, have completed your evil practices for the day :-)
New Anonymous to this Post. Old Anon to blog:)
Interesting blog which has curiously drawn me in. I think there is a fundamental reason why there is such a division within bloggers here.
Let me make a few points clear before I elaborate further here.
I believe purchasing some PKE products supports an industry that has some bad environmental behaviours. Even if PKE is a byproduct, when it is paid for, it supports an industry that can have elements of environmental destruction. Dairy farmers should accept this as fact in my opinion.
I think the reason why there is debate is the context. To what extent is PKE purchase supporting this questionable industry? Palm oil is used in many many foods and products. It is hard for dairy farmers to receive criticism when the world is full of people contributing to the same problem. If I was actively going to point the finger at an industry, I would want the facts, and that includes answering the question "How does the typical dairy farmer purchasing PKE compare to the typcial consumer of food in terms of support to this questionable industy?" In my opinion that is the first question that should be asked before stones are thrown. Until it is answered, I believe that dairy farmers have the right to defend their position. How can we accuse dairy farmers when we may be just as guilty?
So Shunda, I can't agree with your labelling. "Blinkered Morons" is not fair in my opinion. They have a right to defend their opinion fairly.
And Robert, I can't agree with you comment around "Foolish". Not until the facts are clear. If you can help me here I am all ears... Bit like a Chimpanzee.
Lets take this debate one step further. Lets bravely assume that the dairy industry is significantly supporting an environmentally questionable industry? There are 2 logical ways to impact this behavior. Discourage bad behaviour and encourage good behaviour.
Lets take the, encourage good behaviour. Personally I think it would be great if a PKE free milk existed that was marketed PKE free. Consumers could vote with their feet and wallets. If PKE is a real concern we should demand such products.
And discouraging bad behaviour? That is simply a case of pointing out the issue, which I assume you are trying to do here Robert. If we were to try and discourage this behaviour, here is an example of how we might go about it. Say the following:
"Dairy farmers. You are supporting a questionable industry. Please stop.
Merchantile firms. You are supporting a questionable industry. Please stop.
Transport firms. You are supporting a questionable industry. Please stop.
Storage firms. You are supporting a questionable industry. Please stop.
Shipping companies. You are supporting a questionable industry. Please stop."
About here is where the debate gets interesting. Please tell me if I am wrong Robert. My understanding is that our Regional Council has a controlling shareholding (about 66%) in a Southern Port which supports PKE shipping and storage. Dont Councillors control that Regional Council? Arent you a Councillor? Can I ask, are you part of the percieved problem? If so, is it fair you throw stones at others?
If you agree with this issue, we should also say:
"Councillors you are supporting a questionable industry. Please stop."
In the same context. I can reflect on myself. I have never searched out Palm Oil free products (other than during a certain Chocolate debate). I am as guilty as any. And I probably know more than average including the knowledge of lists of palm oil free products. OK you now have an excuse to let me have it. I am guilty. But I dont feel bad in admitting it, as I know most are also guilty. Shunda are all your products Palm Oil Free? Jay? Robert?
In my opinion, it is very easy for people to wash red off their hands and pop up two green thumbs;)
Did I get spammed? :(
1
What a brilliant comment the new Anon sent :-)
the Sunday Star had a good article on Palm Kernel Extract a couple years back-
"Because last year, almost one-quarter of the world's entire palm kernel expeller was sold to New Zealand. Statistics NZ data shows it came, in almost equal measures, from Indonesia and Malaysia. And, according to the secretary-general of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, the international body set up to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil, "very little... would have been certified at all".
In fact, the Sunday Star-Times determined that even under the absolute best-case scenario, nearly 800,000 tonnes of potentially environmentally and socially unsustainable palm kernel entered New
Zealand last year.
Figures from the United States Department of Agriculture put this country's demand for PKE second only to the combined 27 countries that make up the European Union (where it is also used as a fuel).
"The EU remains the primary destination," says Wiliam George, USDA senior agriculture economist. "But New Zealand is the major growth market.""
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/2776540/Our-destructive-ways
Its only grown since then.
2
"Animal Agriculture" remains the largest polluter in the world, harming and killing other animals entails more pollution than transportation. The UN released a report back in late 2006 "Livestocks Long Shadow" documenting this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow
"UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet
Lesser consumption of animal products is necessary to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change, UN report says.
A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today.
As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.
It says: "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."
Professor Edgar Hertwich, the lead author of the report, said: "Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels."
The recommendation follows advice last year that a vegetarian diet was better for the planet from Lord Nicholas Stern, former adviser to the Labour government on the economics of climate change. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has also urged people to observe one meat-free day a week to curb carbon emissions."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
3
We remain second only to the ENTIRE European Union in directly subsidizing Palm Oil's destruction, of quick bucks being made leaving misery and lamentation in the aftermath. The homes of human animals and nonhuman animals alike, direction links to the extinction of certain big cats and primate species in the rainforests.
Palm Oil (and its husk, which we buy as Palm Kernel Extract) is horrible for the environment "over there", just as "Animal Agriculture" is horrible both over there, AND here.
I agree with talking with Joe Consumer on the street about Palm Oil, often when talking about Veganism we directly bring up Palm Oil's harm, and why we as Vegans avoid it, because of its direct links to harming Other Animals and our environment.
I do not knowingly buy any product containing palm oil, its often hidden as "palm fat" or even insidiously as "vegetable fat". Over time as the public has become more alert, products containing it have tried to sneak away from directly saying "palm oil", using slightly different terms, like "Palm Stearate" and the like.
Even places which cage other animals as "exhibits" speak out against Palm Oil, like Auckland Zoo -
http://www.aucklandzoo.co.nz/conservation/buy-palm-oil-free.aspx
or me personally, the most irritating products to contain Palm Oil was a non dairy icecream (Lite Licks, the company is phasing it out, its only in the hokey pokey flavour, so thats easy enough to avoid when theres chocolate, vanilla and berry to pick from!) and an animal fat free pastry, which is believed to contain palm oil. We had it listed on the Invercargill Vegan Society website, but added a warning about it potentially containing Palm Oil, many Vegans and Vegetarians would have been greatly encouraged to buy it, luckily we almost always check ingredients before buying new products, but by leaving it listed on our site with a warning, it avoids disappointment when youve arrived at Countdown, opened the freezer door and discover the frosty plastic wrapped square in your hand contains palm oil! :-)
Its counter productive for a product aimed at vegans to contain palm oil in the first place, as we're the group MOST likely to avoid a product for containing it! :-) Hopefully those companies will phase it out over time, as we bring this to their attention politely, that consumers do not want to buy Palm Oil.
http://www.invsoc.org.nz/countdown/
Theres certainly MANY Palm Oil free milks at your local supermarket Anonymous : Soy Milks, Almond Milks, Rice Milks, you name it :-)
If you are referring to my comment. It was there for a second then gone. I don't know why. Perhaps Robert can help?
I'll have a look in my spam folder right now, Anonymous. Please don't think for a moment that I've deleted your comment. I've been down this track before and it's tiresome.
...or was it this one?
buy viagra illegal to order viagra online - get generic viagra online
It's a worrisome place, that spam folder. I almost never venture in there, alone.
Yes that was me. PKE stand for Porn Keeps Entering.
If the comment makes it past your filter and the other won't I will die:)
Haha... Dead
Ha ha, new Anonymous. I like the cut of your jib! Playing the SouthPort card, eh! Quite right too, and it's one I've played myself in the Council, much to the chagrin of some Councillors (not all mind you). The get-out-of-jail-free token for the Council is: SouthPort has a directorship that is completely divorced from the Council's influence. Our hands, you see, are clean :-) In fact, the PKE issue isn't the only one that grates with me. SouthPort projects great future earnings from shipping lignite. I don't know if you've read any of my thoughts on lignite. PKE pales into relative insignificance beside the potential harm lignite represents to our global environment, but that's another argument altogether. What I'm saying is, I've said, albeit a little quietly, ""Councillors you are supporting a questionable industry. Please stop." My message to farmers is equally quiet, I think you'll find, if you look at my post dispassionately. Certainly, the palm oil in everyday products issue is one to address. I'll see if I can find suitable material to build one around. Suggestions welcome. You may or may not know that I buy most of the 'disposable' products I use from the Environment Centre and they have pretty high standards of ethical purchasing and environmentally friendly stuff. I can't pretend to be free of buying 'stained' products, but I'd be at the lower end of the scale through conscious choice.
I should have said, Anonymous, when i release a comment from spam, it always returns to the time slot you posted it in. It's back there at 6:26
I can see you are rinsing your hands flat stick but the reality is ES owns 66% of it. And as a councillor you determine (in part) where the councils investment is do you not? A comparable would be shares in a palm oil company but saying "we are guilt free because we don't control the company". It is an extreme comparison but it conveys my point. Please don't think I am criticising. After all I am guilty as any. I just can't see your position as one of strength to throw stones from. Slippery hands must make it difficult :)
Ummmm, no, Anonymous. As I said, Councillors have no input or control other than electing the CEO (I think). We can't influence the behaviour of the company at all. I'm not really one to wash my hands if I find the're bloody or muddy, especially as part of a council or governance. I don't know if you ever noticed, but i was a regular critic of Environment Southland before winning a seat at their table. I don't sell out easily, I think, but by all means point out where I do. You probably be surprised/appalled at how much angst I create inside of that particular tent :-)
It would be fair to say that I have raised objections on more than *one occasion. Some of my fellow Councillors would say the same thing, only through gritted teeth.
*approximation only - could be one dozen, could be one hundred :-)
Robert, you are missing the simple concept. I am not suggestion you can control that company. I am suggesting you have a part to play in where your Councils investment is. At the moment that investment is in a company that supports the PKE industry. Would you be ok if the council had an investment in a palm oil company?
For me, Anonymous, it's not okay that the Council has an investment in a company that supports the PKE industry. You'll note I'm not supporting their ...support, nor am I defending my connection with the company, other than clarifying the relationship. If I could vote that they stop, I would. I'm not sure of your point, as you say and less sure of what I might do about the situation, other than express my concern to the Council, which I have done on several occasions. Any suggestions as to the best way to respond, gratefully accepted.
If I try to second guess where you are going with this, I'd say that a farmer can choose not to use PKE. I can't choose not to be a shareholder in SouthPort.
There is a saying alone the lines of "tend your own garden before complaining about others weeds". To me it fits the post reasonably.
Yet you've made no practical suggestion as to how. Not just hiding behind platitudes, are you?
Sorry they are your weeds. And I ain't paid to tend them. Nobody has ever said weeds were easy to manage but with such a capable councillor I am sure you will have no problem. :)
Heck, so here we have the single largest importer of PKE other than the entire European Union, a nation of just four million people who nearly buys as much of the poison as the >500 million people of Europe, and poor Robert here is being dragged down into this as though he's somehow responsible? As my grandmother would say, STREUTH! :-)
I havnt seen Councillor Guyton give "Animal Agriculture" "The Bash" - leave that to me! ;-)
Its a little like saying that someone is responsible for one of their countries political parties, "you live in the country that supports them!", a little different to being in the "why is everybody always picking on me" big business heavy industry of New Zealand, "Animal Agriculture"! :-)
Theres a heck of a difference between being second only to the entire EU for directly supporting this wretched substance, and sitting on a council which has, I'm told, majority ownership of a port where the rubbish passes through! :-)
I'll say it again, STREUTH! :-)
Goodnight all, and to all a goodnight :-)
Jay. It is called a Supply chain. You can try to manage the end of the chain with many difficult battles or the bottle neck link. ES owns a majority of that bottleneck link. There is no question PKE needs storage. The said port is not just a gateway. Roberts council invests in this link.
My Goal of pointing this out is not to criticise the PKE industry. I have no right, I consume it's products. It is to point out that parties on both side of this debate may not be innocent. Including me. Jay you may be the most eligible to criticise ?
Sorry they are your weeds. And I ain't paid to tend them.
Anon displays a very typical and common trait of those justifying their own (or a group they seek to defend) poor conduct or morals.
It's the good ole "you're not perfect either, so you shouldn't judge".
Unfortunately, the world doesn't really work that way, and reasoning at the the level of a 12 year old is simply not acceptable among adults discussing real and serious issues.
Anon also seems to forget that the dairy industry being a primary producer exporting the majority of their produce needs to have a different approach to marketing their products than a few importers of products with palm oil may have.
And lets not forget, some palm oil is in fact from a sustainable source, but the problems with palm kernel being imported here remain regardless of the source.
It is all about money, it is as simple as that, and it is also about ramping up production well in excess of the true capacity of the land and it's surrounding environment.
No one is anti farming, just anti ignorance, and anyone that thinks killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a good idea is a "blinkered moron" as far as I am concerned.
"I have no right, I consume it's products"
Anonymous, you have every 'right' to protest the use of PKE, even though you consume its products. In fact, I urge and support you to do so. Shunda and Jordan are correct, your argument edges closer and closer to saying, shut up everyone, you're a human and humans do these things. Everybody, look away and zip your lip. It's full steam ahead for every human activity and damn the torpedoes.
It really is bordering on daft. I won't criticise your words though, as I, just like you, use words, and am therefore disqualified from criticising anything anybody says...if you get my drift :-)
In order to respond appropriately.
Anon displays a very typical and common trait of those justifying their own (or a group they seek to defend) poor conduct or morals.
Shunda - Are you Palm oil free? How is your conduct or morals?
It's the good ole "you're not perfect either, so you shouldn't judge".
Unfortunately, the world doesn't really work that way, and reasoning at the the level of a 12 year old is simply not acceptable among adults discussing real and serious issues.
Ha ha.... I see you like to insult when your argument lacks strength. But good one... Sure personal attacks help the debate. I will try and work with it.
Anon also seems to forget that the dairy industry being a primary producer exporting the majority of their produce needs to have a different approach to marketing their products than a few importers of products with palm oil may have.
Have I forgotten something have I? Do you think I should post every facet of every debate. My comments could get very long.
And lets not forget, some palm oil is in fact from a sustainable source, but the problems with palm kernel being imported here remain regardless of the source.
Agreed. Hence why I was careful not to suggest all PKE use as detrimental to the environment. I assumed this was a given or a basic understanding that a 12 year old would have:)
It is all about money, it is as simple as that, and it is also about ramping up production well in excess of the true capacity of the land and it's surrounding environment.
So you disagree with Robert that it can be about feeding animals in a time of need. Robert you need to school this adult.
No one is anti farming, just anti ignorance, and anyone that thinks killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a good idea is a "blinkered moron" as far as I am concerned.
Given such wide use of Palm oil and wide consumption by New Zealanders (accept Jay), are we all Blinkered Morons? When you look in the mirror do you think "hello blinkered moron?". Perhaps you could help Jay with a protest sign for a trip to the ES front gate. It might say..."YOU are a blinkered MORON"? I am sorry but that is the best my 12 year old mind can come up with;) Sorry Jay I shouldn't suggest you would do such a thing. Would you rather tirelessly attack farmers than a critical link in the supply chain?
Robert,
I suggest I have no rights based on my own moral limitations. I won't throw stones until I have a defensible position. If you want to attack an industry from a low moral stance point you have every right to. But you will have to used to 12 yr old intellects like mine pointing out the colour of your thumbs:) Apparently red is the new green;)
"But you will have to used to 12 yr old intellects like mine pointing out the colour of your thumbs:) Apparently red is the new green;)"
"Welcome to GreenIsTheNewRed.com! This website focuses on how fear of “terrorism” is being exploited to push a political and corporate agenda. Specifically, I focus on how animal rights and environmental advocates are being branded “eco-terrorists” in what many are calling the Green Scare."
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/green-scare/
I of course only use peaceful, non violent education, websites, pamphlets without "graphic" images etc , but just thought it was an interesting turn of phrase you used Anon :-)
Anonymous - your position seems to have lost it's focus and you're now spraying accusations around like a buddy-less high application effluent irrigator. You're welcome to do so, of course, but you're making Shunda's assessment sound very wise.
A couple of points in response to your muck-spreading :-)
"If you want to attack an industry from a low moral stance point you have every right to."
I'm challenging the practice of using PKE, not 'attacking an industry'. Your summation is, again, erroneous, Anonymous. A little tiresome, your repetition of that tired meme. I'm confused at how you came to the conclusion that I have a 'low moral stance'. Did you find something here on this thread that gives evidence to that, or are you possesing of some information other than what I've provided here?
"But you will have to used to 12 yr old intellects like mine pointing out the colour of your thumbs:) Apparently red is the new green;)"
You've finished with a winky-face, but I can't make head nor tail of your meaning. Are you claiming that I'm a Communist? If so, what on earth makes you think that? Point out to me, if you will, Anonymous, the things I've said here that lead you to say that.
It is interesting how you've moved from discussion the farming ndustry's use of PKE to this bloggers morals. That's got to have been a conscious effort by you to derail the train of a thread. Elsewhere in the blogging world, that'd be labled 'trolling'.
Robert, I am simply trying to accomodate the eliquent persona Shunda has given me.
But much like Shunda you are trying to defend yourself by pushing the arguement to personal attacks. It is a common blogger trait.i.e. I cant argue with that... You are a blinkered 12 yr old moron.
I actually think I have spelled out my point pretty well. So I wont keep banging on. I do find it humorous that you have suggested your "not really one to wash my hands if I find the're bloody or muddy, especially as part of a council or governance". But in my opinion your council has an important investment in a PKE supporting industry. You can claim no ability to influence that but you have not convinced me.
Do I want to "derail" this blog? No, I think is an important debate. I would go as far as saying I congradualte you on bringing it up. As I said, personally I have questions around some PKE use. But I also have problems with terms like "foolish" and "Blinkered Morons" when such finger pointing can easily be turned around upon ourselves. I simply think any "challenge" needs to be put in "context". Some of that context is admitting our own liability in the debate.
And I most certainly am not suggesting you are a communist. I probably use the old winky face and smiley face wrongly? I like to let people know I am making a joke or suggesting humor so not to offend. I have a habit of being a little cheeky. If you think along the lines of Orangutans and red my humor might become clearer. I think you have made reference to hands above.
If none of this makes any sense i can understand why. In admitting my liability, I have the mind of a 12 year old blinkered moron and cant possibly expect people to understand my moronic babbling. And blinkered means I shouldn't be able to recognise I am a moron. Given that i have recognised it, I can now challenge Shunda on that one :~{ (a face of a moron)
Hopefully you are at least enjoying some of my humor?
Let's follow this one idea of yours, Anonymous, so as not to get lost -
You say:
"You can claim no ability to influence that but you have not convinced me."
I don't think I can influence the Council's continued relationship with SouthPort any more than I already have. Do you think I can do more? As I invited you to do earlier, share your suggestions. I'm more than happy to hear them.
Btw - your gleeful revelling in the criticism from Shunda gives you a passive/aggressive air. Let's just let that stuff go, shall we?
Post a Comment