Federated Farmers launches petition against its business model

Written By: - Date published: 9:20 am, January 19th, 2020 - 157 comments
Categories: act, climate change, Culture wars, david seymour, Environment, farming, farming, Politics, science, Shane Jones, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uncategorized - Tags:

I don’t get farmers, or at least their representative organisations. You would think that a sector whose business model depends completely and entirely on the environment would be concerned at the prospect of environmental devastation.  And that melting ice caps and out of control recent fires in Australia and California would be all the confirmation that they need that the environment is indeed changing.

But too many of them and their representative organisations have bought into the notion that there is a culture war being raged against them.  Whereas all we actually want to do is save the planet.

The latest indicator of this is the manufactured scandal over a teaching resource aimed at getting our kids ready to address climate change.  Federated Farmers is that upset by the notion of our young citizens being taught science that they have started a petition.

From Rachael Kelly at Stuff:

Federated Farmers has launched a petition asking the Ministry of Education to change its new climate change teaching resource.

The resource, which was launched earlier this month, was designed for year seven to 10 pupils and schools could include it in their curriculums this year.

The farmer lobby group say the resource, “Climate Change: Prepare today, live well tomorrow” was not appropriate for use by teachers in classrooms in its current form.

Federated Farmers climate change spokesman Andrew Hoggard said there were a number of mistakes in the resource that the Ministry needed to go back to and review before they put it out to teachers, because it supported misinformation about New Zealand agriculture’s contribution to global warming.

“We’re not denying climate change, we’re just saying some of the facts are wrong.”

What were the features that caused them concern? Well they want information about the short-lived nature of methane included, want the methane based nature of NZ’s agriculture reinforced, want to teach about “food miles” and “buy local”, remove suggestions about food choices beyond “avoid waste”, remove reference to “activism” and ensure all material is relevant and appropriate for the New Zealand context.

There are some references to Methane in the material which refer to it being a potent Greenhouse gas, which it is.  But we should bear in mind we are talking about educational material for years 7 to 10, not University level, so I am not sure that relative break down levels is a vital piece of the material.

And the material contains reference to food miles and buy local.  For instance it contains this passage:

“When you buy local food or products it means that your food hasn’t had to travel so far (in a vehicle which uses fossil fuels). You are also helping our economy.”

As for the teaching of activism why not?  And should we purge educational material of references to Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi or Mother Theresa because they were also activists?  Not teaching our children about activism is an affront to them and to our education system.

The Taxpayers [not a] Union has come in with one of its typical stupid takes.

And David Seymour went full conspiracy on the resource saying it was state organised bullying of kids.  He is afraid that it does not allow kids to debate the science.

From Zane Small at Newshub:

Seymour, leader of the ACT Party, said he’s concerned the curriculum doesn’t allow for students to debate the science, telling Magic Talk he fears it’s designed to suppress opposing views. 

“There is a supporting document that is all about how to deal with kids that disagree and one of the things it says is that if you’ve got a difficult kid that disagrees just change the seating plan.”

Seymour was referring to the “wellbeing guide” provided to teachers, which tells them: “With angry or obstructive students (depending on your understanding of them), consider seating plan, offer choices for ways to proceed, or share authority by delegating a student.”

He then totally contradicted himself.

The Epsom MP also criticised an activity in the syllabus called “myth buster role-play” where one student will play the role of an ‘activist’ for climate change and the other a ‘sceptic’. 

“I just think that sort of exercise, given that it doesn’t provide any sort of resource or credence to why people might be sceptical, amounts to state-organised bullying of kids,” Seymour said. 

No doubt the dissenters can source all the material they need.  There is a whole internet full of it.  Shame it is not scientifically rigorous and it is ridiculous that a Member of Parliament should be insisting on bogus scientific material being included in what is taught to our kids.

He also accused the resource of undermining national education standards, even though it has only been used so far in one school.  Who could imagine that a teaching resource that has only just been released could be so powerful?

Semour and the Taxpayer’s Union are not the only ones complaining about the resource.  In a statement that looks like it was focus group tested on a group of geriatrics Zane Small in Newshub has quoted Jones in this article:

New Zealand First MPs Shane Jones and Mark Patterson are speaking out against a new climate change teaching resource that advises students to eat less meat to save the planet. 

The resource, announced on Sunday by Education Minister Chris Hipkins and Climate Change Minister James Shaw, tells students how they can help to reduce emissions, including advice to “eat less meat and dairy”. 

Jones, a Cabinet minister, slammed the dietary advice, telling Newshub he “grew up on a farm unlike a lot of these green apostles” and said he regularly feeds his children “copious amounts” of fish and other meats.

“I don’t want the politically correct brigade colonising my dietary habits – it will never, ever happen… Schools have absolutely no authority to stigmatise and demonise us meat-eaters.”

Patterson tweeted the following tweet.  One wonders if he has actually read the material.

And they don’t get it.  Sure New Zealand’s agriculture may be more efficient than overseas models.  But it still produces huge amounts of greenhouse gasses, just more efficiently.

We could dumb down our kids and confuse them by feeding them material that has been scientifically debunked time and time again. And we could turn them into nodding automatons by not teaching them of some of the greatest and most transformational movements that humanity has ever seen.

I prefer we don’t do that.

And dear Federated Farmers. Without the environment your businesses will fail. You should be joining the campaign against climate change. Not fighting it.

157 comments on “Federated Farmers launches petition against its business model ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sacha 1
    19 January 2020 at 9:41 am

    So much competition for the selfish vote. We need to be promoting the benefits of cooperation so people are clear there's another choice.

  2. Descendant Of Smith 2
    19 January 2020 at 9:52 am

    The irony of telling us to buy local while at the same time telling us we have to pay market driven international prices. Nearly everyone I know has reduced their meat consumption due to price. There's days I even refuse to buy mince or sausages because they are too expensive.

    • bwaghorn 2.1
      19 January 2020 at 9:56 am

      If you could by high food miles foreign stuff or less than home grown would ya?

      • Descendant Of Smith 2.1.1
        19 January 2020 at 10:16 am

        At times I weigh that up and do so if we haven't had meat for four or five days. I like meat and ultimately buy what I can afford what looks palatable – e.g. my rule of thumb for sausages is the whiter they are the less meat in them, the less likely I am to buy them.

        I consider that it's hypocritical to live in a country that exports much of it's product and then refuse to buy overseas product. Nor do I subscribe to the notion we should stop eating meat those who want to can.

        I am more inclined to buy local and more inclined to buy from small businesses. However I, like many others, simply don't have the cash to indulge in such a way. Over the years even farmers markets have got pricey. The more well off love them, the poor are conspicuous by their absence.

        I remember the days when there were vegetable auctions houses and you could all pitch in and buy the unsold stuff quite cheaply at the end of the day. These days the surplus gets simply bulldozed into the ground as per contracted demand. You have been paid for it and it is not needed so you can't sell it or give it away. We produce enough food for it to be cheaper- the profit models being used prevent it from being so.

    • woodart 2.2
      20 January 2020 at 1:26 pm

      you have to be a dairy farmer to afford sheep meat now. red meat is a twice a month thing with me now. chicken is always $5 a kilo cheaper at my local tri-n-save

  3. bwaghorn 3
    19 January 2020 at 9:54 am

    Does the new curriculum teach kids that flying off on holidays is far more avoidable and creates pointless emmisions as opposed to growing high protein mineral dense foods. Just for balance .

    • mickysavage 3.1
      19 January 2020 at 1:18 pm

      Why yes it does:

      "Actions you can take

      • Walk or cycle – it is free, has the least impact on the environment and is good for your health.

      • Take the bus.

      • Carpool with friends.

      • Reduce the number of flights you take, when possible (this has been shown to be one of the most effective climate change actions you can take).

      • When you fly, pay to offset your emissions.

      • Buy things that have been made or grown locally, so they haven’t had to travel far."

      • Sacha 3.1.1
        19 January 2020 at 2:04 pm

        So much more practical than deniers are.

        • Poission 3.1.1.1
          19 January 2020 at 2:17 pm

          When you fly, pay to offset your emissions.

          You can offset nox,and stratospheric water vapour on a flight?

      • Climaction 3.1.2
        19 January 2020 at 2:29 pm

        Love the caveat

        “reduce the number of flights (where possible)”

        no doubt climate talk fests attended by a list celebs is a listed exclusion

        • Incognito 3.1.2.1
          19 January 2020 at 2:39 pm

          I don’t know many celebs attending a NZ school and following the Yr 7-10 curriculum, do you?

          No doubt, this is yet another one of your disingenuous and unhelpful comments on this site and a continuation of your trolling. How many more of these kinds of comments do you think you’ll get away with?

          • Climaction 3.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2020 at 2:57 pm

            Have a sense of humour will you?

            its no secret that the climate change action supporters weakest point is there continuing reliance on massive conferences all over the globe that seemingly require attendance.

            I would love to see everyone fly less, I just found it humorous that on the Achilles heal of the climate change movements, the easiest thing to change is that which is given exceptions to allow its continuity which the more cynical amongst the population would see as carte Blanche to attend climate conferences.

            [lprent: It appears you lack a sense of humour. Perhaps you should try to find one before I lose mine. ]

            • Incognito 3.1.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2020 at 3:17 pm

              its no secret that the climate change action supporters weakest point is there continuing reliance on massive conferences all over the globe that seemingly require attendance.

              Is this your attempt at humour because it sure is the silliest thing I’ve read today and not even remotely funny?

              I case you missed it, the OP is about incorporation of CC into the NZ curriculum and suggestions what NZ kids can do to reduce of minimise their contributions to CC. Not many of those pupils fly off to attend those “massive conferences all over the globe”. You’ve created another strawman, which is typical of trolls and CC deniers.

              I count this comment as one.

      • bwaghorn 3.1.3
        19 January 2020 at 4:03 pm

        Cheers for the leg work .

        Is the anti animal consumption just one small sentence as well .

        Or is it lengthier. ?

        See I believe when aiming for reduction we need to categorize it in to a scale whereby frivolous shit ,like flying off to see the Louvre or sunning ones fat pale arse on the gold coast gets hammered,much harder than food production

        [lprent: Perhaps you’d like to google the source material so you can read it. Then you stop being such lazy prick, learn to get off your fat arse, do some basic research, and learn to stop having to get other people to do your thinking and work for you.

        Asking loaded leading questions repeatably – I think it is just trolling. This will be your only warning about this behaviour. ]

        • Ross 3.1.3.1
          19 January 2020 at 4:14 pm

          bwaghorn

          The great thing about global warming is that no one needs to fly to the Gold Coast to sun one's arse. That really is inexcusable.

    • Sabine 3.2
      19 January 2020 at 1:48 pm

      how many kids in NZ do you think fly of on holidays?

      • bwaghorn 3.2.1
        19 January 2020 at 3:56 pm

        Quite a few from the leafy suburbs I suspect . I just want to be sure that all those little cherubs that are hassling the old to stop consuming animal products are also ripping into them about the flight habits.

        The amount of people flying here there and everywhere in my small circle of acquaintances is staggering and most of them are at the lower end of the wealth spectrum. (Still well above shepherd pay scales though)

  4. Ross 4
    19 January 2020 at 9:58 am

    all we actually want to do is save the planet.

    The planet isn't going anywhere and doesn't need "saving". Although restricting population growth wouldn't be a bad thing.

    As long as the resource highlights the fact that NZ is one of the smallest emitters and that even if every NZer was gifted an electric car it would have no effect on global warming, I’m all for kids being educated. 🙂

    [lprent: If you want to claim something then I suggest that you should research it first and define exactly what basis you’re making an assertion on. On a per capita basis we are 21st worst in the world on gross greenhouse gas emissions. If we looked at our effect of our emissions within the rest of this century on a per capita basis it is likely that we’d be amongst the top 10.

    I’s suggest that if you want to continue commenting here, then you’d better learn some precision in your assertions or I’ll ban you for lying with false facts. ]

    • Ross 4.1
      19 January 2020 at 10:15 am

      And I imagine kids will be told that 4.8 million divided by 7.8 billion equals 0.0006154. In other words, eating less meat will have absolutely no effect on global warming. I think it's great that kids are going to be better educated about global warming.

      • AB 4.1.1
        19 January 2020 at 10:34 am

        Does this mean that only those people with the misfortune to have been born in high population countries need to do anything?

        • Ross 4.1.1.1
          19 January 2020 at 11:35 am

          No, it doesn't. But it's true that it's not NZ's role to subsidise the inaction of the big emitters.

          Maybe you could explain why no political party in NZ, including the Greens, has promised to supply an electric car to every person with a current driver's license.

          • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2020 at 1:08 pm

            No, it doesn't.

            And yet, it was the obvious conclusion to be drawn from your comment. Given that you're constantly having to tell people that your comments didn't mean the obvious meaning to be inferred from them, perhaps it's time to consider making your arguments more explicit?

            • In Vino 4.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2020 at 5:36 pm

              Agree with PM. Ross- you say that the planet does not need saving. True – but has it crossed your mind that the planet we humans can live on may well need saving as such?

              Earth remaining without us seems to be a prospect you have either not considered, or have rejected for your own spurious reasons of an indeterminate nature.

      • Sacha 4.1.2
        19 January 2020 at 10:35 am

        Swift with those denialist talking points as ever, Ross.

        What should New Zealanders be doing, by your reckoning?

        • Ross 4.1.2.1
          19 January 2020 at 11:30 am

          Swift with those denialist talking points facts as ever, Ross.

          What should New Zealanders be doing, by your reckoning?

          Firstly, we should be telling children the truth. And given the mistakes that were made re Y2K, we should be doing everything we can to avoid making the same mistakes. In other words, we should be listening to alternative points of view. If that approach had been taken in Australia, it likely would have saved billions of dollars which it could have put towards disaster relief.

          • dv 4.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2020 at 11:46 am

            OK Ross list the truths.

            • Ross 4.1.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2020 at 12:47 pm

              I have listed some already. I did ask recently how much has been spent on fighting climate change and what the effect that spending has had, presumably the new curriculum will cover that off.

          • Sacha 4.1.2.1.2
            19 January 2020 at 11:49 am

            given the mistakes that were made re Y2K

            Based on that one article you read, as against the opposite experience of myself and everyone I've ever seen writing about it who was part of fixing the problem.

            • Ross 4.1.2.1.2.1
              19 January 2020 at 12:51 pm

              You were in Eastern Europe? What did you do to computer operating systems in EE?

              [lprent: The fix for y2k was done in the 5-10 years leading up to it. That is why it didn’t have significiant effects globally.

              Unlike you or Lomberg (reading down at your other diversions), I worked on the edges of the y2k updates in the decade beforehand, and have a pretty good idea of just how much work went into the removal of that old mostly cobol code limitation. Basically in my expert opinion as a programmer, Lomberg is technically a lying cretin – and so are you.

              Banned for 4 weeks for stupid trolling that appears to be designed to break up the topic in the post. I detest diversion trolling. ]

          • Sacha 4.1.2.1.3
            19 January 2020 at 11:51 am

            we should be listening to alternative points of view

            Ooh, that will fix things real fast!

            More wisdoms, Obi Wan.

          • RedLogix 4.1.2.1.4
            19 January 2020 at 1:08 pm

            And given the mistakes that were made re Y2K, we should be doing everything we can to avoid making the same mistakes.

            What mistake? Exactly why do you think that responding to increasing CO2 levels would be a mistake? I outlined my exact metrics for dealing climate change yesterday and you ignored them. Drop the evasive and get down to some actual details.

            The proposed safe level of CO2 long term is 350ppm. That number has been proposed by a preeminent scientist in the field. Why do you think achieving this would be a mistake?

            • Ross 4.1.2.1.4.1
              19 January 2020 at 2:32 pm

              RL,

              Here's a paper that was written in 1999 suggesting that Y2K would be a dud, and so it proved to be. But the writer's voice was non-conformist which means it probably received little attention. It's apparent that more non-conformist views need to be expressed and heard.

              http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news99/Millennium9908.html

              The proposed safe level of CO2 long term is 350ppm. That number has been proposed by a preeminent scientist in the field. Why do you think achieving this would be a mistake?

              What I've said, which you are well aware of, is that it would be courageous to spend billions and trillions of dollars on an outcome that is indeterminate. You presumably don't visit the casino every day – or ever – in the hope that you may be able to retire early. Yet some countries seemed to apply that logic re Y2K despite evidence showing that such spending was unnecessary.

              How much money will need to be spent to reach nirvana, and what is the probability that that such spending to reach the figure proposed (350ppm) will produced the desired outcome? How much money has been spent thus far and what effect has that had on getting to the figure proposed?

              I asked why the Government here doesn't simply give every driver an electric car. The Government could require all people who take up their offer to trade in their existing vehicle(s). Out with the inefficient and in with the environmentally-friendly. Why hasn't that policy been announced by any political party, including the Greens? Wouldn’t the environment benefit from such a policy?

              • RedLogix …
                19 January 2020 at 7:12 pm

                We've discussed this before, Y2K is a totally separate and unrelated issue. It's a stupid non-argument; yes the boy cried wolf on that event, but that of course does not mean there are no predators.

                As for reaching 350ppm it's a simple matter of global CO2 balance and time; how fast we can reach not only carbon zero (and indeed carbon negative if we are to get back down a safe level in a safe time frame). This is an absolute and determinate metric. It is something we are compelled to do by the physics, in which case 'how much it is going to cost' is not a relevant question really.

                Claiming it is ‘indeterminate’ is simply a fancy way to say you ‘don’t believe it’.

                • Ross …
                  19 January 2020 at 8:15 pm

                  Y2K is a totally separate and unrelated issue.

                  I'm sorry if you don't get it, but it's simple to understand. To quote Lomborg:

                  "This year, the world will spend $US162 billion ($230bn) subsidising renewable energy, propping up inefficient industries and supporting middle-class homeowners to erect solar panels, according to the International Energy Agency. In addition, the Paris Agreement on climate change will cost the world from $US1 trillion to $US2 trillion a year by 2030. Astonishingly, neither of these hugely expensive policies will have any measurable impact on temperatures by the end of the century.

                  Climate campaigners want to convince us that not only should we maintain these staggering costs, but that we should spend a fortune more on climate change, since our very survival is allegedly at stake. But they are mostly wrong, and we’re likely to end up wasting trillions during the coming decades."

                  Can you explain how wasting trillions is going to help us combat climate change? And if we can afford to waste trillions, why can't we waste money trying to prevent the deaths of 62 million kids over the next decade?

                  It is something we are compelled to do by the physics, in which case 'how much it is going to cost' is not a relevant question really.

                  Oh it's very relevant. It explains why no political party is promising free electric cars for everyone. The benefits don't outweigh the costs.

                  http://www.climatescience.org.nz/blog/bjorn-lomborg-trillions-of-dollars-being-frittered-in-the-wind/Lomborg-Trillions_frittered_in_the_wind.pdf

                  [You have been unclear, evasive, and indeterminate since 1 Jan and all you (can) do is citing and quoting Lomborg. You have created diversions and we have wasted much of our time on your comments. Y2K was highly focussed and a fixed point in time, literally. CC is hugely complex and a process that is not fixed in time and very well studied with many measurables. You have created a strawman in comparing the two as others have also pointed out to you. You even mentioned PHARMAC at one stage as well as the 62 million children who will be miraculously saved if only we stop trillions of dollars being “frittered in the wind” on CC. Obviously, only PHARMAC is in the NZ realm of reality.

                  I’m not going to attempt to unpack all your comments so far this year in one Moderation note. For all intents and purposes, you act as a CC denier and you have become a distraction on this site IMO. The second aspect concerns me and is the reason for this Moderation note.

                  You have been asked many times, by commenters and moderators alike, to clarify your views on what NZ should do with regards to CC and all we get is Lomborg. AFAIK, Lomborg doesn’t say anything specifically about NZ or what kind of policies we should adopt to deal with CC. Nor did Lomborg compare Y2K with CC although it wouldn’t surprise me if you were to find a link where he might have used these two in one sentence.

                  To cut a long story short, in lieu of you clarifying yourself on the NZ situation, you stop with these distractions such as Y2K. If not, I’ll give you study leave to prepare an adequate response that does not involve giving away free services and electric cars to all New Zealanders – Incognito]

                • Sacha …
                  19 January 2020 at 8:30 pm

                  yes the boy cried wolf on that event

                  Wrong. Not a great building block for Ross to begin with.

                  Claiming it is ‘indeterminate’ is simply a fancy way to say you ‘don’t believe it’.

                  Totally. And impervious to correction.

                  • RedLogix …
                    19 January 2020 at 9:08 pm

                    You're right. That remark was a shortcut carry over from a previous thread.

                    I agree the IT world did have a significant Y2K problem, especially in the context where money, billing, ledgers and so on where involved. All these are critically dependent on calendar date.

                    Where the media got it badly wrong was to hype this into a potential crisis with utilities like power and water. This is my field and the PLC/DCS machines we use almost all had 4 digit year dates. And in any case we rarely write programs that depend on date.

                    Y2K was more than anything an example of crap media reporting. And has absolutely fuck all to do with CC, an entirely separate issue that has been heavily scrutinized for decades.

                    • Sacha …
                      19 January 2020 at 9:53 pm

                      There were some huge problems with manufacturing plant control systems around the world. Some interesting factory test runs with dates shifted forwards. To say nothing of airline industry, etc, systems.

                      Media did not put enough effort into understanding scope, true, but it certainly was not fake news as some would now have it.

                    • RedLogix []
                      19 January 2020 at 10:25 pm

                      The vast majority of plant control system controllers used a 4 digit year dates and the code scarcely used it even. If the were issues then maybe at the SCADA level.

                      As it was the media predictions of the world coming to an end were insanely overblown. In this Ross has a teensie point, but you and I agree it has no useful relevance to CC. Period.

    • Psycho Milt 4.2
      19 January 2020 at 1:11 pm

      The planet isn't going anywhere and doesn't need "saving".

      The fact that some people use hyperbolic phrases when describing climate change doesn't alter the fact that we need to do something about it. If you use those kinds of errors to support claims that we don't need to do anything, you find yourself being treated as an AGW-denier.

  5. Avocadonz 5
    19 January 2020 at 10:17 am

    This is why we will see a one term Government. This is the “shower head” moment that Clark took nine years to get to.

  6. pat 6
    19 January 2020 at 10:21 am

    self inflicted siege mentality ….mind you the same tactics over the FART tax gained a 15 year reprieve.

  7. Dennis Frank 7
    19 January 2020 at 10:30 am

    Totally understandable that rightists would be paranoid about the possibility that education will get kids thinking. There's even a slim chance the populace in Aotearoa would end up no longer as thick as pigshit. Such a break with tradition would traumatise everyone. Just think of the mental health consequences!

    They all ought to drive their tractors up the steps of parliament simultaneously. Get it on national tv. Chaos & mayhem always works, eh? Goddam liberal do-gooders… 😎

  8. RedLogix 8
    19 January 2020 at 10:49 am

    Here we go again, politicising what is essentially a science or engineering problem. Has anyone previously noted this development?

    The UC Davis team has conducted two studies, with a third on the way. The first one, which replicated former tests in artificial cow stomachs, found that when seaweed made up just five percent of cows’ normal hay feed, methane production decreased by 95 percent.

    But the results were even more promising when the team tested Asparagopsis armata in the diets of lactating dairy cows. They reduced the amount of seaweed content in the cows’ feed to either .5 or one percent. Cows eating a diet with .5 percent seaweed saw a 26 percent decrease in methane, while those with a one percent diet produced 67 percent less methane

    Or a wider perspective here in The Guardian.

    As for meat eating … my partner and I have been mostly plant based for some years now, primarily for health reasons. We do eat meat or fish maybe once or twice a fortnight, usually on social occasions, but far less than than our prior diet. We're also aware that ruminants play an important role in the health of grasslands and the issue is more complex than most food ideologues like to portray it. We both feel that politicising what is a highly personal choice is entirely counterproductive; the world has quite enough people yelling at each other for stupid reasons already.

    • Ian 8.1
      22 January 2020 at 8:22 pm

      Animal and dairy protein is what our species developed on. Plant protein was good for dinosaurs and herbivorous mammals. Vegans are going to be quickly out smarted by the omnivires and will probably end up like the Neandathal.

      • Muttonbird 8.1.1
        22 January 2020 at 8:30 pm

        *Neanderthals, are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic humans who lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago. They probably went extinct due to competition with or extermination by immigrating modern humans or due to great climatic change, disease, or a combination of these factors.

        Pretty sure Homo Neanderthalensis ate meat so perhaps you are going the way of the dodo too, for other reasons.

      • Incognito 8.1.2
        22 January 2020 at 8:38 pm

        That’s not correct.

        We humans need amino acids as building blocks to function and survive and in particular, we need nine essential amino acids that we cannot produce in our bodies ourselves. As long as we get enough amino acids in our diet in the form of proteins, it doesn’t matter whether those proteins come from plant or animal sources.

        • weka 8.1.2.1
          22 January 2020 at 10:15 pm

          I think this is true (according to current knowledge). But a couple of caveats. One is that vegans need a higher degree of knowledge than general to make sure they get the equivalent of complete proteins (daily?). Not always easy.

          The problem with vegan diet deficiencies isn't the protein per se if they're managing the amino acid issues, but might be how much protein they eat if they're eating grains to replace the meat/dairy. There do appear to be important differences in essential fatty acids between plants and animal sources. Likewise iron. I'm guessing those aren't the only ones.

          Point being that the theory about nutritional requirements isn't the same as the reality.

          • Incognito 8.1.2.1.1
            22 January 2020 at 11:03 pm

            That’s all correct. Ian only mentioned protein hence my response, which was not an argument for or against any choice of diet.

            To make an informed choice people may need to seek advice. The young and elderly have different requirements and so on. IMHO, there is no way any professional worth their salt would dish out [sorry for the puns] generic advice here on TS as this must be tailored (personalised is the buzzword) to the specific individual. Common sense doesn’t cut the mustard if you start mucking around with (radical) diets.

            When I come to think of it, how many families only adjust portion size for the various members of the family, they all eat more or less the same stuff. I’m not saying this is necessarily ‘bad’ but is it optimal for each and all? I doubt it.

      • RedLogix 8.1.3
        22 January 2020 at 9:21 pm

        Ian,

        No problem, as I was trying to make clear I regard diet as a personal matter and I've absolutely no problem with other people's choices. Plant based is not quite the same thing as vegan; it emphasises quality over quantity (and in this is not that different to paleo). We're not especially ideological about it, we still consume modest amounts of animal protein.

        It's my view that as more and more people in developing countries move into the middle class, there will be plenty of demand for our high quality animal protein for a long time to come.

  9. pat 9
    19 January 2020 at 11:01 am

    So these groups and individuals are of the opinion that NZ's 12 to 15 year olds live in some sort of bubble untroubled by the wider world and are going to be indoctrinated?….thats a high opinion of their offspring they dont have.

  10. weka 10
    19 January 2020 at 12:43 pm

    The weird thing about the buy/eat local message is that it's very hard in NZ to buy local meat. If my neighbour wanted to sell me meat they'd have to transport their sheep/cow to an abattoir (usually at some distance), and then if they're lucky the abattoir might keep the meat out of the supply chain and give it back to them to sell locally (and hard to get the whole, butchered animal back if one wants the organ meats etc)

    What FF mean is buy NZ meat instead of imported, but meat transported from Southland to Wellington still has a fair wack of food miles on it (the ecofootprint of some food in NZ is higher for domestic produce than imported because of the domestic miles).

    To buy local meat, we'd need to transform two things. One is the regs around homekill, so that it can be sold. The other is the creation of local food economies so that small growers can make a living. I doubt that FF wants or supports either of those, although I would be interested to hear from farmers selling into local markets how much industry support they get.

    • Graeme 10.1
      19 January 2020 at 1:32 pm

      Not just meat going from Southland to Wellington. It's just about everything in the food supply chain that goes from farm to processor to distribution centre to retail point. Quite normal for that path to be quite circular, or in NZ case out and back again, and easily several times.

      We've regulated food safety and efficiency by making the middle of the chain, processor and distributor, bigger rather than upping skills at the producer and retail end. But that's allowed the corporates to get bigger and make more profit.

      • weka 10.1.1
        19 January 2020 at 2:59 pm

        yep (and not just food either, NZ Post doubles the miles on many letters).

        "We've regulated food safety and efficiency by making the middle of the chain, processor and distributor, bigger rather than upping skills at the producer and retail end."

        I can't see a compelling reason for not regulating licenced homekill for sale under specific circumstances, and labeling it appropriately. i.e we could do food safety on a small scale, and efficiently. The issues are often about how to make excess profits and regulatory bodies having an historical bias towards large scale.

        • Graeme 10.1.1.1
          19 January 2020 at 6:50 pm

          I completely agree regarding home or butcher kill. Used to buy meat from someone who was doing it legally 20 years ago, amazing stuff. But he was really focused on quality and wasn't that cheap for the better cuts, but done with a passion. Sort of went off meat when I went out of that orbit.

          With NAIT and other modern systems a local butcher should be able to have full traceability and probably better compliance than the works. Heck it'd be putting value into the product.

          And NZ Post 'efficiency' is something else

          • weka 10.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2020 at 7:12 pm

            I don't really understand why more farmers aren't doing the value-added, selling locally thing. I assume that there's not a lot of industry support for it, and compliance costs make it even harder going, esp for farmers with large debt. So it's only the lucky ones or the ones really committed or creative that can make it. Lots of room here for leadership from government departments, but I guess they're focused on export.

            Didn't realise selling home/butcherkill was legal 20 years ago. Do you know how/why that changed?

            • Graeme 10.1.1.1.1.1
              22 January 2020 at 8:26 pm

              There's Isla Bank Butchery, they will come out and kill your beast on farm and process it for you, presumably you'd be able to sell it at a Farmer's Market

              You have to have owned the animal for 28 days and been involved in it's active management.

              • weka …
                22 January 2020 at 10:06 pm

                I was under the impression that farm/homekill couldn't be sold. One can buy a share in a beast and thus have an animal raised, killed and butchered on someone else’s land but that's for own use, not on-selling.

                  • weka …
                    22 January 2020 at 10:18 pm

                    thanks, as I thought.

                    If we changed that, local food would get substantially easier.

                    • pat …
                      22 January 2020 at 10:41 pm

                      is not that onerous as it is…and the restrictions on on sale are reasonable..i.e farmers markets. You can still buy a share in livestock for slaughter, or buy an animal and have it butchered.

                    • weka []
                      23 January 2020 at 8:47 am

                      you can’t buy an animal and have it slaughtered. You can farm an animal on someone else’s land but you have to take hands on part in raising and caring for it. That animal can then be homekilled, and you can’t sell or trade it. Most people cannot manage that whole process, compared to going to the farmers market on the weekend.

                      What we could have instead is a set of regs for small growers, that are designed for that situation. Atm, regs are designed around large growers and are expensive and overly onerus. They also enforce large food miles, which is the thing that needs to change. I can’t see any reason that homekill regs that allow sale can’t be done safely.

                    • weka …
                      23 January 2020 at 8:52 am

                      those small grower regs could cover a range of issues that are currently barriers to people making a living and people being able to buy local. There are issues with dairy, and the sale of processed foods like jams at farmers markets. Again, the current regs are based around large growers and are not adapted to what people need on the ground.

                      As an example, in the US some states have cottage food bills, where you can make/preserve certain foods at home and sell them in limited ways eg farmers market. The label has to clearly say that this is how they were produced. This is what regulation for local economies would look like.

  11. weka 11
    19 January 2020 at 12:45 pm

    Does anyone have a link to the new curriculum document?

      • Ross 11.1.1
        19 January 2020 at 2:48 pm

        Did you know…?

        New Zealand makes a small contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet has one of the highest per-person rates of emissions for an industrialised country. Most of our emissions come from livestock and road transport.

        Looks like free public transport and a free electric car are just around the corner…

        • Craig H 11.1.1.1
          19 January 2020 at 3:35 pm

          Free public transport on electric buses would be an excellent start.

          • Incognito 11.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2020 at 3:55 pm

            Has somebody told the bus companies yet that they must replace their rolling stock with electrics?

            FFS, they cannot even organise a national public transport card!

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/118636100/13-years-of-waiting-for-promised-national-public-transport-card

            In any case, the suggestion to provide free PT and free electric cars on the Taxpayers’ expense is another of Ross’s disingenuous comments because he reckons the money should be spent on other burning issues such as saving the lives of 62 million children with preventable diseases.

            • Ross 11.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2020 at 4:00 pm

              In any case, the suggestion to provide free PT and free electric cars on the Taxpayers expense is another of Ross’s disingenuous comments because he reckons the money should be spent on other burning issues such as saving the lives of 62 million children with preventable diseases.

              Yeah who cares about children. Won't anyone think of the koalas!

              • Incognito …
                19 January 2020 at 4:22 pm

                Exactly how many millions of Koalas can we save by following your indeterminate suggestions, Ross? Pray tell, because you’ve left us severely wanting clarification and specifics of what we should and shouldn’t do, in your opinion, to reduce our contribution to global CC.

                So far, you’ve kindly offered free PT and free electric cars and your insights that Y2K was “a dud”, notwithstanding that comparing Y2K with CC is a false equivalence that is (deliberately?) misleading and creating a diversion from the debate on what NZ should do with regards to CC.

                You remind me of another commenter here who became petulant when challenged because they could or would not provide specifics. Coincidentally, they also made suggestions such as halving the NZ Defence Budget and reducing spending on Foreign Aid in order to deal with issues that were more important and pressing in their eyes. Just like yours, their comments became a distraction on this site – you haven’t really progressed from the comments you made since 1st Jan despite Weka’s moderation. That commenter is currently on extended gardening leave …

      • weka 11.1.2
        19 January 2020 at 2:53 pm

        thanks!

  12. Incognito 12
    19 January 2020 at 12:52 pm

    Out of interest, what information about the short-lived nature of methane do the farmer lobby wants to be included and why?

  13. Psycho Milt 13
    19 January 2020 at 1:25 pm

    Sure New Zealand’s agriculture may be more efficient than overseas models. But it still produces huge amounts of greenhouse gasses, just more efficiently.

    Unless someone thinks up a way for 8 billion humans to not have to eat anything, agriculture is going to produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases no matter what. Doing agriculture more efficiently does actually count for something.

    Jones is right – this is a highly contentious issue so we have to be careful what we put into any educational resources for children about it. It's certainly not the place of educational material to be making a sin of eating meat and a virtue out of abstaining from it.

    • Sacha 13.1
      19 January 2020 at 1:33 pm

      It's certainly not the place of educational material to be making a sin of eating meat and a virtue out of abstaining from it.

      Unless of course that's what the evidence says.

      • weka 13.1.1
        19 January 2020 at 2:53 pm

        the evidence says eating meat is a sin?

      • Psycho Milt 13.1.2
        19 January 2020 at 3:35 pm

        What weka said. Also: the "evidence" of what types of agriculture in what types of environments have the least AGW effect is complicated and often vigorously disputed. Dumbing that down to a simplistic "Eat less X and help save the planet, kids!" isn't education – or at least, shouldn't be.

        • weka 13.1.2.1
          19 January 2020 at 5:42 pm

          The go vegan stuff is hugely problematic. The eat less meat message is also a problem, because it assumes people are eating a lot to start with. Eat local/seasonal/regen is a better approach but that's too hard because it requires system change rather than just personal effort/choice. Which I think is a part of what is going on, and it's disappointing to see lefties with otherwise solid sociopolitical analysis adopt a personal choice position and one that supports industrial ag.

          There's plenty of evidence that regenag is better for climate mitigation than Monsanto soy meat replacements, but I agree it's complex and there are no simplistic messages that are going to work.

          • Tabletennis 13.1.2.1.1
            21 January 2020 at 2:59 pm

            @Weka
            "The eat less meat message is also a problem, because it assumes people are eating a lot to start with."

            Really Weka? Maybe this helps to change it form "assuming" to facts:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption

            • weka 13.1.2.1.1.1
              21 January 2020 at 5:13 pm

              According to that the average NZ consumption is 2kg a week (roughly). I don't eat that much, so someone else must be eating more. NZ as a whole may very well need to reduce meat consumption, but individuals who don't have enough protein or other nutrients in their diet may be better off eating more.

              This is why the 'eat less meat' messaging is a problem. Telling poor, undernourished people to deprive themselves is not a good public health strategy (and by public health I'm including climate change issues). Telling people with high nutrients needs likewise.

              What we could be saying instead is 'if you eat meat then eat it in moderation, and here are some examples of what moderate consumption might be', and then give examples (and tie it into public health messages about eating more fruit and veg). For instance women who menstruate or who are pregnant/lactating have higher nutritional needs than others.

              • Tabletennis …
                22 January 2020 at 1:49 pm

                Is it telling that each time I see possible baby steps can be made, to do something practical about our impact on climate change, the "but the poor" argument gets used. I.O.W we really like things as they are.

                Your link shows too that NZ'er are eating far more meat in comparison.

                NZ politics and it ppl are really not that much different form our neighbours.. they have to see it before the penny drops…if ever

                • weka …
                  22 January 2020 at 3:29 pm

                  Are you vegan or vegetarian by any chance?

                  Do you know about the Just Transition movement? Why would you exclude poor people from climate action?

                  Your base assumption seems to be that eating less or no meat is best for the climate. If someone eats meat once a month, how is that true?

            • weka 13.1.2.1.1.2
              21 January 2020 at 5:20 pm

              that wiki figure isn't for consumption, it's for carcass mass and doesn't account wastage (across the whole supply chain, including things like bones).

              This is a better source for consumption, not least because it might prompt us to look at reducing wastage. Here NZ consumption is 1.4kg

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption_per_capita

  14. bwaghorn 14
    19 January 2020 at 4:50 pm

    It's hard enough to get the little buggers to eat healthy with out scaring them off what is without doubt great food for growing said little buggers on .

    Meat is good for them

    • In Vino 14.1
      19 January 2020 at 5:50 pm

      As long as it is not fed to them in over-sugary buns with too much processing, excessive salt, etc etc. Give us a break, bwaghorn. Most of our unhealthy, poor kids are not being fed unadulterated lion fillet or sirloin – they are being fed minced crap with bloody unhealthy accompaniments.

      Farmers who care so much about quality meat provision are surprisingly silent about this aspect.

      • bwaghorn 14.1.1
        19 January 2020 at 6:31 pm

        Farmers are price takers not price setters . Talk to the supermarket s and the foriegn markets

        • weka 14.1.1.1
          19 January 2020 at 6:52 pm

          Fed Farmers is neither, and they could instead take an ethical position for the wellbeing of NZ.

        • In Vino 14.1.1.2
          19 January 2020 at 6:54 pm

          No, you farmers have to do that before you have any right to claim to be providers of only good, healthy food.

          Closing your eyes to middlemen's corruption of your product is not an option.

          You allow them to turn your good product into crap, and you lose the right to claim to be a producer of good product.

          You are profiting out of bad practice, which, as a producer of good product, you know bloody well should not be allowed to happen. You allow it, and you lower yourselves to crap-producers.

          End of story. Stop profiting out of crappy burger/sausage stuff, and I will start to give a little credence to your claims about being the world's most efficient producers of beautiful grass-fed (?) fillet steaks. Yeah, right.

          • weka 14.1.1.2.1
            19 January 2020 at 7:08 pm

            Afaik bwaghorn isn't a land-owning farmer, so I don't think they can be held accountable for NZ's meat supply chains in the ways you imply.

            • In Vino 14.1.1.2.1.1
              19 January 2020 at 7:26 pm

              Sorry – bwaghorn often sounded like an intelligent farmer to me. I may have over-assumed.

              • weka …
                21 January 2020 at 5:14 pm

                they seem smart enough to me. From memory they're a waged farmer, not a land owning one. I don't see the value insulting people to try and win them over politically.

    • I feel love 14.2
      19 January 2020 at 5:50 pm

      Then make it cheaper for them? A good way to stop ppl buying so much is for the price to keep rising, more meatless meals.

      • In Vino 14.2.1
        19 January 2020 at 6:13 pm

        The whole problem. The poor are currently being fed cheap crap with unhealthy accompaniment, and farmers are making out that they are saints for providing the "pure100% beef" patties.

        Never trust any advertisers.

    • weka 14.3
      19 January 2020 at 5:51 pm

      There's going to be a public health crisis in the next ten to twenty years as we hit enough people raised vegan for the health problems to show up via epidemiology. Some people do well as vegan, many don't. We don't know what will happen to children long term. It's hard to get a vegan diet nutritionally replete, harder than most people are going to manage.

      • H0tok3 14.3.1
        19 January 2020 at 6:19 pm

        I agree with you there, that it isn't easy to get good readily available foods of quality for Vegans – being one myself. But things are definitely improving with more products becoming available as New Vegan food outlets appear on the landscape. As for your suggestion of there might being an epidemiology epidemic in the future. Think about this, when a basic food source such as meat becomes priced of the shopping list of many low income households these days. What other source of food that is equally nutritional for meat eaters do you supplement it with, and where it remains affordable for those consumers. There's a lot to be said about having a garden out back, quite possibly furbished with a few rows of beans of all kinds. And if you look at it, for the price of a 1kg steak you can get 30 cans of beans off the supermarket shelf.

        • weka 14.3.1.1
          19 January 2020 at 7:05 pm

          People can raise meat rabbits in their backyard or neighbourhood. Or hens. When Cuba went through its peak oil phase and suddenly didn't have cheap fossil fuels underpinning their economy, this is exactly what happened. They shifted a large part of their food production to local, including meat from rabbits.

          The problem with veganism as a solution to climate change is that people aren't by and large shifting to local food, they're relying on industrially grown and processed foods (with all the attendant ecofootprints). Much of that is imported, huge food miles.

          Yes, people eating more plants generally is a good thing, and we can adapt more of that to be grown locally relatively easily (including growing and eating more legumes and whole grains). But replacing all animal protein for all NZers is a different kete of ika. If we were going to do that we'd still need to shift to regenag, and there are still all the same barriers of land prices, large mortgages, and the need to produce exports. Most of the meat by far produced in NZ isn't eaten here. It just doesn't make sense for NZ to transition to vegan instead of transitioning to local/seasonal/regenag, which has multiple benefits. People can still choose to be vegan within that, but it's not society being led in the wrong direction (industrial ag and rejection of local food sources).

          Oh yeah, and plough ag (think grains and beans en masse) is a problem for our GHGs. I haven't seen an analysis of this, but I expect the consequences of converting pasture to annual cropping are not as good as some currently believe.

          • Dennis Frank 14.3.1.1.1
            19 January 2020 at 7:24 pm

            In the hippie era, tofu was the thing. Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) was a fad which I recall being fed a few times, also tempeh. Rabbit stew was a British staple for centuries & I often was puzzled that I never encountered it here despite oodles of rabbits.

            My daughter is vegan & doing okay with it at age 38 after around five years of it. I'm omni but have been making vegetarian meals since the early seventies. Taste will the driver of the transition, but nutrition must prevail in the design.

            • weka 14.3.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2020 at 8:13 pm

              I'm of the TVP generation /shudder.

              In NZ rabbit is seen as peasant food I think. Lots of people had all that sheep and beef at our disposal early on, and poor people ate other kinds of meat.

              "Taste will the driver of the transition, but nutrition must prevail in the design."

              Problem is that theoretically a vegan diet should work if the person takes nutrition into account. Reality is that a) for many people it isn't possible to eat a balanced vegan diet and b) people have different nutritional needs and what works on a spreadsheet doesn't necessarily work in real life. Lots of people are treating nutrients as if they're isolated things and we know how may units are needed for a human (the mechanistic view). The problem I have with the vegan movement is the pressure applied to not eat any animal products even if doing so would improve the person's health.

      • Incognito 14.3.2
        19 January 2020 at 7:08 pm

        As it stands, many people make fairly unwise lifestyle choices and their nutrition (AKA what and how much they eat & drink) – “diet” has become a loaded word – is just one facet. One size doesn’t fit all when it comes to nutrition.

        • weka 14.3.2.1
          19 January 2020 at 7:21 pm

          One size doesn't fit all would be a game changing public health message.

          • Incognito 14.3.2.1.1
            19 January 2020 at 8:36 pm

            On the one hand people don’t like to be told what to eat or not eat, what is good for them and what isn’t, how to make smart wise choices and avoid the ones with ‘less appealing consequences’. In other words, people don’t want to be told how to live their lives, least of all by the state/government (AKA the Nanny State}. OTOH, many (!!) people could do with sound advice and some really need it! Of course, stating this may end you up being accused of being patronising and condescending and people will simply ignore you and any good advice in spite of your best intentions. It’s like telling your children to eat their ‘yucky’ vegies or the GP trying to tell their patient to make some changes and all the patient hears is that it is ‘their fault’ and all they want from the GP is a prescription or, even better, a referral to a specialist.

            • weka 14.3.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2020 at 9:13 pm

              There are some people like that for sure. I'm not sure it's most though. Lots of people want to look after their health. Even more would if there weren't barriers in the way.

              There's a difference between providing people with information and advice about nutrition, and telling people what to eat. If people want to eat in ways that compromise their long term health, that's ok by me so long as they're making an informed choice and the state is free to do public health promotion. (the exception there is children, which is going to be a future issue with veganism. Maybe society won't care because too many people will be convinced that eating industrial soy will prevent climate change and the trade off is worth it).

              Unfortunately our mainstream nutritional advice is one size fits all and it's outdated. It takes a long time for the front end to catch up.

      • bwaghorn 14.3.3
        19 January 2020 at 9:33 pm

        I'm willing to bet it will be even harder to get good nutrition when Monsanto type companies are "growing' your food in a vat.

  15. H0tok3 15
    19 January 2020 at 5:59 pm

    Climate Change is beyond a doubt the most expectant single event that will be our undoing as a species if we fail to act accordingly. We all understand how important the Agriculture Sector has been and continues to be to our Country’s reputation as a producer of premium quality export foods. However, in equal understanding, we need to shed light on what has been causing the decline in fresh water quality and correspondingly an increase in carbon emissions which have been unacceptable for far to long, if we are to be serious about getting on top of Global Warming.

    Under the NATs, the farming community was exempted from having to join the Emissions Trading Scheme in 2015 with no expected date as to when they had to sign up. A truth is a truth, in any shape, guise or form. If you have appeared as behaving with an overly inflated sense of entitlement, and only recently decided to really do something to improve your image. Timing is everything isn't it?

  16. Muttonbird 16
    19 January 2020 at 7:11 pm

    Definitely not taking dietary advice from Shane Jones.

  17. Ad 17
    19 January 2020 at 7:58 pm

    Good post insofar as it's responding to Federated Farmers.

    But just to pull the lens back a bit from the FF's.

    This government put aside $3b in the Provincial Growth Fund. Its purpose is pretty general; spend it on anything that doesn't look like a city will benefit – but it's supposed to generate higher regional productivity, better-paying jobs, and create to sustainable economy growth. Can anyone tell if it will have achieved that?

    The expenditure of this funding appears to have no connection to any wider effort to changing lower-quality farming into something that shifts the entire economy away from mass meat patties or bulk dairy products.

    And then you have Minister Parker's full-on assault against the Otago Regional Council for failing to propose decent water levels in catchment rivers. Which is part of his attempt to re-regulate fresh water a a whole … without price mechanisms (because they were excluded from the Coalition agreement).

    https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1911/S00450/regional-council-chair-accepts-ministerial-direction.htm

    And then there's the DIRA review legislation led by O'Connor. Which TBF is going to achieve sweet fuck all. Both Fonterra and Federated Farmers are just fine with it overall.

    https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1906/S00037/changes-to-dairy-industry-legislation.htm

    But nothing connects with anything.

    It's a government with one Minister with more regional money than it could possibly spend, another Minister trying to re-regulate fresh water but without the ability to price it, another Minister with the opportunity to really tilt our biggest producer and biggest collective polluters … with a complete absence of anything or anyone joining the dots into something that makes sense for the direction of the economy and society and environment of New Zealand.

    And the net result of not having a believable or effective strategy is you get this groundswell of sentiment which goes – written so that you can see it from a jet plane:

    "Comrade Ardern fuck of back to Russia."

    They ain't going to win any votes back from the provinces with this mish-mash.

    https://www.odt.co.nz/rural-life/rural-life-other/political-message-worked-field

    • Poission 17.1
      19 January 2020 at 8:09 pm

      Agriculture emissions have fallen by around 4% since the peak in 2014.This is outweighed by the increase in transport emissions,larger deforestation ( plantation logging)

      This government put aside $3b in the Provincial Growth Fund. Its purpose is pretty general; spend it on anything that doesn't look like a city will benefit – but it's supposed to generate higher regional productivity, better-paying jobs, and create to sustainable economy growth. Can anyone tell if it will have achieved that?

      The pgf is to invest in job creation and retention in the provinces,where there is both surplus housing (in most) and underutilized infrastructure.Would this be a more sustainable model then pumping multiple billions into ak and wgtn .

      • Ad 17.1.1
        19 January 2020 at 9:49 pm

        who knows?

        • Poission 17.1.1.1
          19 January 2020 at 10:04 pm

          481m investment into the billion trees project.Is that a useful outcome?

          • Muttonbird 17.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2020 at 10:12 pm

            I thought the (NZ First) idea was to build the forestry sector by adding value to NZ wood products instead of shipping raw logs overseas. They were to re-establish a forestry research centre in Rotorua I think.

            Obviously trees take some time to grow in order to provide building timber for international and domestic purposes but we have seen a few high profile timber mill shut-downs recently. It’s a terrible look.

            Why can't the NZ First arm of the government actually get a plan together?

            I'll tell you why.

            They are useless.

            Bar ACT, the worst of MMP.

            • Poission 17.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2020 at 10:21 pm

              How many houses has labour built?More trees have been felled for paper for the millions spent on report after report,then 4×2 on construction for kiwibuild.

              • Muttonbird …
                19 January 2020 at 10:34 pm

                That's a silly comment. The Labour part of the government has had trouble delivering its housing wishes because of major obstruction from the centre and right, as per usual.

                You won't find me defending their record on Kiwibuild and the very very poor roll out of $650K houses that the target audience can’t afford.

                But as I see it the construction sector do not want their gravy train boarded by the the interests of the public in any way, shape or form.

    • Muttonbird 17.2
      19 January 2020 at 8:15 pm

      Has there been an idea and minister more damaging to this government than the PGF and its director, Jones?

      When it was announced Mike Hosking thought it was a good idea and from that you know all you need to know.

      It's loose, unconnected and has very very poor vision and planning. It was a sop to NZ First and highlights the semi-corrupt way they work.

      Would shrug if this government lost if only to be rid of these amateur Centrist actors.

      I think you can see the confict within the philosophy of NZ First when Peters claimed he wanted to show a fairer face of Capitalism.

      Not possible.

      • Incognito 17.2.1
        19 January 2020 at 8:50 pm

        Please, don’t use Mike Hosking as your guide. The only things he’s interested in is the number of people who click, read, view, or talk and write about his ‘oeuvre’. His name is mentioned far too often IMO.

      • Ad 17.2.2
        19 January 2020 at 9:51 pm

        Coherence isn't everything.

        Unless you're a government seeking re-election.

        For that you need coherence and results which are convincing.

        • Muttonbird 17.2.2.1
          19 January 2020 at 10:02 pm

          It's not fair to sheet home the blame to Ardern and Labour though. Who is the deputy PM after all? What has he done build coherence and results?

    • Graeme 17.3
      19 January 2020 at 10:53 pm

      WRT the Deemed permits. ORC had set minimum flows in the catchments and then said permit holders could re-apply for consents up to historic usage on a first up, best dressed basis. Which worked for those that could get their heads around the issue and get an application into council.

      For the holders that thought they should have the permits rolled over (most catchments were grossly over allocated, but actual takes went from within minimum flow limits (Arrow) to well over (Lindis and Manuherikia). Lindis catchment irrigators appealed this to Environment Court and Judge Jackson came back and said that minimum flows in the catchment should be at a higher level than Councils determination. Part way through the appeal Council withdrew the whole minimum flow regime and said they would start again. In that judgement Jackson gives Fish and Game a serve saying they were defending introduced predators ( I'll dig it out tomorrow when I've more time, it's a big judement). This is a culmination (maybe) of a process that's been going on for 50 years and had a deadline put on it by the RMA for a reason. I thought Parker's response was measured and appropriate. The losers are Fish and Game who are cast into the political realms of the Outdoors party along wiht the anti 1080 and 5G brigade . After having to deal with F&G during a consent renewal on a scheme I manage a couple of years ago, it was coming and they are fortunate they didn't get really hammered for costs.

      Outcome will most likely be a sensible allocation of take along the lines of the science leading to the Lindis judgement, water users, ORC and government quietly going about their business and F&G subtlety having their legislative protection removed as they slide into nutter land

      • Ad 17.3.1
        20 January 2020 at 7:33 am

        Thankyou that is an excellent updating response.

        Great links also.

        • Graeme 17.3.1.1
          21 January 2020 at 8:36 pm

          Cheers, that judgment is an interesting read and could have some interesting ramifications down the track regarding Fish and Game's status. The idea of the RMA giving special protection to introduced predators might be difficult to defend.

          I think the government will come out of the Deemed Permit renewal quite well as responsible managers facilitating the correct decisions. Marion Hobbs has that ability, ie her decision to not try and eradicate varroa when she was in cabinet.

  18. mike 18
    19 January 2020 at 8:23 pm

    black rock withdrawing from fossil fuel investment black rock ceo Laurence fink calls them a stranded asset.
    https://theconversation.com/blackrock-is-the-canary-in-the-coalmine-its-decision-to-dump-coal-signals-whats-next-129972

    black rock are the worlds largest fund manager

  19. pat 19
    19 January 2020 at 11:56 pm

    https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=palm-kernel-meal&graph=imports

    It is worth noting that before 2002 PKE imports into NZ were zero….are we still more efficient?

  20. roblogic 20
    20 January 2020 at 12:48 am

    Fed farmers needs to go stand in the naughty corner for obstructing measures to deal with M. Bovis. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/mpi-cracking-down-farmers-fail-track-their-animals-since-mycoplasma-bovis-outbreak

    Federated farmers at the beginning ran a vociferous and in my view pointlesss campaign against NAIT and it really ruined its adoption by farmers from the get go," said agricultural economist Peter Fraser.

    Farmers have been paid $123 million in compensation.

    https://twitter.com/tombutlin/status/1218827111089070082?s=20

    https://twitter.com/btlane/status/1218482661238263809?s=20

  21. Al Man 21
    20 January 2020 at 5:06 pm

    One comment, why do you even care?

    When a Climate Change article comes out, it seems it gets supported.

    But when someone isn't even objecting to the base premise, but wants a key element (reduced meat consumption) even discussed – many jump up and down that the comment shouldn't be made.

    Frankly – I have had enough of this!

    I do not dispute Climate Change

    I do not dispute anthropogenic impacts upon the climate.

    But when I, or others, state the whole model of doomsday is only one outcome of thousands that I don't choose as a directive to my life, then many like me get slammed for having a view. Science NEVER has but one view, or modelled outcome.

    The 95% of scientists do NOT agree with this. That's a proven lie. Even read the Wiki page on that one, and the evidence bounces between 75% and 95%………I don't think anyone would even be able to find 95% of the worlds scientists – climate specialists or otherwise, to survey them!. I say Mikey – prove it!

    The whole climate change efforts should be on only two simple outcomes:

    1/ Reduce pollution…….that is harmful gases, plastic waste. In fact go back to the 1980's milk in a glass bottle programme and then we can reuse bottles. Where the hell did plastic bottles come from anyway. What a waste.

    2/ Find real alternatives to wasteful or polluting energy. Electric cars aren't the answer. Where does the Lithium come from (Australia), where does Cobalt come from (Chinese run mines in Africa), where does the aluminum and steel come from – foundries all over the world. They use diesel and coal power to make the base elements for electric vehicles. Solar panels only last 20 years, and yet they pay for themselves after about 15 years of use. Wow 5 years of reduced energy.

    Wind power takes up so much land, that you can't growth harvests or trees anywhere. Only at sea can they work and then the cost is they never pay for themselves.

    Nuclear is actually the only energy IN THE WORLD that has a full lifecycle management of input materials to output waste; mainly as its so dangerous. No one really wants it. But compare Germany that stopped Nuclear to France that increase it. Power in Germany is more than 2 or 3 times the retail cost as in France.

    Hydro is efficient, but only after huge capital projects, and then the NZ Government stops new dams (West Coast) because of the few users of the current river.

    So rather than stop every type of energy in favour of efficient new energies – no one has actually stopped to think – there actually ISN'T a safe efficient energy source that doesn't pollute!! Yes Coal isn't good! But nor is anything.

    I think some Climate activists actually want to turn back the clock 200 years to pre industrial economies. Things were really good then, the incomes per family were far worse, healthcare was worse, no computing power to help solve real issues, no science development.

    So what is the outcome.

    Will our sea levels increase a metre?

    Will global temperatures increase 1.5 degrees?

    So what if they do.

    Are we really being told the truth?

    Think about it…………..the outcome we are being told, who benefits from it?

    Again I DO believe in climate change, and our impact, but we actually need to work together toward real solutions, not to simply switch the world off.

    That could be worse medicine than the symptoms that we are told we have.

  22. Robert Guyton 22
    21 January 2020 at 5:56 pm

    The Feds believe industry lobbyists should influence curriculum in New Zealand schools?

    • Incognito 22.1
      21 January 2020 at 6:04 pm

      Surely not. That would be like irrigating Hades and even farmers would not do that, would they?