We pay for pollution

14 comments on “We pay for pollution ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Clashman 1

   12 April 2012 at 2:52 pm

   So we have to pay thier carbon tax and then get raped at the supermarket when we want to buy dairy products?
   • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1

     12 April 2012 at 8:22 pm

     Not only pay their carbon tax , but give Fonterra a $200 million tax credit every year.

     Thats right Fonterra doesnt pay any tax but gets a tax credit due to the way they are structured as a cooperative.

     No withholding tax either on the farmers payouts !
   • fender 1.2

     13 April 2012 at 12:40 am

     Either way we have to pay, rather than absorb the costs of their pollution when it comes time to pay, they will just increase the price of their products.
2. james 111 2

   12 April 2012 at 5:17 pm

   Great to see the left being conned by those they hate the most the big corporations making huge profits.

   There is a real possibility that millions of people have been suckered into a climate change ideology albeit for all the right altruistic reasons; but have inadvertently ended up as pawns to be manipulated at will by profit driven corporations and controlling governments.

   For further information on this article see http://www.datalite.org/global-warming-climate-change-ultimate-con.html
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     12 April 2012 at 5:39 pm

     You’re the one being conned. We know that the RWNJ governments that you support are totally corrupt and so will do the corporations bidding.
   • tc 2.2

     12 April 2012 at 6:10 pm

     Ah the funny man, where’s my personal transport pod dude ? Do each of the 1’s represent your score out of ten on the intellect, social and emotional capability indicators?
   • fender 2.3

     12 April 2012 at 8:05 pm

     Great to see the left being angry and calling to account the ones who hate people the most; the big corporations making huge profits at the expense of the planet and taxpayers.

     FIFY
3. Cactus Kate 3

   12 April 2012 at 9:46 pm

   An example of the Nats mixed principles. Centrist-right politics at its worst.
   Those of us you refer as RWNJ (the true right) are entirely principled in this matter.
   If the Nats wish to be part of the silly ETS then the polluter should pay. Fonterra can afford it and should be sent the bill for it even if they couldn’t afford it, they are the polluter.
   Good post Ben.
4. fatty 4

   13 April 2012 at 10:44 am

   Critiquing the ETS does not only come from the RWNJs…anyone with a brain realises the ETS will not solve the issue of global warming.
   The RWNJs hate the ETS cause it stifles their greedy desires. Others who are against it are because they know its a dirty plaster on a gaping wound.
   Pollution and global warming are inevitable consequences of our capitalist utopia.
   For me, in Christchurch, my main concern is the blind march of farmers (and the rest of us) towards the impossible concept of efficiency.
   Once you get more efficient, you have to become more efficient, and then more efficient…etc, etc.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     13 April 2012 at 10:46 am

     For me, in Christchurch, my main concern is the blind march of farmers (and the rest of us) towards the impossible concept of efficiency.
     Once you get more efficient, you have to become more efficient, and then more efficient…etc, etc.

     The ultimate economy is the one which doesn’t need any employees/workers. Surely.
     • bbfloyd 4.1.1

       13 April 2012 at 1:35 pm

       “doesn’t need any employees/workers”. that would be the one that gives johnny sparkle wet dreams?
5. spammer 5

   13 April 2012 at 5:49 pm

   I don’t really see the problem to be honest. The whole reason farmers entry was delayed was because they had no actual way to reduce emissions and realistically they still don’t. It’s easy to point the finger but in their situation what would you actually do to reduce emissions? Running vehicles less will only go so far when the majority of emissions comes from cattle that the country needs.
   Another point in their defense is that farmers don’t get credited for a lot of their bush land, though this is almost exclusively a sheep farm issue and they aren’t huge emitters anyway.
   • jimgreen 5.1

     13 April 2012 at 10:17 pm

     Ive heard of great success through de-stocking via intensive stock culling based on if the animal has bred that year. The farmer achieved year on year increases in fertility and eventually from a reduced herd size he was getting the same number of calves as his original herd.

     The same would probably apply to meat quality, something I hear the brits have one-up on us.

     This government is dead-set against innovation and efficiency.
6. fatty 6

   13 April 2012 at 6:48 pm

   ” the majority of emissions comes from cattle that the country needs.”

   I struggle to understand how I need cattle?…I don’t eat dairy – its unhealthy, its GMO’d out the ringer and its overpriced.
   Any money ‘NZ’ receives from it is funnelled to a few. Other industries that could be just as productive are forgotten. Our obsession with it will bite us when international prices drop the same way it did in the 70s.
   Its currently driving us into a stinky and polluted dead-end. We are slowly shooting ourselves in our foot regarding our other key industry – tourism. I would much rather have a lower, more reliable and evenly spread GDP based on economic diversity.
   Clean water would be nice too…there is no point banning fracking in Christchurch if our water is already full of cow shit.
   Its a lose, lose, lose, situation…you can add another lose when we sell the farms overseas.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS