Only when . . .

 Only when the last tree is dead, the last river is poisoned and the last fish is trapped we will understand that we can’t eat dinner money.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 31st, 2013 at 12:00 pm and is filed under environment, Farming, rural. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 Responses to Only when . . .

  1. tiffany267's avatar tiffany267 says:
    31/03/2013 at 12:42 pm

    Darling, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but “dinero” means “money”, not “dinner”. Sort of changes the meaning, doesn’t it?

    Like

  2. homepaddock's avatar homepaddock says:
    31/03/2013 at 6:08 pm

    Can I blame it on a Freudian slip because I do know that dinner is cena and dinero is money? It does change the meaning, and I prefer my mistranslation.

    Like

  3. Mr E's avatar Mr E says:
    31/03/2013 at 9:23 pm

    Funny,
    This slip up has made me wonder if you are about to swear an oath to the Green Party?

    Like

  4. Viv's avatar Viv says:
    01/04/2013 at 10:50 am

    ‘Ele goes Green’, now that would have to be April fool. I’m suprised the saying is new to you Ele, it’s well known world wide, you’ve been able to get it on T shirts for years. You prefer your mistranslation. The whole point is that you can’t eat money! No wonder it’s hard to get right wingers to understand environmentalism.

    Like

  5. homepaddock's avatar homepaddock says:
    01/04/2013 at 10:58 am

    Mr E – not Green but green and BlueGreen.

    Viv – Of course you can’t eat money, but you wouldn’t be able to eat dinner when the last tree was dead, fish trapped and river poisoned either.

    The true translation disregards the fact that it’s generally the most economically advanced countries which have the best environments. Economic development and environmental protection and enhancement aren’t mutually exclusive and the wealthier a nation is the better placed it is to look after and improve the environment.

    Like

  6. Mr E's avatar Mr E says:
    01/04/2013 at 12:00 pm

    Very good point Ele, and examples of the relationship between wealth and protection are obvious on farm land. More often than not farms with the most reparian planting and wetland protection are the most economically successful. I would suggest, if the greens want more environmental protection they should be seeking sustainable production gains on farms rather than to denigrate nearly any suggestion that is made.

    Like

  7. Viv's avatar Viv says:
    01/04/2013 at 6:44 pm

    ‘Economic development and environmental protection and enhancement may not be mutually exclusive’, well that obviously depends on what sort of economic development you are talking about. If your economic development causes environmental damage, then you are going backwards. Polluted rivers, acidifying oceans and climate change are not progress!

    Like

  8. Mr E's avatar Mr E says:
    02/04/2013 at 10:31 am

    We agree there Viv. How shocking is it that cities grow and still pour treated sewage into our rivers and oceans. And put the heavy metal containing solids on our land. The economic growth in our cities is causing pollution and we need to stop it. I look forward to having you in my corner on this debate. Perhaps you could help me hold up a sign that says ” Townies- Earn less to encourage rural drift and stop pollution NOW”

    Like

  9. Viv's avatar Viv says:
    02/04/2013 at 6:49 pm

    Urban pollution or rural pollution, it all needs cleaning up. I’m expecting you will have just sent in your submission opposing the proposed changes to the RMA that could allow more pollution in the name of economic development.

    Like

Leave a comment