Global problem requires global solutions

The Green Party continues its blinkered approach to the environment with its call to include agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme:

The call comes in the wake of a study, part funded by the New Zealand Government,1 showing that global warming pollution from agriculture must be cut significantly to keep global temperatures below a 2° rise, and that currently not nearly enough is being done to achieve this.

“National needs to stop making excuses and set a deadline to end the growing levels of climate-damaging pollution from agriculture,” said Green Party primary industries spokesperson Eugenie Sage.

“The National Government has repeatedly refused to push the agricultural sector to reduce climate damaging pollution, despite this being a requirement for the energy sector, transport providers and nearly every other New Zealander.

Wrong.

The government was the prime mover behind the establishment of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural GHGs which is using international collaboration to find  solutions. It’s also working with farmers who are paying for research into methods to reduce emissions without the financial and social costs that the Green’s solution would impose, not just on farmers but the wider economy.

“All New Zealanders, including farmers, want to preserve a safe and stable climate for future generations. That means facing reality, and committing to an end to pollution-intensive farming. . . 

Facing reality means accepting that global problems require global solutions.

That means understanding that reducing food production here would increase emissions because production would increase in other countries with far less efficient farming methods than those employed by most New Zealand farmers.

It also means accepting good science which could show that genetic modification is one of the solutions.

AgResearch scientists have developed a genetically modified ryegrass that cuts greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30% but biotechnology experts warn regulations could delay its use.

Though it has several environmental benefits and could boost production it faces regulatory hurdles here because it has been genetically engineered.

The scientists have shown in the laboratory the ryegrass, called High Metabolisable Energy (HME), can reduce methane emissions from animals by 15% to 30% while modelling suggests a reduction in nitrous oxide of up to 20%.

It has also shown resilience to dry weather and can increase milk production by up to 12%.

Environmentalists have berated agriculture for not reducing greenhouse gas emissions but if laboratory results are replicated in the field, HME could reignite the GM debate.

UN research shows New Zealand farmers can cut climate damaging pollution with current technology, by as much as 17 percent. The Government shouldn’t be pinning all its hopes on a silver bullet solution to agricultural pollution.

“Leading dairy farmers are showing they can increase profit and cut pollution by optimising stocking rates and by shifting production to high-value, low-impact organic dairy farming. We need all farmers to follow suit,” said Ms Sage.

Of course reducing stock would reduce emissions here but it would at best do nothing to reduce world-wide emissions and would almost certainly lead to an increase as less efficient producers elsewhere increased their production.

The Green solution would reduce food production and lead to increases in both the price of food, which would impact hardest on the poor, and emissions.

Farmers are doing all they can to reduce emissions globally rather than the smoke and mirrors approach of cuts here replaced by increases there the Green Party is promoting.

111 Responses to Global problem requires global solutions

  1. Mr E says:

    I think National are out greening the Greens. In my view National policies will likely make much more progress than any Green policy.

    In my view some of the Greens policies are anti social, and would be hurtful to NZ.

    The Greens seem so distracted by other issues, they can’t keep up with the Nats.

  2. Andrei says:

    This is not a global problem – this is not a problem at all

    Life produces GHGs and they do no fucking harm to the environment, they are part of the environment and necessary for life to flourish

    In a world where children starve to death, die from water borne diseases, die because they are on the receiving end of a hell fire missile fired from a drone having deadshit, scientifically illiterate politicians go on about this is nothing short of disgraceful

    We live in a world ruled by Bullshit and it makes me very angry

  3. Bulaman says:

    If we plant a million hectares of marginal land in commercial plantation forest we solve all these potential problems at a stroke. Carbon trading and the gaming of that system means this will never happen via an ETS. The only way this can become a reality is if the crown directly uses the money collected in the various carbon taxes that exist now (liquid fuel and energy) and gets on with planting. This planting is commercial species (permanent carbon sinks are a nonsense) so that should genuine scientific method be used to test the hypothesis that AGW is a problem we will have a capture program in place. If it proves to be false then we have commercial forest to diversify our economy. The new paper by J. Ray Bates indicates maximum climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 may be 1 degree C so hardly an issue. Natural changes will continue for ever so adapt and plant more trees!

  4. Bulaman says:

    A bit of interest
    Last week I purchased fuel in Fiji for $FJD$1.67 per litre, NZD equivalent roughly $1.12 for 91 octane.
    Main reason for this difference Fuel TAXES !!

  5. Will says:

    What does organic farming have to do with Green House gas? Just pushing their pet superstition again.

  6. Dave Kennedy says:

    Everyone and every industry should do their bit and to exclude the farming sector when it is one of our largest contributors to GHG emissions is nonsensical. Just diversifying our agricultural sector may actually increase food production overall while reducing emissions too.

    If we had a Green government now the farming sector would have been in much better health, more organic farms would have been reaping the benefits of much higher returns and scientific research would have had a much greater funding boost to find solutions to farm emissions quicker.

    A carbon tax would have also been a great solution.

  7. Paranormal says:

    Interestingly farmers are not net contributors to GHG. They are net carbon harvesters. CO2 from the atmosphere is fixed into crops, milk, meat, & wool. To say otherwise is to deny science.

  8. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, yes I have heard that hypothesis too, I know one or two other people who actually believe that. However, it’s great that you have moved on and now believe that GHG is an issue😉

    http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/26/greenhouse-gas-emissions-livestock
    https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agriculture.html

  9. Will says:

    Where did Paranormal say that GHG was an issue? He just pointed out that farmers are net carbon harvesters. Which they obviously are.

    How is it that organic farmers are not emitters?

    Why doesn’t Air New Zealand have to pay for their emissions?

  10. Name Withheld says:

    Fresh from expecting to coast to relevance by calling John Key names, and being exposed as the fools they are, the greens are desperate for a diversion.
    Quite telling is their refusal to quote in the press release the planet destroying gas that terrifies them so much, by name. Instead referring to life-giving CO2 as…

    global warming pollution from agriculture
    climate-damaging pollution from agriculture
    climate damaging pollution (Twice)
    pollution-intensive farming
    agricultural pollution
    cut pollution by optimising stocking rates

    Just more dishonest spin from these despicable bastards.

  11. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, I wish all airlines operated like AirNZ in relation to their environmental practices. http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/carbon

    NW, is that your best argument? chuckle.

  12. Will says:

    Still don’t have to actually pay for their gross emissions though do they. Just a load of fluff. I wonder if we could get animals to run on bio-fuels.

    No answer on organics I see.

  13. Name Withheld says:

    Who suggested an “argument”? ….Not me.
    Just exposing the continued hypocrisy of “these despicable bastards.”

  14. JC says:

    I don’t think we can ignore this almost perfect correlation of increasing population and CO2 levels 1960-2015.. or the discussion on why..

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/17/the-correlation-between-global-population-and-global-co2/

    JC

  15. Name Withheld says:

    I don’t think we can ignore this almost perfect correlation of increasing population and CO2 levels 1960-2015.. or the discussion on why..

    Oh no?…..
    Just watch him in…….
    Three…
    Two…
    One…

  16. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, I think organic farmers should do their bit regarding GHG too.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/organic-farms-carbon-footprint-climate-change

    JC, it may surprise you but in this case I think there is a correlation between population growth and GHG emissions. The article is the closest to something i could agree with on the Fox weatherman’s website. However I don’t agree with the hypothesis that increased CO2 causes more food production. The droughts, floods and other extreme weather events is actually causing difficulties for many of our largest food areas:
    http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/managing-natural-resources/river-murray/river-restoration-and-environmental-water/drought-in-murray-darling-basin
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/california-drought-farm-and-food-impacts.aspx

  17. Name Withheld says:

    Bingo… Right on cue.

    the Fox weatherman’s website

    Ah…the snide nastiness of a green. Just sad.

    He is in fact…

    a former AMS certified (Seal 676 retired) television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

    But hey..Lets not let facts get in the way of a green smear.
    Just despicable bastards, the lot of you.

    Mr Watts is also hearing impaired.
    What was it you said when you flew into the defense of your deaf poster girl again?
    You get more pathetic by the day.

  18. Will says:

    What does it matter what site it appears on, it’s a simple correlation graph!

    Dave, you always do this – demand links, then try to trash the source, ignoring the content. Then you post something from the loony Guardian.

    But keep trashing your own country, voters love it.

  19. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW and Will, when is stating facts and providing context abuse, Anthony Watts has been Fox’s weatherman since 2004 and his qualifications for this are some classes he attended at Purdue University (without graduating). The AMS certification is just an approval for being able to communicate the weather on air, I’m sure many of our own weather women and men have something similar. Providing factual context is not abuse and I am more than happy for you to suggest that I am a member of the Green Party (although I can imagine that suggesting the same of others here that it would be considered abuse😉 ) and have absolutely no weather qualifications at all.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

    Will, you did note that I agreed with half of what was in the article and then provided clear evidence to disprove the other half. I would also be interested to know what UK paper you felt was more reliable…the Daily Telegraph, or perhaps the Sun? Interestingly the article actually said that organic farms could do more to reduce emissions, were you wanting something that said the opposite? I’m confused. This was the title:
    “Organic farms don’t have the tiny carbon footprint they like to tout.”
    Own goal?

    “But keep trashing your own country, voters love it.”
    Hmm, I don’t think that much of the pollution in our rivers is down to me, I certainly don’t practice tax avoidance and I have been involved with a number of beach and roadside cleanups…whatever are you implying?

  20. Mr E says:

    I guess what we are seeing here is a back lash to the way that the Greens approach issues.

    I see there is name calling above – and I for one condemn that. There is no need. I presume it has not been spotted by our very busy blog owner/moderator, and to this end I draw attention to some of NW’s remarks.

    I would hope we are all above that.

    “when is stating facts and providing context abuse”

    If you call a morbidly obese person ‘fat’ are you being abusive? Defamation and abuse are separate things in that it is possible to be both factual and abusive.

    I’m surprised you are confused around this issue Dave. I would have thought your teaching background would have had your understanding the concept well.

    I think the Green party do approach issue from a very negative angle. Sometimes that angle targets groups, sometimes mainstream behaviours. I don’t think it is a useful approach if the Greens are attempting to become a mainstream party.

    There is a better way in my opinion. It is possible to moot a different approach with out denigrating the current approach. Positive approaches can and do grab headlines.

    Regarding Carbon taxes, there are many reasons for taxes. When it comes to behaviour change some taxes are designed to (in part) shift behaviours.

    Sadly – what shift in behaviours would we hope to get from livestock farmers and carbon taxes? The only outcome that the tax encourages is lower productivity from the sector. Which would result in lower GST, Income tax and company taxes.

    Carbon taxing the sector simply creates an expensive, hard to measure, and accurately qualify, system. And it shifts away from an already serviced, easy to measure and quality tax system.

    We don’t need this merry go round from the Green party. It is unlikely to make any tangilbe gains other than a poorer less productive NZ, whilst the rest of the Globe succeeds in the vacant markets we create.

    It is well understood that NZ is very efficient at minimising carbon from livestock per unit of output, and we can be sure the market successors will not be as efficient as us. Therefore the carbon outcome for the globe as a result of the Green policy is obviously negative.

  21. Mr E says:

    I guess what we are seeing here is a back lash to the way that the Greens approach issues.

    I see there is name calling above – and I for one condemn that. There is no need. I presume it has not been spotted by our very busy blog owner/moderator, and to this end I draw attention to some of NW’s remarks.

    I would hope we are all above that.

    “when is stating facts and providing context abuse”

    If you call a morbidly obese person ‘fat’ are you being abusive? Defamation and abuse are separate things in that it is possible to be both factual and abusive.

    I’m surprised you are confused around this issue Dave. I would have thought your teaching background would have had you understanding the concept well.

    I think the Green party do approach issue from a very negative angle. Sometimes that angle targets groups, sometimes mainstream behaviours. I don’t think it is a useful approach if the Greens are attempting to become a mainstream party.

    There is a better way in my opinion. It is possible to moot a different approach with out denigrating the current approach. Positive approaches can and do grab headlines.

    Regarding Carbon taxes, there are many reasons for taxes. When it comes to behaviour change some taxes are designed to (in part) shift behaviours.

    Sadly – what shift in behaviours would we hope to get from livestock farmers and carbon taxes? The only outcome that the tax encourages is lower productivity from the sector. Which would result in lower GST, Income tax and company taxes.

    Carbon taxing the sector simply creates an expensive, hard to measure, and accurately qualify, system. And it shifts away from an already serviced, easy to measure and quality tax system.

    We don’t need this merry go round from the Green party. It is unlikely to make any tangilble gains other than a poorer less productive NZ, whilst the rest of the Globe succeeds in the vacant markets we create.

    It is well understood that NZ is very efficient at minimising carbon from livestock per unit of output, and we can be sure the market successors will not be as efficient as us. Therefore the carbon outcome for the globe as a result of the Green policy is obviously negative.

  22. Mr E says:

    opps

  23. Will says:

    I doubt that carbon or the climate has anything to do with Green Ag policy. As you point out, it is obviously negative, so why do it?

    The Greens have an evangelical obsession with organics, probably because widespread adoption would lead to the shortages their weird religion demands. Reading between the lines, I suspect they aim to tax rural New Zealand into submission, then offer some sort of subsidy for adopting organics. I can not say how this would fare with their Labour coalition partners, who are merely after another source of revenue.

    If I am right, then consider the dishonesty, the horrible labels (polluters) they put on us, and maybe the name calling won’t seem so out of place. Personally I despise the Greens and I don’t see why such a minor party gets so much attention. Who cares what they think? They’re just a handful of cranks.

  24. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E you will have to explain why calling Watts Fox’s weatherman can be considered abusive? He is what he is, he is not NASA or the Royal Society. You are a hypocrite if you are suggesting that providing factual information on a person’s background to give context to their opinions is abusive. You and others here have constantly done the very same thing to me by suggesting many times that my background disqualifies me from being taken seriously. You are just creating another diversion away from the actual thread.

    I would really love you to explain how the Green Party approach to climate change is a negative one. We are the only party that had a real strategy that was independently assessed and it even involved financial incentives and tax cuts rather just punitive attacks to create change. We take a holistic approach to policy and demonstrate how shifting to a low carbon economy can actually increase prosperity.
    https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/smarter-economy

    The dairy crash has been more damaging to our farming sector than any carbon tax would have been. There is ample evidence to show that if Green farming policies had been enacted earlier then our farming economy would have been in a much stronger position.

    You need to read this again😉

    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2016/03/what-would-really-happen-to-farming.html

    This National Government has seriously failed the farming sector by buying into the gold rush mentality that dominated dairying just as they failed Solid Energy and are failing New Zealanders through the lack of intervention in our property market. Supporting greed generally ends in needless suffering!

  25. Name Withheld says:

    Mr E you will have to explain why calling Watts Fox’s weatherman can be considered abusive?

    I am sure I did not use that word.
    Your method is much more cynical and measured in a cowardly way.

    the Fox weatherman’s website

    If you can’t see the thinly veiled, vindictive, sheer nastiness behind this description of the creator of the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change, then you need to take a long hard look inside yourself.
    I’m not holding my breath, as I fully expect you to find new ways to justify your cowardice to this small audience. Taking on Mr Watts on his own turf, or even better, yours is not your style.

  26. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, you are just repeating National spin on the Greens, read the above and use some logical arguments to question the actual policy rather than resorting to emotive statements.

    I totally support the view that for many farmers becoming certified organic isn’t practical but the arguments for a greater uptake of organic farming are hugely economic ones rather than just environmental and ideological ones. Just imagine where our farming sector would be now if even 10% of our farms were organic. We are reliant on our clean green image to market our commodities and yet we have one of the lowest percentages of organic farms in the world.

    “Global demand for organic products remains robust, with sales increasing by over five billion US Dollars a year.”

    “Growth in the organic industry in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands has been strongly influenced by rapidly growing overseas demand; domestic markets are, however, growing. In New Zealand, a key issue is lack of production to meet growing demand.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming_by_country

    Your label of “cranks” is desperate when we are open to independent reviews of our policies through Treasury and National appears resistant. This current National Government is clearly driven by a combination of ideology and populism and it constantly rejects sound advice and evidence in its decisions. We are supported because what we say just makes sense:
    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11580030

    National does not want independent policy costings because its support of oil exploration, coal mining, motorways and convention centres etc have never stacked up:
    https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/english-refuses-allow-treasury-cost-greens-policy

  27. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, oh dear, there must be something really bad about being associated with Fox News if you are so upset😉

    I don’t think that being the most viewed site is an indication of robust science and quality. While I’ll Be Fucked (literal translation) maybe still New Zealand’s most popular blog and Donald Trump is the most popular candidate for the Republican Party in the US. Slater has just been charged for paying for a hack of the Standard Blog and, like Trump, his honesty, ethics and credibility is often questioned.

    Watt’s standing in the scientific community isn’t good but I agree it hasn’t stopped him from being popular and be supported by yourself. I would be interested to know if you also support Slater and Trump😉

    I can’t imagine that the Royal Society website has as strong a following as the Perez Hilton celebrity gossip website, but that is just the way of the world…pornography and cat videos apparently dominate web searches too.

  28. Name Withheld says:

    I’m not holding my breath, as I fully expect you to find new ways to justify your cowardice to this small audience.

    Bingo..Exactly as expected.

    Donald Trump Slater Fox News Royal Society Perez Hilton pornography cat videos oh dear

    Quick!!..Look!!..A Squirrel.!!…
    Lets all chase the Squirrel!

    By the way if you say “Whale oil beef Hooked” in an Irish accent, you may be closer.
    Your attempt at being “with it” has fallen a bit flat as usual, I’m afraid.

  29. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, chuckle, I’ll leave you to chase your Slaters, Watts and squirrels you do it well… and yes I understood the Irish accent thing with Slater’s blog title, hence the translation😉

  30. Name Withheld says:

    yes I understood the Irish accent thing with Slater’s blog title, hence the translation

    Errr…….

    Obviously(TM)

    No you don’t.

    Oh dear(TM)

  31. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, I finally got what you were on about change the “while” typo for a “why”…I’ll give you that one😉

    However it still doesn’t change my argument regarding Watt.

  32. Name Withheld says:

    Personally I despise the Greens

    I would like to too, Will, but to despise or even hate them would require an effort of will, or an expenditure of energy no matter how tiny it may be, I just cant be bothered with.
    As they are on the National scene, so they are completely irrelevant to me in both my private and professional life. And long will they remain so.
    As an object of mockery and derision… Well that is a different story. they are tailor made for it.

    Your label of “cranks” is desperate

    Oh really…..? Lets see..

    You have Kevin Hague imploring DHB’s to be ready for Dengue Fever and Zika virus that the upcoming climate doom is going to bring. When all he had to do was bring Steffan Browning along to school them on homeopathy.

    Or sweet little Julie Ann tweeting that John Key is “full of shit”

    Then Marge Madge Modge the deaf one, patiently explaining chemtrails to a concerned green party member.
    Just batshit crazy really.
    The resident green that posts here and his pathetic attempts at humour, with side-splitters such as If we had a Green government now the farming sector would have been in much better health. fail dismally and just leave him looking like the jester or the village idiot.

  33. Name Withheld says:

    Typo?
    Bollocks!

    You don’t have an argument regarding Watt, just snide nastiness masquerading as one.

  34. Name Withheld says:

    Typo?
    Bollocks.
    Oh how your lies have a way of catching you out.
    You still haven’t got it.

  35. Dave Kennedy says:

    So much hatred for someone presenting an alternative view and so much sensitivity too. If I had described Watts or any of you in a similar way as I am being personally addressed the protests would have been deafening.

    Criticising Kevin Hague for suggesting that we should be prepared when Dengue fever is already making an appearance here seems sensible to me. We can’t even deal with the current explosion of obesity related illnesses yet and we don’t want to be caught out.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/239054/dengue-fever-bites-in-auckland

    Remember this is a Government that was clearly informed about the beginnings of the housing crisis in 2008 and they seem surprised that we have one 8 years later. A lot of warning is needed to get any preparation underway.

    The Green’s home insulation idea has been one of the most successful initiatives for this Government and this next idea of us will probably help too…
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/80163373/housing-nz-should-keep-118m-dividend-build-450-new-state-homes–greens

  36. Dave Kennedy says:

    oops “this next idea of ours…”

  37. Name Withheld says:

    No answers to your lies then?
    Run Kennedy run.

  38. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, you don’t get it. I will never get most of you to change your thinking. For you anything coming from a Green’s mouth or keyboard must be opposed, and generally in a emotive rather than reasoned way. The other people who read Ele’s blog and these discussions may very well support your views but others may see the arguments and links presented and make their own judgments. It is useful to have different views expressed and you shouldn’t feel so defensive and challenged, your continual personal attacks don’t help your case.

    I also like to have people try to pick holes in my arguments because you guys do it with a determination and energy that won’t happen in left leaning or green forums. However, NW, you rarely address the substantive issues being discussed and seem to concentrate on the small things as if they have some importance and are major victories.

    This thread is actually about how we should deal with climate change but your comments rarely address that in any substantial way.

  39. Paranormal says:

    And there you go again DK. You can’t see your own arrogance.

    Have you once, ever, considered it may be you who needs to change your thinking on an issue? Or is it that when Mrs Kennedy married Mr Right, she didn’t realise his first name was ‘Always’?

  40. Name Withheld says:

    NW, you don’t get it.
    Quite the contrary, thats the very problem you have with me. I DO get it, I can see right through you, and you know it, and you can’t accept it. One other commenter here A***e, can see it also and is not afraid to voice his opinion of you.
    Lets take the Irish Whale oil thing as an example.Trivial and inconsequential in the extreme, and it was probably petty of me to pursue it. It is obvious(TM) that you don’t know the meaning. But you have backed yourself into a corner pretending that you do. So you lie, blaming “typos” to avoid looking a fool. I repeat, trivial indeed, but it gives a revealing and accurate insight into your character and your desperation to maintain a charade. That you can lie so glibly about the little stuff means in your arrogance you think nobody will notice the bigger ones.
    I am not looking for “major victories”, but I do get some satisfaction from exposing your bullshit.

  41. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal & NW, Some self-awareness would be useful at this point. I quite agree that I am opinionated and have strong views, that is why I comment here. To withstand the regular abuse and personal attacks regarding my intelligence and political motivations I have to have a reasonable degree of self-confidence. I have been accused of child abuse to treason, you can’t get much worse then that and i would love you to point out where I have stooped to that level of personal attack in response. Apparently using smiley faces and the occasional “good grief” are despicable ways of communicating…really?

    Has it ever occurred to either of you that the way you express your own opinions is actually far worse than mine. The condescending manner you have in attempting to sort out the supposed deluded Green drips with superiority and arrogance. It seems that you actually believe that because you are commenting in a forum where your views are in a majority, bullying tactics are acceptable.

    Rather than react with such frenzied anger that a Green dare appear on this blog expressing a different view, why not just calmly address the arguments presented in an informed and reasoned way or ignore them altogether.

    …and I do make multiple mistakes in my communications, I should take more time in checking what i write when I comment here, but i am often doing other things and get distracted. If you want to attack my many grammatical slips, typos and occasional misunderstanding then feel free, if that is your best way of attacking my arguments then other readers can judge your level of engagement.

    Why not try this approach?:
    Dave, your thinking is flawed because you didn’t consider the following…or, here is a useful nonpartisan article that contradicts your link…
    But it seems that even the basic polite formality of addressing me by my name is a step too far (and you accuse me of arrogance).

    Instead I get:
    “I personally despise the Greens”
    “Just more dishonest spin from these despicable bastards”
    And calling Watts Fox News’ weatherman (his actual credentials as a climate blogger) gets this response:
    “If you can’t see the thinly veiled, vindictive, sheer nastiness behind this description of the creator of the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change, then you need to take a long hard look inside yourself.”

    I don’t think it is me that needs the internal reassessment😉

  42. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    “Mr E you will have to explain why calling Watts Fox’s weatherman can be considered abusive?”

    No I wont. You claimed being factual is not abusive. I proved that silly premise to be wrong. And that was my only point. I was not hinting or suggesting that you were being abusive – just dealing to a falsehood.

    “You are a hypocrite if you are suggesting that providing factual information on a person’s background to give context to their opinions is abusive. You and others here have constantly done the very same thing to me by suggesting many times that my background disqualifies me from being taken seriously.”

    I have never said your background disqualifies you from being taken seriously. That is a blatant lie, at the cost of my reputation. I suspect an attempt to defame me. I wonder if you can deliver evidence of your claim or an apology.

    I think this statement in itself supports some of the points NW is making.

    “I would really love you to explain how the Green Party approach to climate change is a negative one”

    You missed all of my point then. If a tax only leads to negative outcomes it is not a tax that anyone should be part of.

    The Greens tax creates a merry go round of money. There are no positive behaviour changes that can be achieved. Only negative ones.

    You claim I am creating a diversion. That makes me wonder if logic and rationale are foreign concepts to the Green Party. It seems like there are very good reasons to oppose the Greens carbon tax policy but to you that logic is a diversion to something else. Am I diverting from illogic and irrational, I wonder.

  43. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, I appreciate the fact that you usually address me by name.

    “I have never said your background disqualifies you from being taken seriously.”
    That is because you try to avoid direct comments and imply things instead, you may remember your comments regarding my editorship of a Young Farmers newsletter😉

    Context is important and your example of obesity actually made no sense without context. If someone was selling a weight loss product but were morbidly obese themselves then reference to their weight would be relevant. If a person presents themselves as an authority on climate and questions published scientists then their own credentials would also become relevant. I openly admit that I have limited farming experience which is why i have a heavy reliance on links to those who have.

    “The Greens tax creates a merry go round of money. There are no positive behaviour changes that can be achieved. Only negative ones.”

    The tax was a modest one (remember the Greens were going to have a half tax for farmers) and it was accompanied by incentives to also make money through tax credits and recognition of concrete initiatives to reduce emissions. If less carbon means less tax I can’t see why there wouldn’t be an incentive to reduce. The tax was also less than usual fluctuations in milk prices and the advantage of a tax is that it is consistent and predictable and any negative consequences will be more about the level it is set at. It seems that any tax is unacceptable to you.

    You would have seen the Lincoln research some years ago that analysed the external costs of dairying in Canterbury that were being absorbed by tax payers etc. Having something that recognises the external effects of an industry is useful.

  44. Gravedodger says:

    Would those Taxpayers referred to above be the same ones who are forced to subsidise and fund the Green Party Activists in their more moronic destructive behaviours.

    The Waihope base, the energy share price, Aotea square destruction, list MPs costs for grandstanding, I could go on but the holidays call.

  45. Will says:

    Businesses like ours operate at the margin. We compete with producers overseas. We have some advantages over them but they have some over us. Our advantage is a reasonably temperate climate, a culture of innovation, and until recently, low cost structures. These are not unique to NZ, places like South America are catching us.

    Green taxes and anti-science policies will create a drag we simply will not be able to overcome, you will finish us. Our untaxed competitors will take a lead we will never recover. Even when the country wises up and votes you into extinction, it will be too late, the damage irreversible. This is why I resist your ideas.

    Please do not start crapping on about Organics and Smart Economies etc. Farmers who are interested in such things are already free to try them. Those of us who do not, have our reasons and they are OUR businesses. It’s not as if we are here complaining and begging for help. It has taken me 36 years of trial and error to refine my farming system and I’m pretty happy with it. At the tweaking stage now, getting set in my ways and profoundly disinterested in turning it all upside down and starting again.

    There you go Dave, I’ve tried to give you an honest, personal viewpoint to show why you encounter such resistance from me. You are welcome to express your views, but you Greens have no right to impose your ideas on private businesses. If you ever get power, you have Landcorp to play with, be content with that.

  46. Mr E says:

    “That is because you try to avoid direct comments and imply things instead”

    So you have no evidence then – just some claim of “implication” which could be your own misinterpretation of my views.

    I have been extremely supportive of you background – regularly admiring your experience as the editor of the Young farmers newsletter.

    That is nothing to shy away from Dave. Be proud of it. I am sure you were proud of it when you originally pointed it out to readers. What has changed?

  47. Dave Kennedy says:

    “The Waihope base, the energy share price, Aotea square destruction, list MPs costs for grandstanding, I could go on but the holidays call.”

    GD, Time will tell who was on the right side of the argument I guess. Waihopai has already been exposed for supporting questionable mass surveillance, the Aotea square damage was due to the Occupy Movement (you wrongly assume that all protests are led by the Greens) and the selling of our state assets will be a long term economic disaster.

    I also suggest that you look at the cost of the PM’s PR machine that spews the stream of propaganda that you accept so readily😉

    If you want to look at wanton destruction you may like to look at the state of our social housing, the number of homeless sleeping in Auckland’s CBD, the state of our rivers, the influx of pests and see what is left of our Maui dolphins and our fish stocks.

    You may have to remove you blinkers and blue tinted specs😉

    Happy holidays.

  48. Mr E says:

    “The tax was a modest one”

    That is not a reason to tax.

    “through tax credits and recognition of concrete initiatives to reduce emissions”

    What can a farmer do to reduce emissions? – Reduce productivity – Right?
    Potentially that means less GST less Income tax, less company tax.

    You are creating a money merry go round. One that swaps one tax for another and ultimately leads to less tax which makes NZ poorer.

    How does one prove they have reduced emissions? A model that has a lot of error. Accordingly you will inevitability be taxing people unfairly and incentivising people unfairly.

    “If less carbon means less tax I can’t see why there wouldn’t be an incentive to reduce”

    Think about it Dave. If profits from emitting carbon were higher than taxes from emitting carbon – there is no incentive. The tax has to be significantly negative to stimulate behaviour change.

    Given that the only tool there is to reduce livestock emissions is to reduce livestock numbers – the tax has to be high enough to make farming livestock uneconomic to have an impact.

    Why can’t the Greens see this. Why does it seem basic economics and tax implications are so foreign to them?

    This carbon tax idea is idiotic. It can’t work. Simple logic is all that is needed to understand that.

  49. Dave Kennedy says:

    “I have been extremely supportive of your background – regularly admiring your experience as the editor of the Young farmers newsletter.”

    Mr E, I gratefully accept your support with the same level of sincerity in which it was given…chuckle😉

    While I am proud of my past efforts with the A4, Banda produced (for those who remember this method of printing) little newsletter, I have moved on.

    My latest blogpost has just passed 3,000 views in a day (my most popular post has exceeded 55,000 views) and the magazine I co-edit reaches many more:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/the-brilliance-of-john-key.html
    https://home.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/te_awa_50_2016_may.pdf

    Obviously I am not in the same league as Watts, Slater or even Ele but then again I don’t aspire to be. It is nice, however, to know that my views are supported and shared by more than just a handful of people.

    I could shelter in environments where everyone agrees with me but I find it refreshing to hang out where they don’t. It is a useful reality check to be reminded about the diversity of views that we have in this country. However it appears that Paranormal is the only one who regularly has the courage to visit my space and actually comment.

  50. Dave Kennedy says:

    “What can a farmer do to reduce emissions? – Reduce productivity – Right?”
    Wrong: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/news/inspirational-ideas-increasing-farm-profitability-while-cutting-carbon-emissions-toolkit

    We should have the same sort of initiative here.

  51. Mr E says:

    “Mr E, I gratefully accept your support with the same level of sincerity in which it was given…chuckle😉”

    How about you apologise for your unkind remarks then. It seems you are willing to admit you were wrong.

    “My latest blogpost has just passed 3,000 views in a day (my most popular post has exceeded 55,000 views) and the magazine I co-edit reaches many more”

    Sounds like you are very busy blogging/commenting Dave. How do you get time to do anything else?

    “It is nice, however, to know that my views are supported and shared by more than just a handful of people”

    When did a view = support? You obviously regularly view Whaleoil. You support his views?

    “I could shelter in environments where everyone agrees with me ”

    Lets put your content aside for a second. Your approach has been questioned here. Do you think it would be welcomed where everyone agrees with you.

    Your link adds further proof that you tax will have a negative impact.

    I followed a link to Aussie experiences. They talked about Increasing weaning weights, reproductive performance, and growth rates of animals. Things NZers have been striving for, for generations.

    Effectively the Aussies are saying – high performance is best. Do what NZers have been doing for decades.
    We dont need a tax to strive for that. Never have.

  52. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, you are right many may view my posts and disagree with the content but it is easy to track the Facebook links and reTweets to establish where the traffic has come from and the level of support.

    “Lets put your content aside for a second. Your approach has been questioned here. Do you think it would be welcomed where everyone agrees with you.”

    I agree that my approach here differs from how I comment in other forums, but mainly due to the level of abuse that occurs and the lack of a level playing field. I have little respect for commenters who hide behind anonymity and yet use information to attack me that they have acquired because I am not anonymous. To make judgements of others based on their personal identity but then refuse to divulge ones own is cowardly in my opinion.

    Your demand for an apology is just insincere nonsense and doesn’t deserve a respectful response either.

    Cameron Slater is a shock jock blogger (Key’s description) who has lost many court cases that question his ethics and honesty. Any of his posts should be regarded with a bag of salt (a pinch is too small).

    Anthony Watts should be regarded in the same light. He is paid to provide misinformation and he uses what limited knowledge he has of climate science to misinform those who have even less. My description of him as the Fox News Weatherman was almost praise compared to what i could have called him with some justification:
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3617462/science-is-hard/
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/ignoble-cause-anthony-watts-tells-lie.html
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

    Your defense of Watt says more about yourself and your own level of judgment.

  53. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    “I agree that my approach here differs from how I comment in other forums, but mainly due to the level of abuse that occurs and the lack of a level playing field”

    I dont get it…. You come here full well knowing the terms under which you will engage, and change your attitude for the worst because of it.

    Why don’t you just accept what you can’t change? I am sure it will help you interact with others here better.

    “I have little respect for commenters who hide behind anonymity”

    There are a lot of anons on blogs – are you sure blogging is the right place for you?

    To be frank – you don’t have to respect someone to be respectful to them. Being respectful to another is about respecting yourself and your reputation. I worry that your ‘change’ affects yours.

    “yet use information to attack me that they have acquired because I am not anonymous”

    Dave, you are a politician – you are going to have to deal with all sorts of people and their views. Are you sure you are tough enough for the job?

    “Your demand for an apology is just insincere nonsense”

    First of all – it was not a demand. It was a request.
    By referring to the request as ‘insincere’ are you suggesting I am lying about requesting an apology? That seems bizarre.

    “Your defense of Watt says more about yourself”

    I have not defended Watts at all. I have passed absolutely no judgement on him. You seem confused.

  54. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, as you know I am completely open about my reasons for commenting and my style. Readers will judge me by my engagement the strength of my arguments and my evidence (just as you obviously do based on your own agenda).

    The fact that Ele hasn’t censored my comments but has had to step in to deal with others who have stepped over the mark is worth noting. I am also respectful of the level of tolerance Ele shows to support wider views. Given that you have often tried to take over the policing role here, it is clear that your own ability to recognise the validity of different views is not the same.

    I also note that when I find evidence that successfully counters your arguments, that you rarely acknowledge them and revert to a new line of attack. I thought that the toolkit to help reduce farm emissions without effecting profits was a good one and your sincerity of engagement can also be assessed by your responses.

    This is little to be gained by replying to your attempts to justify your position through semantics, others can read the thread and draw their own conclusions.

    I have no problems with pseudonyms as such but, I do have concerns when they are used in cowardly ways or dishonestly creates a persona that appears more authoritative than what is most likely the reality (I do doubt your qualifications as a geneticist).

    I do believe in respectful engagement but I also believe that it is important to identify unhelpful behaviour and dishonesty.

  55. Paranormal says:

    Interesting that someone who admits to not understanding science and prefers to have faith in the preaching of a few, is so willing to discredit someone with scientific understanding of climate science.

    People don’t need to discredit you DK, you do a good enough job of that yourself. Perhaps you should heed your own advice about attacking the argument rather than the person?

  56. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Perhaps you should heed your own advice about attacking the argument rather than the person?”
    Paranormal, ironically wise words…

    Read through the comments and see who has made the most effort to argue a case and support it with evidence😉

  57. Name Withheld says:

    Read through the comments and see who has made the most effort to argue a case and support it with evidence. Attack the messenger.
    There…
    Fixed it for you.

  58. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, I apologise for missing your earlier comment (11:14 am).

    You make the mistake of thinking the Greens will impose organics on farmers in an autocratic way. In the same way that National spent $800 million on irrigation to support intensification and increased production, a potential Green Government would invest in R&D to support sustainable farming practices and include efforts to tap into new and profitable markets that are more stable the the current scenario.

    While National supported an economic culture based on quantity, we would support a culture base on quality.

    If you are at the stage where your operation is efficient and sustainable then it could very well form a model that could be emulated elsewhere and you could be part of our “good farm stories” website.

    Most farmers operate in an environment dictated by demand and global market forces and Governments do have a role in supporting market stability and sustainability. Clearly the industry itself must have a collaborative role in achieving that. Autocratic governance decisions made in isolation from the realities of the industry are doomed to fail.

  59. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW 3:50, for readers of this thread it will work either way.

    (May 19, 2016 at 5:31 pm) will make interesting reading for many😉

  60. Paranormal says:

    Come on DK, we know you don’t do irony.

  61. Name Withheld says:

    May 19, 2016 at 5:31 pm) will make interesting reading for many
    Oh…so its silly games time again is it?
    Ok…..
    I have a few minutes.
    You wrote in response to my comment on Mr Hague in the above exchange…

    Criticising Kevin Hague for suggesting that we should be prepared when Dengue fever is already making an appearance here seems sensible to me.

    Right…. so you agree with me while missing the point at the same time.
    Quite an achievement, even for you.
    My point of course was not to criticize Mr Hague’s concern with impending doom from tropical disease, but his failure to offer Mr Brownings famous cure for these ailments.
    You are Ok with Ms Genter telling Mr Key he is “full of shit”?
    Whatever happened to “I do believe in respectful engagement”? (Your words)
    Which only leaves Chemtrails….
    Just batshit crazy really. But i repeat myself.

    So your point in your quote “May 19, 2016 at 5:31 pm) will make interesting reading for many”.
    Was what exactly?

  62. Dave Kennedy says:

    “You are Ok with Ms Genter telling Mr Key he is “full of shit”?”
    NW, totally, it isn’t my or Julie Anne’s normal use of language, but in relation to the situation it was totally justified. Key’s statement that sparked the robust comment was almost as low as accusing the opposition of supporting rapists and we are still waiting for his apology.

    I note you provided the misinformation and made the accusations without the links to provide context and by doing that you have exposed your agenda.

    As I said earlier, readers can make their own judgments and the fact that you felt the need to explain yourself rather than let the comment stand for itself is also interesting.

  63. Name Withheld says:

    I note you provided the misinformation and made the accusations without the links to provide context and by doing that you have exposed your agenda.

    What the hell does that even mean?
    You’re beginning to babble again.

    Misinformation? Accusations? Links? Exposed my agenda?

    Evidence please!(TM)

  64. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, I provided one example and when readers do a Google search to find the evidence for the other claims (that you didn’t provide) then they can assess the accuracy of your other claims😉

  65. Name Withheld says:

    You’ve lost me again.

    “assess the accuracy of your other claims”

    Are you saying I just made the Kevin Hague, Dengue Fever, and Zika virus quote up?
    Or green a party members concern about chemtrails? made up too?

    Or what are you getting at?

    Your claim of course….
    That..
    it isn’t my or Julie Anne’s normal use of language,
    Is demonstrably false….Some even refer to her as “The foul mouthed little tart “Green” list MP called Julie Anne Genter” on twitter.

  66. Mr E says:

    “Readers will judge me by my engagement”

    They do and that is the point really. By my read nearly every regular commenter has voiced concern at one stage or another. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, but it really does not fit your party principles.

    “Given that you have often tried to take over the policing role here,”

    I have never tried to police anything or anyone here. That is wrong.

    “I also note that when I find evidence that successfully counters your arguments, that you rarely acknowledge them”

    Ironic you say that, I have put a substantive arguement against carbon tax here and you have not even tried to counter each of my points. Hypocritical.

    “your sincerity of engagement can also be assessed by your responses.”

    Thanks for your support.

    “others can read the thread and draw their own conclusions.”

    I am sure they do and I seem to get plenty of thumbs up.

    ” I do have concerns when they are used in cowardly ways ”

    I’ve no come across anyone who would fit that description, and I would say it is hard to know why people use anonymity. I guess there are many reasons. I am proud of mine.

    “or dishonestly creates a persona that appears more authoritative than what is most likely the reality (I do doubt your qualifications as a geneticist).”

    Oh you are talking about me.
    I never claimed to be a Geneticist. I have studied genetics, but I would not identify as a geneticist. I think that is your silly interpretation of details. Comprehension Dave. Comprehension.
    It appears the only thing that is dishonest is your interpretation of facts.

  67. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, there are about six regular commenters here and you make the assumption that their views reflect the majority of readers. Given that Homepaddock probably has more traffic than my own humble blog and my last post has now had over 3,000 views, with no comment so far, I’m not sure how you can suggest that the commenters reflect a majority view.

    If you read my response, I did indeed counter your carbon tax concerns.

    Interestingly you appear to know a lot about me including the colour of our little caravan, which i haven’t shared here. While you don’t accept my invitations to be part of the local events I have helped organise you have people reporting to you what happened (the soil seminar). It does seem as though you are my only stalker😉

    You also claim lots of past experience and qualifications while not allowing these to be verified. You claimed to have given a lecture on genetics and I am sorry if I assumed that you were qualified to do so.

    You challenged me to front up to a meeting that you were organising and when I accepted the challenge it never eventuated (some interesting excuses) and you refuse my invitations to meet in person.

    When I am fully open about my background and who I am, in relation to yourself the words transparency and coward do come to mind. I can’t remember you ever offering a convincing reason for your anonymity or justification for your refusal to meet. What I do generally like about Southland is that I can be a member of the Chamber of Commerce and meet with the leadership of Federated Farmers and we can have a healthy exchange of views in a respectful way despite our diverse political differences.

    What would be really creepy would be if i did know you and we have met, but you haven’t acknowledged it. That would be really sad and pathetic if that was the case.

  68. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    ” you make the assumption that their views reflect the majority of readers.”

    No I didn’t. Comprehension Dave. Again.

    Stalker? Don’t flatter yourself Dave. You claimed your caravan is special. I did a quick Google search and a picture popped up in seconds. It was old and orange and didn’t look too special.

    And I don’t think you should be surprised that we have acquaintances in common. Many in fact. That is Invercargill I suppose.

    It does make some of the slurs you make towards me entertaining though.

    “You claimed to have given a lecture on genetics”

    I’ve presented on many topics to students, and others. Including livestock methane production (trying to bring the topic back). I also don’t identify as a Ruminologist.

    “I can’t remember you ever offering a convincing reason for your anonymity”

    There are several reasons. One that I haven’t mentioned – is that the name and the email address I use here is the same one I have used for acts of generosity. I have had people and media try to seek me out, when that is not the purpose of anonymous gifts. Including featuring on the front page of the times numerous times. And other parts of the paper.
    It is important to me that the identity used here stays private, because the value of generosity is so much greater when it is done without the need for appreciation.

    I can imagine you won’t believe this reponse. That is your style. And I care not what you believe.

    Frankly speaking this is not the main reason for anonymity. But it is one. I have several others.

    I’m pretty happy with my reasons.

    You are back to your fascination with Me. Ironically this is another reason for anonymity. It is boring to talk about me and boring to be questioned about me. Who I am adds nothing at all to the debate of ideas. Get back to the debate about ideas Dave. That is where the value of blogging exists.

  69. Dave Kennedy says:

    Don’t flatter yourself Mr E, your description of yourself as God’s gift to farming and the great benefactor are as entertaining and as wondrous as your promise to have me confront the local farming community.

    It is rather creepy that you could find an image of my caravan through a Google search, please provide the link to prove that you aren’t a stalker. Even I couldn’t find one, and it’s mine.

    Very creepy Mr E… 😛

  70. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    “Don’t flatter yourself Mr E, your description of yourself as God’s gift to farming and the great benefactor ”

    So you are back to lies? Not very befitting of your position in my view.

    From your own blog Dave. Your own blog.

    Creepy indeed. What a desperate level of commenting you seem to have lowered to.

  71. Dave Kennedy says:

    It is creepy, Mr E, because a Google search wouldn’t find that image, you must have had to dredge through several years of my blog posts. What on earth did you put down as your key words to come up with that?

    It is also a little sad that you didn’t appreciate the restoration work on a New Zealand classic😛

  72. Mr E says:

    You are consistently wrong Dave.

    I’m wondering how you made it up the the party list, when you can’t get basis details right.

    You have been accusing me of dishonesty. I wonder how many counter facts you need to see before you start feeling bad about these accusations. Endless?

    The Google search I did last night had it as the 1st image.

    https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=dave+kennedy+green+party+caravan&client=safari&hl=en-nz&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN2sSytOjMAhWG7oMKHWzyA1cQ_AUICCgB&biw=320&bih=460&dpr=2#hl=en-nz&tbm=isch&q=dave+kennedy+green+party+caravan+coal&imgrc=_

    I think you need to get a grip Dave and get back to the blog topic.

    I doubt you will though.

  73. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oh dear, Mr E, you have unwittingly revealed yourself. There is no plausible way that you would have known to put that combination of words together to get that image. Even I wouldn’t have thought to use the combination of Green Party, coal and caravan, it was clearly done after the fact. You are a desperate, sad man to have gone to those lengths😛

    Interestingly the image you found in your extensive search reminded me about our local Coal Action Group and how we brought over an Australian farmer to talk to local farmers about the realities of farming beside a coal or lignite mine. In Australia the farmers reached out to the environmentalists to help them with their Lock the Gate campaign. Fossil fuel greed was destroying much of Australia’s arable land and our NZ Government was planning to emulate that.
    http://www.lockthegate.org.au/

    It also brings me back to Ele’s post regarding the need for a global solution, but we actually need both. We must all take some responsibility for our own emissions and every small action will add up to a large whole. I could ride my bike more, farmers could use emission kits like the one i linked too and Fonterra could look at the fact that they are the 2nd biggest user of coal in NZ and shift to driers powered by waste wood.

    For farmers to say that they should be expected to do anything is a cop out.

    Going organic will help but only because it is possible to reduce stock numbers while still getting a good return. The emissions per litre of milk have been assessed as the same in conventional and organic operations:
    http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/sff/about-projects/search/C08-014/ghg-report.pdf

  74. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oops again…should read “For farmers to say that they shouldn’t be expected to do anything is a cop out.”

  75. Will says:

    Double oops…should read “For ‘New Zealand’ farmers to say..blah blah tax etc.”

    Just us.

  76. Name Withheld says:

    Are you sure the Google search string for the caravan…
    Wasn’t..
    “Camping and Cycling in Southland Where The Fun Never Stops

  77. Mr E says:

    “Oh dear, Mr E, you have unwittingly revealed yourself.”

    Haha. So revealed you are still referring to me as Mr E. I feel so exposed!

    Haha.

    But no. You are wrong again. Last nights Google search was based on recollection from the previous one.

    I quick check shows I can come up with the same result multiple ways.
    I’d question your research skills, but I have pretty much figured the level of them.

    Moving along.

    “The emissions per litre of milk have been assessed as the same in conventional and organic operations”

    So it is agreed – there is no advantage to emissions to shifting to organics.

    From the article, the organic milk production /ha is 585kgMS/ha. Malloch McLean accountants have the Southland average milk production at 1200kgMS/ha.

    Even at the lowest conventional payout there has been in years, the organic payout would have to be over $10/kgMS to offset the productivity shortfall.

    Organic payout is at its highest level ever any it still doesn’t cut it.

    Green’s still promote a shift for no $ gain and no emission gain.

    And ultimately a shift to organics reduces food supply and increases the cost of food. This is a hateful approach towards the poor.

  78. Will says:

    We could achieve the same result by de-stocking and selling some land as lif-style blocks. Would that be acceptable?

  79. Will says:

    life-style

  80. Mr E says:

    Is that question for me Will?

  81. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, you are pin dancing. Nothing is wrong with my research skills and i would have to question yours. Why did you have to redo the search when the original one would have been easily located in your history? To have discovered any combination to get that image without in depth knowledge of my personal activities or a substantial search defies logic or probability. Post your original search or provide an implausible reason why you can’t😉

    You will be disappointed to know that i have conducted no search to find out who you are because I am not interested in playing your little game of hide and seek. I just think it is ridiculous that you refuse to have a f2f chat when you spend so much time and effort arguing with me here. It is clear that you prefer the protection of your anonymity and need to maintain the ridiculous facade you have created for yourself.

    As for your appalling maths skills, the current farm gate payout for standard milk is $3.90 per kilogram of milk solids and the organic price is $9.20.

    585 times $9.20 is $5,382 while 1,200 times $3.90 is $4,680. The organic farm with fewer cows and inputs would be $700 up per ha

    You argument that reducing the level of dairy production would hit the poor is a load of crocodile tears, most of the global poor don’t drink milk and are lactose intolerant. You obviously don’t remember the historical farce with the milk biscuit.

    Even in NZ milk consumption amongst the poor is low because of the cost of 1 ltr of milk here is over twice the price of Australia, the UK or the US.
    https://keithwoodford.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/why-is-new-zealands-retail-milk-so-expensive/

    If you were really serious about feeding the poor you would stop the dumping of around 30% of our food and shift to farming grain. Farming for animal protein is very inefficient.
    http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts
    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

  82. Will says:

    No Mr E, I’m beseeching our neo-feudal overlords the Greens.

    But it’s good to learn there is no poverty in the western world. If the whole world went organic, it’s estimated we could feed about 4 billion people. Not sustainable for everyone then, but prices would certainly rise.

  83. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, turning the world organic is unlikely to happen in a hurry and feeding he world efficiently and sustainably into the future does require a change of approach. Around 30% of our food is wasted the western world is becoming obese through eating too much of the wrong foods and much of our grain is used to feed animals in a very inefficient was to produce protein.

  84. Dave Kennedy says:

    in a very inefficient ‘way’ to produce protein.

  85. TraceyS says:

    “…i would love you to point out where I have stooped to that level of personal attack in response.”

    You have, Dave, need I remind you?

  86. Will says:

    Dave, the world turning organic isn’t going to happen at all. The rest of your comment is entirely incorrect.

  87. Mr E says:

    “Why did you have to redo the search when the original one would have been easily located in your history?”

    I have heard paranoia is a prerequisite for a green but this is ridiculous.

    Search Dave Kennedy Greens caravan

    “You will be disappointed to know that i have conducted no search to find out who you are”

    Nope, I care not. If you care not for my identity, would you stop asking questions regarding it, and going on and on and on? Thanks.

    “As for your appalling maths skills, the current farm gate payout for standard milk is $3.90 per kilogram of milk solids and the organic price is $9.20.”

    Oh Lordy. Where to start….

    2015-16
    Conventional payout -$3.90
    Organic payout -$5.65

    (Returns don’t offset productivity)

    2016-17
    Conventional forecasts range $4.40-$6
    (I used a lower end $5)
    Organic payout forecast $9.20

    (Returns don’t offset productivity)

    Can you see where you went wrong?

    I will concede that I didn’t word my point quite right though.

    However the point stands. No extra money, no less emissions.

    Organics are not an answer to emissions or returns.

    You claim that the poor already can’t afford milk. But it is a reality that they do pay for it.

    Milk is in many many products. Baking, bread, cheese, butter, all staples of the lower socioeconomic family in NZ.

    Your policy would make them poorer, wanting or hungry.

    That seems like the very thing the Greens are supposed to be against.

  88. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, oh dear, you are digging a rather large hole for yourself, I did the google search you suggested and got pages of largely green caravans, and mine is orange. The key word is actually ‘coal’ and to have randomly chosen that stretches credibility. I do note you didn’t put up your original search which would have proved your honesty immediately.😉

    You ignore the increasing demand for organics and the over-supply of conventional milk. I used the current prices and you being deliberately manipulative and optimistic. You have rubbished me in the past regarding the value of organics and it appears that my past projections have been more accurate than yours.

    This is the first time that you have expressed concern for the poor that I can remember. The most useful thing that could be done for the poor in New Zealand now would be to ensure that they earned living wages and that benefits covered basic needs. Protecting conventional dairy farming is not the pathway I would have chosen to lift the plight of the poor.

  89. TraceyS says:

    Dave, you’re being silly here. For me, the following search “dave kennedy nz green caravan” under images brings up your caravan as the third image – even before a picture of you!

    Yes, search results do reveal something of your browsing history (among a great many other factors). It would be hard to separate out the exact factors unless you knew the actual algorithm used. I admit I will have searched you in the past because you are a politician. But I have never looked for a picture of your caravan before.

    “I did the google search you suggested and got pages of largely green caravans”

    All this means is that you don’t search yourself very often and read what you discover. If you did, then your search results would bring up more sites connected with you.

    I google myself often. I like to know what is out there. Once, during a dark time, some supportive comments on an ODT article gave me light. I would have thought that someone in the public eye would be very concerned with their public profile, including what comes up in internet search results.

  90. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=dave+kennedy+greens+caravan&client=safari&hl=en-nz&prmd=imnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX86KkvOzMAhUlq6YKHexTAM4Q_AUICCgB

    Dealing with you can be like dealing with a child at times. Or perhaps an aqua phobic horse.

    I give you all the details you need and you fail.

    “You ignore the increasing demand for organics and the over-supply of conventional milk.”

    Ah… nope. The prices mentioned above factor that in nicely. The market place shows there is still no advantage to organics.

    “I used the current prices and you being deliberately manipulative and optimistic”

    Ah…. No you didn’t. You compared the current conventional price to the forecast organic price. That is silly.

    “my past projections have been more accurate than yours.”

    I’ve not made projections about organics. I have said organics don’t need government interference, and I was right. Is that what you mean?

    “This is the first time that you have expressed concern for the poor that I can remember.”

    I’ve come across gold fish that impress me more.

    Living wages are a seperate issue to organics. And that is a poor attempt at a diversion.

    I guess you have accepted my point that organics will hurt the poor.

  91. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, I have no idea if that was the original search or not and it has taken three attempts to even get close to something credible. The fact that an image of my caravan was an important part of an attempt to discredit me and that you even bothered to search for it in the first place says a lot about your motives and agenda…and you suggest that I am the child😉

    I compared the prices used in the article that we were both referring to. When you look at my past predictions (based on my reading) regarding the fate of Fonterra, the global milk price and the rise of organics I have proven to be more accurate than yourself. When I suggested that Fonterra should concentrate more on adding value and supporting organics you rubbished me as having no idea what I was talking about and a year or so later that is what Fonterra is actually doing. I was also involved in a campaign to get Fonterra to shift away from coal as an energy source and they have now agreed that it is in their long term economic and environmental interests to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Putting all your energy into criticising my little retro caravan, suggesting that conventional dairy farms are the backbone of the war against poverty displays a lack of intellectual rigour.

    It was you who introduced poverty into this discussion, not I.

    “And ultimately a shift to organics reduces food supply and increases the cost of food. This is a hateful approach towards the poor.”
    I support the agroecolgy initiative within the UN’s Food and Agriculture organisation on the future of agriculture. It is your staunch support of high input farming (irrigation, phosphate and palm kernel imports) that would be far more detrimental to the poor.
    http://permaculturenews.org/2014/09/26/un-small-farmers-agroecology-can-feed-world/

    If one is poor, being able to afford good food is important and when a weekly income is mostly taken up with rent payments there is little left for food. Living wages would make a huge difference in improving diets as would encouraging smaller local food producers and farmers markets. As the earlier article states, more people are fed by small local farmers than the huge industrialised agricultural systems.

  92. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, i am more interested in the causes and work that i do than my online image. The best way of managing any bad press is not to say or do anything that will have a negative result in the first place. I will leave such searches up to you and Mr E because I’m sure if you find something i will soon know about it. According to Mr E my caravan is something i should be ashamed of and this is obviously the worst that exists.

    I will await with interest to see what else you can find, my driveway is a little messy at the moment and there is possibly an image of that somewhere😉

  93. Dave Kennedy says:

    (3:26pm) should have an ‘and’ in the 3rd para and it should be agroecology in the 2nd last.😛

  94. Dave Kennedy says:

    This link is directly related to the main thread and is informative. We now have the fifth highest emissions per capita and we must address our own responsibilities rather than just looking for a global solution.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11642622

  95. TraceyS says:

    Dear Dave, are there limits to one’s interests? Are an interest in one’s “causes” and an interest in one’s public profile mutually elusive? I think not. They are comorbid.

    You are wrong to assume that having an interest in another who has contasting views is driven by a desire to dig up dirt. Have you never responded to curiosity before or the simple desire to be well informed?

  96. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Have you never responded to curiosity before or the simple desire to be well informed?”
    Constantly, Tracey😉

    However that doesn’t explain Mr E’s extraordinary fascination and derogatory comments about my poor little caravan.

    By the way “comorbid” is generally used in relation to medical conditions, including mental health problems, being experienced simultaneously. What are you suggesting?

  97. Mr E says:

    I can’t believe how nasty I have been toward your poor little caravan. The poor poor little caravan.

    Calling it orange and old. What nasty nasty things to say. Clearly it is neither of those two things. It is ummmm ….whiteish and ummmmm relatively newish…..

    And saying it is old and orange, apparently translates to ” something to be ashamed of” and ” obviously the worst that exists”

    Gosh Dave, I hope I have not hurt your poor little caravans feelings. How could I live with myself?

    And you…. I desperately hope you don’t feel ashamed because I identified you caravan as orange and old. Undoubtedly orange and old translates to the ‘worst there ever could be’ but chin up. Tomorrow is a new day.

    My heart sinks thinking about how tough my remarks have been on you and your poor poor little caravan.

    I hope you can move past these remarks.

    I have learnt a lot from this experience. Never again will I identify an object by its colour or age. It is such a heartless thing to do.

    Back to talking about the good old Green parties policies! Opps. Gosh darn it!!

  98. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, the dirt is flying as your hole digging gets deeper…your desperate sarcasm will not save you. I don’t actually care much what you think about my caravan (although we have received lots of offers to buy it), it is you who has made it a peculiar issue.😉

  99. Mr E says:

    “your hole digging gets deeper”

    Yes it is an abyss now Dave an abyss.
    You keep workers in a caravan as pay for work, I call it orange and old and I have dug an abyss.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    And yes yes, I made this caravan thing a big issue here. I hounded you just to tell you the Google search I used. Hounded. I just couldn’t help myself.

    Honestly…. Blogging couldn’t be more bizarre.

  100. Mr E says:

    Oops
    ‘part pay for work’

  101. Dave Kennedy says:

    “You keep workers in a caravan as pay for work, I call it orange and old….”

    Mr E, you are getting a little hysterical. Your burst of sarcasm was not unlike the stuff I used to hear in the playground and now your lying erodes what little self-respect you must have left. You have tried this below the belt shot before and it has even less truth now.

    A visit to our page on host page of the Wwoofing site will quickly reveal what our guests received for their 3-4 hours of work per day (sometimes less). Their comments and the friendships that have continued since reveals the level of gratitude they felt for all they received during their stays.

    Here is one of many:
    “Knowledgeable, caring, entertaining hosts”
    We stayed with Dave & Vicky for one week and had a wonderful time as they made us feel completely welcomed and appreciated in their cozy home. We learned a great deal from them about NZ green politics and creative tricks for urban veggie gardening. Meals were delicious and plentiful. Accommodation was private and comfortable in a furnished caravan. We enjoyed the range of tasks from weeding, planting, painting, to composting. They equipped us up with bikes so that we could explore the city sights and even brought us to Porpoise Bay to see Hector Dolphins! This is a great wwoof for anyone who is interested in urban gardening, environmentalism and sustainability. We’ll sincerely miss the Kennedys and Invercargill.

    This system is not much different from a work exchange system where people trade services of similar value. It is a perfectly moral and legitimate form of trade and I guarantee that any wwoofer staying with has left satisfied that they got a good deal.
    https://www.community-exchange.org/home/

    I expect an apology for your implication that it was only the caravan that provided the payment for the work, that it was demeaning accommodation (because of its age) and we were exploiting our wwoofers.

    You are seriously scraping the very bottom of the barrel here.

    Disgraceful stuff!

  102. Mr E says:

    “I expect an apology for your implication that it was only the caravan that provided the payment for the work,”

    I didn’t make any such implication. I can’t apologise for something I didn’t do.

    I did state some apparent facts that you have not challenged. And I didn’t pass judgment on them.

    You are using words like ‘disgraceful’, ‘bottom of the barrel’, and spending a lot of time justifying your actions.

    I am not sure why you are doing that. You seem offended by basic home truths.

    You seem to be trying to paint yourself as a victim, when nobody has said anything offensive.

    I’ve heard behaviour like this referred to as ‘playing possum’.

    Let’s get back to the topic can we?
    I’m not interested in your caravan accomodation. Move on. This is boring. And the off topic nature is not respectful to the blog host.

    You organic policy.
    Basic commodities will become increasingly expensive. There will be no additional wealth to the regions or the tax coffers. The poor will become poorer. That will affected their food choices and probably even their accommodation choices.

  103. Dave Kennedy says:

    “I didn’t make any such implication.”
    I will let readers judge the honesty of that statement Mr E. You have no shame!

  104. Mr E says:

    “I will let readers judge the honesty of that statement Mr E”

    I am sure they will.The evidence is all there for them to read. I am satisfied with my comments.

    Anyways….

    We have established that the Greens policies will achieve nothing for carbon emissions and simply hurt the poor.

    I guess this thread is over.

  105. Dave Kennedy says:

    “I guess this thread is over.”
    I certainly hope so, it was heading in a particularly nasty direction.

  106. Mr E says:

    I guess I’ve dodged a bullet then.

  107. Dave Kennedy says:

    Or more likely escaped from a rather large hole😉

  108. Mr E says:

    A pitfall trap Dave?

  109. Dave Kennedy says:

    That is a good description of your situation. Perhaps the GCSB has a job for someone with your skills😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: