Consigliere – a member of a Mafia family who serves as an adviser to the leader and resolves disputes within the family; a member of a criminal organisation or syndicate who serves as an adviser to the leader.
Bill will impact sector significantly – David Surveyor:
Government legislation must not result in a reduction in farming production and cause damage to local communities, writes David Surveyor.
As a farmer-owned red meat co-operative, we are fielding many questions from concerned farmers about the impact of the Zero Carbon Bill.
Our shareholders from the North Island to the deep south include sheep, beef, venison and dairy farmers.
Alliance supports the ambition of the Bill to establish a framework to reduce emissions so New Zealand is contributing to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.58degC above pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement also specifically speaks to protecting food production – the world needs protein to feed its people.
Fonterra has delayed its walk up the annual results aisle by two weeks, after earlier warning it will make a multi-million dollar loss. Peter Fraser traces the events leading up to the surprise decision and considers whether there is more to it than meets the eye.
For Fonterra, September 12 2019 mattered. It was the day its much-anticipated and well signposted end-of-year financial results were scheduled to be released.
The issue was simple. In recent times nothing has gone Fonterra’s way, and as a result the organisation has found itself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And here and here. And here too. And don’t forget here and here.) . .
A big crowd at a recent open day at a Winton herdhome shelter proves there’s an appetite for change as Southland’s farmers look to ‘gain ground’ with a more efficient use of land and labour.
After converting to dairy over 23 years ago Shane and Vicky Murphy have steadily increased their herd while pragmatically investing in the infrastructure of their Winton farm. . .
Synlait Milk will reap cheaper interest costs if it hits various environmental, social and governance in a $50 million, four-year loan with ANZ Bank. However, if it falls short, that bill will be higher.
“This is the first time any New Zealand company has agreed with its bankers to link its sustainability agenda to its cost of funds. This is exciting and innovative,” Katharine Tapley, head of sustainable finance solutions for ANZ, told BusinessDesk.
The loan will effectively transfer ANZ’s existing $50m committed four-year revolver loan with Synlait into an ESG linked loan and a discount or premium to the base lending margin will be applied, based on its performance around a score of measures. Synlait and ANZ declined to specify details around the discount or premium, citing commercial sensitivity. . .
Experts are warning that the legalisation of cannabis could increase the levels of contamination in other crops and impact our trade relationships, writes Zac Fleming.
Warnings have been raised with the government that New Zealand’s trade relationships could be compromised by food contaminated with cannabis if the plant is legalised.
On at least four occasions between December last year and April this year, Ministry for Primary Industries staff warned ministers and high-ranking trade officials of a potential “significant trade risk” arising from the legalisation of cannabis. . .
British farmers work hard to enhance the British countryside, maintain habitats for native plants and animals, maintain footpaths, protect watercourses and support wildlife species.
Just as we depend on the UK’s farmland for the food we eat every day, so does the country’s wildlife. And with 71% of land in the UK managed by farmers, it’s easy to see what an important role they play in helping to protect and encourage wildlife and habitats. . .
Parents are being told not to terrify children over climate change:
Rising numbers of children are being treated for “eco-anxiety”, experts have said, as they warn parents against “terrifying” their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe.
Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a “tsunami” of young people seeking help. . .
The Cold War and spectre of nuclear obliteration hung over my generation but I don’t recall being terrified by apocalyptic reporting like that which we’re getting on climate change.
A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.
The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.
The body is campaigning for anxiety specifically caused by fear for the future of the planet to be recognised as a psychological phenomenon.
However, they do not want it classed as a mental illness because, unlike standard anxiety, the cause of the worry is “rational”. . .
Is it rational or is the problem that a lot of the reporting in mainstream media and more so what’s spread by social media is more emotion than science?
Swedish 16-year-old Greta Thunberg rose to global fame this year as she supported the protests by Extinction Rebellion, which brought parts of central London to a standstill.
Thurnberg argues that the EU must cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2030 to avoid an existential crisis – double the target set by the Paris Accord – while Extinction Rebellion demands the UK achieve net-zero emissions by 2025. . .
What’s the science behind those claims and more importantly where’s the science in response?
The CPA recommends a four-stage approach to explaining responsibly climate change to children without scaring them.
Parents should first gradually introduce them to the known facts, then ask them how they feel, before acknowledging that the ultimate outcome is uncertain.
Finally, parents should agree practical steps to make a difference, such as by cutting down on non-recyclable waste and choosing food with a better climate footprint. . .
Where’s the science that proves recyclable is any better than non-recyclable?
Where’s the promotion of nutrient density in the carbon footprint equation for food that, for example, proves real milk is far better than the highly processed pretenders and that New Zealand Milk is best of all?
Where’s the promotion of practices that would make a real difference?
But how can we blame psychologists for spouting solutions based on emotion not science when our own Prime Minister is making promises contradicted by her government’s policies?
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has told world leaders at the UN Climate Action Summit that New Zealand is “determined” to be the most sustainable food producer in the world. . .
“We are determined that New Zealand can and will play our part in the global effort,” Ms Ardern said. . .
When the Prime Minister told the United Nations (UN) she was determined for New Zealand to be the most sustainable food producer in the world, she should have realised that we already are, National’s Agriculture spokesperson Todd Muller says.
“The Prime Minister told the UN Climate Summit that ‘We are determined to show that New Zealand can and will be the most sustainable food producer in the world.’ When really she should have been promoting the fact that our primary sector is already the most sustainable food producer by some margin.
“New Zealand farmers have made massive gains over recent decades and continue to stay ahead of the pack in terms of efficiency and sustainability. In the last 30 years we’ve managed to produce more sheep meat from 32 per cent fewer sheep due to improvements with enhanced breeding mixes and enhanced lambing percentages.
“Our dairy products are so much more sustainable that a litre of New Zealand milk shipped to Ireland, the next most efficient producer, would still have a lower emissions profile than Irish milk produced locally.
“If the Prime Minister supported lowering emissions she would be promoting our primary sector on the world stage, and encouraging people to eat New Zealand produced food.” . . .
Playing our part in the global effort would be encouraging more food production here, not decreasing it by encouraging forestry on land best suited to pasture and other policies which would decimate farming at a high environmental, economic and social cost.
Playing our part would be following the Paris Accord’s stipulation that climate change mitigation would not come at the expense of food production.
Playing our part would be backing science not exacerbating ‘eco-anxiety’ with words and policies based on emotion not facts.