Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Also, if we must justify everything in terms of money, NZ's tourism income relies on our environment not being too fucked up. Tourists like to be able to swim in rivers and lakes.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Nor am I suggesting, as has been implied, that we should increase our dairy herd.
Nor am I suggesting that the dairy industry should be further subsidised to increase the herd.
I never said you were, Bart. But diary herds are increasing hugely in New Zealand, and the people of NZ are effectively subsidising them already with our water resource.
I applaud the initiative to produce grasses which can feed cows more efficiently and with fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
But you completely fail to address my point about water. -
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Make renewable energy sources easier and cheaper to install and people will switch to them rather than being chased from old technologies.
It’s not silly to think that the latter would drive the former, though, as Che Tibby says. Also? We’ll be chased from using petrochemicals eventually anyway because of increasing scarcity driving up the price.
What if carbon taxes went directly to subsidise R&D and manufacture of cleaner technologies? Surely that's a win-win.
-
Regarding GMOs, I have nothing in particular against them in themselves. Or their (hypothetical) use to reduce burping from ruminant animals.
But I have a helluva problem if this means we go on multiplying dairy herds beyond the carrying capacity of the land. We only have so much fresh water, and cows both drink a great deal, and introduce a huge amount of pollution to groundwater as well as streams and rivers. The only solution is fewer cows, whether they burp or not.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Sacha,
We’re also running into ‘peak metal’ soon, so battery-powered vehicles are not a viable widespread answer
I think the result of this will be a flowering of recycling and improvements in manufacture. Batteries may become more expensive, but unlike fossil fuels, metal can be reused.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Russell Brown,
she looks at real examples of what can be done to reduce dangerous run-off and improved productivity at the same time.
I look forward to reading it. But my basic attitude to dairying in Canterbury is that it's not dairy country. It can't possibly be sustainable in the medium to long term, we just don't have the water.
Such an irony that Fonterra's big earner is milk powder. Milk with the water removed.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Barnaby Nicholls,
Environmental sustainability is necessary whatever the economic cost
And so is full democracy.
Waimakariri mayor David Ayers:
"The rural communities feel very engaged and that they are having their say over water planning, so I would hate to see the democratic model back if that slows that progress."
Seriously, I'm not seeing that dairy farmers are the victims here.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Bart Janssen,
ignoring how dependent we are on grass and cows is not wise either
I can’t see where anyone is doing that Bart, this is a straw person.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Our really rich soils are mostly used for horticulture and now viticulture.
The Canterbury Plains are rich soils in a dry climate perfect for cropping, currently being replaced with intensive dairying made possible with government-funded irrigation using our super-pure artesian water.
And when our regional council tried to put the brakes on this massive conversion to dairy (for tedious scientific reasons!) the government sacked them and withdrew our right to regional democracy.
Dairy farmers are already getting more of our water than we’re willing to give them, and the National government is telling us to get fucked.This shit is serious.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Bart Janssen,
putting a cost on the dairy industry that realistically will do nothing to affect climate change worldwide is something I would be very careful about
This is the whole problem with saving the planet. Everybody wants it not to have to apply to them. Or not now, maybe later.
No single action will halt climate change. But if we don't all chip in, we're all fucked. As in actually doomed, not just poorer.