Science is inconvenient
It seems that United Future want to exclude methane from any post Kyoto agreement on limiting greenhouse emissions. The reasoning is, sad to say, laughable really:
Ruminant animals (cattle, sheep, deer, goats) manufacture methane gas because they chew the cud and have a stomach of four compartments. In our view the emphasis should be on human induced climate change and exclude naturally occurring activity of this kind.
Now I may have missed something but it seems to me that dairy cows don’t just naturally occur on farms in NZ. They were put there by people as part of a human created economic system that requires constant attention by humans. I know that methane emissions from cows are rather inconvenient for us because of the problem of figuring out how to reduce them, but they still are greenhouse gases and will still produce climate change.
That’s the annoying thing about science, sometimes it’s downright inconvenient. But it’s best to base climate policy on science rather than convenience or a few decades down the track we might have some real inconvenience. One thing that is apparently a naturally occuring activity is wilful ignorance (though a bit of help from the climate denial industry does seem to help it survive).
April 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
A farm is a business that should, like any other business, be environmentally and socially responsible as well as law-abiding. If they don’t want microchipping, well, ok; if they want to continue to let their 5 year olds drive farm vehicles (’cos they’ve always done it…’), not really ok; but this time I hope we can find a ‘responsible’ solution (like find something else to eat and drink!), because climate change affects everyone and please think of future generations.
I’m sadly finding a lot of us see climate change as being like a religion, you believe in it or you don’t.
aladin
April 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Clearly the preponderance of particular ruminant species such as cattle and sheep is due to human intervention, and clearly the existence of ruminants in New Zealand is also due to human intervention. But United Future may be right in that the total rumanint population of the world may not actually be higher as a result of human intervention (bison and buffalo come to mind as types of ruminant that are less common than they used to be).
On that basis you could say that having rumimants on earth is perfectly natural and nothing to do with us. However, anthropogenic climate change is a problem that we need to solve somehow or other. And reducing the methane emissions from sheep and cattle is one way of reducing the problem, and I don’t think we should use the ‘but its natural’ argument to get out of it.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
here’s an idea…let’s eat them..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Why does the cause of the problem (human or “natural”) matter at all? Surely all we should be concerned with is finding a solution.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
phil,
Will you take the first bite? (… “for the good of Country and Planet”!)
Kahikatea,
Human intervention, in the form of “death control” without the balance of adequate “birth control”, has created a serious overpopulation of a species that, in turn, creates a much more serious pollution problem than all the ruminants put together do.
I find it interesting how little discussion there has been on that subject in recent years, particularly in relation to Climate Change … (frogblog included).
April 19th, 2007 at 8:28 am
because richard…there is widespread denial/avoidance.. of this cause/reason..
(and not just out there..but in green circles as well..one vegetarian green m.p…?…green party hierachy mainly carnivores.!.)
and that cause/reason must be acknowledged before any solutions can be sought…eh..?
and where better to raise this vexed issue..than amongst those who profess to ‘care’..eh..?
so..that’s why that matters..richard..
and it’s so much easier to raise your fist and rail against absent/outside multi-nationals/forces..eh..?
than to face up to the ugly facts that we/you..with the animals you factory-farm/cook and eat/export..
are the source/cause of over 50% of the/that problem..eh..?
here in new zealand..
“..oh..!..but it’s ok..i drive a prius..and only eat organic meat..!…
and i’m a financial member of the green party…!
i virtually glow in my self-rightousness…at being part of the /any solutions..!.
animal rights..!..what animal rights..?..
could i stop eating animal flesh..?…
oh no..!..i’d rather not talk about that..pleaseee..!!..”
eredwen..globally yes humans are worse..
but here..with our light population..and in our use of our global export death-factories…
we swing the pendulum way over the other way..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 19th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Green party hierarchy mainly carnivores? OMG don’t they eat their greens?
Or are they infact omnivores, Does that make a vege munching Green a cannibal? And a herbivorous person just as guilty as a ruminant in belching and farting methane?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
I was quite disgusted at the Green Party policy conference where a number of members quite seriously considered exempting farmers from taking responsibility for methane emissions, while at the same time wanting to tax factory owners producing CO2. The rationale is that the technology to reduce methane in cows is not available. Never mind that the technology of eating less or no meat and dairy products and instead producing quality plant based protein (beans, peas, lentils, corn etc.) has been known for thousands of years and practiced in China, Japan, India and Mexico. It seems that the Greens have caught the obsession with techno fixes beloved by the National Party; presumably they would support gruesome vivisection experiments on cows to find ways of reducing their flatulence.
It is quite true that buffalo were exerminated to make way for cows for settlers in the United States (and to starve the American Indians into submission at the same time), but I would be very surprised if there is a one to one correspondence between numbers of buffalo killed and numbers of cows put on the prairies. The buffalo were not enclosed and did not destroy the prairie ecosystem. In contrast, the settlers’ lust for flesh quickly destroyed most of the natural vegetation in the US just as it has done here in New Zealand.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Durr!!! Methane is emitted during the production and transportation of coal, oil and natural gas, and from decomposition of organic wastes in landfills - not just from ruminants burping.
Next thing we know, UF be wanting to exempt nitrous oxide too - on the basis that shit happens. While use of inorganic nitrogenous fertilisers is the biggest cause of nitrous oxide emissions, storage and distribution of manure is also a significant contributor.
Both methane and nitrous oxide have a significanly greater climate change forcing effect per volume of emission than carbon dioxide.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I’d laugh if biotech provided a solution, and a choice had to be made between reducing methane emissions through genetically engineered sheep and cows, versus global warming :p
April 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Eating beans? That is sure to increase methane emission.
Baked beans, baked beans, they are good for your heart
Baked beans, baked beans, they make you …
April 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Once Bitten,
Nice one!
Though I have to say that since becoming a vegetarian, I haven’t noticed an increase in my personal “methane emissions”!)
April 19th, 2007 at 11:08 am
We all know that the real and immediate answer to the Planets dilemma is never simple or quick. Persuading the world population that there is a tidal wave (literal and motaphirical) approaching is somewhat a task of monumental proportions. Persuading the populations of developing countries that they should not rip out their forests to plant palm oil and bamboo, cattle pasture, coffee, bananas, housing, clean water or want the consumerable items abundant in other well off regions and so on is probably more difficult than persuading cows not to fart! As phil U says ” at least we could eat em!”
Its back to population again - the real cause of our global problems - more people more cattle - dairy - mining - pollution - arguments - food - things - mistakes - wars - and so on and on……………. so whichever way we look at it - it will always come back to too many people wanting to live the life they aspire to, model on, dream of, exist in……
“United Future” - if that title has any meaning at all it should widen its horizon from sidling up to the dairy industry and start looking at the real problems…….
Like……What are the planetry regulators of climate apart from solar influences… maybe forests have something to do with temperature, CO 2, O 2, water cycle management and regulation… increasing pasturelands for methane production does nothing to re address the loss of global forest or over population.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Kiore 1,
Personally I love techno fixes (not averse to behavioural change as a mega part of the solution either though) - and if that ain’t enough of an excuse to throw this next link in here then b*gger it, I’ll just toss it in anyway…
Check this out for techno fixes - cute lil’ thangs..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6564935.stm
cheers
April 19th, 2007 at 11:46 am
“Its back to population again - the real cause of our global problems - more people more cattle - ”
then perhaps it is they who should eat us?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:48 am
United Future’s reasoning seems to me to be fake; a front for their real reasons. What might these be? A powerful meat & dairy industry lobby?
So hard to turn the tide against powerful vested interests.
Meanwhile, have political parties given up on the idea of behaviour change on matters such as consumption of goods? Too politically unacceptable to the electorate at large??
April 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Andrew
I am almost vegetarian - fish exception - so maybe they should eat me first!
April 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Carnivorous cows or herbivorous felines and canines.
Will changing the natural order of food chain make a difference.
Cute lil toy kiwinuke except it is plastic and runs on nuclear generated electricity. How about these ones…
http://www.coyaltix.com/cartgig.html
April 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Once bitten
It appears that the humble chicken has “evolved” from T rex - Forget the toy! What about bringing back the dinos?
April 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Hi all, no hijack this time, just checking out the Listener site and saw that Francesca Price had written on this in her Ecologic column for this weeks issue (April 14-20):
“Meat is murder on the environment. If livestock isn’t guzzling water, it’s belching greenhouse gases.
Last month, German scientists came up with a pill to help cows burp less. The fist-sized, plant-based pill is designed to reduce the greenhouse gas, methane.
In New Zealand, a scientific consortium has spent four years – and $4 million – trying to discover ways to manipulate the microbes in a cow’s stomach that create methane. Among other things, they’ve discovered that cows, like people, are more likely to belch after consuming certain foods.
Across the globe, the digestive system of the dairy cow has become one of the most closely studied scientific projects of modern times. Why? Because the future of our planet may depend on the results.”
Great to have a column like this in such a widely read mag. Bring on the Green Revolution!
Kiwi(just call me Che)Nuke
April 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Cow eat grass, people eat cows, microbes create methane, microbes break down methane. Animals convert o2 to co2 and plants convert co2 to o2. This is a self supporting natural cycle. It’s the fossil fuels and deforestation due to over-population and greed that are the real issues.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
michaelangelo..
just a footnote on the population issue..
everyone currently on the planet could fit into the tate of texas..standing in about a 2 sq metre area each..
and yes..more people use more resources..
but..to use an in vogue reality-tv phrase
it all depends on the size of their ‘environmental footprint’…
half-a-cow-a-day s.u.v. drivers..vs..vegan walkers..
..being one obvious example of the benchmarks..
to my mind..it’s not so much a population issue..
as an unwise/wasteful use of resources issue..
it’d be good to see some carnivore environmental footprint vs vegan environmental footprint data..
that could help to focus/crystallise the question/issue for people..
and michaelangelo…
your current way-station on the way to veganism is called piscerian central..
and your label is piscerian…
(..a good t shirt slogan could be..’..piscerian..(almost there..!.)..’..)
your next station..(barring a (recommended) shortcut to the destination)..
..is lacto-veg…..
see you when you get here..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Once Bitten: the issue is the number of cows, just as it is the number of humans. Cows being ruminents produce more methane than most other animals (humans included). In fact “deforestation, overpopulation and greed” and the cow are related. Greedy and affluent people demand steak and milk as a status symbol. Producing cows requires land. This triggers deforestation. Our own lowland kahikatea forests are a case in point. Most of them have been converted to pasture for cows.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Well Phil U
Many thanks for that. I know that my ascendant is Pices although my sun is in Aquarius with a moon in Geminii. After lacto isn’t there a higher spiritual group that exist on air or is it ether? And whats more it is beyond being influenced by pollution!
or Kiwi nuke - some call it chi, Qi or che - but perhaps you were referring to a revolutionary type of Che?
Also re your comments of cows eating grass and farting - you are correct that feeding amimals on pure (engineered) grass sward is the problem - its the difference between browsing and grazing. OR dare I say the difference between us constantly eating a regular diet of processed (I cant really call it food) call it sameness - and a wide selection of vegetables, nuts, fruit and some meat (the meat eaten of course before the veg and fruit -different digestion times.)
If you watch browsing animals eating they vary their diet by selecting different herbs, leaves and so on - the poor ol cows, sheep and deer - include llamas have to put up with a very monocultural sward.
Result - idiot sheep and bored cows ( apologies to the species) perhaps it is the people who contain them in this bland pasture that I am referring to.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Kiore
Yea!
April 19th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
What is better for the environment, the vegan wildebeest or the carnivorous lion? Living with sacred cows or consuming them? They wouldn’t be such an issue if we didn’t require so many of them due to our overpopulation. Here is sustainable cow consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux
April 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Once Bitten
Lascaux Beautiful paintings - so full of spirit. Mmmm… Have we fallen so far…………..From essence to hamburgers and the white stuff.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Just to comment on United`s limited understanding of ruminent animals ( cattle, sheep, deer and goats) Cattle are the only animals there that have 4 stomachs. In the wild environment the above mentioned animals would have more than one preditor other than humans. Global farming today is in the busines of meeting the demands of an animal that has no preditor, whose population can expand expedentially. So I think a lot of contributors to this blog have recognised the cause of this unnatural problem-overpopulation.
We may ask , what are the answers?I think a lot of us know. I think the answers are to be pragmatic: That is to (1) promote education and (2) promote methods of contraception. I would like to know Pope Benidicts view on this because if the church bans this practice within marriage we have a very dangerous precident.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Drakula
For those you refer to - a little blood letting may be the answer - one bite and they are all contraceptizised for life. However it appears to be fashionable in some non religious families to have more children rather than less.
Perhaps you could have a word with your collegues in Transalvania. Party time.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
While methane is a worse GHG, it would be released in pretty small quantities compared to CO2 in NZ, given that we have a car for every two people, each of which burns tonnes of fuel each year.
Plus it affects the most anti-green areas of the economy, farming. It’s almost like they are deliberately stirring up the Greens to enhance their support amongst the rural community?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
The very least that could be done is to stop more forest being cleared for dairying, but it’s still happening here on the West Coast. And with Coasters being a bit feral (blah blah…locked up DOC land…blah blah…snails more important than people…blah blah) politicians are too scared to say boo.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
triffid
If the govt plans on stealing the carbon credits from those who own the trees then I see no reason why they should not cut down the trees right now
April 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
ukk : Wrong. Farming does indeed contribute more GHGs to the atmosphere in NZ than cars. Nitrous oxide and methane. Improved farming methods can do a lot to alleviate this. For example, nitrous oxide from dairy farming constitutes 16% of NZ’s ghgs, and can be almost eliminated while improving soil fertility and productivity… I posted about this the other day.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
BB - Kyoto credits earned for forests planted post 1990 cannot be a property right of those who own those forests (and hence cannot be “stolen”) because post-1990 forests only earn credits internationally to the extent that pre-1990 forests are maintained and replanted.
The Green policy is that all who maintain or plant forests will benefit from Kyoto credits. There will be a payment to all Kyoto forests for the carbon sequestered in KP1 - but at less than the full value of that carbon. This will be surrendered, with interest, if they are deforested.
There will also be a replanting incentive payment for pre-Kyoto forests that are replanted during KP1. This will include a bonus payment if alternative longer rotation species are planted instead of Pinus radiata.
Otherwise what you are suggesting will happen - those who own the pre-1990 forests would simply cut them down and not replant.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
The worldwide trend to producing more meat (which generally means clearing forests for pasture land) is a major worry, and a not-insignificant driver of global warming. Particularly in South America.
And it’s a major sustainability issue, and a philosophical issue too : we would like everyone on earth to be able to have a standard of living and diet equivalent to our own, don’t we? Well ?
Probably if we were not burning fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow, it would be a threat of manageable proportions… but it’s compounding the problem, and must be dealt with. Saying that it’s a natural cycle just doesn’t wash : those cows wouldn’t be cutting down trees on their own. It’s just as human induced as Peter Dunne’s personal methane production.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Toad
So let me get this right…..I OWN the land, I OWN the trees, and you will penalise me if I cut down MY trees on MY land?
If I own the forests then you have a duty to pay me what my credits are worth, anything less than that is stealing.
Surely if the trees are mine then I can sell the credits to who ever I like.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Maybe that’s the problem, eh? Too many greedy/selfish people on this planet? I own this and I own that…, times change big bruv, things ain’t what they used to be and we have to change with them, good and bad.
aladin
April 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
It’s because of the way Kyoto operates internationally, BB. New Zealand doesn’t get any credits for forests planted pre-1990, but loses credits when pre-1990 forests are cut down. So the credits the country earns are not earned equally on the basis of all forests.
Do you, of all people, think the taxpayer should have to pay if someone who own’s a pre-1990 forest cuts it down and doesn’t replant. That is the consequence of your suggestion that if you own the land and own the trees of a post-1990 forest you also own the Kyoto credits. Someone has to pay -who else do you suggest?
The Greens proposal means that all forest owners benefit from having planted and/or maintained their forests, not just those who planted them after the magic date of 1990.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Fair question Toad.
I think the first thing the new National led govt should do is pull out of Kyoto, having said that I also believe in personal property rights and as such if the govt is going to steal my credits then it is only fair that the govt pay me what they are worth.
I should also be able to do what ever I like with my land, if I decide that the return on trees is not as good as I can get from dairy farming then i should not be penalised for changing how I farm MY land.
————————————————————————————–
Aladin
I hate to be the one to tell you old chap but socialism is coming to an end in NZ the UK and I suspect that the Democrats are in for another two terms in opposition in the states.
Perhaps you might like to get a job and think about looking after yourself instead of bludging from those who create the wealth.
It is such a pity that there is still a number of people driven by envy.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
- “The very least that could be done is to stop more forest being cleared for dairying”
No, the very least that could be done is to halt the goverment’s encouragement of tourism to remote New zealand.
Close down http://www.newzealand.com. Refuse to admit anyone who requests to fly all this way just for a frivolous holiday.
Of course this is not, and never will be, Green policy. Green policy is to attain the power, perks and benefits of office through a calculated policy of shrill environmental hysteria without at the same time alienating voters by advocating comensurately high-impact policies which run the risk of getting them heaved out of those comfortable positions with the gold-plated pensions.
It’s brilliant.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
big bruv said: if I decide that the return on trees is not as good as I can get from dairy farming then i should not be penalised for changing how I farm MY land.
The whole idea is to create an economic incentive to move land that is marginal for dairying into forestry, thereby both reducing emissions and creating a carbon sink. At the moment, the reverse is happening, with increased deforestation and increased carbon emissions.
Or would you prefer it be done by regulation with Government deciding that dairying is a prohibited activity on vast tracts of land?
We’ve got to cut climate change forcing emissions somehow. How would you suggest?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
big bruv, ignorant as well…, old chap? However, it is late and this is not adding to the discussion, so I’ll leave it at that.
aladin
April 19th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Bro wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants out of Kyoto, but he wants the government to pay him for his carbon credits…
…but he says “what they are worth” … which would be nothing, according to his logic… it’s all hot air eh Bro?
April 20th, 2007 at 3:40 am
Big Bruv: Are you seriously trying to pass off the democrats as socialists? If they were a New Zealand party they could easily swap out with National.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Toad
So your way of “creating economic incentives” to move land from dairying into forestry is to tax the hell out of dairy farmers to a point where it is no longer viable.
You also say “We’ve got to cut climate change forcing emissions” and then ask me how we can achieve this, why would you ask me Toad?, as you well know I consider the whole climate change con to be the Trojan horse of the hard left.
————————————————————————————–
Aladin
Hit a raw nerve did I?
————————————————————————————–
Alistair
I do want out of Kyoto, but until then if the Greens want to steal my credits then they should pay me what they are worth.
Climate change and global warming is driven by the hard left and pushed by people like Al Gore who has made a fortune from the hysteria created by his fictional movie, sadly for you this is an inconvenient truth.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Global warming isn’t a legacy we want to leave for our kid(s). But I don’t agree taxing food (milk etc) and trees is the answer, as this will only cause inflation as the demand will still be there. I live in an area surrounded by environmental vandals, a super dairy farm to the north of me constantly irrigating 24hrs a day, and Eyrewell forest to the south currently being cleared for more dairying. Kyoto won’t stop these activities only make them more expensive to the consumers. The only real answer is population control, ditching working for families for 3 or more children would help.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Yeah but dirty dairying can be mitigated. Nitrous oxide emissions can be just about eliminated by the addition of an anti-denitrificator, this should be subsidised and made compulsory. Methane is tougher, but ways will be found.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Chemicalising may be fine for large dairying units whose products are consumed by people who think butter is yellow. It shouldn’t be compulsory for sustainable organic cows, as bacteria breaks these emitions down naturally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denitrification
April 20th, 2007 at 9:56 am
OB, I suggest you read the annual report (pdf) of the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research consortium . I know organic cows are virtuous, but they still piss. This means nitrous oxide is going to be produced (and nitrates leached into ground water). No doubt these problems are mitigated somewhat by lower stock rates and better land management in organic production, but they don’t go away simply because of organics.
I haven’t found any information about production costs or sustainability of dicyandiamide, but by fixing the nitrates in the soil it solves the pollution problems AND increases soil fertility.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:22 am
The organic dairy farm’s nitrous oxide emissions are already approximately 16% below that of other dairy farms on average because of the non-use of inorganic nitrogenous fertilisers on organic farms.
Much mitigation can also be done through diet, rather than chemicalising.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
So is it fossil fuels, inorganic nitrogenous fertiliser and deforestation or wiping out every animal that competes with our output of c02, ch4 and n20
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm
April 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Wow, how did I miss this?
Bro : Climate change and global warming is driven by the hard left
Heck, and here’s us all thinking it’s driven by greenhouse gases! Do you have any peer-reviewed research to back up this extraordinary revelation?
April 21st, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Global warming is driven by capitalism out of control - it can’t be the hard left because as BB suggests it’s supposed to be a spent force!!
To answer Michelangelo’s retort on population I have just been researching on Google for some very interesting facts. A few years ago Pope Paul visited Mexico City and persuaded his flock to ‘go forth and multiply’. The present population of Mexico City is 18,131,000 and it is expected to double every thirty years. Thirty eight percent of Mexico`s population does not have access to safe water. Thirteen percent are illiterate. I ask anyone on this site,was the Pope’s statement a responsible one? And what is the present pope’s attitude on the subject of birth control.
I think people should be entitled to make informed decisions decisions with regards to birth control.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Drakula
Good to see, another Green who is anti human.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 am
I love it when you shoot yourself in the foot like that Bro. It’s the main reason you’re such fun to have around.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
There is a cheap way to meet our Kyoto obligations:
All land returned in Waitangi Settlements must be returned in exactly the same condition it was in when the Govt took it. ie: reforested, depopulated and de-infrastructured.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Hay Bro I`m just stating the facts so if the problem is not me, the problem therefore has to be the facts.Like science that can be awfully inconvenient.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
I know that carbon dioxide and methane emissions from animals are rather inconvenient for us because of the problem of figuring out how to reduce them, but they still are greenhouse gases and will still produce climate change.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Of course we have to take into account methane emmissions, especially when they are a large proportion of NZ’s total greenhouse gas emmissions.
One thing that really annoys me about the Green Party, is that they seem to promote changes in our daily lives in respect of using public transport etc, however they seem to completely miss the one thing that would have the biggest effect - that is going vegan and living on a totally plant based diet.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
Of course we have to take into account methane emmissions, especially when they are a large proportion of NZ’s total greenhouse gas emmissions.
One thing that really annoys me about the Green Party, is that they seem to promote changes in our daily lives in respect of using public transport etc, however they seem to completely miss the one thing that would have the biggest effect - that is going vegan and living on a totally plant based diet!
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 am
Just like a cow?
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
Of course we have to take into account methane emmissions, especially when they are a large proportion of NZ’s total greenhouse gas emmissions.
One thing that really annoys me about the Green Party, is that they seem to promote changes in our daily lives in respect of using public transport etc, however they seem to completely miss the one thing that would have the biggest effect - that is going vegan and living on a totally plant based diet.
Going vegan or vegetarian is a very difficult choice for someone. I approve in general, but I couldn’t manage it myself. I certainly wouldn’t extend to advocating it to people who don’t want to try it.
Using public transport to go to work is, in many cases, not so inconvenient. Keep in mind a lot of the Green Party’s measures to do with public transport are to make it a viable alternative and to promote it in cases where its strength lies, rather than to present it as the only option.
That would be my reasoning for the difference, anyway. I have no idea what the Green Party has to say on the matter.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 am
clueless,
Dietary choice remains an individual decision, but a considerable (and increasing) number of the Greens are vegetarian, and a smaller, but significant, number are vegan.
(When the Greens meet, all the food is vegetarian or vegan.)
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
and if you need any more reasons..?
this article from this weeks (london) sunday times may just ‘tip’ you..
especially if you eat red meat..but esp. bacon/processed meats….
and we are talking only 2 oz a day..(that’s only half a pork chop..!..)
and are a woman..
or a man..
it’s all to do with rates of cancer..
and is chilling/disturbing reading..(for carnivores esp..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Choice of diet has nothing to do with climate change. Carbon Dioxide and methane, the two big greenhouse gases are produced by all animals. Alfalfa, peas, beans, lentils and peanuts all leach nitrates into the ecosystem. Also conservatism and religion have no relation to eco-consciousness, I would bet no city dwelling vegan could compete with these religious, meat eating, ultra-conservative guys eco-footprint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish
Bet you don’t get cancer from eating organic raised cows!
OB Taurean
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Guys…. Phil will be GLAD to introduce you to the wonders of Vegan cooking. Greens in general support it weakly. I personally prefer that the Green party should not marginalize itself further by telling people they can’t eat dead animals, fish and eggs.
The tradeoff here is more obvious if it is included with the others. We can support more people on the planet if the people all are vegans. We can support more people on the planet if the people all walk to work. We can support more people on the planet if the people all live in unheated mud huts.
The question is what level of enforced degradation in standard of living is acceptable to society in order to defer the inevitable limitation on our reproductive rights?
(Inevitable because 0f our failure to open up the environment by getting cheap access to space)
This is more than merely a Green Party issue. It affects everyone.
respectfully
BJ
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Going vegan or vegetarian is a very difficult choice for someone. I approve in general, but I couldn’t manage it myself. I certainly wouldn’t extend to advocating it to people who don’t want to try it.
Using public transport to go to work is, in many cases, not so inconvenient. Keep in mind a lot of the Green Party’s measures to do with public transport are to make it a viable alternative and to promote it in cases where its strength lies, rather than to present it as the only option.
That would be my reasoning for the difference, anyway. I have no idea what the Green Party has to say on the matter.
How is your argument for public transport any better than the argument for going vegan?
Why refuse to advocate going vegan to someone who doesn’t want to try it, yet advocate the use of public transport to those who may not want to try it?
Why do the Green Party take measures to try and make public transport a viable alternative while not presenting it as the only option, yet refuse to take the same measures to advocate going vegan?
In terms of making it more viable to be vegan, this would be easier and cost far less than doing the same for public transport. I find people think I’m crazy for being vegan when they first meet me, but tend to change their minds after having dinner at my house.
Being vegan is far easier than it used to be, with milk alternatives available in almost every cafe, and a lot of eateries having vegan items on the menu. Better labelling of ingredients in food products also makes this easier. Of course the more people that become vegan, the easier it will become with the increase in demand for vegan products.
Vegans also tend to be a lot healthier and live longer than their meat eating counterparts.
Being vegan could be a big part of the solution for many environmental problems, not just climate change. For example think about the resources needed to product meat, eggs and dairy, compared with what is needed to grow plants. It effectively means growing your food only once instead of twice - using less than half the amount of water, less than half the amount of fossil fuels, and causing far less than half the greenhouse gas emmissions.
Of course being vegan also causes less suffering. Think about the disgusting practices that occur because of people’s desire to eat meat and eggs. We have factory farms in which millions of animals are bred and live their entire lives, never seeing or doing anything even remotely natural. These same farms cause immense environmental problems too - for example the ammonia from chicken faeces killing trees and polluting our waterways.
Now can anyone tell me why you shouldn’t be vegan?
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
doh..!..didn’t link article..then went for long walk with dogs…apologies…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/artic le1687416.ece
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Never mind the human faeces killing trees and polluting our waterways.
Animals and plants live symbiotically in nature. Global warming has nothing to do with them and what they eat. Human over-population and fossil fuels are what is killing the planet.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Human over-population and fossil fuels are what is killing the planet
So use less fossil fuels by going vegan! Grow your food once…
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Not much point if veges grown in hothouses warmed by coal burners or harvested by tractors and trucked to markets. How about going organic and realising you can’t grow veges forever without manure.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Clueless: Let’s distinguish a few things here.
Firstly, animal cruelty does NOT happen purely because of the desire of people to eat meat or other animal produce. It happens because of the desire to cut corners on the cost of food. If we want to avoid animal cruelty, we should make it an issue to, wherever possible, only buy products that we’re satisfied don’t engage in cruel treatment of animals. Consumer action is the big concept here- look at how many eggs today advertise that they’re free range. If we could do similar things with meat and other products, animal cruelty would be largely avoided.
Secondly, I think there’s a big difference in favouring public policy to provide for public transport to be a competitive alternative to cars, and forcing people to be vegans. Now, I certainly agree, let’s do things like make sure policy doesn’t discriminate against or perhaps advantages good dieting by promoting organic, vegatarian, and vegan options, but dictating to people exactly what they can’t eat strikes me as a step too far for any government. The green party doesn’t want to dictate the use of public transport, either, for that matter, from what I can see. They want to favour it.
Those two points said: For everyone who can balance time and dietary requirements as a vege or vegan, please, try it out! And those of you who can’t do it consistantly, like myself, don’t be afraid to have meat-free or egg-free or whatever days whenever you can.
Beyond that, there are good points above. It’s not just farming, or dairy, or whatever that’s hurting the land, it’s also poor waste management, inefficient products that break in order to bring in repeat purchases, over-indulgence, and the rampant human population of the planet. While I think getting into our cookbooks is too much, ironically, I think within a generation or two you might well see more government involvement around the globe in the, ahem, bedrooms. If this keeps up, China won’t be the only place with overpopulation laws- in fact, I’d support them right now if all the other countries would consider it, too.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
straw-man arguments once-bitten..
is that the strongest case you can make for the carnivores..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I am always wary of those wanting to reduce population in third world countries. I would not go as far as BB and say it is “anti human”, but it does seem to be an excuse to shift responsibility. If it is true that one American (or New Zealander) causes as much damage as 18 Bangladeshis, then we should not even begin to preach population control to the thrid world until we have drastically curtailed our own wasteful consumption, or until Bangladeshis start routinely producing 32 children per family!
Mexicans may be poor, but that is not likely to be because the land cannot support them. It is more likely to be because the land is tied up by a few rich farmers exporting wheat to feed McDonald’s beef. I read an interesting article a few years ago in the New Scientists on initiatives to reverse the creeping desertification on the southern boundaries of the Sahara. Huge labour pools were recruited to plant trees. What the organisers found is that the more people they recruited, the more productive the land. More people meant more mouths to feed but also more hands to work, and the latter more than compensated for the former. So humans are not necessarily bad, it is what humans do that destroys the environment.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“Firstly, animal cruelty does NOT happen purely because of the desire of people to eat meat or other animal produce. It happens because of the desire to cut corners on the cost of food”
But the one entails the other. The fact is it is not possible to produce meat, in the quantities it is demanded in New Zealand, without animal cruelty.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Phil - Can I get a vegetarian pepperoni pizza…
?
That’s sort-of serious… IS there a vegetarian “substitute” that comes close to the flavor of the pepperoni? Not needing to match exactly… a good tomato sauce, crust and mozarella cover a multitude of sins. Something I figure you’ll know if anyone does.
BJ
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
you could try the fake meats..
but i’ve found those desires for those ‘fleshy’ textures pass..
and they become somewhat yuck..!
but tomatoe/avocado/olives/pine-nuts/hummus etc etc..
all work on pizza base..
just use your imagination..
phil9whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Kiore1
You have a good point, but the problem comes along in the other flavour as well. The consumption in the US is far too great, and must (and will inevitably) be reduced. NZ does not do the same damage per capita but is not in any way in the same league as Bangla-Desh.
However… the question has to be asked in terms of acceptable standards of living for all the people on the planet… not in terms of making Kiwi’s consume at the same rate as the people of Bangladesh. When it is considered in those terms BOTH sides have to adjust their expectations. There is no way for the 3rd world populations and population densities to support any real advanced civilization planetwide, and there is no way for US or NZ standards of living to be supported for all the people now living on the planet, many of whom are in hopeless situations already.
I am not proposing an answer, just making sure that both horns of the dilemna our current numbers and future procreation have hung us on, are presented.
Rationally we would figure out what we want in terms of sustainable living standards and reduce consumption and numbers both until we reach the point where this can be managed. This isn’t possible for humans however, and will not be done… which suggests that a more Malthusian solution is likely.
respectfully
BJ
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Secondly, I think there’s a big difference in favouring public policy to provide for public transport to be a competitive alternative to cars, and forcing people to be vegans.
I never once suggested we make being vegan compulsory. Of course legislating against the public will is never a good idea.
I agree with exactly what you said about people taking what steps they can. My complaint was simply that the green party seem to ignore the effect of diet and hence most of them don’t seem to practice what they preach.
I think that the green party, as an organization trying to educate people on our effect on the environment, and as an organization trying to get people to change things in their lifestyle, they themselves (the party activists and mps) should make steps to go vegan or as close to it as possible, and they should promote a plant-based diet to others.
Consumer action is the big concept here- look at how many eggs today advertise that they’re free range.
Yes - 8% of eggs sold in new zealand come from alternative systems to battery farming - this includes bard raised and free range. That means of course that 92% of eggs sold in new zealand come from battery farms. This is all despite a campaign against battery farming that has been going for over 20 years. It is also despite the fact that polls continuously show that over 80% of NZers are opposed to battery farming.
So yes consumer action would be great in an ideal world, but can you really see it happening? Especially when most of the “greenies” I know who oppose battery farming still consume battery eggs.
Those two points said: For everyone who can balance time and dietary requirements as a vege or vegan, please, try it out!
What time and dietary requirements? I’ve been vegan now for 7 years and as an extremely busy person I don’t find being vegan a hassle at all. Sure it takes a little time in the beginning to get used to it, but after that it doesn’t feel any different. You actually just cease to see non vegan products as food.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I wonder what you feed your dogs Phil?
Do you catch your water off your roof, compost and grow your own veges?
Maybe you recycle your water too and dispose of your own human effluent on your land that is 75% covered by trees, and use that renewable resource to heat, cook and heat your hotwater? Sure I eat meat but I know it has no chemical or hormonal content and appropriate thanks are given to the spirit of the animal. My 4×4 is 1HP and my tractor is a spade.
Even my house is recycled (cost me $5k as advertised for demolition).
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
(this is going to do your heads in..)
my dogs are vegan too..!
(stand well back..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
http://www.vets.org.nz/CareerPet/PetCare/dogcare.htm#Diet
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I would like to have a bite at Once Bitten here because there is a wee bit of a floor in his argument here. He says that fossil fuels and human over population is the cause of global warming and I agree he is a 100% correct. . He also says that `conservatism and religion has no relation to eco-consciousness’. Absolute bollocks !! Ever since the reactionary forces of capitalism displaced workers from country to the cities in the 19`th century England had awfull pollution problems. And who was it that said that `religion is the opium of the people’?
In my last post I mentioned that mexico city had a population of 18,131,000 and the last Pope says `go forth and multiply’ . What created such a centralised concentration of population? Un fortunately it was a rather a reactionary socialist government. But religion has a hand in this too.
Greens and conservationists would view the above statistics as a real problem for Mexico, but the CEO`s of Fonterra would view the situation as a wonderfull opportunity to sell sell them lots of powdered milk.
Such business would be defended by the likes of the Business Round Table
and their apologist `experts’ who are trying to deny that global warming exists. I hope O.B. realises that the dielectical struggle of the progressives and the reactionaries are very real.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
yes bitten…
your link confirms dogs are omnivores..(def:..eating all kinds of food..)
i should note i have a mother and a daughter..
the mother is 8..
the daughter is five..
(mother had vegan diet all through pregnancy)..
when people see them..they think they are both young puppies..
they are in such super-fine/healthy/fit condition..
shiny coats/wet noses..
bouncing/leaping about..full of energy..
(anyone wishing dietry advice on turning their dogs vego should go to the peta website..amongst other places..)
hope that answers your queries..
happy to answer any more questions..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
and if you need even more reasons..
watchers of the food program/doco on tv one will now know that fresh ‘n fruity vegan semen tastes best..!
eh..?
and that meaty/fishy semen tastes..yuck..!
there you go then..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Phil
Stop this at once!
When I first started reading your “contributions” (as difficult as they are to follow) it was easy for me to write you off as a communist nutter.
You fitted the Greenie stereotype perfectly, I doubt that I would have braked that hard in the Hummer had you stepped out in front of me….then you go and ruin it all.
Now I find that you are an Animal rights activist and to top it all off a Dog owner as well!…you see the problem I have Phil…any more of these revelations and I might actually start to like you.
Please desist immediately, if at all possible could you go out of your way to be as obnoxious and left wing as possible over the next few days. A post or two from you telling me why the Greens and Comrade Klark should not have to pay back the stolen money should do the trick.
Cheers
Bruv
April 24th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Phil…. How can I say this…. (swallows pride) Your dogs sound wonderful and very well looked after, who wouldve thought, aye a vegan diet - well you learn something new every day.
Drak, I think we have a definition problem. Not all religion is run by the pope. And a conservative by definition means to conserve something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
I think the animal you are after is called an industrialist. Persecuting omnivores, conservative and spiritual people happens quite a bit here, yet the persecutors see themselves as enlightened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened
BB why are you driving a hummer? they are useless on and off road, not to mention the pollution. Is it to make up for your smaller brother?
April 24th, 2007 at 9:07 am
and of course this wholesale approval of the enslavement/exploitation of other sentient beings in our culture can be traced largely/in part back to the teachings of the catholic church..
and the writings of the philosopher descartes..
(he’s got a lot to answer for.!..that bloody descartes..!)
how they link..came about through a debate within the catholic church/amongst theologians on the nature of intelligence/feelings/the soul/heaven/hell etc etc..
and for the teachings of the church to be able to deny any prospect of other sentient beings having a soul..(therefor making them eligible for ‘heaven’..)
they also had to deny them those foundation stones of any soul..
intelligence and feelings…
and make heaven human-only..
(a puzzling concept for many of us..eh..?..)
it is only after this time/these edicts from rome..
that the relations between human and animals moved from one of co-operation..and (unconcious?)recognition of eachs’ role in the grand scheme of things..
to the wholesale exploitation/farming/killing of other sentient beings..by us humans..
so..the church issued these edicts..
and descartes..(in modern parlance.)..was romes’ ‘bitch’/proagandist..
and he is the one who wrote/taught widely/argued..that of course animals had no intelligence/feelings..soul..
and his ‘teachings’..with the wholesale support of the pulpit..
became the common ‘given’..
and thus ‘enabled’ us humans to launch an ongoing holocaust on any other living creatures..
which brings us to now…
and our need for a thorough de-bunking of these twisted teachings/philosophies..
our societal/cultural rubber-stamps/justifications for wholesale cruelties to..
..and exploitation of..our fellow living/feeling/intelligent fellow-creatures..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 24th, 2007 at 9:41 am
HAH!!!
I’ve been waiting for this moment for the best part of 6 months! BB and Phil finally notice that they have something in common!!!
Talk about strange bedfellows.
respectfully
BJ
( grinning from ear to ear )
April 24th, 2007 at 9:55 am
and do you know what bj…?
one of the big question marks for me..is that you..a self-professed ‘carer’..
(and many other ‘greens’)
..don’t give a flying feck about these wholesale cruelties..
issuing green pieties/admonitions out of one side of your mouth..
..while chewing with the other..
so buried/steeped in your own ignorance..
that you profess to not even being aware..
that you..definitely..are part of the/any problem..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 24th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
phil, talking about descartes …
“… and he is the one who wrote/taught widely/argued..that of course animals had no intelligence/feelings..soul…
and his ‘teachings’..with the wholesale support of the pulpit…
became the common ‘given’…
and thus ‘enabled’ us humans to launch an ongoing holocaust on any other living creatures…
which brings us to now…
and our need for a thorough de-bunking of these twisted teachings/philosophies…
our societal/cultural rubber-stamps/justifications for wholesale cruelties to…
..and exploitation of..our fellow living/feeling/intelligent fellow-creatures…”
……………………………………
Yes ALL of that!
However:
Let’s not forget that at THAT time (indeed, if ever) ALL humans were not included in his “superior” group: women for a start, then there were slaves, conquered people etc .
Humans evolved in hunter gatherer groups most of which were, of necessity, omnivorous. (Checking our teeth, we have a “mixed” bite, but still have canines. Dentists have discovered that we grind our teeth in our sleep to sharpen them.)
Having said that, our family has become vegetarian (with a diet that still includes the occasional “ovo” from well treated hens and a small amount of “lacto” from well treated cows.)
As is common in these things, I followed the lead of my young-adult kids.
It was a steep learning curve to do it well! Though I have found it rewarding.
I don’t believe that I will ever go back to eating meat … the thought of where it comes from, and HOW, becomes repugnant surprisingly quickly!
These amimals are no longer the well cared for “members of the family” that were dispatched “at home” by someone they were not afraid of …
The whole “efficient” factory system involving long transport times and hygiene regulations that turn the animal into a non-feeling “thing” from the time it leaves the home paddock doesn’t bear thinking about.
So people just don’t!
April 24th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
OB
Why do I drive a Hummer?..because I can.
They are not half bad off road either, a far better bet than a X5 thats for sure.
Having said that it I want to do some serious bush bashing then I do opt for a more suitable vehicle if only because the Hummer can not always fit down some of the small tracks we have here.
I was going to get rid of the Hummer until I took on a little wager with Russ, I cannot wait for the day when he has agreed to be pictured sitting in the vehicle.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
bb..the only place a hummer would be any good would be in a big paddock..
round and round you go..
(ho-hum..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 24th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
and pray tell…just what is good about driving a hummer..?
ease of parking…?..’go-anywhere’ abilities..?
btw..some years back..i spent awhile beetling around in a big black tinted-window top o’ the range toyotas..
one of the first in the country..
now..back then it was (sorta) cool..b.b.
(heads turned..and all that..)
but that was then..this is now..
now it is just extremely naff…
and they are increasingly figures of fun/pity/derision..
those suv drivers..
and a hummer..?
well..what can i say..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“What is good about driving a Hummer”?
Many things Phil, but right now what gives me the most satisfaction is the reaction I get from those who have fallen for the Global Warming con.
Just last week I returned to my vehicle only to find a woman standing next to it, as I approached she/he asked me if I was at all concerned about the damage I was doing to the planet by driving such a “beast”
It makes me feel good to know that I can annoy the heck out of people like her/him simply by owning a piece of the good old USA.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Phil
Lets get this clear, I do not do anything that would be considered “trendy” or “cool”
As soon as a coffee bar or restaurant becomes a place where “one goes to be seen” I am out of there quicker than bludger on dole day.
I despise people that go to such places, drive the “in car” or follow the “cool crowd”.
Right now it is trendy to hammer SUV drivers, all the more reason to buy one I say, if these people want to spend the rest of their lives trying desperately to fit in then good for them but in my book they are the people who should be the target of fun/pity/derision as I doubt they have ever had an original thought in their lives.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
why don’t you go on suv-methadone..
and get one of those big-nosed chryslers…
every person who drives one of them..
..their last vehicle was an s.u.v….eh..?
(go on..!..ask the next person you see with one..)
“..was your last vehicle an s.u.v..?..”
it’s 100%..!
phil(whoar.co.nz
April 24th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Bro : Why do I drive a Hummer?..because I can.
That reminds me of the joke… Did you ever wonder why your dog likes to sit in the corner and lick his genitals…. It’s because he CAN!
April 24th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Alistair, is the tail wagging the dog (as you’ve posted on another thread) while the dog is licking its genitals? Now, that would be interesting to see! Bring on the multi-tasking - it could be almost as confused and confusing as BB!
April 25th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Phil
Hell no, every one of those god awful Chrysler’s I have seen are black, and as we both know only ********* drive black vehicles.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
watch maori tv at midday today…
they are screening a turkish-made doco called ‘gallipoli’..
it is a brilliant piece of doco-making…
my (half-german) son and i went and saw it last year when it screened in auckland..
and i wrote a review at that time..
it’s over at my place..if anyones’s interested..
(it’s not my best work..but you get the general idea..)
but whatever you do…
watch/record maori tv at midday today..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 25th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Phil
As a history buff I watch as much as I can about the Anzac’s however I refuse to watch apartheid TV.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:15 am
more fool you..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Would the Greens join me in condemning the low life who protested at various dawn parade ceremonies this morning?
There is a time and a place for anti war protests and Anzac day is not one of them, these people have no respect for those who fought wars so we could live in a free society.
Leaving politics aside for one moment I am sure that the Greens would not condone this disgusting behavior.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Do we know who it was?
BJ
April 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
BJ
I believe it was Peace Action New Zealand.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Not often I agree with you, BB, but I do on this one. I think attempting to burn a New Zealand flag within view of a parade commemorating the sacrifices of those who fought under it, which is what is reported to have happenned in Wellington, is a very poor look.
ANZAC day services may once have glorified war, but the ones I have attended in recent years have had a much greater emphasis on promoting peace while remembering those who went to war.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
toad
Thank you, While I obviously cannot agree with you that Anzac day services have ever glorified war (you only need to talk to the old diggers to find out that there is nothing glorious about war) I do agree that the actions of those who protested were despicable.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I wonder sometimes what goes on in the minds of people who’d do that sort of thing.
BB, you won’t get any official GPANZ response from us, for the simple reason we can’t give it. Personally I’d be quite happy to show them the exit…
respectfully
BJ
April 25th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Without wanting to be pedantic, BB, I said “while ANZAC Day services may once have glorified war”, not that they ever did.
I’m really just recalling some things that I heard when I was too young and ignorant to have actually bothered to attend one to find out for myself. I have no idea whether the things I heard were true or not. Like you, I know quite a lot of veterans who share the view that there is nothing glorious about war.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Toad
No problem at all, it was my mistake, again I thank you.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Interestingly, the media reports say that the perpetrator of the flag burning was charged with offensive behaviour. I think this instance is a far more appropriate use of that particular criminal provision than prosecuting people who show their breasts or willies in public, which is the usual instance where that law is applied by the Police. I find it bizarre that the law still considers the human body to be offensive.
At least the flag burner hasn’t been charged with sedition like Tim Selwyn was. That would have been complete overkill, as it was in Tim Selwyn’s case. It is high time that particular offence is consigned to the dustbin of history.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Well - put me out on a limb but I think people had every right to protest. If those who died, died for freedom as someone above said, then they died for the full, messy, complex beast that is freedom.
My father fought in World War II, both my grandfathers in WWI, and two great-uncles were killed in WWI. My dad who is dead now would, I think, have said pretty much what I said above.
From a political point of view such a protest was probably counter-productive but that’s their call. This is a state organised memorial service, and those who disagree with the state have only their voices and actions at their call.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Of course they have the right to protest, jgg. But,as you say, it was probably counterproductive. I do, however, think burning the New Zealand flag is offensive in the context of an ANZAC day commemoration.
Personally, I think the flag reeks of the legacy of colonialism, and I would like to see us adopt one that better reflects Aotearoa/New Zealand’s bicultural heritage. I don’t even have a problem with the desecration of the flag per se (I was pleased to see Tame Iti’s appeal against his conviction for firing a shotgun at one on his marae was successful) - it’s all to do with the context and setting, and an ANZAC Day commemoration is not imo the appropriate context or setting.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
big bruv says:
“As a history buff I watch as much as I can about the Anzac’s however I refuse to watch apartheid TV.”
Well then bb, you have just missed a great big dollop of ANZAC history … a lot of it newly researched and excellently presented (almost all in spoken English, plus a few bits with English subtitles for the spoken Italian or German … and a little Maori).
This is because Maori speakers also speak fluent English and are polite enough to use it when speaking to Pakeha, and many of the people speaking were Pakeha. (No sign of “aparthied” there!)
Aotearoa/NZ has two official languages bb. Get used to it or be left behind
(even further than you are already!)
I have been glued to the Maori Channel since 1530 hours this morning, unable to tear myself away! I have laughed and I have wept, and I have been reminded of a lot of things that I used to know, and have learnt a lot that I didn’t know, and above all I have gained more condfidence in the fact that we have something very special in this Country that we must treasure (and a sad suspicion that people, like you bb, don’t understand what I am talking about!)
I have also been reminded of the (well deserved) respect that Kiwis (Maori and Pakeha) are afforded in the World outside Aotearoa/NZ.
eredwen
(born in 1941, remembers bits of WW2, and our troops coming home … )
April 26th, 2007 at 6:23 am
rolling stone have a ‘25 best songs for reefer gladness’ list..
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/04/23/rolling-sto nes-25-best-songs-for-reefer-gladness/
grace..?..yes..!
janis..?..yes..!
norman..?..w.t.f..?..
and eredwen…much praise to maori tv for showing that most-excellent doco..
and a pox on them for breaking up a carefully themed/nuanced piece of art with their poxy station promos..
that was insulting/disrespectful..on so many levels..and the juxtapositions often jarring..
and the ultimate insult to this doco was that both the boy and i thought they just cut it short..(ran out of time..?..)
and they most certainly did not run the credits..
and i would like to note..that in the theatre the boy and i saw this…not a soul moved/left before that last credit rolled up the screen…
it was an integral part ofthe experience..
y’know i get really pissed at the rigid/old school ‘teacher tells pupils what is’ style of teaching..
a system locked in the past..tied to old methods..
and this doco couldn’t be a clearer example of a piece that teachs more in one viewing..than a year of study of gallipoli under any teacher could..
and when i reviewed this doco..i made the call it should be in every secondary school in the country..
and required viewing for all pupils..(and all new zealanders for that matter…
c’mon tvi/tv3..!..step up to the plate..!..eh..?
yes..it is turkish-made..but it is most definitely about us..
(for those who haven’t seen it yet….find a half-way decent video store..and they should have it..
and it really should be viewed without being littered with/by station promos..
eh..?..)
and i guess..on a superficial reading..racism would be another arrow in b.bs’ quiver..eh..?
(anyway…back to work..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 26th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I attended the Auckland silent protest and thought it was fantastic. It was extremely respectful, and we just held signs and banners. Our banner said “Honour the dead, No more war”.
I can certainly understand people finding the Wellington flag burning protest offensive, and I have issues with it myself.
But I am concerned that everyone is throwing all the protests into the same basket and condemning all ANZAC day protests as a result.
At the Auckland protest we had a mixed response from the public, with some people telling us we were being disrespectful, but many other people supporting us.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:16 am
# jgg Says:
April 25th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
> Well - put me out on a limb but I think people had every right to protest. If those who died, died for freedom as someone above said, then they died for the full, messy, complex beast that is freedom.
People have the right to protest, and other people have the right to criticise that protest for being insensitive or inappropriate. Just like with the Mohammed cartoons - I’ll defend the right of that Danish newspaper to commission those cartoons, but I won’t defend their decision to do so.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
kahikatea says: “I’ll defend the right of that Danish newspaper to commission those cartoons, but I won’t defend their decision to do so.”
Well differentiated! Thank you.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Clueless
Any protest at ANY Anzac day service is NOT respectful, you could chose any other day of the year (there are after all 364 of them) when your protest would not offend anybody yet you chose this one.
You did this because it would cause controversy, and yes you are damn right, I am lumping all of you into the same basket as not one of you has one ounce of decency.
As far as I am concerned you and your protesting “friends” (I note that man arrested in Wellington is an unemployed bludger) are scum.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
eredwen
What is “special” about apartheid TV?..what is “special” about apartheid seats in our Parliament?
If this TV channel is so “special” then it obviously does not need to be funded by me.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Out of curiousity, little brother, what do you think the people who died were fighting for, if ANY protest on ANZAC day is disrespectful? And what exactly is it we are respecting on that day?
April 27th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I was one of the protestors blockading Te Papa during the weapons conference last October, so I certainly don’t support the current conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan or the involvement of New Zealand companies or the glorification of war in general.
But it is possible to hate war and yet admire warriors. My Japanese teacher fought the Americans in the Japanese airforce, and was selected for a kamikaze mission when the war ended. History has shown he fought on the “wrong” side, but he did what he believed to be right at the time, and was prepared to die for his country. In the same way, the ANZAC fighters who went to their death in Turkey were prepared to die for their beliefs. So I actually agree with BB that the Wellington protest at ANZAC day is not appropriate. Many of the ex-servicemen may have actually agreed with the protestors about the futility of war, but there is a time and a place.
The Wellington protestors are not “Scum”; they are also fighting for what they believe in, but IMO they made a serious error of judgement.