Prime Minister Helen Clark, who is in South Korea, could not be contacted for comment.

I guess she hasn’t given it much thought , eh?

The Greens are continuing along in or around the 6% zone, which realistically is too low for any party to be happy or comfortable with.

The outstanding question I have about the poll is that whether the series of questions about tax cuts were asked before or after the party preference questions and whether they played any role in the poll numbers.  Actually it would be interesting to see more public discussion about the underlying methodology behind each major poll.  I’m not challenging their validity but in an environment where the media is more interested in ‘game’ stories than issue and policy stories it is surprising that the public rarely sees the raw data behind polls. I assume the Fairfax pollsters asked a series of other questions and we will see the topics that were covered in a series of stories over the next few days?

Should we damn the river and its environs by building a dam? Is building hydro power a reversible decision? I think everyone knows my answer to these important questions.

By diverting subsidies and benefits to powerful agricultural industries such as sugar, dairy, timber and salmon, authors of the bill ensured support from both Republicans and Democrats.

Paul Kredosky argues that OPEC does not like high oil prices (which might change consumer behaviour towards alternative energies) so much as it likes unpredictable prices which restrict consumers ability to change.

Food Democracy tracks Monsanto’s take over of another seed business, Netherlands-based De Ruiter Seeds Group BV, which produces seeds for the greenhouse market, for US$862.7 million.

Henry Kissinger is quoted as saying, “If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.”

So, why not do both?  Monsanto is also getting into biofuels.

Food Democracy also has a story on how USA’s Bush administration using the food price crisis as an opportunity to promote genetic engineering.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested at a Peace Corps conference that “we need to look again at some of the issues concerning technology and food production. I know that GMOs are not popular around the world, but there are places that drought-resistant crops should be a part of the answer.”

Celsias examines the price of food from farmers’ markets versus supermarkets. Although a US study, this is relevant given yesterday’s Federated Farmers Report.

Device Daily has a report on Doug Selsam, who designed tiny high-power wind turbines that can generate enough energy to power a home.

The wind turbines measure about 14-18 inches in diameter and they can generate an impressive amount of 200 watts for a 20 mph wind, but the wind turbines could do better if the winds are stronger.

Haji Dawood, a farmer who used to cultivate poppy but now farms wheat in the Daman district, near Kandahar in the south, said his family had benefited from the wheat boom. “It’s the first time since I planted wheat that I can afford to feed my family … it’s going well because the price of opium has come down, and the price for my wheat has gone up. Each new season we get more money from the crop than from the previous one,” he said.

The ironic thing here is that grain and wheat farms here are either converting to dairy or growing crop to feed dairy cows. If we were in the same situation as Afghanistan we’d now have cows eating opium poppies as feed stock.

Phot Credit: sirslushy

[T]he farm price for wheat in 2008 was 16 percent of the cost of a loaf of bread. Of a 20-slice loaf of bread the farm share accounted for around three slices. In this year the farm price for a two litre bottle of milk was 35 percent or around three cups. Cheese is one commodity that has recently increased substantially in price at the supermarket. However the farmer only receives 5.3 percent or 56 cents of $10.47, the retail price for cheese.

Farmers are clearly feeling the downstream effect of the political pressure to do something about rising food prices.  Federated Farmers has rightly identified though that farmers are the wrong target if we want to reduce food prices.  One of the major influences is our link to the global food economy:

In the year ended September 2007, New Zealand imported $2.8 billion of food and live animals. This proportion of imported processed food is one of the highest in the western world. This reflects the New Zealand climate (which limits the foods that can be grown domestically), seasonality of production, and economies of scale in the production of pre-processed foods. With the size of the domestic market it is relatively difficult for New Zealand to sustain manufacturing plants that service only the domestic economy.

I disagree that New Zealand’s climate or size prevents us from growing a diverse range of food.  It think it would be fairer to argue that we are wrapped up in culture and economy that favours imported processed food of local seasonal food.  We actually have a much better food growing climate than many places and a significant amount of land available grow what we need.  Much of the problem is though further down the food chain than our farmers:

Indeed, as the 2006 Food and Beverage Taskforce noted, globally the emergence of powerful supermarket chains has tipped the balance of negotiating power toward the retailer and against the producer.

Federated Farmers’ conclusion is that farmers should not take a cut in income as a response to rising food prices.

Given the significance of these international factors, addressing increasing domestic food prices requires a response broader than simply targeting the returns to New Zealand farmers. Lowering domestic farmers’ returns may depress the domestic supply of food, and simply increase both dependence on imported foods and food prices further.

I agree, but this does mean that we need to look further along our food chain at the big businesses that are controlling what farmers earn and what consumers pay.

Housing New Zealand has been running a programme to progressively retrofit uninsulated state homes with energy efficient material since 2001. So far it has done this to about 16,500 homes. This has meant ceiling and underfloor insulation, ground moisture barriers, cylinder wraps and lagging on some hot water pipes, draft stop seals to doors and windows, installation of water efficient shower heads, energy efficient light bulbs and energy efficiency heaters.

Jeanette has just won a budget bid to fast track this project with $53.4 million. This will help retrofit a further 21,000 state homes in the next five years. This is double the current rate of progress.

In a win-win outcome, tenants will benefit both from electricity savings and improved health:

“The Greens see this as an investment in the future health of New Zealanders. We estimate that the country will recover this investment four-fold in 20 years in energy and health savings.

“Research indicates that insulated homes use on average a fifth less energy than uninsulated homes.  People report health improvements, including half the number of respiratory symptoms. Children in insulated houses had half the number of days off school.”

And this week we have this helpful suggestion from Germany:

The scientists, Fritz Scholz and Ulrich Hasse from the University of Greifswald, start with a common idea: Planting forests, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But instead of letting those trees stand (or worse burning or letting them decay so that the carbon is released to the atmosphere) the scientists have a novel suggestion. Landfill them.

The theory aims to replace back into the earth all the carbon we keep digging up in the form of coal and oil, by burying trees.  But sadly, it’s a little more complicated than it first sounds:

One little problem with this miracle solution: The world would have to plant 3.8 million square miles of forest every year to counteract current global carbon dioxide emissions. That’s bigger than the size of the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii).

Now who wants to tell America?

And the scientists themselves point out that it’s equivalent to all virgin forests lost in the 20th century.

All of which raises the question, why are we still chopping all those trees down?

It raises the question what should the Greens’ theme song be here in Aotearoa New Zealand?  I reckon it needs to be a New Zealand song, and it needs to convey green values and principles.  Any suggestions?  Remember it will be competing against Chris Knox’s ‘You’re better off with Labour‘ (*cough*)!

He’s a Cuba Street resident who Wellingtonians will have seen around a lot doing things like saving trolley buses, the Overlander train and the Johnsonville line from closure. They may not recognise him yet though because he is often in disguise.   

Imagine the traffic jams I could leave in my wake going along Jervois Quay.

Hat tip – Treehugger