38 Comments Posted

  1. From John Maudlins newsletter:

    The human genome project was launched in 1990. It cost $3 billion. At the time, detractors said it was a waste of time, as it would take a thousand years – and they were right, if you assumed then-current technology. It actually took only 11 years (to 2001), as new technologies were constantly invented. Craig Venter started Celera in 1998 and finished in a dead heat with the government for a fraction of the cost, at around $300 million.

  2. It won’t be easy. Farming, as it is done presently, is the cause of more damage than is generally realised. An entirely new approach is needed. Engineering plant genetics by directly manupilating the dna of plants is a dangerous extension of the same behaviour and thinking that got us to where we are now. It is entirely the wrong step to take. Those who manouver to introduce it as a reasonable solution, those who embrace it as the answer to present difficulties, those who utilise it on their farms are idiots.

  3. “BY 2040 there could well be 9 billion people on the planet. The challenge, as oil runs out and climate change kicks in, is not just to grow enough food to feed so many people but to do it without wreaking more havoc on the planet.

    It won’t be easy. Farming causes more global warming than all the world’s cars, trains, ships and planes put together. The worst culprit is a greenhouse gas called nitrous oxide, a breakdown product of nitrogen fertilisers (including organic ones). Next in line is methane from livestock and manure. To meet demand for food and other materials such as biofuels without turning all the remaining wilderness into farmland, and without producing yet more greenhouse gases, we are going to have to exploit every trick we can.”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327251.600-better-world-learn-to-love-genetic-engineering.html

    idiots!

  4. You make a lot of demands on taxpayers toad and you are not a low population advocate. What’s your solution?

  5. I forgot to mention that the greater stock intensity resulting from “more digestible” GE ryegrass will also result in more cowshit and piss in our rivers and streams, which is where this thread started.

  6. Fail, Mr Tong.

    Agricultural emissions make up almost half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. Methane makes up about two thirds of New Zealand’s agricultural emissions (by mass) – the remaining one third being nitrous oxide. But nitrous oxide has a global warming potential of four times that of methane over 20 years and 12 times that of methane over 100 years, so is actually a much bigger problem as far as New Zealand’s agricultural emissions are concerned.

    The real agenda here is that if the GE ryegrass is “more digestible” it will increase profits by allowing greater stock intensity on dairy farms. Of course that will result in increased nitrous oxide emissions – likely to more than negate any reduction in methane emissions insofar as their greenhouse potential is concerned.

    Trust the biotech industry? Not today, thanks.

  7. Greenfly Says:

    The GE ryegrass … idiots!
    ====
    Mr Tong told the ABC that the technology works to increase the carbohydrates or energy molecules in the grass, and the fodder will also be more digestible than existing ryegrass so the sheep and cows can access those energy molecules more easily.

    The Australian researchers working with PGG Wrightson Genomics are also developing a GE grass to reduce the amount of methane given off by livestock, blamed for contributing to global warming. The scientists at Gramina – the joint biotech venture by NZ rural services group PGG Wrightson Genomics and the MPBCRC – are also developing a grass that will not only reduce the amount of methane cows burp up when chewing the cud, but also grow in warmer climates.

    This means that farmers may be able to maintain dairy herds’ productivity and profitability in the face of a global warming, while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Methane makes up 14.3 percent of humanity’s contribution to global warming and nearly half of NZ’s.

  8. Researchers planning on launching a genetically-engineered “super-grass” by 2013 claim cows grazing on it will produce up to 20 percent more milk. The GE ryegrass – being developed in Australia for NZ seed company PGG Wrightson – has potential to make a huge difference to agriculture, according to the chief executive of the Australia’s Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre (MPBCRC), Glenn Tong.

    http://www.agridata.co.nz/blog/2010/03/02/super-grass-aims-to-boost-milk-production/

  9. Interesting drive down to Franz Josef the other day (where I am currently working) anti 1080 signs everywhere along with some pretty ignorant statements to scare tourists. One guy asked if we we were spraying 1080!!!
    Magnificent scenery down here though, shame so many of the locals are so angry.

  10. Interest rates up to 4%.
    Exchange rate much better.
    Do you share my feeling that Australia is leaving us behind.
    Have National screwed us.

  11. As you ought to be aware NZ’rs who supported NZ First are not necessarily racist

    “They just supported one.”

    Surely we need a better reason to import a whole lot of people than to prove we aren’t racist?

    http://articles.garethmorgan.com/labour-s-third-world-solution_409.html

    but concerned about the mass marketing of NZ to foreign property buyers.

    “A point of agreement then.”

    we’ll no, the greens are opposed to foreigners buying land but not if they come here and live on it. Tough, if they pick the eyes out of the real estate and drive up house prices and that seems to be the point: to bring customers for developers and boost property prices (thereby stimulating the economy during the governments term of office).

    presume we don’t need any amber lights at this stage, but isn’t it funny how Christchurch is putting a big pipe into the sea to cope with the extra sewage (and they used to boast that it was drinkable after treatment).

    “Terrible. Do you blame it entirely on immigration?

    are you saying the Green Party doesn’t know about these things? Isn’t that Keith Lockes portfolio?

    Is your preferred policy zero immigrants or what?”

    you have to ask why we need more and more people and it comes down to those reasons. The most obvious thing is that it makes money for powerful business interests but the downside is pushing up prices for locals and a general destruction in the quality of life (how many corner sections have not been subdivided?).

    the parents know that, and that the job comes with (state) house and income.

    “That a few abuse the system is no reason….”

    the question is given a policy where anyone needy is given a house health care and an income (based on the rationale that their children shouldn’t suffer ), what percentage of people will deliberately fall pregnant and when is this number excessive. The Greens talk about every child deserving health care, housing and education “the same as everybody else” while on the other hand any abuse is “a few”….. yeah right!?

  12. SEARCH AND SURVEILLENCE BILL

    Frog and Kieth Locke: Are there any posts coming up on Nationals Search and Surveillence Bill?

    This bill seems to be a very pernicious one with regards to our rights to human privacy and the right to remain silent.

  13. It’s rare to witness gloat of the sort I saw on the faces of the High country farmers at the BlueGreen AGM.

    Cream, chins.

  14. jh says, “But they started it!”

    Come out of the sandpit and say that to my face, jay aaaiiiccchhh!

  15. As you ought to be aware NZ’rs who supported NZ First are not necessarily racist

    They just supported one.

    but concerned about the mass marketing of NZ to foreign property buyers.

    A point of agreement then.

    I presume we don’t need any amber lights at this stage, but isn’t it funny how Christchurch is putting a big pipe into the sea to cope with the extra sewage (and they used to boast that it was drinkable after treatment).

    Terrible. Do you blame it entirely on immigration? Is your preferred policy zero immigrants or what?

    “can’t see how punishing children would in any way be good policy.”

    the parents know that, and that the job comes with (state) house and income.

    That a few abuse the system is no reason to ban all immigration.

    The idea of limiting immigration is anathema to a socialist like Locke.

    That’s what this is really about isn’t it. Not interested in finding common ground, just in feeding your obsession.

  16. In a former life Sage was Helen Clark’s press secretary when she

    was Conservation minister from 1987-89 but it’s clear she doesn’t

    have the PM’s ear any longer. “It’s the system that’s at fault here,

    not individual farmers seeking to maximise their financial returns

    because the Crown’s provided them with this on a plate. This is

    Crown land — our land — and the Crown has failed to protect the

    public interest in these farms. This is the biggest privatisation

    process since Roger Douglas. The Labour Party has said no more

    asset sales but we’re having this happen here with too few

    safeguards — it’s the gradual loss of what makes us unique.”

    Sage admits Forest & Bird “lost big time” over the Richmond

    settlement, and now wants an immediate moratorium on the

    process and a stocktake of what’s happening. “Once this land’s

    gone we can’t get it back.”

    Spoken like a true green!

  17. The high country tenure issue is the sort of green issue that suffers due to left-wingers pushing their (red) barrow.

  18. “High country farmers, who supported the BlueGreens in force up to the election, are cashing in on us and our high country.”

    but the high country review was started by labour.

  19. ““The Government is not just enabling subdivision (of the High country). It is subsidising subdivision”.

    Lincoln University tenure review specialist and public policy senior lecturer Anne Brower tells it like it is, and its rotten”
    ====

    but we still need to hear from keith Locke?

  20. “can’t see how punishing children would in any way be good policy. ”

    the parents know that, and that the job comes with (state) house and income. If you don’t agree that those sort of people are worthy don’t vote “green”.
    :mrgreen:

  21. “As I know you are aware, Keith was responding to Winston’s racist approach to immigration”

    As you ought to be aware NZ’rs who supported NZ First are not necessarily racist but concerned about the mass marketing of NZ to foreign property buyers.

    “The Green Party policy is not based on prejudice, but an objective analysis of what level of migration is compatible with a sustainable New Zealand.”

    I presume we don’t need any amber lights at this stage, but isn’t it funny how Christchurch is putting a big pipe into the sea to cope with the extra sewage (and they used to boast that it was drinkable after treatment).

    The idea of limiting immigration is anathema to a socialist like Locke.

  22. Meanwhile: I found something Hayek Did Say eh?

    “Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete
    dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose
    one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” — Fredrich
    August von Hayek(1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences
    1974

  23. Why can’t we agree on population and immigration frog?

    Because you have an unreasonable position.

    It seems the Greens have a Green light to immigration (”Our policy is the opposite of Winston Peters” … Keith Locke)

    As I know you are aware, Keith was responding to Winston’s racist approach to immigration. In the same press release, Keith also says:

    The Green Party policy is not based on prejudice, but an objective analysis of what level of migration is compatible with a sustainable New Zealand.

    and a policy which sees all children as equally deserving no matter what the actions of their parents.

    Don’t know what that has to do with immigration, but can’t see how punishing children would in any way be good policy.

  24. High country heist claim

    (Straight Furrow)- New Zealand’s Rural Weekly

    “The Government is not just enabling subdivision (of the High country). It is subsidising subdivision”.

    Lincoln University tenure review specialist and public policy senior lecturer Anne Brower tells it like it is, and its rotten

    http://www.stoptenurereview.co.nz

    High country farmers, who supported the BlueGreens in force up to the election, are cashing in on us and our high country.

    Thieves.

  25. Why can’t we agree on population and immigration frog? It seems the Greens have a Green light to immigration (“Our policy is the opposite of Winston Peters” … Keith Locke) and a policy which sees all children as equally deserving no matter what the actions of their parents. A child is “the gentleman who pays the rent” (Irishmans pig).

Comments are closed.