It seems in the National Party there is still a mindset of the economy vs the environment. Bill English might have put it more bluntly, but John Key is guilty of saying that National’s policy is about ” maximising environmental opportunities while protecting the environment.” Notwithstanding the obvious contradiction in terms of National’s actions, it is not just about protection it should be about integration.
For our country the two have to be seen together as part of a sustainable future. The good news is that many key economic players are getting it. Rod Oram’s column in the SST today highlights how Marlborough business leaders are incorporating initiatives that are good for the environment and are improving efficiency. Just two examples
Yealands, a 1000ha vineyard outside Seddon, plans to use vine prunings to fuel its winery boiler and it is breeding miniature sheep to graze between the vines to save $1.5 million a year of diesel for mower-pulling tractors. And, of course, the sheep will be a valuable crop in themselves.
and
Nelson Forests has calculated the carbon footprint of its entire operations and product range. This has helped drive operational efficiencies such as using waste wood in the boiler at its Kaituna sawmill outside Blenheim.And thanks to the analysis, it can prove that the timber it sells into Spain is carbon negative (storing more carbon than was expended in harvesting, processing and shipping it). Thus the company can compete in the fast-growing European market for sustainable building materials.
Oram notes with sadness that Federated Farmers are trying to talk down the ETS (despite agriculture’s entry to the scheme being pushed out well into the future). Between them and the Nats there is still a long way to go for some folk to get over their prejudice and see that it is not a competition between economy and environment, but a necessary and vital collaboration.
Those stories are heartening, I hope it’s the start of a trend.
I don’t think you can talk about prejudice within National and the farmers while quoting from an article by Rod Oram.
And why not Gooner? I seriously despair about the short sightedness of Federated Farmers in not grasping the opportunities that are available.
Why not? Because Oram is anti National and pro Labour. That is absolutely obvious.
I’d be interested to know what FedFarm & the usual suspects would do if the American Clean Energy & Security Act and the EU ETS backed them into a corner. I’d suspect a whole lot more than just sniping from the sidelines.
What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
FFS are now more closely aligned to ACT than National- if they stick to their head in the sand approach to climate change they will end up marginalising themselves.
I think there is the same attitude evident in National’s idea of opening up schedule 4 conservation land to mining.
They think that there is a trade-off between the conservation value and the exploitable mineral wealth of the land — if the mineral wealth is vast then that might trump the conservation value. Or so National would like to pretend.
But this is totally misunderstanding the assignment of land to schedule 4. Land is in schedule 4 because of its conservation value.
If the land ceases to have that conservation value, then sure it can be removed from schedule 4, and if it happens to also have mineral wealth it could be an idea to mine it. But the decision as to whether the land belongs on schedule 4 or not is (or should be) totally independent of the mineral wealth under the land.
Doug, that article is prime evidence that the science is *NOT* settled and can never be settled thereby debunking the alarmists claim immediately.
“But the decision as to whether the land belongs on schedule 4 or not is (or should be) totally independent of the mineral wealth under the land.” – That’s scary, I’ve heard stuff said to the effect that not all of the land in schedule 4 should be there.
I hope they don’t munt our national parks!