From:
Andrew Groom
Date:
2008 Jun 08 21:43 UTC
Short link
On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may be
> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
> us.
I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on your
backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
with but deal with it we must.
I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for the
region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency, but
these are not normal times ...
Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
prepared to comment on this ?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
From:
Matt Morris
Date:
2008 Jun 08 23:07 UTC
Short link
Hi Andrew
from a Community Board perspective I can say that I couldn't agree more.
We can do a lot better than we are doing in terms of enhancing our food
security. Community gardens and school gardens are obviously part of the
solution.
But there are even simpler options we could look at that would at least help.
One, planting fruit and nut trees in streets and/or parks is, you'd think, a
complete no brainer, a very easy means of future-proofing. However, when I
asked the question recently council staff informed me that there is actually a
policy stating that such trees mustn't be planted!
On the up-side, the Shirley-Papanui community board has formally endorsed the
Transition Communities model as it applies to our ward, and we are now
exploring how this appalling policy about fruit trees can be ammended. We have
also built supporting community gardens into our board objectives... a small
step but hopefully a meaningful one.
A joint discussion between the agencies you mentioned seems like a great idea
to me.
Matt Morris
Chair, Greenspace and Traffic Works Committee
Shirley Papanui Community Board
andrew <email obscured>> wrote:
On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may be
> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
> us.
I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on your
backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
with but deal with it we must.
I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for the
region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency, but
these are not normal times ...
Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
prepared to comment on this ?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
Andrew Groom
Bryndwr, Christchurch
Info about Andrew Groom: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewgroom
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1vbmzYtxRK2HyQxqUFTjwF
From:
Andrew Groom
Date:
2008 Jun 08 23:18 UTC
Short link
That sounds marvellous, Matt. As you say, you'd think fruit and nut
trees in streets and/or parks would be a no-brainer, but perhaps the
rising price of food will start to turn the prevailing attitude
around ...
Keep up the great work, Matt !
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 11:07 +1200, Matt Morris wrote:
> Hi Andrew
> from a Community Board perspective I can say that I couldn't agree more.
> We can do a lot better than we are doing in terms of enhancing our food
security. Community gardens and school gardens are obviously part of the
solution.
> But there are even simpler options we could look at that would at least
help. One, planting fruit and nut trees in streets and/or parks is, you'd
think, a complete no brainer, a very easy means of future-proofing. However,
when I asked the question recently council staff informed me that there is
actually a policy stating that such trees mustn't be planted!
> On the up-side, the Shirley-Papanui community board has formally endorsed
the Transition Communities model as it applies to our ward, and we are now
exploring how this appalling policy about fruit trees can be ammended. We have
also built supporting community gardens into our board objectives... a small
step but hopefully a meaningful one.
> A joint discussion between the agencies you mentioned seems like a great
idea to me.
From:
Brian Sandle
Date:
2008 Jun 08 23:49 UTC
Short link
andrew wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
>
>> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may be
>> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
>> us.
>>
>
> I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
> that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
> classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
> response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on your
> backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
> with but deal with it we must.
>
> I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
> some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for the
> region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency, but
> these are not normal times ...
>
> Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
> prepared to comment on this ?
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
>
>
>
> Andrew Groom
> Bryndwr, Christchurch
>
>
It's going to be quite hard.
As I showed some in Government are trying to use the food security
argument to promote GMOs.
It would help if Government gave more money to public good research.
Here is an example of how AgResearch, set up from public money, is
forming alliances with big overseas companies to get funding. Those
companies can then start to call the tune by threatenuing to pull out.
http://www.ruraldelivery.net.nz/absolutenm/templates/issuesTemplate.asp?articleid=237&zoneid=5
"Roger: Who are some of these big companies? Are we talking Monsanto,
Syngenta, De Pont?
Danny: All of those companies, Merck Sharpe and Dome and so on, all
these are large international chemical companies."
Here is an example of the political influence of the company producing
bovine growth hormone, to get it approved, then giving vets money to
promote it, then the vets would get more work treating the cows who it
made sick.
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/rateConnection.php?id1=5580&id2=89
And when we had the GM maize accidental release in NZ here is the sort
of talk that was happening
www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/imports/plants/gm-seeds/appendix-4.pdf
"However, what if the GM
seeds came from another source and not Pacific Seeds? We will have to
wait for results
before this can be addressed.
• Barry O’Neil (MAF) confirmed that MAF will not release any information
without
consultation with Pacific Seeds about the accuracy of the information,
and Pacific Seeds
are committed to giving this issue the highest priority.
• David Wansbrough (MAF) said that a request under the Official
Information Act for the
information presented by the company is highly likely. Howard Morris
confirmed that
the company had prepared the folder with that in mind and was prepared
for the folder to
be released. However, he was very concerned not to release partial
information before
final conclusions had been drawn.
Pukekohe crop
• Pacific Seeds have not asked if GeneScan can specify which YieldGard
types (MON810,
MON809, MON802) were present."
From:
Tim Kerr
Date:
2008 Jun 09 01:03 UTC
Short link
Cripes!!!!
What date is Armaggeddon?
Just wondering....
Tim Kerr.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Morris" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Food security for Canterbury
> Hi Andrew
> from a Community Board perspective I can say that I couldn't agree more.
> We can do a lot better than we are doing in terms of enhancing our food
> security. Community gardens and school gardens are obviously part of the
> solution.
> But there are even simpler options we could look at that would at least
> help. One, planting fruit and nut trees in streets and/or parks is, you'd
> think, a complete no brainer, a very easy means of future-proofing.
> However, when I asked the question recently council staff informed me that
> there is actually a policy stating that such trees mustn't be planted!
> On the up-side, the Shirley-Papanui community board has formally endorsed
> the Transition Communities model as it applies to our ward, and we are now
> exploring how this appalling policy about fruit trees can be ammended. We
> have also built supporting community gardens into our board objectives...
> a small step but hopefully a meaningful one.
> A joint discussion between the agencies you mentioned seems like a great
> idea to me.
>
> Matt Morris
> Chair, Greenspace and Traffic Works Committee
> Shirley Papanui Community Board
>
>
> andrew <email obscured>> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
>> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may be
>> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
>> us.
>
> I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
> that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
> classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
> response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on your
> backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
> with but deal with it we must.
>
> I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
> some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for the
> region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency, but
> these are not normal times ...
>
> Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
> prepared to comment on this ?
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
>
>
>
> Andrew Groom
> Bryndwr, Christchurch
> Info about Andrew Groom: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewgroom
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1vbmzYtxRK2HyQxqUFTjwF
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Matt Morris
>
> Info about Matt Morris: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mattmorris
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2OeaZDw2XUnrSpfLX8QbuD
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
3:51 PM
From:
Brian Sandle
Date:
2008 Jun 09 03:31 UTC
Short link
Tim Kerr wrote:
> Cripes!!!!
>
> What date is Armaggeddon?
>
> Just wondering....
>
> Tim Kerr.....
>
>
When one thinks of the exponential petrol price rises and the energy
required for current agriculture it could be quite close.
We might stave it off a bit with fast thinking.
The AgResearch Annual Report seems to say how unprofitable it has been
doing public good research:
http://www.agresearch.co.nz/publications/annualreport/Annual-Report-2007-1-of-4.pdf
"Last, but not least, the real benefits of the research and its
subsequent commercialisation may not be immediately apparent or
quantifiable in dollar terms.
This is particularly so for agricultural science, where the initial
investment may be made by an industry/government collaboration, with the
commercial benefits being captured by individual farmers or processors
some considerable time later. An example of this is the increasingly
effective biological control of the Argentine stem weevil and clover
root weevil, the control of which together is now allowing productivity
to be realised for our pastoral farmers of up to $500 million per annum.
Ironically, while the science behind this was being carried out by
researchers inside AgResearch, the ‘public good’ benefits have done
considerably less for AgResearch’s long-term financial viability. There
is a trade-off here that government, industry and society must help
reconcile."
According to the following some of this weevil problem has not been
particularly prevalent in Canterbury, but biological control is being
used to prevent its spread from where it is, (however it got here).
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/envent/2003/00000032/00000004/art00010;jsessionid=1dv1s5oft7bej.alexandra
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0712/S00047.htm
So what mechanisms are there for us to ask that other beneifits than
financial/commercial come and increase to come from our local research
institutes?
I think of the treeless drought-ridden sheep paddocks of South
Canterbury shown on TV a few days ago. Other countries are planting
trees to reclaim desert. For some reason treelessness has been sold
here, though earlier generations of farmers watched the topsoil blow
away before.
Is Federated Farmers promoting treelessness?
I see they have just promoted GMOs
From:
Tim Kerr
Date:
2008 Jun 09 04:01 UTC
Short link
Exponential (and it isn't) increases in oil has a lot to do with old
technology and equipment meeting an unprecedented demand for oil from China,
Indonesia and India.
ALL these countries are subsidising their oil prices. Partly to prevent
violent reactions from their residents but also to help sustain the terrific
growth they are going through - and forestall associated inflation.
It will soon pass....
Just as the European countries put various trade barriers on imported
agricultural products, ex-third world countries whack subsidies on oil. It
keeps their citizens happy and encourages higher industrial productivity.
So now we have high grain prices AND high oil prices - and high milk
prices.....
Oh, and believe me, the citizens of China, India and Indonesia would not
remain as happy as we are if they had even a fraction of our oil price
increases!
So really... I just want to know if Armageddon is strictly a Canterbury
issue....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Sandle" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Food security for Canterbury
> Tim Kerr wrote:
>> Cripes!!!!
>>
>> What date is Armaggeddon?
>>
>> Just wondering....
>>
>> Tim Kerr.....
>>
>>
> When one thinks of the exponential petrol price rises and the energy
> required for current agriculture it could be quite close.
>
> We might stave it off a bit with fast thinking.
>
> The AgResearch Annual Report seems to say how unprofitable it has been
> doing public good research:
>
>
http://www.agresearch.co.nz/publications/annualreport/Annual-Report-2007-1-of-4.pdf
> "Last, but not least, the real benefits of the research and its
> subsequent commercialisation may not be immediately apparent or
> quantifiable in dollar terms.
> This is particularly so for agricultural science, where the initial
> investment may be made by an industry/government collaboration, with the
> commercial benefits being captured by individual farmers or processors
> some considerable time later. An example of this is the increasingly
> effective biological control of the Argentine stem weevil and clover
> root weevil, the control of which together is now allowing productivity
> to be realised for our pastoral farmers of up to $500 million per annum.
> Ironically, while the science behind this was being carried out by
> researchers inside AgResearch, the ‘public good’ benefits have done
> considerably less for AgResearch’s long-term financial viability. There
> is a trade-off here that government, industry and society must help
> reconcile."
>
> According to the following some of this weevil problem has not been
> particularly prevalent in Canterbury, but biological control is being
> used to prevent its spread from where it is, (however it got here).
>
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/envent/2003/00000032/00000004/art00010;jsessionid=1dv1s5oft7bej.alexandra
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0712/S00047.htm
>
> So what mechanisms are there for us to ask that other beneifits than
> financial/commercial come and increase to come from our local research
> institutes?
>
> I think of the treeless drought-ridden sheep paddocks of South
> Canterbury shown on TV a few days ago. Other countries are planting
> trees to reclaim desert. For some reason treelessness has been sold
> here, though earlier generations of farmers watched the topsoil blow
> away before.
>
> Is Federated Farmers promoting treelessness?
>
> I see they have just promoted GMOs
>
> Brian Sandle
>
> Info about Brian Sandle: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/briansandle
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/227oX7JjehmF3ih4ITpByR
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
3:51 PM
From:
John Veitch
Date:
2008 Jun 09 10:46 UTC
Short link
Tim Kerr wrote:
> Exponential (and it isn't) increases in oil has a lot to do with old
> technology and equipment meeting an unprecedented demand for oil from China,
> Indonesia and India.
> <snip>
> Oh, and believe me, the citizens of China, India and Indonesia would not
> remain as happy as we are if they had even a fraction of our oil price
> increases!
>
> So really... I just want to know if Armageddon is strictly a Canterbury
> issue....
Apparently people are just beginning to get the message that The Values
Party was discussing in the 1970's.
Of course they had the timing all wrong, but the general idea was right.
If you really want to find out how serious the present situation is Prof
Albert Bartlett has all the bad news.
A video here:
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/AlbertBartlett.ram
A transcript here:
http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645
For the world as a whole, expect riots, city burning, famine and
disease, and population decline.
For Canterbury, many of us are already doing personally what we need to
do. Insulate the house, do more composting and gardening, and spend more
time on the bike. I expect that community gardening might be one way to
cope with rising unemployment in a constructive way.
My personal fear, is that riots and civil unrest in Indonesia might lead
to a military adventure "overseas". With the rising general chaos around
the world, with a very complex system, there is no way to predict what
will happen. However, being informed is a good part of self protection.
For instance the capital resources for oil exploration will be in heavy
demand. I expect many people think that throwing a few billion dollars
into holes in the ground would be a wise investment. If you understand
what Prof. Bartlett says, you'll understand that even if you succeed in
finding the oil, it makes "no difference" really. So in fact we would be
better off if we used that money to change our lifestyle to something
that can be sustained.
There is good news. Prior to 1900, people lived quite successfully
without all the oil we currently use. Of course they worked a lot harder
in a physical way. Probably that would be good for us.
From:
Matt Morris
Date:
2008 Jun 10 22:20 UTC
Short link
But even if there was no armageddon (and that will only happen if we are boring
enough to keep doing things the way we currently are, snore...) doesn't the
idea of an urban edible forest sound appealling?
Matt Morris
Tim Kerr <email obscured>> wrote:
Cripes!!!!
What date is Armaggeddon?
Just wondering....
Tim Kerr.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Morris"
To:
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Food security for Canterbury
> Hi Andrew
> from a Community Board perspective I can say that I couldn't agree more.
> We can do a lot better than we are doing in terms of enhancing our food
> security. Community gardens and school gardens are obviously part of the
> solution.
> But there are even simpler options we could look at that would at least
> help. One, planting fruit and nut trees in streets and/or parks is, you'd
> think, a complete no brainer, a very easy means of future-proofing.
> However, when I asked the question recently council staff informed me that
> there is actually a policy stating that such trees mustn't be planted!
> On the up-side, the Shirley-Papanui community board has formally endorsed
> the Transition Communities model as it applies to our ward, and we are now
> exploring how this appalling policy about fruit trees can be ammended. We
> have also built supporting community gardens into our board objectives...
> a small step but hopefully a meaningful one.
> A joint discussion between the agencies you mentioned seems like a great
> idea to me.
>
> Matt Morris
> Chair, Greenspace and Traffic Works Committee
> Shirley Papanui Community Board
>
>
> andrew wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
>> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may be
>> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
>> us.
>
> I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
> that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
> classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
> response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on your
> backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
> with but deal with it we must.
>
> I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
> some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for the
> region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency, but
> these are not normal times ...
>
> Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
> prepared to comment on this ?
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
>
>
>
> Andrew Groom
> Bryndwr, Christchurch
> Info about Andrew Groom: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewgroom
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1vbmzYtxRK2HyQxqUFTjwF
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Matt Morris
>
> Info about Matt Morris: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mattmorris
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2OeaZDw2XUnrSpfLX8QbuD
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
3:51 PM
Tim Kerr
Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/timkerr
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7hXkBtcUDlaPwVjR9zBTy2
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
From:
Tim Kerr
Date:
2008 Jun 11 06:12 UTC
Short link
Too me Matt, yeah... but to people who don't like raking up leaves, or
walking on squashed fruit, or who don't like thorns in their bicycle tyres
or who have a little child allergic to whatever the fruit, berry, seed, bud
or pollen is currently the allergy flavour of the month, an edible forest
would be a source of complaint to our dear CCC.
In fact, we hve harvested black boy peaches from the kindergarten next door
and bottled some and made the rest into jam.
And Brian, so far the bees seem to be doing OK - it's a bit like the cabbage
tree scare - the trees were dying off and extincting themselves before
botanists' very eyes. It was only a matter of time....
Varoa mite is a problem - a big one - but studies have shown many plants
"dependent" on bee pollination in fact are willing to be pollinated by quite
a wide range of alternative vectors - including native bees. We just won't
have so much honey...
But all the GM arguments are beyond me - I'm happy with stuffing about with
GM within a specie - but not too keen on trans-specific fiddling.
Cheers,
Tim kerr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Morris" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Food security for Canterbury
> But even if there was no armageddon (and that will only happen if we are
> boring enough to keep doing things the way we currently are, snore...)
> doesn't the idea of an urban edible forest sound appealling?
> Matt Morris
>
> Tim Kerr <email obscured>> wrote:
> Cripes!!!!
>
> What date is Armaggeddon?
>
> Just wondering....
>
> Tim Kerr.....
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Morris"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Food security for Canterbury
>
>
>> Hi Andrew
>> from a Community Board perspective I can say that I couldn't agree more.
>> We can do a lot better than we are doing in terms of enhancing our food
>> security. Community gardens and school gardens are obviously part of the
>> solution.
>> But there are even simpler options we could look at that would at least
>> help. One, planting fruit and nut trees in streets and/or parks is, you'd
>> think, a complete no brainer, a very easy means of future-proofing.
>> However, when I asked the question recently council staff informed me
>> that
>> there is actually a policy stating that such trees mustn't be planted!
>> On the up-side, the Shirley-Papanui community board has formally endorsed
>> the Transition Communities model as it applies to our ward, and we are
>> now
>> exploring how this appalling policy about fruit trees can be ammended. We
>> have also built supporting community gardens into our board objectives...
>> a small step but hopefully a meaningful one.
>> A joint discussion between the agencies you mentioned seems like a great
>> idea to me.
>>
>> Matt Morris
>> Chair, Greenspace and Traffic Works Committee
>> Shirley Papanui Community Board
>>
>>
>> andrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
>>> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may be
>>> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
>>> us.
>>
>> I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
>> that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
>> classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
>> response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on your
>> backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
>> with but deal with it we must.
>>
>> I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
>> some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for the
>> region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency, but
>> these are not normal times ...
>>
>> Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
>> prepared to comment on this ?
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Groom
>> Bryndwr, Christchurch
>> Info about Andrew Groom: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewgroom
>>
>> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1vbmzYtxRK2HyQxqUFTjwF
>> -----------------------------------------
>> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>>
>> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>>
>> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>> Matt Morris
>>
>> Info about Matt Morris: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mattmorris
>>
>> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2OeaZDw2XUnrSpfLX8QbuD
>> -----------------------------------------
>> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>>
>> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>>
>> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
> 3:51 PM
>
>
> Tim Kerr
>
> Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/timkerr
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7hXkBtcUDlaPwVjR9zBTy2
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Matt Morris
>
> Info about Matt Morris: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mattmorris
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/YGMCf0fYhFt4AvsQSsACa
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
3:51 PM
From:
Brian Sandle
Date:
2008 Jun 11 14:49 UTC
Short link
(Reply to Rik below)
Tim Kerr wrote:
> Too me Matt, yeah... but to people who don't like raking up leaves, or
> walking on squashed fruit, or who don't like thorns in their bicycle tyres
> or who have a little child allergic to whatever the fruit, berry, seed, bud
> or pollen is currently the allergy flavour of the month, an edible forest
> would be a source of complaint to our dear CCC.
>
Some allergies have been found to be related to babies having too little
immune challenge. Babies may grow up more free of allergies if their
family has pets, for example.
So is Christchurch prepared for greater allergy treatment costs if it
puts families in 'affordable' housing where no pets are allowed?
> In fact, we hve harvested black boy peaches from the kindergarten next door
> and bottled some and made the rest into jam.
>
http://mission-on.tki.org.nz/case_studies/runanga_primary
gives a story about Runanga School building self-esteem and behaviour
in kids through cooking and vegetable growing at the school, with sales
of the food. Good message for food security here.
> And Brian, so far the bees seem to be doing OK
You say that here but later you say the varroa mite is a big problem.
> - it's a bit like the cabbage
> tree scare - the trees were dying off and extincting themselves before
> botanists' very eyes. It was only a matter of time....
>
>
> Varoa mite is a problem - a big one - but studies have shown many plants
> "dependent" on bee pollination in fact are willing to be pollinated by quite
> a wide range of alternative vectors - including native bees. We just won't
> have so much honey...
>
>
Thank goodness there are still some type of bees, as they carry pollen
far enough to give some genetic spread to crops. Other insects may not.
And the following article points out how varroa may work to increase the
trouble of pesticdes to bees, so you wouldn't be able to say it is just
varroa causing the trouble:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/toBeeOrganicOrNotToBee.php
> But all the GM arguments are beyond me - I'm happy with stuffing about with
> GM within a specie - but not too keen on trans-specific fiddling.
>
>
Hunh! You may have been infected by the old claim that horizontal gene
transfer is no different to selection breeding!! Stuffing about with GM
within a specie, What do you mean?
If you GM genes around within a `specie' you will possibly put them next
to promoter genes, or take them away, and mess up the thousands of years
of learning in the organism. And it is now being recognised, what I used
to claim years back, that 'junk dna', so termed by 'science' and treated
in a cavalier fashion by genetic engineers, is actually rather important.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MGEJ.php?printing=yes
"Perhaps only 1% of the human genome codes for genes, and that’s what
the human genome map contains. The rest is mainly repetitive DNA,
commonly known as ‘junk DNA’.
However, evidence has been emerging that lurking within junk DNA are
armies of transposons (mobile genetic elements) that play an
indispensable role in ‘natural genetic engineering’ the genome. They
make up nearly half of the human genome, and serve as ‘recombination
hotspots’ for cutting and splicing, and hence reshuffling the genome.
They are also a source of ready to use motifs for gene expression, as
well as new protein-coding sequences."
Rik: How could we stop the following which you make me feel is a
possibility?:
The proposed Regional Government Group becomes a Council Controlled
Organisation, therefore does not have to do consulting or even the
normal reporting under the Local Government Act. It distributes millions
from Central Government, but then (the possibility?) boosts that with
funding from local rates in a business partnership and thereby keeps the
whole package secret.
That does not look to me like Mitre 10 providing garden equipment for
schools, as reported above, with positive outcome for a West Coast
community. It looks like manipulating Canterbury's environment for
profit for big international corporates with small payoffs locally.
When I was at primary school our teacher explained we live in a
democracy and warned us about totalitarian goverments which we could
vote into but not reverse out of. Far right and far left wing
governments tend to restrict outflow of information. It has only been
coming to light in the last 10 years or so how the USSR Kremlin
suppressed the information that it had starved to death 6 million or
more Ukranian farmers in the early 1930s.
Knowing that big seed corporates persuaded Indian farmers to go with
them and GMOs, and then the famers suicided in 10s of thousand per year
as their farms were taken when the crops failed them, I do not trust
this step increasing secret government.
From:
Rik Tindall
Date:
2008 Jun 24 13:57 UTC
Short link
Hello Andrew and CPI Forum,
Firstly, of course, it is Federated Farmers that just added GMOs as
wave-riding atop the current (3, 6, or 9-yearly) self-defeating reflex
swing to the (resource-) exploitative political right: 'genetically
modified cattle-feed is needed to help feed the world' they say. So this
tops the list of the myths to be busted, in real food security planning.
(Cows take food and climate stability from people - it is them or us,
ultimately.) Then comes the anti green biofuel offensive, that would
grow uncontrolled poisoning emissions instead.
Out of these two responses comes stage 1 of the viable, sustainable end
to starvation; and it's about time starvation became unacceptable to
all. Market faith, of course, has been the misguided cause of most
such wastage of humans in our time. So at last - with the credit crunch,
lit-fuse inflation, declining living, social, moral, and environmental
conditions, etc. - the market implodes its own myth of permanent
salvation, to be revealed as the heart of the (waste) problem; the meat
market, in particular (habituated bestial killing) - soon to be outmoded
by quality and quantity vegetable protein.
Welcome is this invitation to outline the means for rapidly initiating
food security for Canterbury, and for the world. The answer is really
very simple. It begins with understanding - as only temporary - the
historic phase of cattle-herding. The market now demands a return of
land to seed, grain, and vegetable production, for feeding people better
with water efficiency and reduced emissions.
Required is immediate public pressure on the Food Safety Authority via
government, to authorise hemp seed flour for human consumption. Hemp oil
is on sale, but the nutritious seed residue (Omega 3,6,9) goes to waste
- preventing an economy of scale for this quick-growing and
non-demanding energy crop. It requires little in the way of water,
pesticide, or fertiliser - being a nitrogen fixer - so really is the
answer for Canterbury's soil care too. ECan should be asked to request
this policy change from Government, in the same way that it secured a
National Environmental Standard for Air Quality to help bring in cleaner
heating - *authorise hemp seed flour for human consumption*.
Our goal is to provide farmers with a revenue source surpassing that of
thirsty and polluting (A1) dairy production. Hemp will do that not only
through its great food value, but through the 2nd-generation biofuel
made from the rest of the plant and specific non-food plantings. It is a
true petroleum substitute, for making clothes, plastic and building
materials too. Hemp butter and milk can also be made from the seed, for
full food substitution.
Cows are on the way out - not humans. "Over-population" relates to the
total mammalian load that our present, inefficient economic forms place
upon the Earth - not simply the breathing human portion of it. In NZ the
cattle population is over 7 million, rising annually - nearing double
the human population. But at approximately four times the average body
mass of a human being, those cattle will soon have eight times the
biological impact upon 'Clean Green Aotearoa-NZ' that people have, at
least. In global terms, "it's them or us" - get used to this choice; it
is one we are all going to have to make.
andrew wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
>
>> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may be
>> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
>> us.
>>
>
> I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
> that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
> classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
> response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on your
> backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
> with but deal with it we must.
>
> I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
> some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for the
> region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency, but
> these are not normal times ...
>
> Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
> prepared to comment on this ?
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
All you can say is that grog-minded revenue-gatherers (belt-looseners)
will remain clueless, with nothing of substance to say to the public at
large. - Hence the 'leadership' vacuum on this forum, from vacuous
'celebrity'. It is cheaper, for them, to extend the ancient Middle East
carnage instead. No wonder it is being replicated on our city streets
(sayeth The Press 23/6/08). Roll on 2010.
The silence masks illogical and outmoded insistence that more irrigated
pasture, through artificial water storage, is going to somehow help
Canterbury survive the crisis it is part of creating - this "climate
adaptation" sales pitch is really climate aggravation, at the public
expense. It is a completely wrong direction, in terms of secure food
supply - so what is it, actually? (Just who is the 'Selwyn Plantation
Board' returning its dairy profits to? They once grew trees; check the
directors' fees.)
Halt climate exploitation, we must.
See also "Canterbury Energy strategy" thread:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/AxMuilUAnFucrptwYH1FP
From:
Andrew Groom
Date:
2008 Jun 25 00:27 UTC
Short link
Hi Rik,
Thanks for your comments on energy and food security for the region -
very interesting reading.
I'd only add one point: when you say that we need to put an end to
hunger, I think it's the *way* we do that that is critical to our
survival. I believe that instead of increasing food production (which,
as Malthus has shown [1], inevitably leads to more people and therefore
bigger food problems, and so on), we need to be actively reducing the
population of the Canterbury region, both human and bovine.
The case of Tikopia is relevant here, I believe [2]:
"Tikopians practice an intensive permaculture system, similar in
principle to forest gardening and the gardens of the New Guinea
highlands. Their agricultural practices are strongly and consciously
tied to the population density. For example, around 1600 A.D, the people
agreed to slaughter all pigs on the island, and substitute fishing,
because the pigs were taking too much food that could be eaten by
people."
Presumably the pigs themselves were eaten by people, but that was
obviously a less efficient way of getting nutrition from a fixed amount
of land.
So, how can we realistically limit the population of Canterbury ? A good
start would be to cap the amount of residential land in the region. To
do this, we would allow land to revert to either rural zoning or have
the development rights transferred to another location closer to an
urban centre for higher density development. I believe this is already
done overseas as a way of combating urban sprawl [3].
The next step would be to start to gradually *reduce* the amount of
residential land in a given urban area, or allow for the possibility of
transferring that residential "credit" to another centre. This might
help redistribute a greater number of people closer to the agricultural
activities that will play a greater part in all of our lives in the
coming years.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus#The_Principle_of_Population
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia
[3] http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/landuse/transfer.shtml
On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 01:55 +1200, Rik Tindall wrote:
> Hello Andrew and CPI Forum,
>
> Firstly, of course, it is Federated Farmers that just added GMOs as
> wave-riding atop the current (3, 6, or 9-yearly) self-defeating reflex
> swing to the (resource-) exploitative political right: 'genetically
> modified cattle-feed is needed to help feed the world' they say. So this
> tops the list of the myths to be busted, in real food security planning.
> (Cows take food and climate stability from people - it is them or us,
> ultimately.) Then comes the anti green biofuel offensive, that would
> grow uncontrolled poisoning emissions instead.
>
> Out of these two responses comes stage 1 of the viable, sustainable end
> to starvation; and it's about time starvation became unacceptable to
> all. Market faith, of course, has been the misguided cause of most
> such wastage of humans in our time. So at last - with the credit crunch,
> lit-fuse inflation, declining living, social, moral, and environmental
> conditions, etc. - the market implodes its own myth of permanent
> salvation, to be revealed as the heart of the (waste) problem; the meat
> market, in particular (habituated bestial killing) - soon to be outmoded
> by quality and quantity vegetable protein.
>
> Welcome is this invitation to outline the means for rapidly initiating
> food security for Canterbury, and for the world. The answer is really
> very simple. It begins with understanding - as only temporary - the
> historic phase of cattle-herding. The market now demands a return of
> land to seed, grain, and vegetable production, for feeding people better
> with water efficiency and reduced emissions.
>
> Required is immediate public pressure on the Food Safety Authority via
> government, to authorise hemp seed flour for human consumption. Hemp oil
> is on sale, but the nutritious seed residue (Omega 3,6,9) goes to waste
> - preventing an economy of scale for this quick-growing and
> non-demanding energy crop. It requires little in the way of water,
> pesticide, or fertiliser - being a nitrogen fixer - so really is the
> answer for Canterbury's soil care too. ECan should be asked to request
> this policy change from Government, in the same way that it secured a
> National Environmental Standard for Air Quality to help bring in cleaner
> heating - *authorise hemp seed flour for human consumption*.
>
> Our goal is to provide farmers with a revenue source surpassing that of
> thirsty and polluting (A1) dairy production. Hemp will do that not only
> through its great food value, but through the 2nd-generation biofuel
> made from the rest of the plant and specific non-food plantings. It is a
> true petroleum substitute, for making clothes, plastic and building
> materials too. Hemp butter and milk can also be made from the seed, for
> full food substitution.
>
> Cows are on the way out - not humans. "Over-population" relates to the
> total mammalian load that our present, inefficient economic forms place
> upon the Earth - not simply the breathing human portion of it. In NZ the
> cattle population is over 7 million, rising annually - nearing double
> the human population. But at approximately four times the average body
> mass of a human being, those cattle will soon have eight times the
> biological impact upon 'Clean Green Aotearoa-NZ' that people have, at
> least. In global terms, "it's them or us" - get used to this choice; it
> is one we are all going to have to make.
>
> andrew wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
> >
> >> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may be
> >> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
> >> us.
> >>
> >
> > I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
> > that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
> > classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
> > response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on your
> > backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
> > with but deal with it we must.
> >
> > I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
> > some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for the
> > region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency, but
> > these are not normal times ...
> >
> > Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
> > prepared to comment on this ?
> >
> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
>
> All you can say is that grog-minded revenue-gatherers (belt-looseners)
> will remain clueless, with nothing of substance to say to the public at
> large. - Hence the 'leadership' vacuum on this forum, from vacuous
> 'celebrity'. It is cheaper, for them, to extend the ancient Middle East
> carnage instead. No wonder it is being replicated on our city streets
> (sayeth The Press 23/6/08). Roll on 2010.
>
> The silence masks illogical and outmoded insistence that more irrigated
> pasture, through artificial water storage, is going to somehow help
> Canterbury survive the crisis it is part of creating - this "climate
> adaptation" sales pitch is really climate aggravation, at the public
> expense. It is a completely wrong direction, in terms of secure food
> supply - so what is it, actually? (Just who is the 'Selwyn Plantation
> Board' returning its dairy profits to? They once grew trees; check the
> directors' fees.)
>
> Halt climate exploitation, we must.
>
> See also "Canterbury Energy strategy" thread:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/AxMuilUAnFucrptwYH1FP
>
>
>
> Richard Tindall
> Cashmere & South Christchurch most recently., Christchurch / O-Tautahi
> Info about Rik Tindall: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/riktindall
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3mKjLqriqDpfJfeNuZUCAg
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
From:
Tim Kerr
Date:
2008 Jun 25 09:05 UTC
Short link
Or you could just keep putting the rates up.....
Though that may not prevent an influx of Jafas....
----- Original Message -----
From: "andrew" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Food security for Canterbury
> Hi Rik,
>
> Thanks for your comments on energy and food security for the region -
> very interesting reading.
>
> I'd only add one point: when you say that we need to put an end to
> hunger, I think it's the *way* we do that that is critical to our
> survival. I believe that instead of increasing food production (which,
> as Malthus has shown [1], inevitably leads to more people and therefore
> bigger food problems, and so on), we need to be actively reducing the
> population of the Canterbury region, both human and bovine.
>
> The case of Tikopia is relevant here, I believe [2]:
>
> "Tikopians practice an intensive permaculture system, similar in
> principle to forest gardening and the gardens of the New Guinea
> highlands. Their agricultural practices are strongly and consciously
> tied to the population density. For example, around 1600 A.D, the people
> agreed to slaughter all pigs on the island, and substitute fishing,
> because the pigs were taking too much food that could be eaten by
> people."
>
> Presumably the pigs themselves were eaten by people, but that was
> obviously a less efficient way of getting nutrition from a fixed amount
> of land.
>
> So, how can we realistically limit the population of Canterbury ? A good
> start would be to cap the amount of residential land in the region. To
> do this, we would allow land to revert to either rural zoning or have
> the development rights transferred to another location closer to an
> urban centre for higher density development. I believe this is already
> done overseas as a way of combating urban sprawl [3].
>
> The next step would be to start to gradually *reduce* the amount of
> residential land in a given urban area, or allow for the possibility of
> transferring that residential "credit" to another centre. This might
> help redistribute a greater number of people closer to the agricultural
> activities that will play a greater part in all of our lives in the
> coming years.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus#The_Principle_of_Population
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia
> [3] http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/landuse/transfer.shtml
>
> On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 01:55 +1200, Rik Tindall wrote:
>> Hello Andrew and CPI Forum,
>>
>> Firstly, of course, it is Federated Farmers that just added GMOs as
>> wave-riding atop the current (3, 6, or 9-yearly) self-defeating reflex
>> swing to the (resource-) exploitative political right: 'genetically
>> modified cattle-feed is needed to help feed the world' they say. So this
>> tops the list of the myths to be busted, in real food security planning.
>> (Cows take food and climate stability from people - it is them or us,
>> ultimately.) Then comes the anti green biofuel offensive, that would
>> grow uncontrolled poisoning emissions instead.
>>
>> Out of these two responses comes stage 1 of the viable, sustainable end
>> to starvation; and it's about time starvation became unacceptable to
>> all. Market faith, of course, has been the misguided cause of most
>> such wastage of humans in our time. So at last - with the credit crunch,
>> lit-fuse inflation, declining living, social, moral, and environmental
>> conditions, etc. - the market implodes its own myth of permanent
>> salvation, to be revealed as the heart of the (waste) problem; the meat
>> market, in particular (habituated bestial killing) - soon to be outmoded
>> by quality and quantity vegetable protein.
>>
>> Welcome is this invitation to outline the means for rapidly initiating
>> food security for Canterbury, and for the world. The answer is really
>> very simple. It begins with understanding - as only temporary - the
>> historic phase of cattle-herding. The market now demands a return of
>> land to seed, grain, and vegetable production, for feeding people better
>> with water efficiency and reduced emissions.
>>
>> Required is immediate public pressure on the Food Safety Authority via
>> government, to authorise hemp seed flour for human consumption. Hemp oil
>> is on sale, but the nutritious seed residue (Omega 3,6,9) goes to waste
>> - preventing an economy of scale for this quick-growing and
>> non-demanding energy crop. It requires little in the way of water,
>> pesticide, or fertiliser - being a nitrogen fixer - so really is the
>> answer for Canterbury's soil care too. ECan should be asked to request
>> this policy change from Government, in the same way that it secured a
>> National Environmental Standard for Air Quality to help bring in cleaner
>> heating - *authorise hemp seed flour for human consumption*.
>>
>> Our goal is to provide farmers with a revenue source surpassing that of
>> thirsty and polluting (A1) dairy production. Hemp will do that not only
>> through its great food value, but through the 2nd-generation biofuel
>> made from the rest of the plant and specific non-food plantings. It is a
>> true petroleum substitute, for making clothes, plastic and building
>> materials too. Hemp butter and milk can also be made from the seed, for
>> full food substitution.
>>
>> Cows are on the way out - not humans. "Over-population" relates to the
>> total mammalian load that our present, inefficient economic forms place
>> upon the Earth - not simply the breathing human portion of it. In NZ the
>> cattle population is over 7 million, rising annually - nearing double
>> the human population. But at approximately four times the average body
>> mass of a human being, those cattle will soon have eight times the
>> biological impact upon 'Clean Green Aotearoa-NZ' that people have, at
>> least. In global terms, "it's them or us" - get used to this choice; it
>> is one we are all going to have to make.
>>
>> andrew wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:36 +1200, Brian Sandle wrote:
>> >
>> >> I feel the Canterbury Plains with the proposed irrigation scheme may
>> >> be
>> >> a target for GMO biofuels and feed crops, with disaster in store for
>> >> us.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree, Brian, it would be a disaster. We're now well into the period
>> > that James Kunstler has dubbed the "Long Emergency" [1]. It's not your
>> > classic civil defence emergency that triggers our fight or flight
>> > response, and it's not business as usual which triggers our "sit on
>> > your
>> > backside and do nothing" response :-) - it's a whole new animal to deal
>> > with but deal with it we must.
>> >
>> > I think it's time for ECan, CCC and other groups to get together to do
>> > some strategic planning around medium-to-long term food security for
>> > the
>> > region. I know this is not within the normal scope of either agency,
>> > but
>> > these are not normal times ...
>> >
>> > Are there any politicians in the group (who are still listening)
>> > prepared to comment on this ?
>> >
>> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency
>>
>> All you can say is that grog-minded revenue-gatherers (belt-looseners)
>> will remain clueless, with nothing of substance to say to the public at
>> large. - Hence the 'leadership' vacuum on this forum, from vacuous
>> 'celebrity'. It is cheaper, for them, to extend the ancient Middle East
>> carnage instead. No wonder it is being replicated on our city streets
>> (sayeth The Press 23/6/08). Roll on 2010.
>>
>> The silence masks illogical and outmoded insistence that more irrigated
>> pasture, through artificial water storage, is going to somehow help
>> Canterbury survive the crisis it is part of creating - this "climate
>> adaptation" sales pitch is really climate aggravation, at the public
>> expense. It is a completely wrong direction, in terms of secure food
>> supply - so what is it, actually? (Just who is the 'Selwyn Plantation
>> Board' returning its dairy profits to? They once grew trees; check the
>> directors' fees.)
>>
>> Halt climate exploitation, we must.
>>
>> See also "Canterbury Energy strategy" thread:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/AxMuilUAnFucrptwYH1FP
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Tindall
>> Cashmere & South Christchurch most recently., Christchurch /
>> O-Tautahi
>> Info about Rik Tindall: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/riktindall
>>
>> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3mKjLqriqDpfJfeNuZUCAg
>> -----------------------------------------
>> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>>
>> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>>
>> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Andrew Groom
> Bryndwr, Christchurch
> Info about Andrew Groom: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewgroom
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3EyRN7zTYQYAaKH5Dt2TMB
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
3:51 PM
From:
Rik Tindall
Date:
2008 Jun 28 15:01 UTC
Short link
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your thought-provoking post, and congratulations on your new
role for CPIF. Many thanks to Dan for his solid service to e-democracy,
that you will now be continuing to the same very high standard I'm sure.
And greetings Garry Moore. As a new entrant to local politics, East
Christchurch representation, and to Travis Wetland walks, I have only
recently discovered the fine contribution to biodiversity conservation
that you have made, from early in your career, there. Thankyou greatly
for your part in that work. What an awesome community project.
So, to the present discussion..
andrew wrote:
> Hi Rik,
>
> Thanks for your comments on energy and food security for the region -
> very interesting reading.
>
> I'd only add one point: when you say that we need to put an end to
> hunger, I think it's the *way* we do that that is critical to our
> survival. I believe that instead of increasing food production (which,
> as Malthus has shown [1], inevitably leads to more people and therefore
> bigger food problems, and so on), we need to be actively reducing the
> population of the Canterbury region, both human and bovine.
As a key mover in the Urban Development Strategy, I am sure that Garry
would concur that there are immense drivers towards Christchurch and
Canterbury population growth, practically unstoppable (e.g. NZ govt
factoring us in). For that reason, as well as the global food demand,
and more, I believe we have no choice but to play our unavoidable part
in increased food production. Making it a question of which kind of food
production, that farmers need incentive from.
Grains, pulses and seeds were specialties of our arable region, and need
to be again - rewarding farmers as prices rise - for the calorific value
per hectare output. Nitrogen management and biomass byproducts, with
cellulose-producing rotations, are the keys to soil and water protection
while maximising the energy fixed from the sun. It must be possible to
grow food/energy more efficiently than we are now, and with less
chemical risk to our environment, solar-powered. This is a matter of
economic structures, renewable.
The thing about bovine over-population is that we have very specific
statistical and epidemiological frameworks to work within.
For a start, herd reduction to remove the A1 risk factor to human health
is growing into a moral imperative upon the dairy industry, should
affirmative action not begin soon. Substandard product merely awaits
official standards to catch up with it. An irresponsible, 'catch it if
you can / get away with it' (profiteering) attitude still dominates use
of rural, natural resources - a hardened culture of regulatory
non-compliance - and this must inevitably be changed, although of course
there are very many good and responsible producers undermined by that
regressive culture. Which is why accountability is nigh.
We can calculate exactly how many cows are sustainable in Canterbury,
and begin working towards that number.
4 per cent. Just 4% of the current herd is what we need to meet local
dairy demand, for this is the figure Fontera announced earlier this
month for NZ consumption of its total product. Allowing for near future
growth in Canterbury/NZ citizenry, let's say 5% may become local demand.
5% of seven million (the present NZ cattle population, which includes
steers) is 350,000 - a generous allocation of total cattle numbers. Now,
at 400,000 out of 4 million Kiwis, Canterbury's proportion of the NZ
human population is 10%. So that means 35,000 cows will meet local dairy
demand - a few more, or a few less. 35,000 is the limit of bovine
loading that Canterbury should, for the forseeable future, ever have to
accept.
There is no assumable right of intervention below that figure, because
people have the right to produce milk, to sell milk, to buy milk, and to
consume milk. But no more right than that. The problem with the current
system is that there is no moral right for people to export milk,
dehydrated, through the burning of coal. The carbon emission cost of
this practice, to every taxpayer (under emissions trading or not) is why
it must be stopped with haste. 35,000 cows can live here, and no more,
under equity.
How will the surplus cow number be restrained? Many believe that
emission share trading adds to waste problems more than it solves them -
administrative overheads, auditing difficulties, etc. - such that we
need a more urgent and direct measure.
We have already seen failure of the Labour Government's "fart tax". This
was a misnomer, that targeted the wrong end of our largest-polluting
animal. That's because the nitrous dioxide emanating from cow urine as
it breaks down in the ground even exceeds the greenhouse gas effect of
the methane and carbon dioxide these domesticated, over-abundant
creatures also make threateningly. The 'fart tax' aimed at the latter
gases, and tried to cost them, but the greater risk to air - and
particularly water - was missed. So we need an effective, more justified
dissuader instead.
Allow me to propose the Bovine Use of Resource Penalty - a BURP tax - to
systematically resolve the mounting threat to our water, atmospheric,
and ecological environment today.
This urgent measure would suffice to quickly limit the assassins of
under-developed peoples, and of consumer credit, as is both due and
equitable. Farm investors should calculate the local proportion of
35,000 cows, as their allowable herd size, and expect to face a highly
prohibitive BURP tax on every Daisy head beyond that.
> The case of Tikopia is relevant here, I believe [2]:
>
> "Tikopians practice an intensive permaculture system, similar in
> principle to forest gardening and the gardens of the New Guinea
> highlands. Their agricultural practices are strongly and consciously
> tied to the population density. For example, around 1600 A.D, the people
> agreed to slaughter all pigs on the island, and substitute fishing,
> because the pigs were taking too much food that could be eaten by
> people."
>
> Presumably the pigs themselves were eaten by people, but that was
> obviously a less efficient way of getting nutrition from a fixed amount
> of land.
A most true a parallel.
> So, how can we realistically limit the population of Canterbury? A good
> start would be to cap the amount of residential land in the region. To
> do this, we would allow land to revert to either rural zoning or have
> the development rights transferred to another location closer to an
> urban centre for higher density development. I believe this is already
> done overseas as a way of combating urban sprawl [3].
Also, we should initiate a political shift from GDP to GPI economic
valuations. That is, the rise in undertaker work - from alcohol and
P-based violence, and from the frenetic speed-up warring cyclists off
the road - all adds to GDP: a truly insane trading system.
> The next step would be to start to gradually *reduce* the amount of
> residential land in a given urban area, or allow for the possibility of
> transferring that residential "credit" to another centre. This might
> help redistribute a greater number of people closer to the agricultural
> activities that will play a greater part in all of our lives in the
> coming years.
Which would be better for everyone, towards quality of life: labour and
skills shortages are what will eventually break society, I believe, and
hunger can amplify those processes. Beyond a certain point, irrational
economics - meaning 'the market (manipulating fear and desire) can fix
everything' - can no longer maintain itself, and will implode upon its
base motivation. We have a rapidly closing window through which to head
off that animal fate.
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus#The_Principle_of_Population
The most appropriate adaptation to Malthusian limit is to reduce global
poverty, to increase global living standards - through infrastructural
improvement of water, housing, medical, education, and especially food
supplies, everywhere - so that poor people can afford to breed less.
Immediately, this means removing the pressure of luxury dairy produce
upon those food and water supplies for which the disadvantaged are
having to compete. Then we must resolve the growing international
resource contests, such that military budgets can be diverted into the
world's necessity-supply structure, to stem population growth. ('Plan A'
seems to be to starve, by 'market accident', the 'surplus human
population', with devastating shades of holocaust.)
The remedy is all doable, via united popular support, since 'we' made
the problem (pre-rationally) as an evolving social species (like bees
and ants). It is also most urgent, because the dinosaur-scale writing is
on the ecological cave wall, science says (with no better insight
available to us than that) and with an increasingly primal voice.
This is about mammals exhausting plant-life oxygen, by killing the seas,
forests and biodiversity, creating enough heat to bring on the biggest
ice age Earth has seen for an inestimable time - to wipe all mammals and
oxygen breathers out - potentially.
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia
> [3] http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/landuse/transfer.shtml
So we need to get on with it, and fast.
Good luck.
Regards, Rik
From:
Irinka Britnell
Date:
2008 Jun 29 06:07 UTC
Short link
Has anyone else seen that movie that was around about 12 or so years ago
called "Stopping the Coming Ice Age" ? The theory was that the heating up of
the planet and the green house gases were in fact the engine of a coming
Ice Age.
But apart from that I think we need to get back to planting our own gardens
which surely will reduce demand on food shortages. All the more reason not
to shove the masses into poky dependent high rise apartments.
Irinka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rik Tindall" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Food security for Canterbury
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your thought-provoking post, and congratulations on your new
> role for CPIF. Many thanks to Dan for his solid service to e-democracy,
> that you will now be continuing to the same very high standard I'm sure.
>
> And greetings Garry Moore. As a new entrant to local politics, East
> Christchurch representation, and to Travis Wetland walks, I have only
> recently discovered the fine contribution to biodiversity conservation
> that you have made, from early in your career, there. Thankyou greatly
> for your part in that work. What an awesome community project.
>
> So, to the present discussion..
>
> andrew wrote:
>> Hi Rik,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments on energy and food security for the region -
>> very interesting reading.
>>
>> I'd only add one point: when you say that we need to put an end to
>> hunger, I think it's the *way* we do that that is critical to our
>> survival. I believe that instead of increasing food production (which,
>> as Malthus has shown [1], inevitably leads to more people and therefore
>> bigger food problems, and so on), we need to be actively reducing the
>> population of the Canterbury region, both human and bovine.
>
> As a key mover in the Urban Development Strategy, I am sure that Garry
> would concur that there are immense drivers towards Christchurch and
> Canterbury population growth, practically unstoppable (e.g. NZ govt
> factoring us in). For that reason, as well as the global food demand,
> and more, I believe we have no choice but to play our unavoidable part
> in increased food production. Making it a question of which kind of food
> production, that farmers need incentive from.
>
> Grains, pulses and seeds were specialties of our arable region, and need
> to be again - rewarding farmers as prices rise - for the calorific value
> per hectare output. Nitrogen management and biomass byproducts, with
> cellulose-producing rotations, are the keys to soil and water protection
> while maximising the energy fixed from the sun. It must be possible to
> grow food/energy more efficiently than we are now, and with less
> chemical risk to our environment, solar-powered. This is a matter of
> economic structures, renewable.
>
> The thing about bovine over-population is that we have very specific
> statistical and epidemiological frameworks to work within.
>
> For a start, herd reduction to remove the A1 risk factor to human health
> is growing into a moral imperative upon the dairy industry, should
> affirmative action not begin soon. Substandard product merely awaits
> official standards to catch up with it. An irresponsible, 'catch it if
> you can / get away with it' (profiteering) attitude still dominates use
> of rural, natural resources - a hardened culture of regulatory
> non-compliance - and this must inevitably be changed, although of course
> there are very many good and responsible producers undermined by that
> regressive culture. Which is why accountability is nigh.
>
> We can calculate exactly how many cows are sustainable in Canterbury,
> and begin working towards that number.
>
> 4 per cent. Just 4% of the current herd is what we need to meet local
> dairy demand, for this is the figure Fontera announced earlier this
> month for NZ consumption of its total product. Allowing for near future
> growth in Canterbury/NZ citizenry, let's say 5% may become local demand.
>
> 5% of seven million (the present NZ cattle population, which includes
> steers) is 350,000 - a generous allocation of total cattle numbers. Now,
> at 400,000 out of 4 million Kiwis, Canterbury's proportion of the NZ
> human population is 10%. So that means 35,000 cows will meet local dairy
> demand - a few more, or a few less. 35,000 is the limit of bovine
> loading that Canterbury should, for the forseeable future, ever have to
> accept.
>
> There is no assumable right of intervention below that figure, because
> people have the right to produce milk, to sell milk, to buy milk, and to
> consume milk. But no more right than that. The problem with the current
> system is that there is no moral right for people to export milk,
> dehydrated, through the burning of coal. The carbon emission cost of
> this practice, to every taxpayer (under emissions trading or not) is why
> it must be stopped with haste. 35,000 cows can live here, and no more,
> under equity.
>
> How will the surplus cow number be restrained? Many believe that
> emission share trading adds to waste problems more than it solves them -
> administrative overheads, auditing difficulties, etc. - such that we
> need a more urgent and direct measure.
>
> We have already seen failure of the Labour Government's "fart tax". This
> was a misnomer, that targeted the wrong end of our largest-polluting
> animal. That's because the nitrous dioxide emanating from cow urine as
> it breaks down in the ground even exceeds the greenhouse gas effect of
> the methane and carbon dioxide these domesticated, over-abundant
> creatures also make threateningly. The 'fart tax' aimed at the latter
> gases, and tried to cost them, but the greater risk to air - and
> particularly water - was missed. So we need an effective, more justified
> dissuader instead.
>
> Allow me to propose the Bovine Use of Resource Penalty - a BURP tax - to
> systematically resolve the mounting threat to our water, atmospheric,
> and ecological environment today.
>
> This urgent measure would suffice to quickly limit the assassins of
> under-developed peoples, and of consumer credit, as is both due and
> equitable. Farm investors should calculate the local proportion of
> 35,000 cows, as their allowable herd size, and expect to face a highly
> prohibitive BURP tax on every Daisy head beyond that.
>
>> The case of Tikopia is relevant here, I believe [2]:
>>
>> "Tikopians practice an intensive permaculture system, similar in
>> principle to forest gardening and the gardens of the New Guinea
>> highlands. Their agricultural practices are strongly and consciously
>> tied to the population density. For example, around 1600 A.D, the people
>> agreed to slaughter all pigs on the island, and substitute fishing,
>> because the pigs were taking too much food that could be eaten by
>> people."
>>
>> Presumably the pigs themselves were eaten by people, but that was
>> obviously a less efficient way of getting nutrition from a fixed amount
>> of land.
>
> A most true a parallel.
>
>> So, how can we realistically limit the population of Canterbury? A good
>> start would be to cap the amount of residential land in the region. To
>> do this, we would allow land to revert to either rural zoning or have
>> the development rights transferred to another location closer to an
>> urban centre for higher density development. I believe this is already
>> done overseas as a way of combating urban sprawl [3].
>
> Also, we should initiate a political shift from GDP to GPI economic
> valuations. That is, the rise in undertaker work - from alcohol and
> P-based violence, and from the frenetic speed-up warring cyclists off
> the road - all adds to GDP: a truly insane trading system.
>
>> The next step would be to start to gradually *reduce* the amount of
>> residential land in a given urban area, or allow for the possibility of
>> transferring that residential "credit" to another centre. This might
>> help redistribute a greater number of people closer to the agricultural
>> activities that will play a greater part in all of our lives in the
>> coming years.
>
> Which would be better for everyone, towards quality of life: labour and
> skills shortages are what will eventually break society, I believe, and
> hunger can amplify those processes. Beyond a certain point, irrational
> economics - meaning 'the market (manipulating fear and desire) can fix
> everything' - can no longer maintain itself, and will implode upon its
> base motivation. We have a rapidly closing window through which to head
> off that animal fate.
>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus#The_Principle_of_Population
>
> The most appropriate adaptation to Malthusian limit is to reduce global
> poverty, to increase global living standards - through infrastructural
> improvement of water, housing, medical, education, and especially food
> supplies, everywhere - so that poor people can afford to breed less.
> Immediately, this means removing the pressure of luxury dairy produce
> upon those food and water supplies for which the disadvantaged are
> having to compete. Then we must resolve the growing international
> resource contests, such that military budgets can be diverted into the
> world's necessity-supply structure, to stem population growth. ('Plan A'
> seems to be to starve, by 'market accident', the 'surplus human
> population', with devastating shades of holocaust.)
>
> The remedy is all doable, via united popular support, since 'we' made
> the problem (pre-rationally) as an evolving social species (like bees
> and ants). It is also most urgent, because the dinosaur-scale writing is
> on the ecological cave wall, science says (with no better insight
> available to us than that) and with an increasingly primal voice.
>
> This is about mammals exhausting plant-life oxygen, by killing the seas,
> forests and biodiversity, creating enough heat to bring on the biggest
> ice age Earth has seen for an inestimable time - to wipe all mammals and
> oxygen breathers out - potentially.
>
>> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia
>> [3] http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/landuse/transfer.shtml
>
> So we need to get on with it, and fast.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Regards, Rik
>
> Richard Tindall
> Cashmere & South Christchurch most recently., Christchurch / O-Tautahi
> Info about Rik Tindall: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/riktindall
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5bkUjL3kF5DUofBsNHEeMN
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1513 - Release Date: 6/22/2008
> 7:52 AM
>
From:
Craig Burton
Date:
2008 Jul 03 21:57 UTC
Short link
I've been out of action on this forum for a while but thought I would pen my
thoughts. What we are facing today is denial. This denial stems from the
development of the suburban model for living that came out of the second world
war (after the soldiers came home) was chosen by countries (particularly the
US) as the model to follow for the 20th century. The industrial age brought
with it incrediblae access to to consumables and luxuries that previously only
the wealthy could afford. Likewise cheap oil meant that people could travel,
buy the things that made them "feel happy" and take them home to their lovely
secure homes with white picket fences.
What we are seeing today is that that model was and has always been flawed
because it was based entirely on energy resurces that are not renewable. The
suburban model is and will fail. And what we are facing today locally,
nationally and internationally is a state of denial that people don't want to
see an end to the way of life that they are use to.
Peak oil and peak gas means an end to what we have been use to. We need to
change where we live, the way we live, and the way we consume. Yes, you can
stay in denial and believe that everyone is lying and there are plenty of
reserves. The reality is that no new oil has been found. Increasing production
does not mean more oil. It simply means that they are speeding up the process
of using it up.
Don't get me wrong. I hate the Greens. I hate Kioto and I hate the taxes that
local and national government have and are going to impose on us. We are one
big social experiment for the US and around the world.
What is required now is an extreme change in local government policy to address
urban and suburban living. Big house building needs to be a thing of the past.
Development of food supplies, distance issues and energy security other than
fossil fuels needs to be resolved. Unfortunately to date, there is no back up
plan when, in 10 years time we are facing power crisis after crisis, and
heating of homes becomes something that only the rich can afford, and we have
to car pool to go and get our groceries. What happens when power companies
refuse to invest in new power generation because it's not affordable and their
investors will see no gain for their input. What happens when we can't clothe
our children because because China holds the world at ransom because the US
won't provide it with any more oil from the reserves it controls? Hey, China's
reserves won't last forever.
What happens when the recession hits a depression. Ow dear, the big "D" word.
Is not the worlds economy based on growth and that growth dependent on oil?
A good start is waking up to reality.
From:
Kerry McK
Date:
2008 Jul 04 07:04 UTC
Short link
Craig, I don't think you actually hate the greens at all. Your basic
tenet of what life should be about seems to come from the most people
getting the most out of life. What that really is I think is
sustainability.
From the Green people I have met this is what we are about too. Don't
hate just for the sake of it Craig, imagine how much better off NZ would
be now, if Greens had had more sway in all types of Govt 10 years ago,
and Better Public Transport, Less freighting around of goods, and less
pollution had become major policies. We would have long since started
implementing the solutions the entire oil dependent west is now
searching for.
I think good future oriented economics and basic Greens policy go hand
in hand.
It's up to us to make sure Local and Central Govt keep the focus on what
we think will really make our lives better. Sustainable growth is at the
heart of that.
Yours Kerry McKenna
Craig Burton wrote:
> I've been out of action on this forum for a while but thought I would pen my
thoughts. What we are facing today is denial. This denial stems from the
development of the suburban model for living that came out of the second world
war (after the soldiers came home) was chosen by countries (particularly the
US) as the model to follow for the 20th century. The industrial age brought
with it incrediblae access to to consumables and luxuries that previously only
the wealthy could afford. Likewise cheap oil meant that people could travel,
buy the things that made them "feel happy" and take them home to their lovely
secure homes with white picket fences.
>
> What we are seeing today is that that model was and has always been flawed
because it was based entirely on energy resurces that are not renewable. The
suburban model is and will fail. And what we are facing today locally,
nationally and internationally is a state of denial that people don't want to
see an end to the way of life that they are use to.
>
> Peak oil and peak gas means an end to what we have been use to. We need to
change where we live, the way we live, and the way we consume. Yes, you can
stay in denial and believe that everyone is lying and there are plenty of
reserves. The reality is that no new oil has been found. Increasing production
does not mean more oil. It simply means that they are speeding up the process
of using it up.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I hate the Greens. I hate Kioto and I hate the taxes that
local and national government have and are going to impose on us. We are one
big social experiment for the US and around the world.
>
> What is required now is an extreme change in local government policy to
address urban and suburban living. Big house building needs to be a thing of
the past. Development of food supplies, distance issues and energy security
other than fossil fuels needs to be resolved. Unfortunately to date, there is
no back up plan when, in 10 years time we are facing power crisis after crisis,
and heating of homes becomes something that only the rich can afford, and we
have to car pool to go and get our groceries. What happens when power companies
refuse to invest in new power generation because it's not affordable and their
investors will see no gain for their input. What happens when we can't clothe
our children because because China holds the world at ransom because the US
won't provide it with any more oil from the reserves it controls? Hey, China's
reserves won't last forever.
>
> What happens when the recession hits a depression. Ow dear, the big "D" word.
Is not the worlds economy based on growth and that growth dependent on oil?