Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The way I read it, it was that it would allow additional yield of milk and meat from the same stock of animals, but I'm happy to be corrected on that.
Yes, I recall similar things from the last time this development was mentioned, but you can be quite sure that NZ farmers will take it as a licence to increase stock numbers if at all possible: more stock producing more meat/milk equals more money.
-
or is just the sheer number of cows causing the issue?
Pretty much. That and the fact that methane is a more-damaging greenhouse gas than CO2. Since methane is the primary component of bovine (and all ruminant animals, no?) flatulence, more cows equals more farting equals more methane equals more damage.
-
Many of my misgivings about the Greens relate to their policies on GM. Even pulling up trial crops is apparently an acceptable course of action to the likes of Fitzsimons: not condemning is to lend tacit approval. Now, true to that form, they cannot bring themselves to consider the possibility that GM can bring about outcomes that benefit the environment, animals, and the national economy.
That this is being done by, effectively, selective breeding, and still the Greens cannot get beyond their traditional, knee-jerk reaction, speaks volumes about their true dedication to environmental improvement. If Norman's argument was based on the unsustainable nature of our agriculture industry (waterway pollution, pasture destruction, etc), and he opposed this development as being a false prophet of agricultural sustainability, that would be understandable. Instead he rambles and waffles and obfuscates in a manner worthy of Rodney Hide being asked who's going to benefit financially from the Megatropolis developments.
-
My bad.
And, really, I wouldn't want to bet a steak dinner on the likelihood of National actually showing some leadership on the matter. Might be a different story if Shane Jones was in serious danger of a prosecution in the same dock as Tim Grosser, though. -
Craig, I don't equate the public interests with National's interests. Especially given that quite a large swathe of the public don't consider National to be acting in the public's best interests.
-
One strong argument against prosecution is the two-year statute of limitations. We're fewer than five months away from National's second anniversary, meaning that the vast majority of liability on the part of former Labour ministers is already under the carpet. By the time an investigation is carried out, evidence procured, opinions sought from Crown Law, etc, all but the very closing minutes of the Fourth Labour Government will be out of reach. Given that this behaviour crosses party lines, is the public interest actually served by prosecutions based on technicalities and, by dint of the legislation's wording, able to be directed at only the ruling party?
-
The only sinner from National's ranks worthy of Granny's front page was Tim Grosser, I notice. Have they not finished going through National's receipts yet? Or was Labour just the desired target, and Grosser was only there to stop cries of foul play? Hard to tell.
-
I disagree with John Armstrong: I think the news media have been petty over a good part of this.
My favourite is still Helen's $20 gumboots when visiting flood-damaged parts of the Bay of Plenty. If that was the sole margin-call charge on her ministerial credit card in the last five years of Labour's term, that's financial probity worthy of a monk. Especially since I, personally, would call that a totally reasonable work-related expense.
-
$100 per diems are pretty standard in the private sector (on the low side, really). Three people on a month long visit to Europe = $10,000.
NZD100 won't get you very far for a day in Europe. Given that the exchange rate sits around the 0.5 mark, that's EUR50 to try and feed yourself, including tips, without resorting to dining at McD's. If you're in the UK, it's even worse.
-
I, for one, will welcome our new, perfect, robot overlords.