Fight foodmiles now

Phil Goff has missed the point. Tesco's plan wont hurt New Zealand exporters in itself, but the philosophical mantra behind food miles does, and it is almost universally unquestioned. I have yet to see a single item on British TV questioning food miles, and the items in the newspapers are rare indeed. You see, the food miles myth is as good as fact in the minds of many many consumers in the UK.

If you are a NZ farmer, read very very carefully, your livelihood is at stake. Whether or not you believe global warming is occurring, and regardless of your political philosophy, you need to take an initiative, together to fight the propaganda coming from the European farming sector, many European politicians and the mass media about "food miles". Why? It is becoming also quasi-religious to "avoid food miles and save the planet", when you and I both know things are far from that simple.

^

You could embark on a campaign denying global warming, but frankly that is a bigger battle and one you are poorly equipped to fight. However, what you can fight is the "food miles" faith, based on evidence.

^

The entire NZ agricultural export sector needs to take out full page ads in the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and the Daily Telegraph (not cheap) for starters (and then work on the rest of Europe) explaining the carbon footprint for NZ lamb vs UK lamb, NZ butter and cheese vs UK butter and cheese. You might also explain how much you might sell these products to the UK market if the EU didn't impose quotas and tariffs, let alone the effect of subsidising your competitors.

^

You need to do it this year, and if you can use television as well, then the better. This campaign will cost multiple tens of millions of dollars, but you need to do it.

^

The food miles fad isn't just followed by a minority of environmentalists in the UK, it is accepted mainstream mantra. You want proof? Well see these reports in the past few weeks in ALL major UK media outlets:

- Daily Telegraph;

- The Times and again;

- The Independent (French rather than NZ wine) and again;

- Guardian and again;

- BBC and again and again and again.

^

I live in the UK, I hear "food miles" nearly every day from somewhere and it is frustrating, but it has caught on. Naive reporters on television urge people at every turn to think about food miles, and New Zealand is mentioned rather frequently. No Right Turn is spot on that it is time to wake up and realise what a threat this is. While I don't agree with Sue Kedgley that some farmers should target markets closer to home, and that the sector should buy into carbon footprints as the be all and end all, sacrificing other factors for competitiveness, she is right that this is changing consumer behaviour.

^

On a side note, I haven't heard that the British Greens have written back to the NZ Greens about food miles, after Russel Norman wrote to correct misinformation about food miles. I guess this says a lot about how committed British Greens are to the environment rather than protectionism.

^

By the way, these two reports remain the main evidence i know of to date about why food miles are a bad proxy for environmental impact. You can't publicise these enough.

A different approach to global warming

Now there are three approaches you can take to the notion of human induced global warming:
^
1. Accept the evidence of those who think there is insufficient evidence;
2. Acknowledge it could be happening or may not be, but taking a precautionary approach to responding to it (government removes interventions that encourage more energy use, while enhancing freedom and prosperity, while people can choose to do whatever they wish);
3. Proclaim it is happening, we are all doomed and the government must intervene on a scale and in a manner akin to a war footing (the Green Party approach).
^
In all cases it is wise to reappraise your response according to evidence as it accumulates.
^
There are risks in each approach. The risk in the first approach is that it IS happening and has serious negative effects, and it becomes more costly to respond in the longer term. Presumably the more evidence appears of this, the less appropriate it is to take this stance.
^
The risk in the third approach is that you throw away your standard of living, and risk people’s health and lives by wasting money on measures that have little effect. Indeed, as long as there is little response from countries such as China, India and the USA, then the efforts of smaller countries are effectively to impose costs with little return. Another enormous risk is that the benefits of “taking steps” to address climate change may be outweighed by the costs. Bjorn Lomborg best described it in his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, which is slammed by many ecologists, when he explained that net human welfare could be improved far more significantly by paying for all people to have access to clean drinking water, than by responding to climate change. Of course this involves economics – the study of tradeoffs, and many ecologists have a parsimonious understanding of economics at best.
^
So I take the second approach. I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to justify a worldwide panic, but most importantly the policy agenda for responding to it has been hijacked by a left wing statist approach that carries all the risks of the third approach. Certainly some in the left and the ecologist movement see global warming as manna from heaven, because it is a convenient justification for widescale government intervention and for the religion of ecologists to be followed against the deadly sins of energy and transport. The hatred of some ecologists towards the private car is well known and quite visceral. However, there is plenty that can be done that would reduce “greenhouse gas emissions” while increasing personal freedom and not having a negative long term effect on the economy. Here are some:

^
- Cease any subsidies for energy production, consumption or exploration for energy resources;
- Privatise all energy producers (Solid Energy, 3 power generators/retailers and Transpower) so they are all profit maximising, which means they will more relentlessly pursue efficiency and charging what users can bear. This may mean some prices drop and others increase. Meanwhile a core of consumers are likely to pay a premium for renewable energy, let the market respond to that demand;
- Commercialise and privatise all highways and major roads, allowing the new owners to toll them and particularly charge a premium at congested times. Even the crude London congestion charging scheme reduced CO2 emissions by 16%, while also reducing congestion and improving overall air quality. Profit maximising road companies would price congestion off the roads, making all traffic flow more freely and efficiently. It would also improve the viability of public transport and even railways and sea freight;
- End subsidies to public transport and all other transport modes. Once roads are commercially priced then public transport can stand on its own merits and will cost more. This means people will walk and cycle more, and are more likely to shop, work and live closer together, WITHOUT new urbanist central planning. At the moment governments subsidise transport in many different ways, ending this would be painful, but might make a huge difference;
- End welfare payments for having children. Forget the car or a flight to London, having kids is the single most carbon intensive thing you can ever do. The state should have nothing to do with encouraging this, it is time to abolish Working for Families, tax credits for families and declare an end to claiming for additional children on welfare, and start phasing out the DPB;
- Privatise all refuse collection. Councils already subsidise this in some cases (not others). If everyone had to pay for rubbish collection it may mean you think more about what you accumulate. The problem of “fly tippers” (as they are called in the UK) is a matter of law enforcement, privately owned highway owners wont tolerate it and it is a gross example of pollution that the state seems unconcerned about, because it isn’t as sexy as “carbon footprints”.

^
There will be more examples, but essentially it is about the state no longer giving preference to measures that are energy intensive, while reducing its role and the distortions it imposes on individual choice. However, I can’t see the Greens buying it, because they worship public transport, and can’t stand the idea that, fundamentally, all people might pay for what they use. On top of that, there is nothing to stop people taking their own steps, wise or foolish though they may be. However it should be evidence based, not the faith based initiative it currently is.

Genius Kedgley is anti cloned meat because...

animals die making it. Unlike all that other meat right....?

^

In addition, she lists absolutely no health risks whatsoever from eating it, but demands it is regulated. Yes, so she cares about lots of animals dying, but is she right about what she is saying? What farmer would rationally undertake a practice that will see more animals die than be sold? oops i forgot the Greens aren't too good on economic rationalism...

^

So here we go:

^

- Name one independently verifiable example of a person harmed by cloned food.

while we're at it...

- Name one independently verifiable example of a person harmed by food containing genetically modified ingredients.

John Key and the speech few disagree with

Not PC has pithily blogged about this rather non-event. Since I had quite a bit of coffee this morning, I thought I’d read the speech and I’m underwhelmed. How many of you get excited by this pablum? PC is right that if Jordan Carter agrees with most of it, what the hell is going on? I’ll tell you – the Nats have, once again, reverted to the ugly, whorish behaviour of outdoing the left. The speech is all very nice indeed, the Greens don't like it because they think welfare funded through threat of violence is a Gaia given right which no one should question (demanding beneficiaries work is "bashing" them, but demanding that people who work pay for them is a "social obligation").

^

The last time the Nats tried to outdo the left was in 1975 when, despite the dancing Cossacks commercials, Rob Muldoon completely socialised and inflated pensions with National Superannuation, a massive drag upon the economy and disincentive to saving – he then proceeded to embark on an economic policy that, with few exceptions, was about Soviet style central planning. Now John Key goes on about “The Kiwi Way” (notice the caps, rather Leninist really) to tug at heart strings about nationalism and identity, or rather largely meaningless platitudes. I shouldn';t be so negative though. Helen Clark is, after all, a statist controller of the left, so NZ badly needs an alternative, so I thought I’d identify the key points Key made:

1. “the solution doesn't lie in just throwing more money at the problem” (not JUST, so he believes in throwing more of your money at the problem. I am sure Labour doesn’t believe it is just throwing money at the problem either. The Greens do, since they support increases in welfare with no accountability for it. Next!) “I'm interested in what works and what makes a difference” (yes because Labour isn’t. What rot!) So he will throw more money at the problem, your money remember, and he wants it to make a difference. Shall we give him a last chance to prove whether this can work or not??
2. “Under any government I lead there will be no parole for repeat violent offenders” (Good, something substantial, but not new. Brash already said that, it's not dead yet, but the Nats love speaking tough on crime).
3. “We have to ensure that Kiwis, even those with relatively low skills, are always better off working than being on a benefit. We have to insist that healthy people receiving assistance from the State have obligations, whether that be looking for work, acquiring new skills for work, or working in their community.” (This means either benefits get cut, abatement rates are cut drastically, taxes are cut drastically, or jobs are subsidised. It also means working for the dole. Nothing bad about this, but it is very modest, and no actual policy, just words).
4. “A National government will challenge the business community to work with us in backing a programme of providing food in low-decile schools for kids in need.” (Are these the same kids who are obese? How about making welfare a carrot and stick for their families? How about simply cutting taxes so businesses and people can do this? Cutting GST to 10% would help reduce the costs of food. What evidence is there of serious malnutrition and if there is, why aren't the families involved being hauled up by CYFS for it?)
5. “A National government will work with schools, sports clubs, businesses and community groups to ensure that more kids from deprived backgrounds get to play sport.” (“Work with” means spend your money. Kids from deprived backgrounds largely need to learn to “reed rite n spul” first, but hey throw them a rugby ball and they’ll be happy for years, until they can’t get a job. I remember playing all sorts of games without real equipment as a kid, all you needed was a park, some sort of ball and a stick. This needs little organising and no money. You improvise, but that isn’t cool anymore).

So how is that substantially different from Labour, other than maybe shifting the bureaucracy and being slightly tougher on welfare? Without much more on policy it is hard to tell, and I'm unsure why. How many beneficiaries vote National?

^

Not PC’s link to the latest Roy Morgan poll shows a drop in support for National, to the same level as Labour, which is telling - the "me too" politics of Key/English inspires little compared to what Brash did, and Labour knows it. After all, it is far easier to fight on your own philosophical battle ground that on someone elses.

^

Working a charm this strategy isn’t it?

^

So what can we call it? It is:

a) The Third Way of Blair, with a new slogan “The Kiwi Way”. The British Labour Party New Zealand Branch in other words. Given that NZ Labour is somewhat to the left of Blair it would fit nicely, and matches the same sort of vapidity that passes for policy in the UK Tory Party today;

b) Socialism is inevitable. This is the unofficial strategy of the UK Conservative Party (and the NZ National Party) until 1979 (1987) respectively. In essence it declares that the state is ever destined to continue to grow, that the role of the state will grow, that the left is the intellectual strength behind government in modern liberal democracies and that all the National/Conservative Parties can do is tinker with it and stop it getting worse while in power. This means the Nats believe that less government simply isn't popular and people don't want it. Thatcher and Richardson smashed those legacies for a generation, but were stabbed in the back by colleagues who are part of …

c) Born to rule. Many National/Conservative Party politicians believe they are part of a ruling class, best positioned to “manage” the country and look after the broad masses. The philosophy behind this is largely to tinker, to tell people off (and pass laws to ban things) when they are not behaving “appropriately”, give people a few alms (tax cuts, subsidies, extra funds here and there) to keep them happy and generally do very little other than frighten people about Labour. There is a disdain for those on the left who they instinctively despise, and those on the meritorious free market right, who don’t have a sense of “social responsibility” (patronising towards those who are poor).

As Tony Milne welcomes it, and his excellent “tagcrowd” shows what little meaning there is in Key’s speech, then you have to ask yourself – what is the point of the National Party other than being a club for people from a non-union, teacher, lecturer background to run for government?

^

Well I can be optimistic about one thing. Key seems to understand that welfare dependency is bad and something needs to be done about it. What he doesn’t understand is that it is cultural, it is about an overwhelming culture amongst too many people that it is ok to bludge off the back of other people if you can get away with it, and those who are successful in making a go of it should be sneered at and expected to pay for everyone else.

^

If Key can communicate that, then he may be onto a winner – meanwhile he talks mother and apple pie, if many of you are seduced by it then it proves the point that it's far more important to be the new face and say nice things, than to have some serious thoughts and proposals. Mind you, isn't that the basis upon which almost all local body politicians are elected?

Working for other peoples' money unfair

Sue Bradford opposes working for the dole - because, you see, the Greens believe that if you can't find a job you like, everyone else should be forced to pay for you. You are "entitled" to have your existence paid for by other people working and surrendering between a quarter and half of their earnings under threat (taxes), but shouldn't be required to do anything for it. Notice what a winning formula that has been for certain generations of no-hopers.

^

Personally I'd start reform of the dole by putting a one-year limit on it, and you wouldn't be able to claim more than three years in your life. I'd also stop inflation indexing it, so that it gradually became less and less attractive as people's backstop. This would encourage people to save or take out income insurance. Beneficiary bashing? Well, it would be nice if beneficiaries were grateful for those giving them money for nothing extracted by force, or maybe they want to ask for support next time. Imagine that - asking instead of demanding help. That starting reform would be in the context of a coalition government, serious reform would put a one-year time limit on the dole, after which it would be abolished.