or why wholesale capitalism will not save the world...
At a time when all of the world should be aware of, and trying to mimimise and reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions, it seems in fact, that the industrialised and westernised countries are actually increasing the load they are placing on our environment. The call for biofuels for example, which sounds so laudatory initially, is resulting in large tracts of forest being cut down to make room for the growing of more grain products. In a similar way the demand for soy based products has also resulted in wholesale slashing of indigenous forest in countries like Brazil and has been instrumental in destroying huge areas of Amazon rainforest and is encouraging still further deforestation. Here in New Zealand the growth "industry" is dairying. Overseas prices for our milk and milk products doubled in the last year and our country's 11,000 dairy farmers are set to reap the riches. Fonterra, our country's biggest company collectively owned by 95% of dairy farmers estimated that each kilogram of milk solids (10 litres of milk produces about 1kg of milk solids) that farmers produced would be worth $6.40NZ for the year ending June 2008. Last year the farmers had got $4.46NZ a kg. This means that an average Kiwi dairy farmer will get more than $200,000NZ extra this year and the country's economy an additional $2.4 billionNZ. Needless to say farmers are tripping over themselves to convert to dairy farming. Sheep farming is out. $6.40 per kg for milk solids is a whole lot more attractive than $3.70 per kg for lamb. However the expansion into dairy will come and is coming with major detrimental effects and stresses for the environment and Fonterra is not picking up the tab. As the picture above shows, deforestation of native bush in order to create more pasture is one of the first effects, for example more than 60,000ha of forest is being converted to dairying just north of Lake Taupo - that's an area about the size of the lake itself. Deforestation in itself causes a rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Add to that, that 38% of all our greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand comes from the ever-increasing herds of dairy cows and you should see where I am coming from. Herds of dairy cows are New Zealand's biggest contributor to global warming. This is a a very different scenario to other western countries where industrial emissions are their largest contributors. If New Zealand only kept enough cows to supply meat, dairy products and leather goods to ourselves this would all be sustainable, but dairy has now become our biggest industry. It accounts for 20% of our exports, and injects $8 billionNZ into our economy. The New Zealand Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard had this to say. " In large part, the recent gains in dairy prices can be traced back to a basic imbalance between global demand and supply. Global demand for protein has been on a structural uptrend for some time. Demand for protein is very income sensitive and rising income levels in emerging markets have led to improvements in diet, incorporating more meat, eggs and milk. In recent years, the strongest growth in consumption of dairy products has come from emerging Asian markets, particularly China." Hayley Moynihan, Senior Analyst, Rabobank Food and Agribusiness Research, says the past ten years have been a "honeymoon" period for the New Zealand dairy industry – with dairy conversions, record production levels, the formation of Fonterra and the emergence of new processors, topped off more recently by stellar international commodity prices. Rising oil prices have also had a positive impact for New Zealand’s dairy exports. The resulting increase in wealth in the Middle East has seen this region grow to account for 18 per cent of total dairy exports. " As oil income drives wealth, people are consuming more dairy products. There appears to be a strong correlation between WMP imports to the Middle East and oil prices. Domestic production in the Middle East is increasing, but this is not expected to keep pace with demand growth. Rabobank expects demand for dairy products from this region and North Africa to grow at around five per cent per annum through to 2010," said Ms Moynihan. However, none of this benefits the Kiwi consumer. A recent visit to the local supermarket saw me paying $4.99NZ for a pound of butter (it was $2.20ishNZ a couple of months ago). The prices of cheese, milk and any other associated product is rocketing skywards as well. The cheapest 1kg of cheese I can buy currently is $11.99NZ. Fonterra charges us the same prices as it can sell product for overseas - why should they sell for less, they say. Well I can think of a reason or two. Water is a finite resource... The district of Canterbury has the driest climate in New Zealand, uses 58% of our country's water and already has 70% of our irrigated land. Canterbury is not a suitable area for dairy farming (it takes 1000 litres of water to produce one litre of milk), but since 1991 cow numbers in Canterbury have quadrupled to more than 650,000 cows and there are projections that this could double within the next decade. Already many lowland rivers are reduced to thin threads and underground aquifers are being sucked dry as farmers demand more of the groundwater for irrigation and use in sheds. There is now strong criticism levelled at the regional council, Environment Canterbury (Ecan) which, until recently, have allowed thousands of water permits to be taken out. In some places water is being taken out more quickly than the underground aquifers can recharge themselves. My regular readers may remember my blog titled "Murky Waters" about the commercialisation of some Canterbury water and realise more, why I was so annoyed.
In Conclusion
The environment and health costs are not transmitted through markets for the goods produced. Runoff containing effluent and fertiliser contaminates water resources. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions damage the air we breathe, the land we walk on, the water supply that we drink from. The costs of environmental degradation and human health effects are borne by society at large - the consumers and the tax payers and the future generations who get to pay for the cleanup, perhaps not only by money alone, and on the global scale all of us. The bottom line here is that we human beings no longer have the luxury of the people in the past who for their immediate benefit cleared forests and killed whales. We cannot continue to just exploit all our resources as though there is no tomorrow - or it may well happen that there will indeed be no tomorrow. We need to be running our world with the primary goal of the common good for all to the forefront of our minds and not to be only concerned with the individualistic profits of the corporate sectors which benefit so few of us.
 | What an excellent blog Iri Ani.
It was the writer, Frank Sargeson, who said that the trouble with NZ'ers is that they mine their land instead of being good caretakers of it. A lot of the world now seems to be going the same way. I have been looking at blogs from Americans who are based in China, and it seems that even China, which was one of the ultimate countries for good farming, are following that quick-buck method as I see from these blogger's photographs huge acres, nearly as far as the eye can see of single crops, such as tomatoes and the farmers are now relying on the artificial fertilisers of the west. A recent BBC interview with one of China's top bankers said ( among other things) they are exporting such a high proportion of their food and that the very poor rural areas of China are having to pay 25% more for their food since last year. But China will look after their peasants and not to worry.
I worry more about the trend of growing crops for bio-fuel, and I think I have heard NZ is starting to do that also, rather than grow food crops. A total addle-headed decision. Too much land, too much fertilser, way too much water for way too little fuel. At least cows put back fertiliser into the land that they are taking from - though I think that it is time that we re-looked at using the huge Friesans which pug up the land so badly, in preference for some of the smaller lighter breeds even though they don't give the same gallonage per beast. Around the limestone hills up North here more and more people are turning to the new minature breeds for that reason.
I believe that electric cars, powered by solar/wind pre-charged batteries that the motorist will pay to exchange at the Service Stations is the only thing to consider in the future. |
 | not to mention that the stench of a dairy farm (corporate owned & operated) is horrid. They don't feed the cattle their regular diet, to make maximum production....& you can just tell something is very wrong from the smell of the place. I got extra credit in my college Animal Science course to visit & also work briefly in one of those places ....I had to wear some very tall boots to enter & exit the place - YUCKY! :( |
 | But, China has to be fed....... What we are looking at is the result of a gigantic world population with not enough food to go around despite the fact that there are csome ountries starving to death......People aren't eating more. Some are eating better. There are more people needing to eat. This whole biofuel thing is going to turn everything upside down. Those who control the food, control the world. And there are many different ways of controling food. |
| This country has gone corn crazy, some adjustments need to be made, I believe the ability & the resources are there, exist already, if put to proper use could make a huge difference economically & environmentally. |
 | China is a self supporting country...they import foods that they also export.
New Zealand was one of the first countries in the world to manufacture milk biscuits, in the fight against starvation of the African nations, back in the 1960's. At that time, the factories around the Hauraki Plains area in the North Island, were in full swing on two products...milk biscuits and casein...
Both of therse products were produced at places like Turua, Ngatea and Kerepehi.
Waitakaruru , Kerepehi and Ngatea were also producing some of New Zealands finest cheeses at that time.
I can also remember, back in the early 1970
's, when New Zealand made world wide news, being the ONLY country to DOUBLE its milk prices overnight.
The retail price went from four cents per pint, to eight cents per pint. |
 |  It was the writer, Frank Sargeson, who said that the trouble with NZ'ers is that they mine their land instead of being good caretakers of it.  I didn't know Frank Sargeson said that Lois, but like you say, I think New Zealand is not alone in being bad caretakers of the land. One of my contacts, Jigs Suarez, directed me to an article just yesterday about why there is a rice shortage in the Philippines which you may find interesting also: http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/04/02/why_a_rice_shortage_in_the_philippines/6495/(thanks Jigs). Bio fuels sounded such a good idea at first but they are putting too much pressure on the land too. I also prefer the idea of vehicles run by electricity (although we need to look at the fuels we are using for electricity generation). I would also like to see a big push towards improving and supporting much more public transport rather than escalating individual car ownership. |
 | What we are looking at is the result of a gigantic world population with not enough food to go around I do think that the world population of over 6 billion is unsustainable, especially with humans divided into classes and applying science and technology to the capitalist mode of production.
There are two approaches I use to deal with the problems indicated in this excellent essay. On the personal level, it's simple: I've become a vegetarian. I think that animal husbandry, especially considering the current world population levels is unsustainable, not only because of the deforestation necessary to maintain large herds; but also the methane produced by these herds, exacerbating greenhouse gas emission levels. On the social level, I advocate for planned parenthood and socialism. By planned parenthood, I mean telling people that it's okay not to have kids and that having more than one child at this stage of history is only going to contribute to all the quickly accumlating problems of climate change and their associated spin-offs, refugees, water wars and so on.
As for socialism, what it means to me and what is core to it is the democratic control of our socially necessary labour time and the extension of free-time. Such a socialism would encourage a shrinking of production and consumption to quality oriented, necessary levels and a societal valuing of free-time for creative, pleasure-filled endeavours. Such a socialism based on production for use and need as opposed to production of commodities for sale in the market in order to profit the employers of wage-slaves, would be based on a democratic, hands-on assessment of what is useful and what we need. When you ask a rational person why it is that our class societies are still hell bent on burning fossil fuels e.g. petroleum based energy sources, they'll tell you that it's because that's realty.
And what does this mean?
It means that working people aren't in charge of the production of energy (even though, as with every other aspect of production, they run it) and don't make the choices as to what to produce and not produce. This is done, supposedly by "the market". But who is this entity, this abstraction, "the market". "The market" is symbolic code for accepting the decisions by our rulers to continue to burn fossil fuels until they can find a way to make energy in ways which will sustain them in their class position over us. That class position over the majority is a political position. Who benefits from maintaining our rulers' political position over us? |
 | A magnificent blog, Iri Not for the faint-hearted, though, you won't mind if I read it again when feel stronger?
Because the Update ws yours, I broke my new rule and read it before breakfast.......... |
 | My observation of using corn for ethanol results in skyhigh feed prices making it very hard to feed nearly any animal. |
 | Puts a whole new spin on having your "lungs ripped out", the earth's lungs that is!
A way has got to be found to hold these corporate shareholders responsible for the long term damage done, all in the name of enhanced quarterly earnings reports! |
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
 | All hail the small entrpenour, who's brilliant ideas are bought by corporate giants and put in a filing cabinet |
| I do think that the world population of over 6 billion is unsustainable, especially with humans divided into classes and applying science and technology to the capitalist mode of production. It is a lot of people for sure and it would be better if there was less. However at this point I am going to continue to disagree with you and Wren that overpopulation is unsustainable. I think this requires a little more careful unpacking and to be honest Wobbly you have already given the answer in the second part of your sentence.
I think in fact that the planet is quite capable of supporting this amount of people, after all we are not the only living beings on this planet. This incredible planet of ours has supported huge populations of living beings (insects, trees, birds, fish, mammals etc) for aeons.
The first problem is that of people's expectations. I am sure, like me, that you have heard the saying, (I have no idea who said it now), that that to bring all people up to the living standard of the people with the highest living standards would require the resources of five planets just like ours. Well, we don't have those five planets and even if we did, our present capitalist system requires that there be classes and wealth and poverty and exploited, without all that the system can only fail. So the problem in my mind is not about too many people, it is in fact about the unequal distribution of resources and I would argue that if we used the socialistic system and equalised the standards of living so that we all had a "reasonable" share in both production and need, then in fact we would no longer need those mythical five planets and our one planet could cope fine.
Another point I would like to make is that if everyone had enough according to their means, the population growth would probably slow down anyhow. In many cultures the reason they have so many children is directly because of the high infant mortality rate and the need of parents to have offspring to contribute to the family economy. If those people had "enough" the need to have so many children would be, by and large, removed.
"Who benefits from maintaining the rulers' position over us?" you say. Them of course. Not us. Not the poor and the starving. The gaps just grow wider. |
 | dnoakes wrote on Apr 12, edited on Apr 12 My observation of using corn for ethanol results in skyhigh feed prices making it very hard to feed nearly any animal. In America, corn ethanol is a big seller politically, but, like the milk situation in NZ Iri Ani describes, the benefits, if there are any, are outwayed in other sectors. Hard to imagine how something seemingly benign like milk can help create such unstable and unsustainable enviroments. Excellent blog! |
 | great blog Iri... and such interesting discussion too..... glad I finally got here! |
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
| The first problem is that of people's expectations. I am sure, like me, that you have heard the saying, (I have no idea who said it now), that that to bring all people up to the living standard of the people with the highest living standards would require the resources of five planets just like ours. Well, we don't have those five planets and even if we did, our present capitalist system requires that there be classes and wealth and poverty and exploited, without all that the system can only fail. So the problem in my mind is not about too many people, it is in fact about the unequal distribution of resources and I would argue that if we used the socialistic system and equalised the standards of living so that we all had a "reasonable" share in both production and need, then in fact we would no longer need those mythical five planets and our one planet could cope fine. Yes, the definition of use and need is crucial and something which is very important in an economy which is socially owned and democratically controlled. The plain fact is that the capitalist system demands a lot of effort which we wouldn't need in a classless society. For example, tremendous amounts of wealth and therefore socially necessary labour time, go into the advertising industry, much of it oriented towards marketing goods and services to people to make them confuse needs and manufactured wants. There is so much waste produced just to keep the system expanding all the time. Growth is the principle of capitalism. Without growth, capitalism would collapse. That's why I concentrate on shrinking. We need to shrink the amount of labour time we're putting in to producing things which we just end up throwing away. We need value free-time over doo-dads. A shorter work week is a step in this direction.
As for population...that too is growing and with it the market for growth. We need to value the children who already exist on the planet. For instance, we need to individually and socially adopt the millions of kids who are dying because they don't have access to clean water as opposed to worrying about setting up vitro fertilization clinics in the industrialized countries.
|
 | I believe the cow is to food production what oil is to energy consumption. They are both wasteful and destructive to our health and environment. It's not very good for cows, either.
New Zealand is in a stranglehold of a conglomerate, Fonterra. The consequences of sustained dairy farming for New Zealand could be rapid and extreme aridization, just as has happened in the American South West and other regions around the planet.
This sums it up quite nicely...
"We cannot continue to just exploit all our resources as though there is no tomorrow - or it may well happen that there will indeed be no tomorrow." |
| As for population...that too is growing and with it the market for growth. We need to value the children who already exist on the planet. For instance, we need to individually and socially adopt the millions of kids who are dying because they don't have access to clean water as opposed to worrying about setting up vitro fertilization clinics in the industrialized countries. I hope my friend Political Junkie (Poli/PJ) doesn't mind but I was quite blown away by a comment she has made made on another friend Wren's page on the 11th and I would like to bring it over here. Iwhat she said really hit home with me because some years ago after the Twin Towers thing happened, and a few other things besides, I found myself looking without illusion at all the violence and all the things wrong with our world, and I suddenly realised the enormity of what I had done bringing children into this world and the terrible responsibility of that and at that time - don't get me wrong I love my kids - but at that time I was so angry with myself for so blithely bringing them into this world without any real thought about it. Poli said: "Years before I had kids of my own, there was a TV series called All in the Family. It was a ground-breaking situation comedy - very controversial at the time 1971-79. One episode dealt with the young couple, Mike & Gloria. Mike decides that the world is a horrible place, more and more over populated, etc. Yet another argument erupts between Archie and Mike about the nation and its problems, Mike states that he does not want children. This takes Gloria by surprise and leads to an even bigger argument between Mike and Gloria. In the end, though, there is a really poignant scene where they talk about hopelessness and resignation being the wrong attitude, and that there is nothing more wonderful than having the privilege of bouncing your baby on your knee. I wish I could find the script, because it's affect on me was one that led me to conclude that having children was an affirmation of all that was good in the world and a rejection of paralysis about the state of the world. It was about replacing cynicism with hope." This is the link to Wren's post from whence that came: http://wrenomatic.multiply.com/journal/item/209/I_fear_for_the_worlds_fate........... And I completely agree with the above statement that you made too, Mike. All the children in this world need equal access to clean water, medical attention, education and security. I am often disturbed about the huge amount of resources and technology that we in the West will pour into "saving" one child or an adult for that matter (and yeah I know if it was my child, husband, father, whoever I would want them saved too), but it does sometimes strike me as almost obscene that we can throw hundreds and thousands of dollars at one western child, but apparently begrudge spending maybe ten dollars a month to keep an impoverished child fed. |
 | I like the journalism. Thank you.
I'm not sure of the best method for activism though. Protesting in unison around the world would work. But then, it needs to be a long term protest (effort), with financial backing, like Greenpeace. |
| dnoakes wrote on Apr 16, edited on Apr 16 A group of experts from Columbia and Yale Universities recently came out with a list of the most enviromentally friendly nations. Here is the Top Ten:
1 Switzerland 95.5
2 Sweden 93.1
3 Norway 93.1
4 Finland 91.4
5 Costa Rica 90.5
6 Austria 89.4
7 New Zealand 88.9
8 Latvia 88.8
9 Colombia 88.3
10 France 87.8
Columbia is the most surprising member of the group for me, given their status as a developing nation and the political difficulties between the government and the FARC rebels.
The United States finished 38th, behind 22 EU nations. China, a big part of the global economy and its effect on earth climate, finished at 105th.
(source: www.nNewsweek Magazine) |
| Wow how cool to make the top ten! |
| I would agree with you that it makes a difference, Kari, and I certainly would not stop trying anyhow, because in the end that is all any of us can do - the best that we can. While we can speak, we also need to "walk the talk" as much as it is possible to do within our lives, and so "recycling, reusing, and reducing" are what we should all be doing (and many of us are). All of that will make some difference and it would be very wrong of any of us to throw in the towel and "say what the heck is the use."
Doing what we can is plenty useful, apart from anything else it is a demonstration of how each one of us should be living in a sustainable way upon this planet. You and I and Mike (wobbly) all clearly understand that resources are finite and we agree on the need for change.
However, beyond that, I must also agree with Mike too. My thing is that I am never about blame for individuals who, for the most part, are only doing their best to survive within the SYSTEM that they live in. My place in most discussions therefore is about changing and improving the actual systems for the common good of us all, and so here is where I take up Mike's argument that we cannot achieve long term sustainability (ie we will not survive even) unless we also work towards changing the exploitive individualistic systems which allow the greed of the global corporates to continue.
The point of my blog above was to show how the corporate model, which in western countries we have all been taught to revere as though it also stands for freedom???!!, does not in fact stack up. Dairying in NZ, which was once touted to be for the common good of all Kiwis, benefits no-one apart form a handful of shareholders and dairy farmers. Everyone else in New Zealand and overseas is paying the price both in dollars and also in the destruction of the environment. |
| |
