Labour Cabinet backs down on farm emissions and sequestration after farmer groups revolted; Shaw defends 'political reality' of concessions; National wants action delayed to 2025
I don't entirely agree. Briefly, I thought the interviews on RNZ this morning were excellent (Charlotte Cook with activist David Tong; and Gyles Beckford with Feds' Andrew Hoggard). As a start, there's strong complaining on both sides of compromise solutions. The latter interview made Fed's case look weak, while the questions put to Tong leave us with the key reality: high prices have little purpose if farmers have no real mitigation options.
Now why would that be? Your concern about 'magic' seems like the right concept in the wrong place. Going back a few years, the science policy being built into the early design of National Science Challenges was literally to deliver 'magic'. It should be no surprise that CCC, the government, and farmers are stuck between a rock and hard place. Pricing emissions with out successful research and innovation to deliver mitigation options will result in nothing but (financial) pain – that could turn into a poverty trap that prevents innovation to reduce emissions. Getting started on the accounting at farm scale, and still looking to voluntary markets for 95% of emissions (plus biodiversity etc) could prove successful are the ways forward. Farmers will have to innovate, but with help and cooperation. To me, the policy is simple enough to work, and looks like the 'least bad solution'.
To actually get somewhere over 5 years, I think more focus needs to be on the big research reform also underway, and what the $320m promised for ag emissions mitigation research will actually do. Right now that looks concerning at best after a history of delivering very little, and the PCE pointing out that there is a serious problem with accountability of environmental research delivering outcomes.
Troy, MPI and the CRIs like AgResearch have been hard at work for over a decade attempting to find the magic bullet for farming emissions but there isn't one. The unfortunate reality is that we need less cows and more trees (preferably native). This will mean hard stuff like changing diets, supporting rural communities to survive on less intense ag and diversifying our economy away from milk powder and meat. But no one wants to talk about it. Just like city folk want to pretend they can buy an electric car and be done with it, when overconsumption needs to be addressed.
Well, I've been one of those scientists, and would also suggest you recognise universities. Either way, I suggest not buying the silver bullet excuse. In this article, you can see something like the trajectory of research funding that would have been needed if emissions were to drop from 2012 – if there had been a real successor to the Kyoto protocol. https://theconversation.com/how-new-zealands-well-being-budget-delivers-for-the-environment-118109
We can still get there, but not by claiming it has been tried or the only option is stock reductions. Yes, that's one option and may be a good option in many cases ...
And we could also have models that really link to the expensive measurements that have been commissioned. But alas, while there's been interesting hypothesis testing – my question at the end of this talk makes it pretty clear that the initial understanding used to design the experiment didn't work out, and the ancillary measurements needed to understand what happened haven't been done. And the research will continue in the same direction on a different farm because that's what current funding allows. In short, there's far too little funding (say $10m to solve a problem valued in the billions.) And the lack of accountability identified by the PCE has meant there's no path to right-size the funding to get solutions. Alas.
Thanks Troy. I agree the R&D needs to happen, but we've had the promises of magic beans for a couple of decades now and we can't wait any more. We should do both, including the public helping farmers adjust. One issue is the assumption that the costs will never be more than revenues, to ensure net debt continues to fall.
The false promises largely date back to the big shift (driven by now-debunked 80/90's Treasury idealogy) toward a maximally contestable research system, with CRIs designed to capture the value of research rather than let benefits spread to the nation. That's the paradigm other nations have and still are working with. Except for a few years of hope, recent decades have been deeply disappointing for researchers and diversity in institutions, as much as those who were promised the 'magic beans'.
US economists looked at whether the sort of defunding of dispersed agricultural research NZ abandoned in the 90s was desirable, and recognised that the US equivalent of the what NZ eliminated was producing a 60% social rate of return.
That should get your attention, because it suggests that redesigning our research system to capture the value of research and innovation nationally, using wellbeing concepts being developed in the living standards framework, can help solve NZ's productivity paradox and equity crisis together. In doing that it can also either fund or develop solutions to the big problems you state as focal areas for the Kākā?
The stupid "team of 5 million" kicks the can down the road yet again. Federated farmers president on morning report says he "sort of" believes the climate is changing yet still believes we can "feed the world". What utter BS. We can feed about 15 million of the present 8 billion by concerting plant matter into animal matter which is utterly stupid! 800 litres of water for 1 litre of milk then dehydrated at extra energy expense so that Asian women dont need to breast feed their babies but can get back early to the Capitalist treadmill and grow the GDP. We have already used up between 1.5 and 1.8 planets!
Like you I find it unbelievable. There is little hope for our great-grandchildren. The Farmers and Ford Ranger drivers just Thumb their noses at them. If our neoliberal Capitalist mates get in next year it will get worse. Our political system and neoliberal capitalist system are totally unsuitable for dealing with the climate crisis. Intergenerational theft as you so often mention.
Ironic then isn't it, given your comments about "capitalist mates and intergenerational theft" is targeted at National, yet the current government has presided over one of the biggest ever transfers caused by asset prices, created by their choices.
Significant proportions of fiscal/monetary policy has been inflationary despite government denials, and local inflation has taken over from imported inflation as the main problem. Government spend has spiralled. Just wait till logistics costs drop and both inflation and the tax take moderate - then argue with me
I know Bernard believes we can sustain higher debt levels, and I probably agree, but we can't take an $8bn surplus (2018) and turn it into a $9bn deficit (2022) while grabbing $36bn (+45%) more tax. This while blowing $1.9bn in mental health spend for zero gain (as a single example), so I don't believe Robertson can be trusted with the keys to the Treasury any more.
Incredibly frustrating! I don’t know if I’m being too cynical, but announcing this so close to Christmas seems like an intentional way to avoid too much coverage. Please open up for sharing.
Absolutely relevant point. Both bits of news rejecting Climate Commission advice were released quietly and after most journalists had finished for the year.
To be fair to James Shaw, he has had acknowledge that Labour has the numbers and makes the calls (Shaw is not in cabinet), based on its views about re-election...
The government have the numbers without the Greens. The Greens have done next to nothing to hold them to account. They could have resigned from government in protest if they were serious, without jeopardising anything meaningful. They’re more interested in the power trip than the principles. If they resigned from government today and spent the next few months mobilising voters on one or two key matters that could effect the elections they might get some sympathy from me.
They’ve also missed the Māori Party lesson of getting into bed with the rulers and then chucked out by the voters.
Is Political Reality in NZ effectively defined by National, the increasingly right of centre NZ mainstream media & a tiny but vocal minority of elderly do-nothing numb-nuts, who would prefer to be well in their graves before any real changes are actually implemented?
The "Political Reality" that continues to deny the actual physical reality is slowly marching us all off a proverbial cliff.
Our fate should not be dictated by those who are now so divorced from reality that, beyond the proverbial ostrich with their head in the sand, have their heads shoved up so far up their own backsides that they can lick their own tonsils.
The history of farm subsidies is that when the 60s & 70’s European Community, predecessor of the EU demanded NZ farm subsidies be abolished to allow access that market, the National Government of the day slashed subsidies. It can be done. Ironically, it may be companies like UK’s Tesco, who are now demanding farm produce meets rising environmental standards that force Aotearoa farmers of today to clean up their act. Meanwhile the rest of us pay the bill in horrendous ways.
I’m looking forward to the point in the not-too-distant future where cellular meat and dairy achieves price parity with the current method, and the political power of the animal ag sector melts away. We’ll be able to reduce our emissions, our rivers will be cleaner, we’ll be able to return pasture land to nature, and I won’t ever have to hear from these Groundswell pricks ever again.
But ... NZ Inc will do next to nothing about cellular meat and dairy and we'll end up importing these products whilst our farmers will change to producing low return commodities.
Well, except for a very small number of farmers who will still grow "the real thing" for a small niche market of wealthy die-hards.
Thanks Peter. The relative importance in the economy of ag exports has been falling for 20 years. The much bigger 'lobby' is the real estate, banking, construction and residential land speculation sectors, hence the bottom line being about not increasing Government debt, which keeps interest rates low and land values high.
Even so, the biggest polluters need to be held to account and their practices brought to an immediate halt. Only 5% of dairy produced here is consumed here. 100% of the destruction stays here. No, I’m not angry. Much !
George Monbiot's recent book "Regenesis" had an interesting paragraph: -
"We have sought to address our existential crisis by attending to minutiae, such as changing the gut microbes of cows, so they produce slightly less methane, or tweaking farm subsidies to allow a few small corners to be planted with trees. These are the agricultural equivalent of trying to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown by changing the cotton buds we buy, an approach I call Micro-Consumerist Bollocks".
Perhaps it'll end up being the global client base that ultimately determines what happens to NZ farmed products. The Herald ran this Stff article referring to Tesco in the UK
Unless it's shipped by sailing clipper or nuclear or electric ships, there's always going to be a hefty carbon trail behind NZ's food exports.
That also reminds me....with a very poor segway, when it comes to decarbonsising the NZ vehicle fleet, both personal and commercial. I recall there's around $4billion of taxes collected through fuel and Road User Charges. When the personal vehicle fleet goes from around the current 35,000 or so EVs and Hybrids to letr's say a million (which is only about a quarter of the total) where will Treasury suggest our reps in Wellington replace that with...? Thinking EV's are cheap to run....let's see when RUC's at somewhere between (IMO) $2- 5,000 per annum are applied to each EV. The money has to come from somwhere and EVs, incluidng hydrogen powered trucks, all use the roads.
Oh yes, and how many extra Huntlys (at 1000MW generation capacity) will be needed to charge them all?
Be aware of not being too selective with your assumptions.
Bluff oysters flown up to feed Aucklanders likely generate a greater carbon footprint than lamb shipped to the UK.
Most EVs are charged overnight so actually present a excellent opportunity to load-balance and stabilise our energy supply.
And every EV-owner I know is very happy to pay road user charges. They appreciate the subsidy they've been provided to this point - I hope you also appreciate their early-adoption has helped build out the charging networks and knowledge-base to make your (eventual) transition to an EV fluid and painless.
Thanks TIm. All good points. Unfortunately, though, more than half of NZ's emissions come from farming. Somehow, we have to make a difference there too.
Totally agree. That's why we need to correct simplistic potshots that get taken at low-hanging fruit, like global shipping (which represents a tiny fraction of the overall carbon impact of our farming right now) 😉
Slightly off topic but perhaps the entitled in Auckland who insist on double cab utes & the like to take children to school, shop etc if find parking an issue might move to modest sized city car, bike or public transport.
If all parking was size for small vehicles with larger vehicle parking not close to school, shopping centre entries, could get buy-in that utes not fashionable any longer, ie less is more. Large is out.
Nope, we would vote our council out. The reality is that EVERY city in the country has the issue, but there are more people and less flat land in Auckland (plus a growing crime problem).
Public transport does not meet many of their needs. It would be 3 buses, a 2k walk and over an hour to travel the 8km to work on public transport for me. Auckland issue will worsen as fewer people go into the city now, so trips aren't compatible with how our public transport system is being designed.
And lets not talk about the idiots at AT, lest people get angry.
Glad you mentioned the market led momemtum on emmisions. It has been hard to see any benefits from the Green labour coalition, but im sure four years of the other lot will sober us up pretty quick and when everything is trashed and actualy really divided ( not just hyperbole) we may look back and wonder why we didnt value them more.
I’d like to order green and red thumb screws please, much prettier than blue ones. There are other options I suppose 🥹 but one way or another I seem to be screwed. This side of the revolution and real participatory politics.
“Aotearoa is one of the OECD’s worst performing emitters per capita and in emisssions growth per capita”. In the past, journalists would have had a field day comparing this reality with Ardern’s ‘nuclear free moment’ and ‘Climate Emergency’ rhetoric. But the frogs-in-pots are so used to being fed lies, there’s no reaction.
I don't entirely agree. Briefly, I thought the interviews on RNZ this morning were excellent (Charlotte Cook with activist David Tong; and Gyles Beckford with Feds' Andrew Hoggard). As a start, there's strong complaining on both sides of compromise solutions. The latter interview made Fed's case look weak, while the questions put to Tong leave us with the key reality: high prices have little purpose if farmers have no real mitigation options.
Now why would that be? Your concern about 'magic' seems like the right concept in the wrong place. Going back a few years, the science policy being built into the early design of National Science Challenges was literally to deliver 'magic'. It should be no surprise that CCC, the government, and farmers are stuck between a rock and hard place. Pricing emissions with out successful research and innovation to deliver mitigation options will result in nothing but (financial) pain – that could turn into a poverty trap that prevents innovation to reduce emissions. Getting started on the accounting at farm scale, and still looking to voluntary markets for 95% of emissions (plus biodiversity etc) could prove successful are the ways forward. Farmers will have to innovate, but with help and cooperation. To me, the policy is simple enough to work, and looks like the 'least bad solution'.
To actually get somewhere over 5 years, I think more focus needs to be on the big research reform also underway, and what the $320m promised for ag emissions mitigation research will actually do. Right now that looks concerning at best after a history of delivering very little, and the PCE pointing out that there is a serious problem with accountability of environmental research delivering outcomes.
Troy, MPI and the CRIs like AgResearch have been hard at work for over a decade attempting to find the magic bullet for farming emissions but there isn't one. The unfortunate reality is that we need less cows and more trees (preferably native). This will mean hard stuff like changing diets, supporting rural communities to survive on less intense ag and diversifying our economy away from milk powder and meat. But no one wants to talk about it. Just like city folk want to pretend they can buy an electric car and be done with it, when overconsumption needs to be addressed.
Well, I've been one of those scientists, and would also suggest you recognise universities. Either way, I suggest not buying the silver bullet excuse. In this article, you can see something like the trajectory of research funding that would have been needed if emissions were to drop from 2012 – if there had been a real successor to the Kyoto protocol. https://theconversation.com/how-new-zealands-well-being-budget-delivers-for-the-environment-118109
We can still get there, but not by claiming it has been tried or the only option is stock reductions. Yes, that's one option and may be a good option in many cases ...
But others that have largely bypassed NZ are looking good for mostly pasture-fed dairy systems https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=22-P13-00028&segmentID=4
And we could also have models that really link to the expensive measurements that have been commissioned. But alas, while there's been interesting hypothesis testing – my question at the end of this talk makes it pretty clear that the initial understanding used to design the experiment didn't work out, and the ancillary measurements needed to understand what happened haven't been done. And the research will continue in the same direction on a different farm because that's what current funding allows. In short, there's far too little funding (say $10m to solve a problem valued in the billions.) And the lack of accountability identified by the PCE has meant there's no path to right-size the funding to get solutions. Alas.
Yep. These are the conversations that politicians should be starting with voters, and vice versa, but neither side really wants to do that.
Good point on the PCE comments.
Thanks Troy. I agree the R&D needs to happen, but we've had the promises of magic beans for a couple of decades now and we can't wait any more. We should do both, including the public helping farmers adjust. One issue is the assumption that the costs will never be more than revenues, to ensure net debt continues to fall.
The false promises largely date back to the big shift (driven by now-debunked 80/90's Treasury idealogy) toward a maximally contestable research system, with CRIs designed to capture the value of research rather than let benefits spread to the nation. That's the paradigm other nations have and still are working with. Except for a few years of hope, recent decades have been deeply disappointing for researchers and diversity in institutions, as much as those who were promised the 'magic beans'.
US economists looked at whether the sort of defunding of dispersed agricultural research NZ abandoned in the 90s was desirable, and recognised that the US equivalent of the what NZ eliminated was producing a 60% social rate of return.
That should get your attention, because it suggests that redesigning our research system to capture the value of research and innovation nationally, using wellbeing concepts being developed in the living standards framework, can help solve NZ's productivity paradox and equity crisis together. In doing that it can also either fund or develop solutions to the big problems you state as focal areas for the Kākā?
There's something quickly compiled working paper here if that helps. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6300595
Just to note, simply because our govt has failed to invest in research doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Just that it isn’t happening in New Zealand.
That’s the thing Fed Farmers and Fonterra are burying their heads in the sand about.
Milk and meat can and will be produced in fermentation tanks and NZs climate denying farmers will become pariahs.
And we will get no credit nor benefit from those advances in technology because of the pig headed obstruction by our farmers.
Thanks Bernard,
Please open this to everyone 😊
Yes.
Will do now.
Done now.
Hi Bernard,
The stupid "team of 5 million" kicks the can down the road yet again. Federated farmers president on morning report says he "sort of" believes the climate is changing yet still believes we can "feed the world". What utter BS. We can feed about 15 million of the present 8 billion by concerting plant matter into animal matter which is utterly stupid! 800 litres of water for 1 litre of milk then dehydrated at extra energy expense so that Asian women dont need to breast feed their babies but can get back early to the Capitalist treadmill and grow the GDP. We have already used up between 1.5 and 1.8 planets!
Like you I find it unbelievable. There is little hope for our great-grandchildren. The Farmers and Ford Ranger drivers just Thumb their noses at them. If our neoliberal Capitalist mates get in next year it will get worse. Our political system and neoliberal capitalist system are totally unsuitable for dealing with the climate crisis. Intergenerational theft as you so often mention.
Mere Kirihimete
Patrick Medlicott
Ironic then isn't it, given your comments about "capitalist mates and intergenerational theft" is targeted at National, yet the current government has presided over one of the biggest ever transfers caused by asset prices, created by their choices.
Significant proportions of fiscal/monetary policy has been inflationary despite government denials, and local inflation has taken over from imported inflation as the main problem. Government spend has spiralled. Just wait till logistics costs drop and both inflation and the tax take moderate - then argue with me
I know Bernard believes we can sustain higher debt levels, and I probably agree, but we can't take an $8bn surplus (2018) and turn it into a $9bn deficit (2022) while grabbing $36bn (+45%) more tax. This while blowing $1.9bn in mental health spend for zero gain (as a single example), so I don't believe Robertson can be trusted with the keys to the Treasury any more.
Incredibly frustrating! I don’t know if I’m being too cynical, but announcing this so close to Christmas seems like an intentional way to avoid too much coverage. Please open up for sharing.
Absolutely relevant point. Both bits of news rejecting Climate Commission advice were released quietly and after most journalists had finished for the year.
Seems James Shaw and the Green Party have thrown in the towel, this is going to hurt them in next years election
To be fair to James Shaw, he has had acknowledge that Labour has the numbers and makes the calls (Shaw is not in cabinet), based on its views about re-election...
The government have the numbers without the Greens. The Greens have done next to nothing to hold them to account. They could have resigned from government in protest if they were serious, without jeopardising anything meaningful. They’re more interested in the power trip than the principles. If they resigned from government today and spent the next few months mobilising voters on one or two key matters that could effect the elections they might get some sympathy from me.
They’ve also missed the Māori Party lesson of getting into bed with the rulers and then chucked out by the voters.
Is Political Reality in NZ effectively defined by National, the increasingly right of centre NZ mainstream media & a tiny but vocal minority of elderly do-nothing numb-nuts, who would prefer to be well in their graves before any real changes are actually implemented?
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40NZheretic%20labour%20national&src=typed_query&f=live
The "Political Reality" that continues to deny the actual physical reality is slowly marching us all off a proverbial cliff.
Our fate should not be dictated by those who are now so divorced from reality that, beyond the proverbial ostrich with their head in the sand, have their heads shoved up so far up their own backsides that they can lick their own tonsils.
The political reality for a long time has been farming with subsidies (which include the massive environmental externalities of farming).
The history of farm subsidies is that when the 60s & 70’s European Community, predecessor of the EU demanded NZ farm subsidies be abolished to allow access that market, the National Government of the day slashed subsidies. It can be done. Ironically, it may be companies like UK’s Tesco, who are now demanding farm produce meets rising environmental standards that force Aotearoa farmers of today to clean up their act. Meanwhile the rest of us pay the bill in horrendous ways.
I’m looking forward to the point in the not-too-distant future where cellular meat and dairy achieves price parity with the current method, and the political power of the animal ag sector melts away. We’ll be able to reduce our emissions, our rivers will be cleaner, we’ll be able to return pasture land to nature, and I won’t ever have to hear from these Groundswell pricks ever again.
Hi Peter
But ... NZ Inc will do next to nothing about cellular meat and dairy and we'll end up importing these products whilst our farmers will change to producing low return commodities.
Well, except for a very small number of farmers who will still grow "the real thing" for a small niche market of wealthy die-hards.
Thanks Peter. The relative importance in the economy of ag exports has been falling for 20 years. The much bigger 'lobby' is the real estate, banking, construction and residential land speculation sectors, hence the bottom line being about not increasing Government debt, which keeps interest rates low and land values high.
Even so, the biggest polluters need to be held to account and their practices brought to an immediate halt. Only 5% of dairy produced here is consumed here. 100% of the destruction stays here. No, I’m not angry. Much !
Can you open this one up Bernard?
I've done that now. It can be shared.
George Monbiot's recent book "Regenesis" had an interesting paragraph: -
"We have sought to address our existential crisis by attending to minutiae, such as changing the gut microbes of cows, so they produce slightly less methane, or tweaking farm subsidies to allow a few small corners to be planted with trees. These are the agricultural equivalent of trying to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown by changing the cotton buds we buy, an approach I call Micro-Consumerist Bollocks".
I recommend this book to one and all.
Ha! Cotton buds!
Perhaps it'll end up being the global client base that ultimately determines what happens to NZ farmed products. The Herald ran this Stff article referring to Tesco in the UK
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/130784599/tescos-warning-to-new-zealand-farmers.
Unless it's shipped by sailing clipper or nuclear or electric ships, there's always going to be a hefty carbon trail behind NZ's food exports.
That also reminds me....with a very poor segway, when it comes to decarbonsising the NZ vehicle fleet, both personal and commercial. I recall there's around $4billion of taxes collected through fuel and Road User Charges. When the personal vehicle fleet goes from around the current 35,000 or so EVs and Hybrids to letr's say a million (which is only about a quarter of the total) where will Treasury suggest our reps in Wellington replace that with...? Thinking EV's are cheap to run....let's see when RUC's at somewhere between (IMO) $2- 5,000 per annum are applied to each EV. The money has to come from somwhere and EVs, incluidng hydrogen powered trucks, all use the roads.
Oh yes, and how many extra Huntlys (at 1000MW generation capacity) will be needed to charge them all?
Just saying.
Be aware of not being too selective with your assumptions.
Bluff oysters flown up to feed Aucklanders likely generate a greater carbon footprint than lamb shipped to the UK.
Most EVs are charged overnight so actually present a excellent opportunity to load-balance and stabilise our energy supply.
And every EV-owner I know is very happy to pay road user charges. They appreciate the subsidy they've been provided to this point - I hope you also appreciate their early-adoption has helped build out the charging networks and knowledge-base to make your (eventual) transition to an EV fluid and painless.
Thanks TIm. All good points. Unfortunately, though, more than half of NZ's emissions come from farming. Somehow, we have to make a difference there too.
Totally agree. That's why we need to correct simplistic potshots that get taken at low-hanging fruit, like global shipping (which represents a tiny fraction of the overall carbon impact of our farming right now) 😉
We need lots of new generation, or at least access to the 13% of output cordoned off for Tiwai Pt.
Slightly off topic but perhaps the entitled in Auckland who insist on double cab utes & the like to take children to school, shop etc if find parking an issue might move to modest sized city car, bike or public transport.
If all parking was size for small vehicles with larger vehicle parking not close to school, shopping centre entries, could get buy-in that utes not fashionable any longer, ie less is more. Large is out.
Nope, we would vote our council out. The reality is that EVERY city in the country has the issue, but there are more people and less flat land in Auckland (plus a growing crime problem).
Public transport does not meet many of their needs. It would be 3 buses, a 2k walk and over an hour to travel the 8km to work on public transport for me. Auckland issue will worsen as fewer people go into the city now, so trips aren't compatible with how our public transport system is being designed.
And lets not talk about the idiots at AT, lest people get angry.
Good points Rae. At the moment, the Ford Ranger is the largest selling new vehicle, although Tesla 3 is in the top five now.
Vehicle registration rates need to be based on the vehicle’s size and engine size and emissions.
Thank goodness! I was really worried that Labour were going to throw away all those votes they traditionally get from farmers! /s
Glad you mentioned the market led momemtum on emmisions. It has been hard to see any benefits from the Green labour coalition, but im sure four years of the other lot will sober us up pretty quick and when everything is trashed and actualy really divided ( not just hyperbole) we may look back and wonder why we didnt value them more.
I’d like to order green and red thumb screws please, much prettier than blue ones. There are other options I suppose 🥹 but one way or another I seem to be screwed. This side of the revolution and real participatory politics.
Wonderful piece, Bernard!
“Aotearoa is one of the OECD’s worst performing emitters per capita and in emisssions growth per capita”. In the past, journalists would have had a field day comparing this reality with Ardern’s ‘nuclear free moment’ and ‘Climate Emergency’ rhetoric. But the frogs-in-pots are so used to being fed lies, there’s no reaction.
Thanks Just.
I have opened this up now for all to read and share.
Thanks Bernard 😃