Comments on: UN Sec Gen calls for end to food tariffs and biofuel subsidies

By: stephen

stephen — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:23:26 +0000

Perhaps the WTO and WB work in tandem a little..? Anyway, I’m not particularly happy with how slowly the WTO works, and almost nothing substantial has been done on developed country subsidies and tariffs (esp on agriculture). So i’m not sure how much power small countries have there, though I think an agreement was just made to increase their power on that.

I would rather that producers did NOT have the ability to make decisions about what comes into the country, or we might be ingesting a lot more lead or hormones in beef than i’m comfortable with – I think the ’sovereignty’ issue comes up with regard to the ability of states to block the import of products on health e.g. toxicity or environmental e.g. too much endangered turtle bycatch, or even labour (slave labour, sweatshops) grounds…

By: libertyscott

libertyscott — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:31:58 +0000

Stephen, as the WTO has nothing to do with loans, I think she simply throws the acronym about as part of a general “anti-capitalist” tyrade. The WTO is loathed by the Greens because it is committed to putting decision making in the hands of producers and consumers, not governments – it stops meddling. It is pushing for open markets, but the likes of the Greens think – remarkably – that they are better placed to make these decisions than millions of people buying and selling every day. The WTO is a friend to NZ because it requires unanimity for trade agreements, imposes sanctions on those who break them, and no country is allowed to backtrack on its commitments UNLESS it makes new ones to offset backtracking. Without it, trade rules would be driven entirely by the EU, USA, Japan and the like, the WTO gives small countries a chance to bind a future of progressive liberalisation. The Greens love the UN of course, when it investigates NZ to find racism and the like – but when it comes to trade, suddenly it is about “losing sovereignty” – when the Greens fear “us losing our sovereignty” they mean “government losing the right to intervene in what citizens do”.

By: emmess

emmess — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:58:37 +0000

>>I really would have thought they’d be FOR removing the CAP, as their policies quite often align with groups like Oxfam!. I think the CAP is crap, but the Greens have not yet stated a direct policy preference for subsidies or tariffs, to my knowledge.

They may not have said in so many words but there are only 3 ways to controls prices; subsidies, tariffs or quotas

By: PhilBest

PhilBest — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:36:01 +0000

Hooray, this is a historic moment, a UN Secretary-General going by common sense over against fashionable PC / Green ideology………

By: stephen

stephen — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:54:03 +0000

Libertyscott, I *think* she is referring to the policies of the WTO, World Bank etc. that in order to qualify for badly needed loans, developing countries had to pull down all subsidies and tariffs on ‘whatever’ sectors, which theoretically protected them in the past from vagaries of other overseas developments like…er, subsidies, although perhaps biofuels are economical now that the price of oil is so high? Subsidies to mitigate subsidies – it is somewhat circular.

I really would have thought they’d be FOR removing the CAP, as their policies quite often align with groups like Oxfam!. I think the CAP is crap, but the Greens have not yet stated a direct policy preference for subsidies or tariffs, to my knowledge.

By: dave strings

dave strings — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:37:11 +0000

I am prepared to donate my vast crop of native weeds to an ethanol project. They are available for collection straight from the ground, and I will happily donate to Ms. K plastic bags for her to transport the weeds she extracts to the appropriate site. Hopefully, she will be able to put the bags through a recycling plant and make chairs and desks for the next parliament’s green party members.

By: dog_eat_dog

dog_eat_dog — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:26:01 +0000

Biofuel can work – you can make cellulosic ethanol off any living plant matter, it doesn’t have to be corn-based, which is what’s driving prices everywhere. It would be more expensive, but in a country like New Zealand, where we have strong sustainable forestry Kung Fu, we could make it work quite well.

By: libertyscott

libertyscott — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:21:28 +0000

Sue Kedgley has approvingly commented about what the French agriculture Minister has said about food sovereignty and self sufficiency – he said it arguing to maintain the EU Common Agricultural Policy, she claims the “crisis” in world food is due to free trade – by what measure is there free trade in food? When did the EU, USA and Japan open up their agricultural markets and stop agricultural export and domestic subsidies? or even seriously reduce them? She’s either stupid or deliberately lying about the state of agricultural trade. I honestly can’t figure out which one it is.

By: adamsmith1922

adamsmith1922 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:01:39 +0000

The ridiculous comments by Sue Kedgley, or some of them, can be found here http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0805/S00636.htm

it is clear she does not know what she talks about as she balmes free trade for the problem when Ban Ki-moon, the World Bank and others are quite clear that it is the lack of free trade in food which is at the root of the problem.

For anyone interested I have a post, rather lengthy one I am afraid, on the FAO Rome conference at my blog.

On bio-fuels the US politician quoted is being misleading – massive amounts of the US grain crops have been switched to use in bio-fuels because of US subsidies, plus they tax efficiently produced ethanol imports, made from sugar cane, from Brazil.

The US grain issue matters as they feed much of their livestock on grain these days and not on grass, so meat and grain prices go up.

Overall there is not so much a shortage of food as such, but distribution, availability etc is an issue, as is the arch protectionist stance of France and Germany.

Incidentally according to one writer there is in the whole of Continental Europe some 23 million hectares of arable land which is not in production because of various systemic issues.

The NZ Greens also oppose steps to increase farm productivity in many instances.

By: Right of way is Way of Right

Right of way is Way of Right — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:57:36 +0000

It is estimated that if the US turned 25% of it’s arable land to the production of biofuel, they would manage to meet a whopping 3% of the US’s fuel needs!

whoopee.

By: unaha-closp

unaha-closp — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:51:05 +0000

If the affluent people of the world ate 20% less meat, less poor people would be left without. Is it so difficult?

Yes, herding 2 billion (?) individual people to make a decision is so much more difficult than lobbying the EU, Japan and USA to abandon wasteful expensive pork barrel handouts to farmers.

By: stephen

stephen — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:47:01 +0000

So Bush is a stinkin greeny?

By: dime

dime — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:22:54 +0000

the Greens would like to see a 20% reduction in the worlds population. It would be good for the environment. Also easier to monitor people.. make sure no one is smacking their kids!

as for eating less meat.. screw that!

i blame the emerging indian and chinese middle class

seriously though, this biofuel thing is a disaster. its actually quite fucking sick!

people first ya stinkin greenies

By: 3-coil

3-coil — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:09:26 +0000

Don’t be too tough on the Greens – these flip-flops of theirs show the difficulties they struggle with when their 19th Century Luddite philosophies collide with the harsh realities of the 21st Century (ie. the real world).

By: stephen

stephen — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:57:50 +0000

also rubbernecker would seem to have a point – probably could have added that the corn the animals are fed is subsidised too.

By: stephen

stephen — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:56:05 +0000

Exactly what tariffs have the Greens said they’re for, and where do they say they are in favour of Europe and America’s agricultural subsidies? I’m dying to know! And where are they supporting the US and Europe’s version of biofuels? Haven’t they said time and again that they are not in favour of replacing food crops, and that they want it from tallow, woodchips, algae etc? Am I totally wrong??

By: rubbernecker

rubbernecker — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:45:23 +0000

more significant than the disastrous policy of subsidising biofuel production from food crops is the large amount of grain that is directed to animal feed. We could easily and rapidly go a long way to ensuring that the more than ample food production actually feeds people by eating less meat. If the affluent people of the world ate 20% less meat, less poor people would be left without. Is it so difficult?

By: Murray

Murray — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:42:58 +0000

The Greens are now just another extremist peronality suicide cult.

People must die to save the prurdy planet. Bleoved Leader from planet Golgafrinchan Al Gore says it must be!

Their battle cry of screw the people is not really a vote grabber at my end of the demographics thanks.

By: Mr Dennis

Mr Dennis — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:36:01 +0000

It is great to hear this from the UN, but of course the Greens will ignore it (I just heard on the radio that they are claiming the effect of biofuels on food prices is minimal). It is great to hear a call for free trade like this. I have pointed this out elsewhere, but free trade agreements are entirely inconsistent with penalties for greenhouse gas emissions (such as the ETS).

If you are to penalise businesses within NZ for their greenhouse gas emissions, this will disadvantage them against imported products which are produced in countries without such regulation. The only practical way to even the situation up is to impose climate-based import tariffs on imports.

This means that if you have a free trade agreement with a major importer (such as China), you cannot apply import tariffs. So nor can you fairly penalise businesses within NZ for emissions.

The choices are: an ETS and import tariffs (no free trade agreements), or no ETS and free trade agreements. The ETS and free trade are mutually exclusive. So if we are to follow Ban Ki-moon’s advice we must also trash the ETS.

By: libertyscott

libertyscott — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:14:15 +0000

If only the mainstream media would haul her over the coals when she returns – the BBC would do it on TV and radio, but NZ media doesn’t seem to have the will to attack the Greens. It’s disgusting, she is part of a NZ delegation, arguing in favour of policies that hurt NZ farmers, and hurt developing world farmers. Even Brazil’s leftwing President Lula has called for the abolition of agricultural subsidies.. http://libertyscott.blogspot.com/2008/06/un-secretary-general-demands-free-trade.html

Vote Green, support a French farmer living off of subsidies.