My two attempts at writing to the govt/corporation on geoengineering around 5 years ago received firstly a denial ‘nothing doing’, CONSPIRACY, you’re dreaming pretty much … the next, a year or two later … ‘geoengineering is a science blah blah blah & we may need to use it to mitigate global warning’ … just like their corporate-media-arm Stuff says below here …. and that flip flop loses you people any tiny shred of credibility you may have had …
Read Stuff / Nelson Mail’s piece at thecontrail.com on the need for geoengineering. Might provide you with a laugh for the day…
This is from Stuff. Surprizingly. Instead of the usual mainstream ‘bona fide justification for poisoning everything and saving our native birds’ (not) it actually acknowledges the information that campaigners for clean water and for refraining from poisoning the entire ecocide have been advocating for decades. Perhaps they’re now getting too loud to ignore.
Damon Rusden has restated the scientific case for continued use of aerial 1080 to control pests, but his argument fails to address the social side of the debate.
Underpinning the continued reliance on aerial 1080 lies the ambitious goal of turning back the clock – of eliminating every single introduced rodent, mustelid and marsupial with the aim of making New Zealand “predator free”. While there is virtually unanimous agreement that our native flora and fauna deserve protection, the feasibility and costs of returning the country to a pre-European state are often overlooked.
In fact, the logic behind being “predator free” requires closer examination. Is this nostalgic vision of returning the country “to what it once was” really what we need and want? Is it possible, and at what cost? If we are going to try to turn back the clock on introduced species, there needs to be consensus on how far back we want to go, and the methods of doing so need to be evaluated in more than just scientific terms.
Taking a big picture view on introduced animals may mean allocating some areas as predator free focus points, while other areas are managed with different outcomes in mind. Introduced species do have their benefits – possums yield fur, for example, and this is a valued resource on many levels. Accepting that possums are part of our national ecosystem and managing them accordingly, might therefore be a better option in some areas.
The ‘where’ and ‘why’ of 1080 also needs careful consideration. Rusden asserts that 1080 is dropped “in areas which are inaccessible by foot”. This might have been true once, but it is far from the truth today. On the West Coast, aerial 1080 is being applied to areas that are easily accessible on foot, with well-established hut and track networks.
The recent Karnbach operation is a case in point, with aerial 1080 placed in the main Waitaha riverbed and on the surrounding tracks. The supposed precision of aerial application resulted in baits submerged in the river itself. This operation, along with many others in the region, was conducted by Ospri as part of the TBFreeNZ program.
These operations have nothing to do with saving native birds or forests. Any benefits to native species are an unintended consequence of protecting the farming industry. The two goals should not be confused, or seen as one and the same.
Rusden goes on to claim that “much of the substance of the anger at 1080 seems to draw from the anti-establishment well”. In fact, there is more than anti-government sentiment at play here. There are sound ethical and animal welfare concerns surrounding 1080 use. What Rusden also fails to mention, is that the majority of aerial 1080 proponents do not live in the areas where it is being dropped.
A lot of the anger and resentment stems from a feeling of absolute powerlessness and lack of meaningful engagement with what is happening in one’s backyard. People who live in a place are often deeply passionate about it in a wholly different way to someone who comes to visit once a year. While the visitor may prize the area for its chortling flocks of tui, the family down the road obtain their water, and possibly their food, from the same block of bush. There is a fundamental difference in perspective. When the helicopters laden with poison buzz over your backyard your water supply, meat safe and recreation ground are all potential targets.
The science may be clear, but it doesn’t take into account the social, cultural or resource value associated with our ecosystems. For those who live in these areas, the anger at this top-down approach is heartfelt and understandable. Simply writing it off as emotion or anti-government sentiment is not helpful.
Economic consequences are another consideration. The current regime of aerial 1080 drops offers little or no economic return to local communities. It would be heartening if locals were approached ahead of any drop, to identify areas that would be feasible trapping targets. Employment is a real concern in areas such as the West Coast, particularly when many of the traditional industries are being shut down. Local residents should be given the priority when it comes to pest control work.
The debate around 1080 is more than the sum of all scientific papers on the topic. It is as much a social issue as it is a scientific one. There are cultural and economic aspects that need to be considered, alongside the goal of bringing back the birds and restoring the forests.
Everyone is keen to see flourishing ecosystems, but people must remain part of that picture.
Photo: please advise if the excellent header image is yours & would like to be credited, or you would like me to remove it.
NOTE ON COMMENTING:
If you are pro poisoning of the environment or anything else, EnvirowatchRangitikei is not the place to espouse your opinions. Mainstream would be the place to air those. This is a venue for sharing the independent science you won’t of course find there.
This 2011 NZ article from Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch by Clare Swinney has been republished by Dr Coldwell. I would link to the original source however cannot find it on the Northland site. It supplies compelling evidence of the health effects of geoengineering aka chemtrails.
Among a recently-released assortment of declassified reports of sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) from New Zealand, dating from 1952-2009, were letters written in 1999 and 2000 by a concerned citizen, who predicted that an outbreak of illnesses would occur after an aircraft contrail, otherwise known as a chemtrail, was seen over a populated area.
Chemtrails, which are also commonly referred to as aerosols, differ from aircraft vapour trails in that they often linger in the sky for hours and can be seen in grid-like patterns, in parallel lines (see above) or forming Xs in the sky.
Evidence collected for over a decade reveals that chemtrails are used for at least seven functions, including weather control and military applications, and are comprised of a wide variety of harmful ingredients. They commonly include aluminium and barium, which are toxic to both humans and to the environment. They may include radioactive thorium, desiccated red blood cells, dangerous pathogens, including Mycoplasma Fermentens Incognitus, plus mold spores, ethylene dibromide, and self-replicating nanotubes that cause Morgellons disease, which according to researcher Clifford Carnicoms findings, now contaminate virtually everyone.
The declassified reports, which are online under the heading: Original Files: NZs UFO Sightings, were posted at a major New Zealand news site, Stuff.co.nz on December the 22nd, 2010, and were released to the public by the New Zealand Defence Force under the Official Information Act….