• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Behind the Green Door

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Behind the Green Door

    Behind the Green Door
    Will Verboven - Monday,9 October 2006
    WESTERN Standard

    The recent coronation of Elizabeth May, former director of the Sierra Club of Canada, as the new leader of the Green party of Canada seems, for environmental zealots, a marriage made in heaven. It was a smart move by the party, since May had turned the Sierra Club into a well-oiled fundraising machine through effective use of fear-mongering propaganda campaigns. For Canada's agriculture industry, however, May's election has all the promise of a marriage from hell. For the policies of both the Sierra Club and the Green party have a similar goal: the destruction of agriculture as we know it.

    Apparently, both hanker for the simpler days of Old MacDonald's farm, when there was no intensive agriculture, and no pesticides, antibiotics or genetically modified plants--a bucolic pre-progress paradise. That attitude should come as no surprise, since both organizations are supported by aging urban baby boomers and city kids, neither of whom have the slightest notion of how food is actually produced.

    The Sierra Club proclaims boldly, "As food is a major contributor to human health, agriculture can be a threat." Really? That "threat" has supplied the most abundant and safest food supply the world has ever enjoyed. It's such a threat that it not only contributes to a longer life expectancy here, but helps feed many of the organic farmers in Africa, whose all-natural production practices don't even provide enough organic food to feed themselves.

    To deal with the threat of agriculture, the Sierra Club advocates "[e]ncouraging individuals to buy locally, to buy organic products, to avoid farmed fish and meat raised in factory farms, and to limit the distance from farm to fork." I suspect it'll take more than encouragement to get Canadian consumers to stick to locally grown vegetables and fruit in the dead of winter.

    The utopian organic agriculture envisioned by the Greens and the Sierra Club did once exist in Canada, around the year 1900. Back then, it took half the population to feed the other half. So if we're going to be an organic nation once again, about half of us had better start heading for the countryside. I doubt most Sierra Club ideologues are prepared to make a life on the farm, hoeing organic rows.

    Presumably, May will be bringing to her new role as Green party leader the Sierra Club's perspective on agriculture. That should be a natural move, since Green party policy is every bit as twisted. Here's a gem from their party policy on agriculture: "Our biosecurity is threatened directly by agribusiness, as factory farms and poultry production crowd bovine and poultry into inhumane and unhygienic conditions, creating the conditions for the spread of mad cow disease and the avian bird flu."

    For the record, all of our cases of so-called mad cow disease have involved mature cows, none of which lived a single day in an alleged factory farm. Meanwhile, avian flu is spread by wild waterfowl infecting domestic poultry being raised outdoors; they'd be safer in pens. But in Al Gore's immortal words, these are merely the "inconvenient truths" of environmentalism.

    Perhaps that's being too harsh on May's budding leadership. There's one Green party policy that would delight almost everyone in agriculture, could she deliver it: "The Green Party seeks to restructure our agricultural markets to sustain farming families in a domestic food economy and provide families with a fair share of the consumer food dollar." It's a wonderful wish. But it may not go over that well with Canadian consumers and taxpayers, since it will require either billions in subsidies to farmers, the closure of the border to cheap imports, or high tariffs, price controls and quotas.

    It's hard to know what the Greens would do if they ever got into power (they've managed only to join governing coalitions in Europe), but perhaps those in the agriculture business who don't co-operate with them might end up with their land seized and collectivized by organic peasant farmers with a social conscience. Businesses might even have to be nationalized to ensure that uneconomic organic principles were maintained. May and her party could lead us into the organic agricultural paradise. Good luck to her.

    #2
    WD9, I think everyone is confused here.

    I think, Harper and Strahl are trying to steer the ship, but I think they thought (unrealistcly)they were going to be steering in calm waters.

    But we all know this is not the case. So they are learning on the go, how to navigate this very rough and unpredictable issue.

    But my belief is they believe there is a risk of their government falling before spring and so they didn't want to go into an election while the issue of a plebicite haning over their heads.

    It's pure politics. Good policy gets shoved to the backburner while they need to tend to the politics.

    This is why we need this thing finally resolved and get wheat out of the political arena. It looks like it may take more time though, but it will be worth it because the political fighting and wrangling is slowly destroying this industry.

    I believe in all my heart the CWB, the Liberals and the NDP don't give two whits about the wheat business, they only care about the power to control the wheat business.

    And that is what is destroying our industry.

    Comment


      #3
      What a bunch of crap does he feel threatened by the green party or does he have someones ass to kiss. There is a lot of truth to the argument that factory farms are not nesseraly the best thing for farmers or consumers.

      Comment


        #4
        Hear, hear Horse, once again the voice of common sense!

        Comment


          #5
          Adam Smith, do you think these are really KAP's questions? I mean, given recent collusion with the CWB, can we really trust KAP? And furthermore, is the year 1970 or 1996 or what? What the KAP questions ask were being asked for the last 35 years or more! The Western Grain Marketing Panel, travelling Senate roadshows, et al, have asked all these questions in one form or another. And, it is all irrelevant.

          Premium prices mean nothing if cash flow demands are high in fall and premium prices don't appear till . . .? Cash flow for me is king. The CWB system has never satisfied my cash requirements or many others. This one of the reasons wheat and barley are disappearing from crop rotations; they don't flow enough cash fast enough.

          Re price pooling: it can be good option if done differently. I grow forage seed from time to time that is price pooled. But, with a guaranteed basis most of the value of the seed is paid upon delivery to the customer. After all the returns are in for let's say turf seed, a final pool calculation is made and final returns are paid out. The thing is, going in, you know you will receive pretty well the full price early. The final payment more or less represents any premium.

          Comment


            #6
            Trust no one , that's the common thread to these comments.

            Comment


              #7
              Agstar77, trust has to be earned. KAP has a long ways to go to earn my trust back. Sending David Rolfe packing would only be a start.

              As far as the CWB, the lack of accountability, using what should be farmers returns to fight to retain the monopoly, quashing my right to sell my produce to whom or when I wish . . .

              Trust? I trust the open market partners I work with. They know if they don't act in a "trusting" manner and with a win/win attitude, I'll take my business somewhere else. But, I have responsibilities too. Pricing opportunites come and go, and if they are not captured that's my fault, not a company that buys and resells commodities.

              Comment


                #8
                Agstar – it’s ironic that you should be the one to mention trust. You trust the CWB yet they have never earned it. You vilify the evil grain companies as untrustworthy bandits yet they work to earn your trust every day – even when handling CWB grains; without farmers’ trust, they suffer (look what happened to SWP’s market share when they shut down all their wooden elevators).

                I guess it’s consistent with trusting KAP and others that are fed rhetoric by the CWB. Unfortunate....blind....yet consistent.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Agstar77, if the cwb wants to win over the trust of enough farmers to prevent the government from implimenting their marketing choice policy. The CWB is going to have to prove themselves. And mocking trust is not the way to do it.Making public the 2005/2006 sales book along with a breakdown of all cwb costs may save you, if it's as good as you say it is. But the fact the cwb won't do this, even with their entire existance hanging in the balance, just makes me think that that information would be more damaging to the cwb than benificial.

                  Answering questions and presenting corresponding evidence to all cwb claims of superiority is required.

                  Open market proponents are not afraid to answer the cwb's (KAP's) questions yet the cwb is terrified by and refuses to, answer our questions.

                  Why do you suppose that is?

                  Give us the raw data, and let us draw our conlusions.

                  A non peer reviewed study, using filtered and selective data in order to reach a predetermined outcome is not going to satisfy anyone other than the cwb's hard core committed supporters.

                  As Dr. Phil say's "It's time for you to get real"

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It seems its a matter of trust. You say trust me , we can destroy the present system and some of us will be better off. You don't have any more proof than what you are asking the other side to provide. I really don't think the risk reward is worth it. It may be for you but not for all of us .

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I'm not going to argue this one, but I will say this: These wingdings may come out as buddies of the "family farm/back to nature" but the fact is they hate your guts just as much as they hate the "factory farm"!
                      To them you are just one more capitalist mining the soil and ruining the environment!An evil expoilter of the land and animals!They are nuts and you should never support these crazy buggers! These are the same kooks who would have us all eating tofu and living in mud huts!...Of course while they live in their highrise condos with all the good things!
                      These are not your friends. They are kooks and "Watermelon Environmentalists"?...Green on the outside, but red as hell in the middle!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Agstar – I don’t care if you trust me or not; I don’t contribute here to get you to agree with me or to trust me. Just don’t ask me to blindly trust the unknown as you do.

                        Don’t tell me I don’t have proof. I have a provided a load of evidence that counters CWB claims that it has succeeded (I've got more if you want); a whole schwack of stuff showing that the CWB isn’t doing as good a job as you’d like to believe. All we’re asking is for answers and explanations. As I see it, the one thing the CWB has going for it is that the “court of public opinion” (the farm community) isn’t paying attention to details.

                        Why is it that, whenever open-marketers show real numbers, real facts, and real experiences that are critical of the CWB, the Canadian Wheat Borg never counters with opposing real numbers, real facts, real experiences that support the CWB? You know, proof, supporting your positions. Not just platitudes and rhetoric supporting your position and criticisms of your detractors.

                        Before you can assess risk/reward, you need to measure the risk and the reward – you choose to do neither but continue to criticize those that do or try to. How can you say the risk reward is not worth it to you when you really don’t know what the risk or the reward is?

                        As I said before, blind faith doesn’t cut it when you’re dealing with other peoples’ lives.

                        Comment

                        • Reply to this Thread
                        • Return to Topic List
                        Working...