Starting at the top, the two fertiliser companies don’t pollute rivers, they sell fertilisers, so factually it is wrong.
According to my dictionary pollute means contaminate with poisonous or harmful substances or to make morally corrupt or to desecrate.
How, then, can Ravensdown and Ballance pollute?
They do not sell poisonous or harmful substances, they sell fertilisers.
They don’t morally corrupt and they certainly don’t desecrate so the Greenpeace billboards are wrong in fact but why let facts get in the way of emotive rhetoric and blind prejudice.
So, Ballance and Ravensdown produce fertilisers. They do so ethically. The vast majority of their fertilisers carry the Fertmark tick, which means they are independently audited to ensure what’s on the label is in the bag.
They both employ high-quality graduate advisers who have done an extra course on nutrient management at Massey University so don’t tell me they pollute rivers.
Finally, they are both farmer-owned co-operatives, which makes the billboard campaign all the more offensive.
It is also hypocritical of Greenpeace to select two farmer-owned fertiliser co-ops to vent their spleen on.
Our most polluted rivers run through urban areas and not farmland.
Last year we had a massive 379 sewerage overflows, far more than any breakdowns in farmer effluent systems.
Lake Wakatipu is polluted – not by farmers but by ducks and tourists.
Recently 35 out of 40 councils surveyed had sewerage flowing into rivers and streams.
Twenty out of 178 wastewater treatment plants were operating on expired effluent discharge consents.
Auckland beaches are often unable to be used because of rampant pollution from sewerage and waste water so farmers aren’t the problem even though Greenpeace vilifies us with alacrity.
The question that begs is to ask if Greenpeace members are zealots who ignore rational argument, misguided or there to muscle donations from the gullible.
The tag on the billboard is TooManyCows, which totally ignores the fact only 15% of our rivers and creeks flow through dairy areas.
Let’s consider fertiliser use, not in the blind, emotive way Greenpeace does but factually.
American research (MIT) has found without fertiliser 50% of the world would starve. We couldn’t provide enough to feed them.
So, ban fertilisers as Greenpeace wants and sign the death warrants of 3.8 billion people.
Is that what they really want?
Think of what it would do to our standard of living if we went without fertilisers.
In the year to June 2017 primary production earned the country $38.1b.
Take fertiliser assisted production out of the equation and that figure would be down to just $19b.
While we wouldn’t starve because of our low population, food prices would rocket and farmers would be bankrupt.
Our primary sector exports are estimated to have risen to $41.6b to June last year. Take $20.53b off that and see how many lattes you could afford.
Basically, fertiliser is plant food, nothing more, nothing less.
New Zealand soils are not naturally fertile. We need fertiliser to encourage plant and animal growth, creating food and export dollars.
Farmers and the fertiliser companies jump through hoops and spend millions to apply only the fertiliser that is needed to encourage production to the areas that require it.
They have spent a fortune developing a precision spreading scheme, Spreadmark, to ensure fertiliser is applied exactly where it is needed.
As an industry I believe we can be justifiably proud of our fertiliser research, development and use.
What frustrates me about Greenpeace is the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, non-consultative approach.
Because of all of the above I’ve made a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority. I’ll let you know what happens.
Researching the organisation on the website was interesting.
Greenpeace’s international income was put at US$36,893,567 in 2015. It had assets of US$3,754,869.
Forbes magazine described it as a skillfully managed business with full command of the tools of direct mail and image manipulation – and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit organisation.
Greenpeace, Forbes said, was started by American draft dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969. The original money came from Quaker organisations that wanted to block American nuclear tests.
Interestingly, Greenpeace has been active against all energy except wind and solar. Research suggests wind and solar supply only 2% of world energy.
The Greenpeace approach, if taken seriously, could lead to cold winters and dark nights for the vast majority of the world’s population.
So, farmers and our two co-ops be proud, you are right, Greenpeace isn’t.
