KEY POINTS:
Arguments against travelling overseas or buying foreign food because of the carbon footprint are "idiotic" and not the way to tackle climate change, Helen Clark has said.
"If you want to talk about threats, the next threat to trade from our part of the world is going to be idiotic arguments about food miles and travel miles ," Miss Clark told the Seven Network.
This forum debate has now closed. Here is a selection of your views on the topic.
Andy, (London)
For once I agree with Aunty Helen. False science is actually incorrect as well, as this argument is not even remotely based on science. It is a total fabrication by various 'local' farming and production lobby groups in several countries. As a kiwi living in the UK I usually buy NZ lamb, butter, produce, wine, and beer (when it's available) for it's higher quality, to support my country, and now just to upset the pathetic British self-interest groups. While I agree more needs to be done to reduce the pollution and destruction of various ecosystems around the world, this is certainly not the way to do it. If the UK (where this argument seems to be loudest) decided to stop importing foreign food because of this, where would their food come from? You'd have wide spread poverty, malnutrition and starvation on a scale to rival some of Africa's. Intelligent discussion and reasoning is needed people, not just an over-hyped bandwagon for the gullible masses to jump on.
Nicholas (London)
Carbon footprints are not nonsense; the problem is that it is only one part of the picture. The ecological impact of food production (for instance) should be a composite picture of the pesticides, production methods, and distance travelled, taking into account the method (i.e. air or sea). The food miles argument will potentially soon penalise African farmers who use organic methods - the broad ecological impact of their activity therefore being less than their intensive-farming European competitors. The problem is our ability to measure and communicate this complex equation. Expending our energies criticising Helen Clark or indeed environmental activists is the only nonsense going on here.
Nick
Just one question to all, People won't travel less, so if they don't fly how will they get there? By ship? That is a lot of emissions. Helen Clark is right in a sense in that it is a stupid argument over travel miles, Sure an aircraft emits far more gases than a car, but there are far more cars travelling everyday than planes.
Tamblin
There have always been leaders who won't listen to the science and they take comfort in standing with each other to support their head-in-the-sand stance:
"On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996. On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on CFCs. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere." From Wikiencyclopedia.
Idiotic eh? Well, explain the false science theory to the Marshall Islands, and their receding coastal line. - Please Helen, could you provide the Marshall Islands with a new theory on why they are losing their land? Also, that beautiful iceberg that dropped off the arctic, that came so close to our waters, that people flew over from all over the world to sight has nothing to do with global warming either. We would like to hear your science-theory for that one too. Don't worry about burying your head in the sand, because it will be more a case of some us drowning first, and those of us that survive, will get to burn instead.
Remember when the hole in the ozone layer, was a concern, and governments banded together, and banned the flurocarbons - we still were able to keep using fly-spray and hairspray with alternatives - individuals and governments banded together and made a difference. Someone is going to present a solution very soon, and that idea needs to be embraced big-time.
Pilot
To bloody right this argument or suggestion is 'idiotic'.
1) International travel will never cease. This industry is continuously growing - so let's stop contemplating this "possibility".
2) The majority of greenhouse emissions come from cars. So if we are going to be sensible let's focus on this emission component.
3) You are always going to have to pay tax - so stop complaining.
4) Coffee has recently been voted the most popular drink amongst New Zealanders - and our coffee comes from overseas. So unless anyone knows how to grow coffee beans in our climate, I can guarantee you that we will never stop buying overseas food and beverages. So let's stop arguing over the impossible and focus on what's real.
DrColes
Please do your homework before these duped folks cost you your economies. My point in all of this is that CO2 does not cause climate change. I am not arguing that a change in the climate might be occurring. The climate on earth changes all the time and that global change is caused by the Sun (a new Nasa finding). All life on the planet is carbon based, CO2 is part of our food chain, and it is not a pollutant. The biggest "green house gas" is water vapour. If climate change is caused by human activity then we would need to start eliminating life on the planet, yes this is absurd, so is the assertion that humans are causing climate change. It just is not the truth.
Rick in the States
I'm not sure which specific part of the argument Helen is calling false science, but it's fact that it takes energy to move any mass over a distance. The longer the distance, the more energy. I'm pretty sure all those long haul truckers and cargo ships and airlines aren't using energy provided by wind or geothermal or other carbon-neutral fuel sources, so the farther they ship anything using hydrocarbon sources, the more they're freeing bound carbon back into the atmosphere. The amount might be relatively small compared to the pollution from industrial processes such as chlorine production, but it adds up over the millions of items being shipped daily. Asking people to try and buy more local produce is no sillier than asking them to turn off the light if they're planning to leave a room for more than a couple of minutes or to insulate their attic to cut energy usage.
Richard Prosser
Truly amazing. And now that the idea of anthropogenic climate change has been categorically proven to be such a complete load of fiction that even the Prime Minister has to admit it, how long will it be before the rest of the Kyoto Believers start to accept that they've been sold a pup?
Peter Wilson
If the science regarding CO2 and man-made global warming that Ms Clarke regards as "settled" is indeed so, then it is difficult to argue against the food miles idea as being bad science. It appears Labour is "hoist on its own petard" on this one. Of course, if the whole global warming scare is just another interfering left wing socialist excuse for the Government to tax and scold us, then food miles are bad science. It's just that's not what Helen says, is it? When you choose an alarmist position on global warming, you need to accept all the consequences, not just those that suit.
London
Perhaps we should all go back to living in the caves and hitting elephants (given there's no woolly mammoths left due to their excessive airtravel and carbo footprints) over the head with clubs for food? No doubt we'll have to eat them raw because lighting a fire will destroy a tree and put all that carbon into the atmosphere. Or maybe we should all line up and every 2nd person shot to reduce the world's population and thereby reduce demand for products and food etc. Scientists only come up with a theory and then get funding to make the answers fit their own theory (wouldn't do to prove yourself wrong now would it?). We need a new funding policy that it should be split 50/50 with another scientist trying to disprove the theory. That way we'd at least get balanced and informed discussion rather than political grandstanding.
Erik NZer (Europe)
For all the cries of 'rubbish' and 'not true' the question still remains of how to prove this to Europeans and others who for this reason won't buy products for which they have substitutes originating closer to home. Maybe some of the marketing could take a more reasoned approach. Perhaps a bulk load of butter sent via air-freight from NZ to Europe may generate less of a carbon footprint than the same product sent by truck across Europe. Perhaps a portion of the cost of NZ products is allocated to environmental conservation and needs to be advertised as such.
Arron
Like Jade I am pinching myself that I actually agree with something our great communist leader says. Of course this hysteria associated with the climate change red herring is absolute bollocks. If we listened to these fanatics no-one would go anywhere and we'd all end up being subsistence farmers scratching around in the dirt for small insects to eat like 99 per cent of Africa, surviving on drinking Spirulina and entertaining ourselves by doing macramé, growing beards and making Roman sandals in our spare time. But I don't believe that Clark is being honest about standing up against the climate change myth, I think she just loves the first class travel and the luxury trappings of her overseas jaunts too much.
Ray (Cambridge, UK)
Of course we have to curb our travel! Road transport has been third greatest source of increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the last 35 years (see IPCC 4th Assessment Report 2007, Part III, Chapter 5), behind electricity generation and deforestation. Emissions from international transport have also increased markedly. What is this 'science' that Helen Clarke is referring to? Ms Clarke's description of such claims as 'idiotic' makes her look silly, and an embarrassment to NZers like myself living overseas.
Thoughtspur
It's all well and good that eating food produced within a hundred miles of where it was grown is a nice idea; especially if you happen to live a middle class life in a city or region close to all of the things you prefer to eat. New Zealand's economic survival is still largely reliant on exporting food - so it is not difficult to understand why the PM would come out swinging on the topic (that's what we pay her for). Countries of the world should be benchmarked against the world's worst polluters (the United States, China, Brazil) that would make our footprint akin to that of a flea by comparison. We should be exempt from the madness instead of trying to take the lead we don't have the stamina for the race we started when we signed up for the Kyoto Protocol. That isn't to say we shouldn't reduce our abuse of resources or find clean alternatives - but only for the reason that we want to as an independent state. Our carbon neutrality should be a geopolitical position - we won't get involved in the protocols of others but take care of our own backyard with sensible, affordable practices and sane leadership. Seems to work for Sweden and Switzerland.
Andrew Atkin
It's not false science in itself, just only part of the story. Of course you have to measure the total carbon-output from other processors in making the food, for an accurate eco-evaluation. We should put a simple graph on all NZ meat packages showing the comparative carbon-costs of NZ versus European food. The graph should also show the ratio between carbon-output from transport and total carbon output. Or maybe we should just ship our food with wood-burning (biomass) steam engines, just to keep the so-called environmentalists happy?
Bob (Kaitaia)
My view is that no current politician can find answers to climate change, because politics is based on the self-interest of economies. Economy and environmental stability are in head-on collision. Our economies were born of the Industrial Revolution and industry has undermined environment for 300 years. That 300 years is the lag time it's taken for us to identify the evidence. If you look at our finely balanced planet from outer space, you cannot see the economy, but you can see the diminishing poles, the forest clearance and the chaotic weather changes. One scarcely needs to be a Prime Minister to draw a conclusion from this observation. In fact I'd guess that being a Prime minister makes it quite impossible to draw the obvious conclusion. For those who care, an altered political structure is the first step to human survival. Stop listening and start changing: we do have a species survival instinct buried under our politically induced greed, and I'm confident that it will surface.
Paul (Taranaki)
Of course it's idiotic. Why should Helen cut her travel or not eat foriegn foods when she can tax us instead. After all we all know that extra tax = less CO2......doesn't it?
Nick
This is crazy!
It's not rocket science Helen. Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gasses, greenhouse gasses cause global warming which causes climate change.
HM (Eden Terrace)
The food miles argument has been debunked before in the pages of the Herald. The carbon footprint of a food item anywhere in the world depends on the total amount of energy expended on its production, not just the amount required to get it to market. This makes the NZ produced butter on supermarket shelves in Britain an ecologically more friendly buy that its inefficiently-produced local counterpart, despite the distance it has travelled. But the amount of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere by a single trip from the Southern to the Northern Hemisphere in a jet airliner is staggering, and a lot more thought, creativity and money should be invested by the international aeronautical community in developing more energy-efficient means of travelling by air from A to B.
C Williams
So it would be better to fly to work instead of drive, an obvious "scientific" conclusion according to "Our Dear Leader"?
James Baxter
Helen should be flying on her broomstick to save carbon.
Kane
I substantially disagree with Helen. She is a product of her context, and bears the hallmarks of her generation, in this case, cornucopianism and cosmeticism. With 'leaders' of her ilk at the reigns there is little hope of meaningful climate change mitigation. Helen's inherent 'growthism' trait will not allow her to make any policy changes which negatively affect the long term economy. She will fight for the business-as-usual scenario. Aviation emissions are but 3 per cent of the transportation total, however are far more damaging because of release directly into the stratosphere. Also the altostratus generating effect of contrails is a major factor. Air travel for coffee and shopping must be curtailed, but she has not the political fortitude to enact this. Oh no, the baby-boomers golden retirement of hydrocarbon hedonism must be delivered at all costs.
The food-miles debate has been misconstrued by the media and politicians here, latching on desperately to the Lincoln university study. The essence of food-miles activism is food security for a post-carbon context. The greenies ("green is the new black") in the UK don't care if we could produce lamb at half the net carbon cost because that would be of no use to them when, in the not too distant future, there is not the fuel supply/security/stability to ship food half way around the planet. The impetus is not for them to be forced to accept our products and thus relinquish their own food security, but to overhaul and adapt their own production methods to mitigate peak-oil which in the short term is the greater threat than climate change (yet politically incorrect, and not mentioned in polite company, certainly not at dinner parties). Helen shows her desperation in labelling such a movement 'idiotic'.
Rhys Lewis (Auckland)
I would be very curious to hear more from Helen Clark on how CO2 emissions from travel is 'false science'. For example a trip in a plane to London directly emits around 1 tonne of CO2 per passenger for the return journey. If fewer people book tickets, then the airlines drop flights from their schedules, and less CO2 ends up in the air. In contrast to that, a solar water heater would take several years to substitute that amount of CO2. So dropping a trip to London every now and then has as much benefit as fitting a solar water heater, but without the embarrassment of looking like tree-hugger to your neighbours.
David, Auckland
Helen Clark has hit the nail on the head for this one. Why should we have to cut back on travel and the importation of food-based upon some absurd 'carbon footprint' theory. What the environmentalists are asking for has little rational basis from an economic point of view and has potentially harmful implications if people start taking these ideas seriously. The best and most viable way to save the environment (if indeed it can be saved) is through progressive technological development and clean, efficient waste management. Cutting back on such things like international travel will only harm the economy and in turn hinder efforts to achieve environmental sustainability. If we were to stop using any form of transport that was dependent on fossil fuels we as a society would be doomed.
Grant Dexter
She is right. Giving up travel and food to save the planet is as idiotic as recycling. Nothing wrong with any of these things because you want to save money, but anything in the name of controlling the weather is idiotic. Climate control is a myth straight out of bad science fiction.
Jada (Tauranga)
Yeah, it's a load of rubbish for sure. But I am so shocked that Hulun Klark said something that I could agree with.
