05 Sep 2016
by Jim Rose
in economics of information, economics of media and culture, politics - New Zealand
Tags: brand names, economics of advertising, Forest and Bird, Greenpeace, Leftover Left, McDonald's, New Zealand Greens
Like McDonalds, Greenpeace globally is a brand. Forest and Bird is a local conservation brand. Until last year, I was utterly clueless as to who its leaders were. That is a deliberate branding decision in the past by McDonalds.
Greenpeace New Zealand and Forest and Bird were also pretty faceless in terms of who their chief executives were.This meant people were less likely to conflate the far left backgrounds of its leaders and activist support base with their self appointed environmental do-gooders brands.
No more, no longer. Greenpeace NZ appointed the former leader of the New Zealand Greens as its Chief Executive last year. Forest and Bird now appointed the Green MP who wanted to succeed him as leader of the Greens as their chief executive. Both bring political baggage.
I do not wish Greenpeace well with its anti-growth, anti-science, anti-human agenda, so I hope this was a mistake they made last year. I hope I am not interrupting them in making that mistake. Forest and Bird appears to be antigrowth as well so let them make this mistake as well.
Like this:
Like Loading...
02 Jul 2016
by Jim Rose
in development economics, environmental economics, global warming, health economics, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, rentseeking
Tags: activists, agricultural economics, antimarket bias, climate alarmism, do gooders, expressive voting, GMOs, green rent seeking, Greenpeace, Twitter left
For a generation, a campaign by the green movement against the growing of genetically modified crops has held sway across Europe. These foodstuffs are a threat to health, the environment and the small independent farmer, NGOs have argued.
As result, virtually no GM crops have been grown on Europe’s farms for the past 25 years. Yet hard evidence to support what is, in all but name, a ban on these vilified forms of plant life is thin on the ground. In fact, most scientific reports have indicated that they are generally safe, both to humans and the environment.
This point was endorsed last week when a 20-strong committee of experts from the US National Academies of Science announced the results of its trawl of three decades of scientific studies for “persuasive evidence of adverse health effects directly attributable to consumption of foods derived from genetically engineered crops”. It found none.
Instead the group uncovered evidence that GM crops have the potential to bestow considerable health benefits. An example is provided by golden rice, a genetically modified rice that contains beta carotene, a source of vitamin A. Its use could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who suffer from vitamin A deficiency in the third world, say scientists.
Source: The Observer view on the GM crops debate | Opinion | The Guardian
Scientists and governments around the world overwhelmingly agree that climate change is real, is largely human-induced and needs urgent action to prevent.
There is, in fact, a broad and overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, is caused in large part by human activities (such as burning fossil fuels), and if left un-checked will likely have disastrous consequences.
Furthermore, there is solid scientific evidence that we should act now on climate change – and this is reflected in the statements by these definitive scientific authorities.
Source: Scientific consensus | Greenpeace International.
Like this:
Like Loading...
24 Apr 2016
by Jim Rose
in economics of regulation, energy economics, environmental economics, global warming, Public Choice, rentseeking
Tags: antimarket bias, antiscience left, green rent seeking, Greenpeace, nuclear power, pessimism bias, rational irrationality, wind power
Like this:
Like Loading...
21 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in energy economics, environmental economics, environmentalism, global warming
Tags: Earth Hour, expressive politics, expressive voting, Greenpeace, Human Achievement Hour, New Zealand Greens, pessimism bias, rational irrationality
Like this:
Like Loading...
15 Feb 2016
by Jim Rose
in applied welfare economics, economic growth, energy economics, environmental economics, environmentalism, labour economics, macroeconomics, politics - New Zealand
Tags: expressive voting, Greenpeace, Leftover Left, New Zealand Greens, rational irrationality, Twitter left
Previous Older Entries
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments