Home | Education | Environmental
Ignoratio Elenchi is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is. This Latin idiom is most appropriate in the light of Greenpeace's baffling attack against dairy giant Fonterra for using palm kernel expeller based animal feed alleging that the practice results in massive deforestation. In response, the Federated Farmers and the country's ports are calling for a tough line against Greenpeace activists who held up a cargo ship unloading its load of palm kernel, labelling them "pirates". The dramatic protest off the Port of Tauranga saw 14 Greenpeace protesters lash themselves to parts of the Hong Kong-registered freighter East Ambition. Greenpeace says the use of palm kernel for animal feed undermines New Zealand farmers' "clean, green" claims. However, Prime Minister John Key said he was not going to stop imports of palm kernel, because it was only used for about 1 per cent of feed here. Fonterra also said the vessel did not carry any of its feed, and that the kernel it imported for its dairy farms came from sustainable suppliers. The company dismissed Greenpeace's protest as a dangerous publicity stunt that "potentially damages New Zealand's reputation as a lawful country". Police removed the protesters once the ship docked and they were charged with illegally boarding a vessel. They face a maximum fine of $2000. However, ports around the country want tough punishments dished out to prevent such disruptive protests. Port of Tauranga chief executive Mark Cairns told Radio New Zealand the last time there was a similar protest at Tauranga one of the protesters was nearly killed and a port staff member put his life at risk rescuing them. Mr Cairns said if they tried such a protest in northern Europe "they would find themselves getting shot". Says Nelson dairy farmer Julian Raine, "Greenpeace protesters have rocks in their heads." He is incensed at Greenpeace activists protesting at shipments of palm-kernel livestock feed, saying they are wrongly targeting farmers for using a waste product. "I used to be a Greenpeace supporter and I'm still a green supporter, but Greenpeace are doing New Zealand's image a significant amount of damage because of the misinformation they are spreading," Mr Raine said. Farmers were using a waste byproduct that would otherwise be burnt, he said. Mr Raine has one of only two dairy farms in Nelson which milk cows in winter. He used 30 tonnes of PKE this winter to supplement the cows' feed, along with grass silage, maize silage and apple pomace. "I only buy it when I have a shortage of feed, and last autumn it was extremely dry. It was essential for my cows in winter. In the view of Deforestation Watch, the real nub of the issue is that palm kernel expeller is a by-product with almost no commercial value and it is utterly fallacious that they cause deforestation. Says New Zealand's Federated Farmers biosecurity spokesperson, John Hartnell: "Not a single millimeter of forest is being cleared just to feed dairy cows." "Palm kernel expeller is a waste product left over from the processing of palm oil for consumer products," he pointed out. The CEO of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council, Tan Sri Yusof Basiron said: "In the last 200 years, New Zealand's temperate forest is already mostly wiped out to make way for settlement and grazing land, to produce milk, meat and wool which now make up the main exports of New Zealand." He asks: "Why are these agricultural products, produced out of deforested land in New Zealand acceptable to Greenpeace but palm oil, an agricultural product from Malaysia, demonized?" He continues: "Both countries cleared land for agricultural purposes long ago, and the extent of deforestation was far more extensively carried out in New Zealand compared to Malaysia." "Why are these NGO's selectively criticizing developing countries when the land clearance is more widespread and starkly obvious in developed countries like New Zealand.", he queried. After all, forests, be they temperate or tropical are valuable for sequestering CO2 to prevent global warming. "Why are tropical forests the only target for preservation?" he asked. "If the intention of the NGO's are really to reduce carbon emission, they should focus on the real culprit, fossil fuels which contributes up to 80% of global CO2 emission," Yusof pointed out. "The real culprits are the developed nations but gues who gets the blame - China and India," he observed. In the view of Deforestation Watch, it would take a great deal of verbal acrobatics for Greenpeace to squirm out of this one.THE END.
Article Source: http://www.mycontentbuilder.com
Deforestation Watch was established to drive sustainability mainstream. Striving to be a center of green news, solutions and all things green, we also help corporations looking for green guidance. In a nutshell, we live green through education and pro-active action!
Please Rate this Article
5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
Full name
E-mail address
