I was listening to RNZ’s Checkpoint programme recently while driving home. I was appalled to hear our old friends at Greenpeace yet again slagging farmers. I was equally appalled that the programme gave Greenpeace a free ride.
The basic bitch Greenpeace had was about nitrates in water. It claimed that the town supplies to Darfield, Kirwee and Oxford have N nitrate levels above 5mg/litre. Greenpeace had, after all, tested 445 samples in North Canterbury the previous weekend.
It failed to mention that the level for N-nitrates in our water isn’t 5mg/litre but 11, which is the World Health Organisation figure.
My view of that claim would be to compare it to a speed dating party. The 445 samples over a weekend must have been completed at a run without a lot of engagement. Further, with Greenpeace doing the testing the credibility monitor would be on zero.
I’d respect a GNS analysis as scientifically credible. GNS supplies the bottles and takes three to four weeks to do the analysis. It’s free. In addition, I don’t believe that Greenpeace knows the difference between Nitrate (NO3) and Nitrate -N.
That didn’t stop Greenpeace spokesperson Amanda Larsson hitting the airwaves at pace.
The high nitrate level could increase the risk of pre-term birth, she extolled, not that it’s happened in New Zealand. We heard that the highest level was in private bores in rural areas, which had me stuffed. Did farmers give Greenpeace permission to test their private bores? I find that extremely difficult to believe.
In addition, many people could take samples and there are many folks with bores on the plains.
The problem according to Greenpeace was fertiliser application and dairy cow urine, which is a mantra it trots out at will. I heard that North Canterbury had one of the highest stocking rates in the country and that was the problem.
Greenpeace wants the allowable level of nitrates in drinking water reduced to 1 mg/litre, which was its “safe limit”.
The entire interview indicated to me that not letting the facts get in the way of a good story was alive and well at Greenpeace and RNZ.
To consider those facts:
Nitrates occur naturally and you can ingest them daily by consuming cured meat, and vegetables including beetroot, lettuce, radish and spinach, which can have N-nitrate levels above 1000 mg/kg.
The WHO tells me that there was no evidence of blue baby occurrences where N- nitrate concentration was 9.9mg/litre.
The United Kingdom government tells me that when N-nitrate contamination exceeds 22mg/litre “the water should not be consumed”. That’s twice the current NZ and WHO limit.
The WHO recommendation is 11mg/litre. The issue there is that Greenpeace wanting a 1mg/litre concentration would eliminate farming from NZ and condemn the nation to poverty.
It galls me that Greenpeace receives a virtual free ride in the NZ media. Fact-checking doesn’t occur and emotional statements seem to be encouraged.
Talking to colleagues, RNZ isn’t the only media outlet that doesn’t want to offend Greenpeace, despite what the facts may be. I find that deeply concerning.
A publicly available analysis of the Greenpeace modus operandi is fascinating. There are five points.
The research was completed by an international group of eminent scientists. It included Dr Patrick Moore, who was a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a director of Greenpeace International.
Those points are:
• Creating unnecessary feelings of guilt, panic and frustration among the general public. Greenpeace then makes money off this moral outrage, guilt and helplessness.
• Vilifying the innocent as enemies. Once you have been tarred by Greenpeace’s brush, any attempts to defend yourself are usually treated with suspicion or even derision.
• Deliberately fighting honest attempts by other groups to tackle the “environmental problems” that Greenpeace claims need to be tackled.
• Distorting the science to generate simplistic “environmental crises” that have nothing to do with the genuine environmental issues that should be addressed.
• Actively shutting down any attempts to have informed discussions about what to actually do about the “problems” it has highlighted.
So, what needs to happen from here?
My opinion of Greenpeace coincides with the report’s findings. It has a very successful business model that involves, among other issues, pandering to prejudices and conning the gullible.
That it is a registered charity in NZ enjoying tax-free status is anathema. It is a business, albeit based on bluff, bluster and dubious rhetoric. That it enjoys that tax-free status is totally wrong and needs to be changed.
Pre-election, National pledged to remove the tax-free status of charities, which I totally support. It should start with Greenpeace.
And for the media: reporting accurately and factually without fear or favour was the mantra I was raised on. One could humbly suggest it should be restored.
