I was driving out of Auckland airport to be surprised by a billboard with the message ‘Ravensdown and Ballance Pollute Rivers’. It was from Greenpeace.
My view was that the billboard was wrong. Ravensdown and Ballance sell fertiliser, they don’t pollute anything., If you accept the Greenpeace message you then have to accept the sentence, ‘Ford and Toyota kill people’. Our road deaths last year stands at 379 with many of those killed driving a Toyota or a Ford.
The reality is that Ford and Toyota sell cars, end of story.
I complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, (ASA) who found in my favour. I’d never dealt with the ASA before but found them independent and professional.
When the judgement came out you’d have thought by the Greenpeace reaction that the sky was about to fall in.
Greenpeace campaigner, one Gen Toop claimed the ASA decision could have a ‘chilling effect on environmental and social advocacy’.
The reality is that environmental and social advocates have to be truthful, honest and accountable, just like everyone else.
She added that it was ‘very disturbing that the ASA had taken the position that companies which pollute the environment are above criticism’ adding ‘free speech is a vital part of our democratic society’.
For a start the ASA did not take the position that companies that pollute the environment are above suspicion. They said the Greenpeace billboards were wrong in fact.
I agree that free speech is a vital part of our democratic society but again you have to be honest, truthful and accurate otherwise you have anarchy.
Greenpeace have lodged an appeal against the decision which is their right.
The Greenpeace release concludes with a rant about synthetic nitrogen which is the subject of my current article in Farmers’ Weekly. It is on the website.
The reality is that according to OECD research half the world relies on nitrogen fertiliser to survive.
Going to the Greenpeace website they wax lyrically on the evils of nitrogen quoting a United Nations report. I read the said report and my take on it is way different from Greenpeace.
So my take on Greenpeace is they’re there purely to farm donations from the gullible with their inaccurate and emotive ramblings which are not factually based.
I also wonder where Greenpeace supremo Dr Russell Norman stands on the issues Greenpeace is currently involved with.
When he was in parliament I found his statements measured and factual although I didn’t always agree with his conclusions.
With Greenpeace their statements are anything but.
For more on the Greenpeace saga you’ll need to read my next article in Farmers Weekly. It’s due out late Friday.