New Zealand’s food system – from production to delivery – has been built around efficiency rather than resilience to climate change and natural disasters. But there are solutions.
Rail is just another option. When all freight is by road, it’s no better as a single slip will take a road out for months. The article is suggesting we shouldn’t have all our eggs in one basket.
The article sparked discussion. I think that’s a success. Not every article needs to solve the problem.
Article: 93% of freight is moved by road, we should try to diversify
You: All this article does it highlight problems, what’s the point in that?
Other commenter: Highlighting problems is a point in and of itself, but they actually suggested many ways to improve the situation
You: Taking some freight on rail is “moronic” when we can build temporary road bridges when they get washed away
Other commenter: Rail is an option to add to the mix, the article is suggesting we do a mix of options
You: There’s no point in putting any freight on rail, since there are some places rail doesn’t go to
Other commenter: Just because rail doesn’t go everywhere doesn’t mean we can’t diversify some freight onto rail
You: The railway lines don’t exist so we can’t put freight on them
You are using strawman arguments and seem to be deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting the responses you get. This is a place for good faith discussion, if you’re not going to actually read the responses you’re replying to it would be better if you didn’t reply at all.
Rail is just another option. When all freight is by road, it’s no better as a single slip will take a road out for months. The article is suggesting we shouldn’t have all our eggs in one basket.
The article sparked discussion. I think that’s a success. Not every article needs to solve the problem.
There’s very few places in NZ that have only one road to them, and those that do will likely not have a rail line to them.
That is not a reason to not diversify.
Uhh, what? The fact that the other option doesn’t exist is no excuse?
I’m going to summarise this comment chain so far:
Article: 93% of freight is moved by road, we should try to diversify
You: All this article does it highlight problems, what’s the point in that?
Other commenter: Highlighting problems is a point in and of itself, but they actually suggested many ways to improve the situation
You: Taking some freight on rail is “moronic” when we can build temporary road bridges when they get washed away
Other commenter: Rail is an option to add to the mix, the article is suggesting we do a mix of options
You: There’s no point in putting any freight on rail, since there are some places rail doesn’t go to
Other commenter: Just because rail doesn’t go everywhere doesn’t mean we can’t diversify some freight onto rail
You: The railway lines don’t exist so we can’t put freight on them
You are using strawman arguments and seem to be deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting the responses you get. This is a place for good faith discussion, if you’re not going to actually read the responses you’re replying to it would be better if you didn’t reply at all.
And you say I’m using strawman arguments? Grow up dave, and stop defending half arsed journalism.