Musings: Unjustifiable Stances

The new owners of the Prince Course — Jeff Stone and Reignwood International — are taking a scorched earth policy to the greens there, applying herbicides to more than 100 acres of links.

And then what do you suppose they'll apply to make the new grass grow again?

As you can see, they sprayed right up to the water's edge, with no buffer zone at all.

And as the nene doodoo indicates, endangered birds are frequenting the sprayed greens, with unknown effects.

Where's Councilman Gary Hooser, the outraged KKCR DJs, Fern Rosenstiel, Dustin Barca, GMO-Free Kauai, Babes Against Biotech, Hawaii SEED and all the other folks who have been screaming about pesticide and herbicide use on the westside? Here's something happening right in their own backyard.

Surely their concern isn't limited only to multinational chemical/seed companies, to the exclusion of multinational developers. Unless, of course, their interest all along has been in destroying agriculture, so resort/tourism uses can flourish.

As I reported last July, a study by University of Hawaii researchers shows that Island golf courses use significantly more pesticides than the seed/chem companies.  The report, last updated in 1999, estimated that 119,867 pounds — nearly 60 tons — of pesticides are used annually on golf courses in Hawaii.

By comparison, approximately 2.5 tons and 5,884 gallons of restricted use pesticides were applied to Kauai's seed fields in 2012. The pesticides applied to links in Hawaii include Chlorpyrifos, Dicamba, 2,4-D and Roundup — the same herbicides, fungicides and insecticides used on seed fields. Yet the anti-GMO groups have singled out only agriculture for attack and regulation. Why?

Meanwhile, the New York Times is criticizing India's ongoing crackdown on Greenpeace. Most recently, India’s Home Ministry temporarily suspended Greenpeace India’s registration as a group eligible to receive foreign funds under India’s 2010 Foreign Contribution Regulation Act and froze its bank accounts.

While the NYT is focusing on Greenpeace's activities to halt coal mining, the international “nonprofit” has also been active in stymying India's foray into biotech crops, using the same misinformation, propaganda strategies employed in the Philippines and Thailand, where the group also destroyed test crops.

Though the NYT is framing it as a free speech issue, and it's true that dissent must be allowed in a democratic society, there's more to the story than that. India is reacting against what it sees as foreign meddling in its affairs.

Greenpeace — like many groups active in Hawaii — is not at all transparent in revealing either funding sources or expenditures, which are significant. Greenpeace International claimed revenues of about $171 million in 2013. And while the NYT unquestioningly accepts Greenpeace India's claim that 70 percent of its funding is generated in-country, no public records confirm either its budget or its funding sources.

What is clear is that Greenpeace has an extraordinary presence in India, with 268 permanent staff in that country alone, compared to 221 in North America, 175 in Southeast Asia and just 48 in Africa. It's hard to believe that money isn't being funneled into India from outside.

And in other news, the Hawaii State Legislature apparently wants to ensure that only the big boys are allowed to operate medical marijuana dispensaries. It's moving forward with HB 321, which would require folks to plunk down a $25,000 nonrefundable application fee. Ouch,

And if you get the green light, you have to pay another $75,000 for each license approved, plus $25,000 for each retail dispensing location allowed.

The bill also imposes a special general excise tax of 25 percent on marijuana sales by dispensaries, and a retail marijuana special sales tax of 10 percent.

Wow. Talk about gouging.

So far, Sen. Ron Kouchi and Rep. Jimmy Tokioka have voted against the dispensary law, while Reps. Dee Morikawa and Derek Kawakami were in support, Derek with reservations.

Council Chair Mel Rapozo also was able to muster a majority to support his resolution opposing any dispensary in Kauai County. The reso carries no legal weight, because the bill prohibits counties from enacting ordinances or rules to prohibit the use of land for medical marijuana dispensaries.

Still, it expresses the reactionary mindset of those who are willing to discriminate against medical marijuana patients by denying them the same rights that other patients have to purchase their prescribed medications in a legal facility. How can they justify that stance?