Predators Food waste. Power transmission. Help. This is today’s postcard.
This is a discussion post. Opinions in the text are the responsibility of the writer.
Who should pay for the lost nature?
Three county leaders from the Norwegian Farmers Association claimed in Aftenposten on 23 September that the sheep industry loses NOK 100 million annually because predators prevent 400,000 sheep from grazing in the wolf zone. The farming team will have zero wolves and 20 sheep in each measure of the wolf zone. They claim that with the current wolf breeding area, grazing rights in the area have been deprived of the landowners, without compensation. The rhetoric is unnecessarily confrontational.
The current practice for grazing in gardens is out of date. Biodiversity is in crisis. Of the mammals, only 4 percent are now wild animals, the rest are humans and our domestic animals. Wild nature is a rare commodity that is urgent to preserve. Demands for the release of more and more sheep at the expense of vulnerable nature are unreasonable from an industry that contributes only 0.6% of the Norwegian diet.
In Norway, 95 percent of the land area is considered open field. 45 percent of this is suitable for grazing. 85 percent of all sheep are allowed to walk almost anywhere in the field, including protected areas. If there are 400,000 sheep in the wolf zone, all unfenced greenery should be considered pasture, either in the neighbor’s yard or on the edge of the ditch along E6. Because the area of the wolves is located in the part of the country that is most densely populated.
There is almost no untouched nature within 1 to 3 km of human infrastructure. Paradoxically, the Farmers Association will have as many sheep in the wolf zone as there are in Agder, Rogaland, Vestland, Møre og Romsdal and Trøndelag, in total.
It’s tempting to wonder if the Farmers Association wants to turn the wolf zone into a sheep sanctuary and send the bill to future generations.
Alette Sandvik and Hege O’Wiidt, the Association of our predators
You must keep track of food waste
After reading Aftenposten on September 26 that 6 out of 10 elderly people in nursing homes are malnourished as a result of unappealing food, I felt my responsibility. When food does not serve its main function: to provide nutrition and enjoy it, then we must take action.
I advise on public procurement of food and meal services. Food and food waste are an area of concern. We will reduce food waste and promote food that is safe for the climate and for health. But the most important thing is the joy of food! And that the food is tempting, good and nutritious.
In fact, everyone who consistently deals with food waste experiences that food improves. When the nursing home throws away full plates because no one eats, the kitchen must be searched and notified.
We see that the development of systems for monitoring food waste is required, especially in the nursing home sector. It is also absolutely necessary that the companies themselves prioritize their own resources in the start-up phase. Municipality of Bærum Set aside 40 percent of a nurse’s work hours for mapping.
The Bærum Municipality set a goal of reducing food waste by 20 percent, but achieved 30! This is the money we can spend on improving quality. When we record food waste from the plate, we can also check whether users liked the food.
We work with The Food Joy Corps, which brings together councilors, decision makers, kitchen staff, staff, residents and family members to explore how they can make meals the highlight of the day.
We will find ways to measure user satisfaction. We need to test what works and create tools that can be used by more people. The Directorate of Public Administration and Financial Management is going to launch some innovation projects here, so it’s just a matter of getting involved.
The goal should be for public food not only to be great, but also to promote health. And that people in five years will say, “Hey, did people really throw away food before?”
Now we are asking the partner municipalities for projects on food waste, enjoyment of food, nutrition and climate. The spare phone It is open every day for sustainability issues.
Elisabeth Sandnes, Senior Advisor / Attorney, Public Procurement Division,
partner sustainability and innovation department
Weak power transmissions in Norway
High electricity prices in the south have revealed a weakness in our power transmission system. Power transmission takes place mainly on an east-west axis (power production from western Norway to eastern Norway).
Power transmission from north to south is currently carried out through Sweden. Therefore, the strengthening of transmission capacity on the north-south axis is relevant.
Airline technology will face protests against monster masts and is politically impossible to implement. The alternative is the laying of cables along the coast.
AC transmission at normal grid frequency (50 Hz) is limited in length from 100 to 150 km for technical reasons. For long cable transmission, high voltage direct current (HVDC) is used to avoid technical problems with 50 Hz AC. Converter stations convert between alternating current and direct current. HVDC is a point-to-point connection, without the possibility of forks.
For a north-south transmission line, branches are needed, including the connection to the central region of Norway. The technology that allows the use of cable and the possibility of derivations is the low frequency alternating voltage (LFAC). For alternating voltages in the 10–16.7 Hz range, cable lengths of 500 km are realistic and an alternative to HVDC.
Given the situation we now have with high electricity prices in the south, the new government should initiate a study of a backbone network in the north-south axis based on LFAC.
Helge Mordt, Associate Professor, Østfold University College
Confusing help tags from Norad
While Jonas Gahr Støre (Labor Party) is forming the government clique, we can affirm that the aid never reached the issue of the election campaign. All the more important is the discussion post of Norad Bård’s director Vegar Solhjell and Norad’s advisor Nikolai Hegertun on September 28 in Aftenposten.
They argue that we should distinguish between aid that fights poverty locally in a country and that goes to finance the global commons. “Global investment” will combat common global problems, and climate will be cited as an example.
The proposal is interesting because it helps to make clear that successful development assistance has a global ripple effect, while at the same time being in our own best interest.
However, there are some unfortunate aspects to the proposal.
Climate is easy to place in the category of ‘global public goods’, as the climate crisis is cross-border and hits the poorest hardest.
Gender equality, on the other hand, will often end up in the “pot of solidarity” category. Simply put, this means that this type of assistance is seen to primarily help individuals and society by strengthening women’s rights. At the same time, we know that greater equality provides a better world for all.
The Economist recently listed a number of contexts. The poorer the conditions for equality, the more unstable a country is. This leads to violence, conflict, people fleeing, and lower economic growth.
When Nigerian women are allowed to borrow, invest in their own businesses, and send their daughters to school rather than marry them off for economic reasons, it is a victory for equality. At the same time, the development assistance projects that contribute to this are an investment in stable societies.
Care’s mission is to fight poverty by working for women’s rights and opportunities. This does not prevent Norway from contributing money and expertise because we ourselves benefit from a more stable world in economic growth.
The labels that we put on the work that is done should not simplify so much that we lose sight of this duality.
Kaj-Martin Georgsen, Secretary General of Care Norway