Tuesday, May 15, 2007

蘋果 vs. 綠色和平

蘋果電腦的Steve Jobs對綠色和平的看法:

  • "I think your organisation particularly depends too much on principle and not enough on fact. You guys rate people based on what people say their plans are in the distant future, not what they are doing today. I think you put way too much weight on these glorified principles and way too little weight on science and engineering.

5月18日: 被綠色和平如此惡意誹謗, 難怪Steve Jobs會這樣說

11月6日: Greenpeace's Warning: Don't Eat Your iPhone


Anonymous said...

點解你不提Steve Jobs是在 股東大會上作出此評論?? 是否刻意斷章取義??

"Steve Jobs used Apple’s annual shareholders meeting this week to take a swipe at environmental group Greenpeace, and to answer criticism about the company's stock-options scandal."

cinimod said...


Anonymous said...

Dear another anonymous,

argumentum ad hominen does not help your course.


Anonymous said...

無護自己公司利益, 反擊環保團體, 指環保份子空口講白話, 不切實際, 阻住大家搵錢, 咁樣o既意見是否中肯??

yellowcow said...

Some additional info for the so-called "scandal".

It's about stock-options backdating. As WSJ's Holman Jenkins points: "there is nothing categorically corrupt or improper about backdating...The scandal element ... arises because ever-shifting accounting, regulatory and tax standards were, by some readings, punitive during the years in question toward choosing a past date to make an options package effective."

It seems a mere technical issue.

Anonymous said...

Green Peace, my hero in defending for our mother Earth against massive and irresponsible exploitation of the nature by human being.

Apple, just one of the giant money earning machines in the modern society which addicts to the myth that a technocratic industrial world will save our future.

Yellowcow, a poor guy who will waste his lifetime to promote by all means hatred against whatever greenies say or do.

Anonymous said...

Green Peace, a religious cult with superficial, sometimes naive, scientific and economic knowledge.....strucgling to force the world to comply.

Apple, a company that proves to the world it knows what really works.....a leader in the technology world.

For all it was worth, Steve Job is only "putting money in Green Peace's pocket".....so don't be so hostile, brothers and sisters.....

Anonymous said...

"don't be so hostile, brothers and sisters..... "

A really good advice to the owner of this blog, who started by intention and with concerted effort this chain of hostility against greenies in the first place.

Think thrice said...

Dear YellowCow,

Take a look at the follow article, it may explain why the general public as well as the companies care about Global Warming so much even they also know that it may not be so severe:


How Should a Corporation Think of Global Warming?

With global warming having become Topic No. 1 of so many discussions, to me the big question is the degree to which behavioral changes are produced on three separate levels:

1. The individual level — where change seems well underway, but probably won’t amount to all that much without major institutional/structural changes.

2. The governmental level — where change will be talked and talked about, and even enacted, but if the past is any teacher, such changes will not necessarily be hugely efficient or even sensible.

3. The corporate level — where change will be produced as a result of both individual pressure (consumers clamoring for green products and procedures) and the governmental level (with new regulations).

The changes at level No. 3 will be a good indicator of just how well markets work. How will firms balance the extra costs of green behavior with the demands of consumers and government?

Jack and Suzy Welch, writing in their BusinessWeek column, give a really interesting answer to a question on this subject. They were asked by a reader how they felt about the realities of global warming, and what firms should do about it. Here, in part, is their reply:

We believe that, whether the impact of global warming ends up being mild or severe, companies have to adopt a “here it comes” mind-set and mount a well-reasoned plan. Any other response would be bad business.

Our reasoning is hardly original. It’s the same as Pascal’s Wager. Back in 1670, basically using game theory, the French philosopher argued that it was a better bet to believe in God because the expected value of believing is always greater than the expected value of not believing.

The same goes for global warming. If you accept it as reality, adapting your strategy and practices, your plants will use less energy and emit fewer effluents. Your packaging will be more biodegradable, and your new products will be able to capture any markets created by severe weather effects. Yes, global warming may not be as damaging as some predict, and you might have invested more than you needed, but it’s just as Pascal said: Given all the possible outcomes, the upside of being ready and prepared for a “fearsome event” surely beats the alternative.

The perfect analogy is globalization. Thirty years ago, rumbling began about the coming world marketplace where costs would migrate to the lowest bidder. Some companies put on blinders and insisted that their quality would prevent competition from the likes of Mexican and Asian factories. Eventually, of course, many of these companies got religion and changed their practices. But years of progress, profits, and jobs were lost in their delay.

Only time will tell if global warming will be minor or catastrophic; if it can be mitigated or will destroy the planet. … But one thing is certain. Companies shouldn’t wait to find out.

(Source: http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/05/17/how-should-a-corporation-think-of-global-warming/)

yellowcow said...

Thanks Think Thrice

Pascal's God theory, which I don't think an appropriate analogy, in fact tells us that those global warmers are religious cults and what they claim is anything but real science.

I also didn't know Pascal had ever advocated government to enact any legislation to force people to convert!

yellowcow said...

"How Should a Corporation Think of Global Warming?"

Do we care? A corporation can decide to have all its people work in the dark in order to save the world for all I care. Market will decide if its Green Practices compromise its product and service.

The correct question is whether Government should force business to act on Global Warming. Jack Welch is a big corporate person and they love government regulations. It is always the smaller competitors that are hit the hardest.

Interesting that the Welches bring up globalization. Good luck selling his line of reasoning to those Chinese companies.

Anonymous said...

There's no need to discuss further or 'clarify' with YellowCow on issue about global warming. By screwing up and casting non-sense queries over the issue of global warming, his ultimate intention is to distract focus of us on taking urgent actions to stop global warming at this very moment.

YellowCow's motive for doing so is questionable or may have a hidden agenda or problem of personal character. But we have to accept that every single person in a society has the right to express his own point of views, though the way of expressing his views by YellowCow is certainly not welcomed by most of us. But again by wasting our time in responding to him, clearly this is a tactics to distract focus of the society on taking urgent actions.

Don't forget he is still trying to avoid commenting directly as requested by one of his 'fans' 牛過路 on the selfish act of Esso oil company in creating uncertainties on scientific consensus about climate change. So what is his stand point? I don't need to speak it out!

However, the stand point of Earth lovers is clear and concise - being one kind of habitants on Earth, we are obliged to love our planet earth and to maintain living with other kinds of habitants on the earth in harmony. We cannot deny that our present way of living proves to have been greatly destroying the good health of the earth. Global warming is just one of the imminent environmental problems signalling that we are doing something silly for ourselves and future generations.

The recent report by IPCC (the third of this year already!) signifies that based on the consensus on the issue of global warming, the world is now moving on to the stage of action taking. Sounds a bit ridiculous or odd that YellowCow is still at the backward stage of trying to cast uncertainties on this consensus.

An International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC 2007)is going to be held in Hong Kong at end of this month. Just copy the relevant info from Hong Kong Institute of Engineers (HKIE) as follows:


It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that humanity's dependence on fossil fuels is causing a host of environmental problems, most significantly, global warming and climate change. Addressing the problem of climate change is now high on the political, economic, social and environmental agenda of economies around the globe.

The purpose of the proposed International Conference on Climate Change is to provide a platform to explore the scientific, technical and socio-economic issues relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change, assess its potential impacts, propose mitigation and adaptation measures, and to develop strategies to implement these measures.

This International Conference will be held in Hong Kong, a world-class city in Asia, open to leading scientists, engineers, economists, academics, journalists, representatives from business, civic communities, legislatures, national and international agencies who care about the future well- being of the planet earth.

Anonymous said...

totally understand why steve jobs would be so mad....haha....it actually proves that greenpeace is a 100% religious cult, their "green" knowledge is so naive and stupid....and if you are not one of them, or if you do not follow their guildlines strictly, you are the enemy of mother earth!

i'm not against mother earth, i love it and i will try my best to save it in every sensible way....i'm just against stupid environmentalists, who claim that they are smarter than everyone else.....

yellowcow said...

You don't need no "Evil" oil companies to punch a big hole in the Global Warming Theory. I can create some uncertainties myself. What has been causing all those climate changes in the past? Like the ice age, the medieval warming period, etc. If the so called scientific consensus cannot answer this simple question, how any reasonable person could trust their understanding of this very complex climate system and believe in their prediction of climate 100 year from now.

By the way, environmentalists themselves are also in bed with big selfish oil companies. Together they are creating a false consensus and promoting regulations that will benefic no one but themselves.

yellowcow said...

I wonder how much greenhouse gas will be generated by holding this International Conference in HK. Actually I am more concerned by the hot air it will generate.

yellowcow said...

Think Tank Challenges Greenpeace to Meet Transparency Standards

Anonymous said...

"I wonder how much greenhouse gas will be generated by holding this International Conference in HK. Actually I am more concerned by the hot air it will generate. "

A very good tactics! Condemn every action that is inevitably producing carbon dioxide. It must work. It leads people to think that the action will make the global warming worse and hence non-sense.

So the focus is shifted. We all forget to question from the first place: so why such a large scale international conference with active and significant participation will be held for joint effort to combat global warming?

Certainly, by using this tactics, we need to avoid reminding people that we tried before to query that global warming was not caused by human activities, but seemed to be a natural phenomenon.

yellowcow said...

Environmentalist: Mind Your Own Business

Anonymous said...

To search for bits and pieces of info to beat against something is too easy.

Here are one more example against global warming:

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

Some of the comments sounds interesting, let's see below. (AGW - anti-global warming)
(hockey stick - the curve showing CO2 concentration is keep rising sharply in the past 100 or more years)

"manmade global warming is nothing more than opinion and hypothesis. Science has debunked that hypothesis. Co2 cannot be blamed. But co2 is such an easy target for those who seek grant money and political power to present to the average person. Fortunately the average person can find, with a little searching, the truth about co2.

those who present co2 global warming would have loved to have been a Mayan who presented eciplses as proof that the sun god was displeased with man. "

"CO2 global warming isnt happening. The scientists who are promoting it are doing it for power and money."

"I will have a far more difficult time explaining to them why we bankrupted this country with entitlements, while pouring money down this rat hole fighting global warming."

For GW:

"And a piece of advice for you: next time you make a presentation, you should primarily cite scholarly journals as opposed to websites. This will improve your credibility dramatically."

"A difference between you and me on GW is that I fully accept my limitations. I am not qualified to debate the scientific analysis and I've seen no evidence that you are. So send your repetitive question to one of the credible institutions and see if they will shed some light on your darkness. Anthropogenic GW is occurring as scientific community has come to that overwhelming consensus. It doesn't matter if you can come to grips with the fact or not."

"I know the geologic record indicates that the earth's shifts and that the sun's shifts periodically. What's the point? You sound like you are making judgments about science but lack the background for it. You are making more baseless assumptions. A little bit of information is dangerous in the wrong hands. I recommend you leave global warming theory to the experts."

"About the Mann hockey stick curve I'm not 100% certain it's right, but standing papers at the American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and the IPCC third assesment report all defend Mann's hockey stick."

"off course it's not only the sun who causes global warming. Because of the CO2 the heat the sun produces can't get away to space anymore, so the earth is getting hotter. Thinking that the sun just is getting closer, or hotter is illogical because that's a proces that normaly takes milions of years, the suddenly increasing temperature over the last years can't be the result of that. True is that from the moment we invented machines that produces CO2 the temperature significantly increased."

Anonymous said...

Easy, easy, easy! Funny, funny fuuny!

One more example showing how easy it is to get bits and pieces of info. from the sea of internet. This time is about Greenpeace from the following site:


"Greenpeace's Blurbs
About me:
Greenpeace is an international environmental organization with a presence in 40 countries around the world.

We have played a pivotal role in, among other things, the adoption of:
- A ban on toxic waste exports to less developed countries.

- A moratorium on commercial whaling.

- A Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

- A 50-year moratorium on mineral exploitation in Antarctica.

- Bans on the dumping at sea of radioactive and industrial waste.

- An end to high-sea, large-scale driftnet fishing.

- A ban on all nuclear weapons testing - our first ever campaign.

Greenpeace has been campaigning against environmental destruction since 1971 when a small boat of volunteers sailed to Amchitka, an island north of Alaska where the US Government was conducting underground nuclear tests. The band of activists brought worldwide attention to the dangers of nuclear testing, and nuclear detonations at Amchitka were ended that year. Greenpeace's tradition of peaceful bearing witness continues today. You can help!"


All the above acts by Greenpeace seems concrete and reasonable. But for someone who doesn't like Greenpeace, they would not talk about what Greenpeace is doing but just making vague comments as:

"- depends too much on principle and not enough on fact.

- rate people based on what people say their plans are in the distant future, not what they are doing today.

- put way too much weight on these glorified principles and way too little weight on science and engineering."

Anonymous said...

you think steve jobs was accusing greenpeace "vaguely"?! huh?!

yeah, hold on to your glorified history....dream on....and the world will leave you behind.

yellowcow said...

世仁 & Sebuc:
I moved your comments to "始作俑的民粹傳媒", which they belong.

Anonymous said...

"you think steve jobs was accusing greenpeace "vaguely"?! huh?!"

First of all, we need to establish that steve jobs is a kind of key person in respect of environmental issues to such an extent that his speaking or opinion will be of great significance and worth refering to.

Otherwise, it's better not glorify the stuff.

yellowcow said...


I suggest you go back and re-watch the documentary as you seem to miss a lot of the valid questions raised by the skeptics. I hope this is not done deliberately.

1. Temperature, sea level and CO2 level have been changing all the time, long before the industrial revolution. There is nothing unusual about climate change.
2. Ice core data shows that historically temp rise always preceded CO2 level rise. That indicates that CO2 does not cause temp rise, instead it is the result of it.
3. Scientists do not have full understanding of how the climate system works.
4. Water vapour, by far the most important greenhouse gasm is poorly accounted for and modeled.
5. Warming does not necessarily lead to catastrophes.

If you read those websites I linked to carefully, you will find that most of them do have footnotes and links to actual journals.

I certainly have my limitations but this is no excuse to follow blindly the GW Doomsday Cult. I have to ask this question again: what cause all those climate changes in the past. This is a very fundamental question.

If you can find out the information about the “Mann hockey stick” then I am sure it should not be difficult to find the answer to my question above. I am sure if there is scientific consensus on this we will hear no end of it.

But the fact is your so call scientific consensus offers no plausible explanations for pass climate changes. The only conclusion any senible person can draw is that scientists have very limited understanding of the climate system. GW theory and climate models thus are base on limited knowledge and must be taken with a lot of skepticism. And some people have the audacity to predict climate 100 year from now and ask people to fundamentally change the global economy system and the way people live. This is madness.

BTW, the latest IPCC 4th AR has dropped the “Mann Hockey Stick”, so beloved by Global Warming fear mongers. Why drop such a useful thing? Because it has been thoroughly debunked. You will not find it in any latest journals or reports because no self-respected scientist will touch this stick with a 10-foot pole.

Close relation between pass sunspot activities and temperature has been observed. Sunspot cycle does not take millions of year. It can be as short as 10 years. While both are just hypotheses, sunspot theory has an advantage over CO2 in that it can at least begin to explain pass climate changes.

Remember it is the Global Warmers who are demanding changes and actions. So the burden of proof is on them.

yellowcow said...

Cannot believe Greenpeace is taking credit for ban on nuclear weapons testing. It is not and cannot really be banned. Nuclear testing just went on all over as Greenpeace campaigned. Then the superpowers finally just agreed to stop testing because there is no need for more. They already have the technology and capacity to destroy the world many time over.

Lets see how Greenpeace stop North Korea and Iran from future testing.

yellowcow said...

Greenpeace has also played a pivotal role in:
- ban on DDT which result in millions of death from malaria
- opposition to genetic crops that could end starvation and famine in much of the third world
- opposition to nuclear and hydro power that could provide clean and reliable energy supply
- opposition to free trade which is the most effective of liftng the poors out of proverty
- opposition to senible forest management methods that result in destruction of millions of acres of forest land

People, please read what one of your founders, Patrick Moore, has to say before becoming another Paul Watson, incidentally was also one of the founders.

Anonymous said...

"....ask people to fundamentally change the global economy system and the way people live. This is madness."

You really disappointed me. I do mean it.

At the very beginning, I thought you were a kind of techno guy or scholar who had special analytical mind and sound science background so that you chose to stand up and fight against the prevalent world trend of combating global warming. Now I realize your core value from your above sentence, and fully understand your ultimate motive to go against global warming.

I better not put any comment on your core value here, just leave it for readers to judge.

Instead, may I put my core value as follows:

"for the sake of harmonious and well being in the living of all of us and our future generations in this planet earth, I will not neglect any signs of deterioration in the earth's healthy status, as this directly affects our good livings, and always be prepared to contribute my minute part in trying to avoid such deterioration from happening, by making any necessary change in my lifestyles." It's just a kind of my response as a living organism to the threat of worsening environment. No accuse of self-glorification please.

"Remember it is the Global Warmers who are demanding changes and actions. So the burden of proof is on them."

I would say "given the unprecendent and swift climate changes around the world, the burden of proof that the human activities in the only past 200 years in burning of fossil fuels once deeply buried in ground for millions of years and accumulated with massive energy density has no influence on the equilibrium status of global environment."

Thanks for putting a lot of effort in telling readers that fluctuation of climate did happen in history, or even that CO2 might not be blamed. But I would rather take a big stride along history timeline to face reality, the time from industrial revolution to present. Given the prevalent world effort to tackle global warming, a reasonable person would simply consider it too risky to bet on the assumption that we can live happily and safely by denying such risk or doing nothing at the moment.

Let's see some of your beloved neutral statements:

"Temperature, sea level and CO2 level have been changing all the time, long before the industrial revolution. There is nothing unusual about climate change."

- How about this: "composition of different kinds of elements of varying status for making up our materials world have been changing all the time, there is nothing unusual about pollution."

"Scientists do not have full understanding of how the climate system works"

- How about this: "doctors do not have full understanding of how cancer is caused"

"Warming does not necessarily lead to catastrophes."

- How about this: "loss of biodiversity does not necessarily lead to extinction of human beings."

"GW theory and climate models thus are base on limited knowledge and must be taken with a lot of skepticism."

- How about this: "the global economy system and related mathematical models are subjected to great situational variations and must be taken with a lot of assumptions."

Thanks again for your elaboration of your point of views on topics of DDT, GM crops, nuclear and hydro power, free trade and 'forest management', this make us understand better of your core values. Only a reminder for readers: all these sentences do not necessarily constitute such a simple, direct and logical relationship between action and outcome as prescribed by the writer. Beware of traps.

yellowcow said...

No doubt there is difference between our core values: while we care for the environment we value human above anything else. Some environmentalists see human just as a cancer to the earth.

Another difference is that we are realistic. We know there are 6 billion people on earth and growing and they all need a decent living. Some environmentalists would rather dream about a fantasy land where there are no more than 1 billion. To them the fewer the better. The more dangerous ones actually have plan for this.

Lets turn to your answers to the skeptics. Actually those are not real answers as you obviously are avoiding them. But I will try to counter anyway:

Climate change and pollution:
Some pollution is caused by human. I am sure there is a consensus somewhere out there. If human somehow disappear from the earth some pollutants will also. But we know climate will keep changing regardless of human existing.

Climate and cancer
We don’t have full understanding of how cancer is caused but we are sure that it is bad. We test and verify the cures thoroughly before apply it to patients. We make sure the medicine does kill the patient even it does not work. This is a very sensible and humble thing to do.

If it is up to a Global Warmer, he will, without knowing whether a person has cancer or not, let alone understanding it, make up a prescription and jam it down his throat. He will force his prescriptions on everyone, including the healthy ones. While he is doing it, he will curse them for causing their own imaginary illness.

This is to be expected because a Global Warmer see people themselves as the cancer.

Warming and biodiversity
I take that you think warming will cause biodiversity. There is simply not true. If it is then doesn’t it imply that biodiversity would be enhanced by a Global Cooling? Can you tell me what the optimum climate for biodiversity is? If there is a scientific consensus on optimum climate I am sure we will hear no end of it.

GW theory and global economy system
Over the last hundred years capitalist economy system has given human unprecedented prosperity, health, long living and freedom.

What are the track record of GW theory and its climate models? Why make prediction a hundred years from now? If they are sensible and honest, they should make prediction for climate 10 years, or just 5 years from now. Then we can judge how reliable they are before change a system that works.

Anonymous said...


don't you see it? it's no use debating with them.....it's a religious cult, it can't be reasoned with.

don't worry, anyone with a sensible mind can see through the ridicule in their reasoning....

Anonymous said...

First of all, really sorry that you did spend time to look into my sentences seriously word by word. In fact, I was trying to fit into your mentality and made up these sentences to follow suit the neutral tone of your sentences. No real meaning in these sentences actually.

My main purpose of doing this is to tell readers of two different levels of arguement:

One is that we argue on specific points at a confined area by refering to a particular piece of data, actions or outcome. Things must be concrete and with full support. Both parties need to stick to the question.

The other is we care only about personal perceptions or even feeling. We raise statements of neutral or generic nature (i.e. can't be concrete) and a simple answer of 'yes' or 'no' is not suitable. When hearing such statements, one is likely to think "so what do you mean actually, what is your point or is it just kind of your own expressed feeling?'

Depending on situations, there's nothing wrong to use either tactics. But problem arises if we play tricks on them. That is to say one pretends to pinpoint on a certain piece of information, data or examples and throwing out one's own 'support' data, looks like a factual argument. But one also throws out some neutral or generic statements at the same time.

The effect by playing this trick is: area or focus of argument becomes blur and looks chaotic. Irrelevant pieces of info mingle and magically they start to support each other.

This tactics can lead you think of the recent scenario in Macau, I would imagine (say again: imagine only!) when 抽水哥 opened fire, he had no specific target or point to fire at, but he shot a lot anyway. He thought targets were all around, and he needed to release his hard feeling. But when he calmed down, he told you that he was firing with a specific purpose in mind!

My personal advice is: when encountering similar situation as 抽水哥, take cover first. Don't forget one may still be hit by a meaningless bullet.

Lucky that science journals or profound environmental magazines won't get down to this level of argument. Or your university lecturer won't accept your submission of dissertation just full of quotations with pieces of info from web sites or making comments without full elaboration.
(but tragic that companies like Esso already jump over this level of argument for creating uncertainties).

Now, thanks again for YellowCow to bring out more his core values or personal believes.

"No doubt there is difference between our core values: while we care for the environment we value human above anything else. Some environmentalists see human just as a cancer to the earth."

"....ask people to fundamentally change the global economy system and the way people live. This is madness."

These values are not unfamiliar, just grab a book on deep ecology or GAIA and you will find such quotes. e.g. Deep Ecology: Living as if the Earth Mattered, or books by Arne Naess, James Lovelock. In fact, advocates of deep ecology or GAIA is trying to persuade people holding this kind of values to re-think the way human that can live in harmony with nature.

Many people hold such values as YellowCow. This is absolutely everyone's choice, nothing right or wrong. This or that, it's just a kind of attitude of living, or someone would like to keep calling this 'religious cult'. That's fine.
We have a lot of examples: religious matters, ideology, Confucius.... People who are interested in these always hold open discussion.

Unfortunately, this simple issue of a difference on perception of living attitudes got a very bad start and only provocation of hatred is sensed throughout this blog.

Better go back to my favourite books and magazines for reasonable and logical exploration of the subject matter........

Anonymous said...

我想問下呢d人, 成日只會批評, 而唔會識建設任何事, 佢地對社會有什麼貢獻? 渲染, 吹噓, 言過其實, 製造新聞...

為什麼, 我們去超級市場要付"膠袋費"? 咁揸車的人是否製造更多廢氣, 是否需要加牌費?

點解因為唐英年自己收藏紅酒, 就可以減紅酒稅? 這樣做, 對一般市民有什麼幫助? 點解煙的稅又無的減? 係唔係有一日, 有一個食煙的財爺, 就可以減煙稅?

奇芬 said...


Anonymous said...

wolf came in, made a mess of everything.....then he cried "wolf!!!!"

then he ran away.....how stupid can you get?

奇芬 said...

我習慣用超市的膠袋嚟包垃圾,超市膠袋要收費咁貴,我咪要轉用垃圾膠袋,咁用嘅膠袋實際上無少過喎!咁咪用報紙包lor, 但係我依家上網睇報紙喎, 為左包垃圾買報紙, 咁咪又製做多啲垃圾?咁睇嚟收膠袋稅都唔係幾幫到環保喎,你地點睇?

真小人 said...


Anonymous said...

黃牛, 大棠流浪牛之家的八十多隻黃牛.水牛正面臨缺水的危機,這事件蘋果報也有報導.

你叫黃牛,牠們大部分都是可愛的黃牛,故此牠們是你的親人.朋友, 請你施以援手.出錢出力幫牛牛.


流 浪 牛 之 家 被 截 水 源
蘋果日報 15/05/2007

本 報 訊 】 「 香 港 流 浪 牛 之 家 」 繼 上 周 六 有 義 工 被 襲 後 , 負 責 人 洋 洋 昨 日 表 示 , 養 牛 場 內 的 水 源 在 事 後 被 人 截 斷 , 曾 有 義 工 前 日 到 村 口 街 喉 取 水 , 但 在 昨 日 凌 晨 卻 被 人 全 部 倒 掉 , 現 在 水 缸 內 餘 下 的 水 , 由 於 水 位 過 低 , 即 使 得 牛 頭 低 」 , 牠 們 也 難 以 喝 得 到 , 場 內 82 隻 牛 面 臨 斷 水 危 機 。

村 民 在 附 近 監 視 喝 罵
本 報 記 者 昨 在 養 牛 場 所 見 , 有 村 民 在 附 近 監 視 , 並 用 粗 言 穢 語 喝 罵 洋 洋 及 記 者 。 洋 洋 昨 日 稱 , 目 前 情 況 十 分 嚴 峻 , 「 今 ( 昨 ) 日 連 溝 飼 料 水 都 唔 夠 , 水 太 少 啦 , 佢 飲 唔 到 水 缸 水 , 希 望 有 好 心 人 運 畀 佢 飲 , 否 則 遲 都 唔 知 點 算 ! 」 洋 洋 稱 , 養 牛 場 的 水 來 自 山 上 的 山 水 , 透 過 喉 管 輸 到 場 內 。 她 強 調 場 內 所 養 的 牛 只 會 到 荒 地 吃 草 , 不 會 踐 踏 農 田 , 但 卻 經 常 被 人 嚇 打 。

元 朗 大 棠 谷 一 片 滿 佈 泥 濘 的 土 地 , 是 80 頭 流 浪 牛 的 棲 身 之 所 。 十 年 來 堅 持 收 留 被 棄 置 牛 隻 的 香 港 流 浪 牛 之 家 主 席 洋 洋 , 要 籌 募 供 養 牛 隻 的 經 費 之 餘 , 還 要 面 對 牛 場 附 近 村 民 的 壓 力 。 一 直 向 政 府 申 請 撥 地 不 遂 的 她 , 重 申 期 望 政 府 容 許 她 租 用 處 於 南 生 圍 的 一 幅 官 地 , 讓 被 遺 棄 的 牛 隻 有 一 個 長 遠 家 園 。

向 政 府 租 地 無 回 音

牛 隻 彷 彿 注 定 是 人 類 的 奴 隸 , 或 是 拉 車 耕 田 , 或 是 被 屠 宰 食 用 。 在 本 港 社 會 轉 型 的 大 氣 候 下 , 越 來 越 多 昔 日 務 農 者 放 棄 牛 隻 , 漁 農 自 然 護 理 署 每 接 到 棄 置 牛 隻 的 投 訴 , 即 將 牛 隻 捕 捉 拘 留 、 等 待 宰 殺 。 洋 洋 正 是 這 些 流 浪 牛 隻 的 救 星 , 出 錢 出 力 將 牛 隻 競 投 回 來 , 安 置 到 流 浪 牛 之 家 。 由 於 青 草 有 限 , 她 隔 日 要 到 元 朗 市 中 心 的 果 汁 店 收 集 榨 取 果 汁 後 的 甘 筍 及 蔗 渣 , 作 為 補 充 植 物 飼 料 。
籌 募 養 牛 的 經 費 固 難 , 應 付 附 近 居 民 的 投 訴 更 難 , 居 民 指 牛 隻 破 壞 先 祖 山 墳 、 又 破 壞 農 作 物 , 上 月 更 截 斷 水 源 , 要 求 流 浪 牛 之 家 遷 徙 。
洋 洋 無 奈 地 說 , 自 01 年 起 已 向 政 府 申 請 租 用 南 生 圍 的 一 塊 官 地 , 發 展 安 置 牛 隻 的 有 機 農 莊 , 可 是 政 府 一 直 未 作 回 應 。