Some of you will remember that I wrote this letter to Dr Avery of the
RSPB.
Dr Mark Avery
Director of Conservation
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
SG19 2DL
An Open Letter
Dear Dr Avery
I was very interested to read your media release of 3 February 2005 in
which you refer to carbon dioxide as the gas most responsible for
climate change and that "cooking" our planet will disrupt and
devastate all life. I think most people would agree with you.
However, in the light of your comments, I wonder how you can justify
accepting the pages of adverts in your Birds magazine for extensive
travel, holiday accommodation and activities that are directly and
indirectly contributing to the cooking of our planet. Indeed, the
magazine itself, which I understand is mailed to most of your one
million members contributes to environmental damage by its production,
distribution and disposal.
The activities of your organisation in this respect smacks of double
standards at the very least, to dishonesty at worst.
Yours sincerely
A Macmillan.
PS. I hope you don't mind me copying your media release below for
information purposes.
COPY
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Media Release
3 February 2005
Sir
Scientists at this week's climate change conference have issued a
succession of warnings about the dire consequences of climate change
for mankind and wildlife.
Plants, mammals and birds are heading for extinction; rising seas are
eroding coasts and swallowing up coastal homes; coral reefs are losing
their capacity to soak up carbon dioxide - the gas most responsible
for climate change - while storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves are
all set to increase in number. And all this, we have been told, could
happen far more quickly than we originally thought. We are calling it
'global warming' but more accurately, we are cooking our planet.
There are more than four million references to global warming on the
internet search engine Google but 'global overheating' merits just 123
mentions, 'global scorching', 175; 'global frying', 68; and even
'global heating' only 6,000! Yet none of these phrases is adequate
for the devastation we are facing.
Cooking our planet will disrupt and devastate all life and giving this
process the cosy name global warming only makes it easier for all of
us, especially politicians, to ignore the consequences.
Yours faithfully
Dr Mark Avery
Director of Conservation
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
SG19 2DL
_______________________________
Dr Avery's reply was:
Thank you for your letter dated 24th March, in connection with our
press release and your observations about the holiday advertising in
Birds Magazine.
I do agree that there is a dilemma here. On the one hand, overseas
holidays do, clearly, entail the emission of CO2. On the other, we
think that people will be more likely to remain enthusiastic about
wildlife and support its conservation if they have opportunities to
experience it first hand. We also firmly believe that many host
countries that are still rich in wildlife will only be prepared to
conserve that resource if they can see a demonstrable economic benefit
in doing so. Perhaps the World should not be so self centred and
fixated on material progress, but this is the challenge we are faced
with.
Under these circumstances, our policy is to press Government to
introduce measures such as aviation fuel tax, to help ensure that the
environmental cost of air travel is better reflected in the price; to
manage the growth in demand; and to abandon plans to develop new
airports on Greenfield sites, let alone important wildlife sites. If
accompanied by improvements to the rail infrastructure, to provide a
better alternative to domestic flights, we believe people can be
'encouraged' to ration their travel. The environmental damage caused
by air travel has been aired in Birds magazine, particularly in our
communications about the 'No Airport at Cliffe' campaign.
At the same time, we think it makes little sense not to recognise that
eco-tourism delivers tangible benefits that encourage habitat and
species conservation. We therefore believe it would be a bit odd if
the Society refused to carry adverts in Birds magazine for such tours.
We have discussed this at length internally, and have also taken into
account the views and advice of our partner organisations worldwide.
However, we will continue to keep our policy under regular review.
Having read some of your letters on the internet, it is clear that you
care passionately about the natural environment. Although there are
areas upon which we would clearly disagree, I do hope that you have
noticed that the conservation subjects mentioned in Birds magazine are
based on sound science. As a result of our scientific approach,
evidence suggests that governments listen to us and our members and we
do make a difference.
I have noticed you are not a member of the RSPB. Under the
circumstances, I hope you do not mind but I have taken the liberty of
including a membership form. I would also draw your attention to our
excellent 'Green Energy' product: RSPB Energy. This can be found at
www.rspbenergy.co.uk Signing up to this green energy package will
help to encourage the development of renewal energy sources in the UK
___________________________________
After Dr Avery's signature, he wrote, "PS. I really would encourage
you to sign up to RSPB Energy
My response was:
1 May 2005
Dr Mark Avery
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
Bedfordshire
SG19 2DL
Dear Dr Avery
Thank you for your letter of 26 April 2005.
I am pleased you agree the RSPB does have a dilemma, but I remain
unconvinced it is one that is being addressed honestly.
It is all very well to say "people will be more likely to remain
enthusiastic about wildlife and support its conservation if they have
opportunities to experience it first hand", but if you believe what
you wrote in your media release of 3 February 2005 you will appreciate
that your income generating travel advertisements, publications and
junk mail are contributing to the cooking of our planet, which will
"disrupt and devastate all life". It seems extremely odd that you
should encourage people to contribute to their own demise and to that
of wildlife.
This also applies to RSPB's reserves, which are marketed as tourist
attractions and visited by hundreds of thousands of motorists. Again,
this is exploiting nature for income, with the full knowledge that
operating visitor centres is environmentally damaging and contributing
to cooking the planet.
These double standards are morally reprehensible and downright
dishonest.
I also believe that the RSPB should not advocate or be involved in
killing members of some species to protect others. Indeed, in an
article in the BBC Wildlife Magazine in 2003 this practice was
condemned as fascism. This is also what some gamekeepers are doing to
raptors, which the RSPB rightly condemns. Seems you want your cake
and eat it.
Recently, RSPB Energy was censured by the Advertising Standards
Authority for misleading the public as to the environmental value of
its green energy scheme. It seems to me that this and other similar
schemes are little more than marketing ploys where questionable
conservationist organisations receive income from power generating
companies in return for access to an increased customer base.
If, as you say, your conservation subjects are based on sound science,
you should be able to justify the RSPB's current policies in terms of
conserving natural resources and reducing emissions by its own
activities, and by the activities it encourages in others. Otherwise,
the RSPB's very existence is based on a fake conservation platform and
contributing to the demise of all species on the planet.
For the record, I do not claim to be a conservationist or
environmentalist. I merely take the view that those who do should be
honest about it.
Yours sincerely
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk