On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:13:02 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:


"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , Andy Pandy
writes
On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:01:45 +0100, wrote:

SNIPPED part relating specifically to RSPB

I am pleased you agree the RSPB does have a dilemma, but I remain
unconvinced it is one that is being addressed honestly.

The *whole* broad issue of the planet's ability to sustain life is one
of hypocrisy, for the simple truth is, that very few people indeed -
including no doubt the administrators of the RSPB - wish to make the
necessary sacrifices to their personal lifestyle.

As Angus definitely doesn't, seeing as how a Range Rover is his chosen
vehicle.


Surely, it's how much fuel a person uses in total which determines his/her
'transport' contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, not the efficiency of
one of the vehicles he may use?

Figures were published in yesterday's Telegraph which indicated that
2.5% of current carbon dioxide emissions worldwide are caused by human
activities. 97.5% therefore originate from other sources, presumably
natural, such as the exhalations of animals, emissions from trees and
plants, natural decomposition and fermentation processes, etc. How do
the environmentalists propose to reduce this?