Care to answer this question?

Is Conservation and Sustainability a Deliberate Con?


I have been examining claims made by "conservation" organisations and
have found most are engaged in, and encouraging, environmentally
damaging activities akin to the tourist industry, that increases the
consumption of finite resources, increases emissions, and is
responsible for expanding the human footprint All to fund their
existence in one way or another!

None can be more evident than the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds' news release of February 2005, in which they said "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", yet at the same
time they were accepting pages of world wide travel advertisements in
their Birds magazine. It seems that where money is to be made,
conservation and sustainability slides out of sight.

Delving a little further, one must question whether the whole
conservation industry and our government's claim to be on target for
emission reduction is a con from top to bottom.

Over 150 countries, including the UK, committed themselves to reducing
emissions in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. However, despite making
claims to be "on-target", it appears that one major factor is being
deliberately avoided which could leave our emission reduction claims
in shreds..

The Kyoto Protocol exempts emerging economies from emission control
but their industrial revolution is expanding exponentially on the back
of exports to the West.

So the question is:

If we, in the UK, claim to counter some of our domestic emissions by
planting trees in Africa, why don't we acknowledge our responsibility
for emissions by the emerging economies for goods produced there and
transported here for consumption in this country?




Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

wrote in message
...
Care to answer this question?

Is Conservation and Sustainability a Deliberate Con?


I have been examining claims made by "conservation" organisations and
have found most are engaged in, and encouraging, environmentally
damaging activities akin to the tourist industry, that increases the
consumption of finite resources, increases emissions, and is
responsible for expanding the human footprint All to fund their
existence in one way or another!

None can be more evident than the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds' news release of February 2005, in which they said "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", yet at the same
time they were accepting pages of world wide travel advertisements in
their Birds magazine. It seems that where money is to be made,
conservation and sustainability slides out of sight.

Delving a little further, one must question whether the whole
conservation industry and our government's claim to be on target for
emission reduction is a con from top to bottom.

Over 150 countries, including the UK, committed themselves to reducing
emissions in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. However, despite making
claims to be "on-target", it appears that one major factor is being
deliberately avoided which could leave our emission reduction claims
in shreds..

The Kyoto Protocol exempts emerging economies from emission control
but their industrial revolution is expanding exponentially on the back
of exports to the West.

So the question is:

If we, in the UK, claim to counter some of our domestic emissions by
planting trees in Africa, why don't we acknowledge our responsibility
for emissions by the emerging economies for goods produced there and
transported here for consumption in this country?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk

Bah tis pure BS. One new coalfired power station completed every 18 days in
China.
We are fuked.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:01:08 -0000, "MrBlueSkye" apbz91@noSpam
dsl.pipex.com wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Care to answer this question?

Is Conservation and Sustainability a Deliberate Con?


I have been examining claims made by "conservation" organisations and
have found most are engaged in, and encouraging, environmentally
damaging activities akin to the tourist industry, that increases the
consumption of finite resources, increases emissions, and is
responsible for expanding the human footprint All to fund their
existence in one way or another!

None can be more evident than the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds' news release of February 2005, in which they said "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", yet at the same
time they were accepting pages of world wide travel advertisements in
their Birds magazine. It seems that where money is to be made,
conservation and sustainability slides out of sight.

Delving a little further, one must question whether the whole
conservation industry and our government's claim to be on target for
emission reduction is a con from top to bottom.

Over 150 countries, including the UK, committed themselves to reducing
emissions in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. However, despite making
claims to be "on-target", it appears that one major factor is being
deliberately avoided which could leave our emission reduction claims
in shreds..

The Kyoto Protocol exempts emerging economies from emission control
but their industrial revolution is expanding exponentially on the back
of exports to the West.

So the question is:

If we, in the UK, claim to counter some of our domestic emissions by
planting trees in Africa, why don't we acknowledge our responsibility
for emissions by the emerging economies for goods produced there and
transported here for consumption in this country?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk

Bah tis pure BS. One new coalfired power station completed every 18 days in
China.
We are fuked.



I'm not sure I understand your answer. If you're saying my question
is BS, which I presume means bullshit, does that mean you think we're
not responsible for emissions in China.

Can I put it to you that if western countries didn't consume their
produce they would have lower emissions. So I believe our consumption
in this country should be measured in terms of world wide emissions
caused in the manufacture and transport of what we consume; rather
than only calculating our domestic emissions.

Is there anything wrong with that?








Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:01:08 -0000, "MrBlueSkye" apbz91@noSpam
dsl.pipex.com wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
Care to answer this question?

Is Conservation and Sustainability a Deliberate Con?


I have been examining claims made by "conservation" organisations and
have found most are engaged in, and encouraging, environmentally
damaging activities akin to the tourist industry, that increases the
consumption of finite resources, increases emissions, and is
responsible for expanding the human footprint All to fund their
existence in one way or another!

None can be more evident than the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds' news release of February 2005, in which they said "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", yet at the same
time they were accepting pages of world wide travel advertisements in
their Birds magazine. It seems that where money is to be made,
conservation and sustainability slides out of sight.

Delving a little further, one must question whether the whole
conservation industry and our government's claim to be on target for
emission reduction is a con from top to bottom.

Over 150 countries, including the UK, committed themselves to reducing
emissions in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. However, despite making
claims to be "on-target", it appears that one major factor is being
deliberately avoided which could leave our emission reduction claims
in shreds..

The Kyoto Protocol exempts emerging economies from emission control
but their industrial revolution is expanding exponentially on the back
of exports to the West.

So the question is:

If we, in the UK, claim to counter some of our domestic emissions by
planting trees in Africa, why don't we acknowledge our responsibility
for emissions by the emerging economies for goods produced there and
transported here for consumption in this country?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk

Bah tis pure BS. One new coalfired power station completed every 18 days
in
China.
We are fuked.



I'm not sure I understand your answer. If you're saying my question
is BS, which I presume means bullshit, does that mean you think we're
not responsible for emissions in China.

Can I put it to you that if western countries didn't consume their
produce they would have lower emissions. So I believe our consumption
in this country should be measured in terms of world wide emissions
caused in the manufacture and transport of what we consume; rather
than only calculating our domestic emissions.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Angus Macmillan

No It's just that what we do and don't do doesn't matter one Iota. The
industrialisation of the third world, notably the populations of India and
China with their collosal need to consume carbon ensures that any measures
introduced in the Uk or Europe are as significant as a drop in a very big
bucket. Face facts, we are screwed. Global warming will continue unchecked
and is unavoidable.

Monday is Soylent yellow day, and thursday is Soylent Green day.

MBS

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:04:43 -0000, "MrBlueSkye" apbz91@noSpam
dsl.pipex.com wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:01:08 -0000, "MrBlueSkye" apbz91@noSpam
dsl.pipex.com wrote:


wrote in message
...
Care to answer this question?

Is Conservation and Sustainability a Deliberate Con?


I have been examining claims made by "conservation" organisations and
have found most are engaged in, and encouraging, environmentally
damaging activities akin to the tourist industry, that increases the
consumption of finite resources, increases emissions, and is
responsible for expanding the human footprint All to fund their
existence in one way or another!

None can be more evident than the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds' news release of February 2005, in which they said "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", yet at the same
time they were accepting pages of world wide travel advertisements in
their Birds magazine. It seems that where money is to be made,
conservation and sustainability slides out of sight.

Delving a little further, one must question whether the whole
conservation industry and our government's claim to be on target for
emission reduction is a con from top to bottom.

Over 150 countries, including the UK, committed themselves to reducing
emissions in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. However, despite making
claims to be "on-target", it appears that one major factor is being
deliberately avoided which could leave our emission reduction claims
in shreds..

The Kyoto Protocol exempts emerging economies from emission control
but their industrial revolution is expanding exponentially on the back
of exports to the West.

So the question is:

If we, in the UK, claim to counter some of our domestic emissions by
planting trees in Africa, why don't we acknowledge our responsibility
for emissions by the emerging economies for goods produced there and
transported here for consumption in this country?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk

Bah tis pure BS. One new coalfired power station completed every 18 days
in
China.
We are fuked.



I'm not sure I understand your answer. If you're saying my question
is BS, which I presume means bullshit, does that mean you think we're
not responsible for emissions in China.

Can I put it to you that if western countries didn't consume their
produce they would have lower emissions. So I believe our consumption
in this country should be measured in terms of world wide emissions
caused in the manufacture and transport of what we consume; rather
than only calculating our domestic emissions.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Angus Macmillan

No It's just that what we do and don't do doesn't matter one Iota. The
industrialisation of the third world, notably the populations of India and
China with their collosal need to consume carbon ensures that any measures
introduced in the Uk or Europe are as significant as a drop in a very big
bucket. Face facts, we are screwed. Global warming will continue unchecked
and is unavoidable.

That I would agree with. Only environmental disaster or nuclear war
over resources are likely to alter this path.


Monday is Soylent yellow day, and thursday is Soylent Green day.

Sorry you've lost me.


MBS



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)