Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dr Avery replies :-(
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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? I try not to use any. My system is hibernated every night - and I don't drive. I recycle as much as I possibly can (I would do more but our local council doesn't take high-density polyurethane (HDPE) which is what the tops of the milk 'tanks' you can buy in most supermarkets are made from). I refill my ink cartridges, and I never print unless it's absolutely necessary, then the results, if not used, are turned into phone pads. I have also switched to Ecover which, I hope, is being 100% honest about its ecological ideals. -- In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Jupiter" wrote in message ... 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? I don't know whether environmentalists would accept the interpretation of the figures quoted, was there no dissenting view? Even if it's true, I have no ideal how they might propose to deal with 'natural' emissions. Perhaps they feel that relatively small increases in temperature possibly flowing from artificial emissions might trigger even greater 'natural' emissions (e.g. from peat bog CO2 'banks' which are believed to be temperature sensitive) so whatever control is possible of the direct human contribution may be seen as a means of controlling the possible 'natural' contribution which could flow from it? Anyway, this is OT for this group, so it might be wise to post any future discussion on one of the 'conservation' newsgroups, if you can stand the factional fighting there :-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Malcolm wrote:
( snip all ) Malcom, are you not content with helping to wreck uk.env.conservation by pandering to the whim of macmillan? Are you now on a mission to spoil the fertile soil of uk.rec.gardening? Fie! FU set. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Chris Bacon writes Malcolm wrote: ( snip all ) Malcom, are you not content with helping to wreck uk.env.conservation by pandering to the whim of macmillan? Are you now on a mission to spoil the fertile soil of uk.rec.gardening? Fie! Apologies. It may not happen again! -- Malcolm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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? I try not to use any. My system is hibernated every night - and I don't drive. I recycle as much as I possibly can (I would do more but our local council doesn't take high-density polyurethane (HDPE) which is what the tops of the milk 'tanks' you can buy in most supermarkets are made from). I refill my ink cartridges, and I never print unless it's absolutely necessary, then the results, if not used, are turned into phone pads. You must save quite a lot of money doing these things. What do you spend the money on that you saved? It's highly likely that you spend it on things or services that consume resources. Ultimately, to make a real difference, there simply needs to be less of us on this planet. Though I'm not planning to leave anytime soon myself... Regards Martin |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:32:36 +0100, Malcolm
wrote: In article , Chris Bacon writes Malcolm wrote: ( snip all ) Malcom, are you not content with helping to wreck uk.env.conservation by pandering to the whim of macmillan? Are you now on a mission to spoil the fertile soil of uk.rec.gardening? Fie! Apologies. It may not happen again! I wouldn't bet on it :-) Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 May 2005 19:50:40 +0100, "Martin"
wrote: wrote: 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 So that would be one - nil to Dr Avery then... How do you work that out? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 May 2005 19:47:30 +0100, "Martin"
wrote: 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? I try not to use any. My system is hibernated every night - and I don't drive. I recycle as much as I possibly can (I would do more but our local council doesn't take high-density polyurethane (HDPE) which is what the tops of the milk 'tanks' you can buy in most supermarkets are made from). I refill my ink cartridges, and I never print unless it's absolutely necessary, then the results, if not used, are turned into phone pads. You must save quite a lot of money doing these things. What do you spend the money on that you saved? It's highly likely that you spend it on things or services that consume resources. Ultimately, to make a real difference, there simply needs to be less of us on this planet. Though I'm not planning to leave anytime soon myself... Regards Martin Exactly right. The reduction of human consumption will not come voluntarily nor will the demise of the human race. It is likely to be forced upon us by environmental catastrophy or nuclear wars brought about by shortage of global resources. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Martin wrote:
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? I try not to use any. My system is hibernated every night - and I don't drive. I recycle as much as I possibly can (I would do more but our local council doesn't take high-density polyurethane (HDPE) which is what the tops of the milk 'tanks' you can buy in most supermarkets are made from). I refill my ink cartridges, and I never print unless it's absolutely necessary, then the results, if not used, are turned into phone pads. You must save quite a lot of money doing these things. What do you spend the money on that you saved? It's highly likely that you spend it on things or services that consume resources. Ultimately, to make a real difference, there simply needs to be less of us on this planet. Though I'm not planning to leave anytime soon myself... Regards Martin I won't start on the 'less' vs 'fewer' arguement, except to say 'fewer' is the correct word in this context as less is applied to things which cannot be quantified - e.g. weight, time, etc. Of the things I mentioned, only the ink cartridges affect me directly as I live at home and the other savings are passed on to my parents who pay the bills. I tot it up every six months, and the last lot was donated to Afrikids, a charity started by a girl I was at school with to provide educational materials to children in, er, Africa (though she has extended her range and has started sending supplies to build a school for street kids in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia). Don't see how that impacts the planet (except in a positive way) unless you count the paper used to print the cheque. -- In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 May 2005 03:09:31 +0100, "Miss Perspicacia Tick"
wrote: I won't start on the 'less' vs 'fewer' arguement, except to say 'fewer' is the correct word in this context as less is applied to things which cannot be quantified - e.g. weight, time, etc. Though I don't want to continue the argument you don't wish to start, I just wanted to say that my dictionary *does* define less as fewer... but qualifies that defintion by saying that this hasn't yet been accepted by pedants. Well the actual words were... not universally accepted. ;-) Of the things I mentioned, only the ink cartridges affect me directly as I live at home and the other savings are passed on to my parents who pay the bills. I tot it up every six months, and the last lot was donated to Afrikids, a charity started by a girl I was at school with to provide educational materials to children in, er, Africa (though she has extended her range and has started sending supplies to build a school for street kids in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia). Don't see how that impacts the planet (except in a positive way) unless you count the paper used to print the cheque. Andy |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Can't answer replies! | Orchids | |||
An open letter to Dr Avery of RSPB | United Kingdom | |||
Why won't my replies post? | Freshwater Aquaria Plants | |||
Why won't my replies post? | Freshwater Aquaria Plants | |||
thanks for replies | United Kingdom |