Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2005, 09:01 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #4   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2005, 12:12 PM
Miss Perspicacia Tick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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/


  #6   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2005, 01:23 PM
BAC
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Chris Bacon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2005, 05:32 PM
Malcolm
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2005, 08:47 PM
Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2005, 08:57 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2005, 11:42 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 20-05-2005, 01:36 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 23-05-2005, 04:09 AM
Miss Perspicacia Tick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 23-05-2005, 08:29 AM
Andy Pandy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can't answer replies! Michelle Moreland Orlando Orchids 0 03-07-2005 09:44 AM
An open letter to Dr Avery of RSPB [email protected] United Kingdom 0 24-03-2005 11:39 PM
Why won't my replies post? CS Freshwater Aquaria Plants 1 07-03-2004 08:02 AM
Why won't my replies post? CS Freshwater Aquaria Plants 0 05-03-2004 04:45 PM
thanks for replies Mac United Kingdom 0 11-09-2003 11:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017