Re: Time to Pay!

In message <tp0ir11tqvrcvtmqhkf72lqo8f1io5520b@xxxxxxx>, amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes 
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:41:24 +0000, Chris Townsend
<Chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <vvhgr15n4hu1rn87616ag1ovvu1spdb853@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:42:44 +0000, Chris Townsend
<Chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <1p8gr15adnphqe0clscmhvt2bhvnlk8q7k@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

Well, the fact that the RSPB advertise trips abroad was discussed
earlier. I've never denied that all conservation groups never promote
environmental damaging activities. Like people organisations aren't
perfect.


I agree. We get dishonest people as well but its not the "RSPB" that
advertises trips abroad it is the people who run it and make the
decisions.


And as I've said they're not perfect. But most of what the RSPB does is
environmentally positive.


Neither are thugs that hit old ladies over the head aqnd steal their
bags :-(

The trips abroad are a very small part of it 

But a nice littler environmentally damaging earner which make them
fakes..

This is getting tedious. They aren't fakes and you are ignorant and prejudiced for saying they are. You clearly have no understanding of conservation, just an irrational hatred of conservation organisations. 



What evidence do you have that
they are " more than balanced by the far greater environmentally
positive activities they carry out?   EIA based evidence would be
helpful not just an opinion.


The evidence is there on their websites. The evidence is there in the
land they protect and restore and have saved from damage and
destruction.

No there's not. There's no such evidence. 

Just all the land they protect, all the birds they conserve, all the
advice on nature they give, all the campaigns against environmental
destruction they run, all the advice they give on how to be green.

Plenty of evidence for those not blinded by hatred.

No. that's not evidence; that's waffle.

It's evidence for those able to think.




What evidence do you have that this is not so? 

I have the evidence that they indulge i and encourage environmentally
damaging activities   You acknowledge that yourself above.

But you won't set that against the far greater good they do. 

You have not provided any evidence of that. All you provide is
wafflle.

I have provided the evidence, which is clear for those not blinded by hatred. 





And the JMT don't carry out damaging
activities anyway.


But you said elsewhere that all conservation organisations carry out
environmentally damaging activities :-(

I never said all conservation organisations.

Yes you did and said it was impossible for them not to. 

Well, by existing any organisation or person has an environmental
effect.


Ah, so you did after all.

But the JMT do not knowingly carry out any environmentally
damaging activities.


Of course it does. Read the websites and don't be blinded by your own
prejudices.





On balance most
conservation organisations do far more good than harm.

Do they? What evidence do you have of thsi? 

More than I can describe here. See the websites of the JMT, RSPB, NTS
and other conservation bodies.


There's nothing on any of their websites to support this..  Are you
making this up as you go along?


No, I'm reading the evidence on the websites. Do you notice all the land
they have protected? All the land they are restoring? All the
educational environmental programmes they have?

That is not evidence that they do more good than harm.

Yes it is, given that it's 99 percent of what they do. 

No it's not. And I'm always suspicious of those who band about
percentages they cannot substantiate.

I only didn't say 100% because even the JMT aren't perfect. 





Large areas of the Highlands have been
conserved by these bodies that might (in some cases would) have been
damaged otherwise. In many areas these bodies are restoring damaged
environments.

Perhaps you mean landscaping to attract tourists. 

No, I mean protecting and restoring wild land, which is what these
organisations do.

For tourism.

No, for the wild land itself and the life that lives there.

Tell that to a deer :-((

You think deer like starving to death within sight of food? You don't think deer deserve their proper habitat? 




(and at a risk of going dangerously OT) I feel the same about the
Cairngorm Funicular. If use of this helps promote an
appreciation of
wild spaces (yes, I can see the irony - I'm talking wild

cities) then its existence is in someway helping out other areas. 

I don't think the Funicular does promote an appreciation of
wild spaces
as what you mostly see is a run down ski resort.

The shores of Loch Morlich or Loch an Eilein are far better

appreciate the wildness of the Cairngorms for those who
can't walk far
or don't want to do so.

But they're not "wild" places if they are being visited by

of people.

They are wilder than the Funicular and ski resort and you can see wild
places from them and go into those wild places if you wish.

That's some benchmark. Wilder than tourist resorts :-)) 

Not a benchmark, just a statement of fact. I don't regard them as very
wild. I prefer remote, quieter places far from roads and "facilities".


Hundreds of thousands of people say that and then it becomes another
despoiled place.


No, because if places are hard to get too far fewer people will visit
them.

No, they'll drive their cars as near as possible to the places.

That's a reason for not building roads near to them.

I am not in favour of making any wild places accessible.

Not true. You promote these places. 

That isn't the same as making them accessible. I am against new roads,
new paths, bridges or any other facilities. Indeed, I am in favour of
making some wild areas less accessible. I promote walking, not driving
or any other motorised form of transport.


Come on! . You promote trans-Atlantic travel which is much more
damaging


I don't agree that trans-Atlantic travel is more damaging than private
cars, let along short haul budget flights (which I've never promoted or
used).


Do you know that a single seat on an airliner to new York is the
equavalent to driving 10,000 miles in an average car?

Where do you get your figures?

These figures were widely publicised in the nationlal press last year.

So you can't provide a source? 

According to http://www.carbonneutral.com
a car gives out around 3.1 tonnes of CO2 per 10,000 miles and an
airliner gives out  0.58 tonnes per flight to New York. If the car
carried four people that's 0.77 tonnes per person. If the airliner
carries 200 people that's 0.0029 tonnes per person.


I wonder where they get their figures from and if they themselves are
"carbon neutral".


I also suggest that people make long trips abroad rather than
short ones and go walking while they are there, rather than driving.

It's the trips abroad that are the bulk of the damage. 

And short haul flights here and people using cars for short journeys.

But that's why if people are going abroad I suggest going to long
periods. Many people go abroad for weekends.


You'd be better suggesting they didn't go at all.


While walking and camping the impact on the environment is minimal.


Certainly less that flying or driving.

Far, far less. A litre of petrol lasts 10 days when camping. 

and then spout the conscience relieving websites as a way of
making up :-(


At least I'm trying to do something positive, which is far better than
being a negative cynic like you.

No you're not . You're encouraging people to travel world wide. 

I'm encouraging people to go walking. Recently I've mostly been
encouraging them to go walking in Scotland.

From their homes?

Ideally! But realistically most people don't have the time. 





Indeed, I
don't think it's possible to appreciate them fully if no or minimal
effort is required.

So why don't you row the Atlantic to get to Canada? :-)

I'd get sea sick :-)

You could swim :-)

Some could. I couldn't ;-) 

I'd rather stay at home.





There are many remote, quiet places even in the UK. 


Not if you judge is by the cars abandoned by " walker" all over
Scotland in lay-by "car parks".


The routes from popular car parks to summits are often not that quiet
but there are masses more ways up and through the hills than those
starting at popular parking places.


That's why the lay-bys are littered with cars. Different starting
points; different routes.


Most popular hills have one popular path to the summit from the nearest
car park. Climb the hill by other routes, many not on paths at all, and
you generally meet few if any people.

But the point is they mostly get there by car.

Better public transport is the answer to that.

Doesn't work. People want door to door travel. 

So what do you suggest?

There are areas where private cars are banned and public transport is provided. It works.




But I would agree that Loch Morlich on a busy summer afternoon doesn't
have much of a wild feel, at least on the road side. Visit it in the
evening when most people have gone or walk round Loch an Eilein on a
weekday in winter and the wildness is there. The Cairngorm ski

a pile of metal junk and bulldozed roads whether there are
people there
or not.


Your kidding yourself on.

No, just stating reality. I've often stopped beside Loch Morlich when
it's quiet and peaceful and walked round Loch an Eilein and seen no one.
These places are local. I know them well.

Better you didn't and left it alone. 

Didn't know them well. Why? Do you think wild places should never be
visited by humans?


I think they shouldn't be promoted by conservationists and that the
public should be discouraged from visiting them.


I disagree completely here. If the public don't visit them there will be
no one to speak up for them when they are threatened.

If the public didn't visit them there be no reason to threaten them. 

That's naive! The threats come from private estates (which like
poisoning predators), forestry plantations, logging, mining, quarrying,
bulldozed roads, over grazing and more.


The private estates would poison predators if the public didn't come
to shoot their game birds.


No, the private estates poison predators to protect the grouse that
people come and shoot. Having bird watchers and walkers on their land
makes it less likely they will do so.

Nonsense. They are doing it now with walkers and birdwatchers around.

And some at least are getting prosecuted. 


The cheap and nasty native saplings would be much better replaces with
fast growing better carbon fixing softwoods that could be used for
construction timber rather than importing millions of cubic yards of
timber from Scandinavia.


Most of the timber in Scotland is Sitka spruce, a softwood from Alaska.

It's sad that you think our beautiful native trees - Scots Pine, birch,
oak, aspen - are cheap and nasty.

They have been made so by political dogma.

What? Trees have been made cheap and nasty by political dogma? What rubbish. 

And that you're in favour of industrial forestry which is
environmentally very damaging.

In what way?

Monoculture can't support biodiversity. 


The answer to timber imports is recycling. Far more paper should be
recycled and far more recycled paper used.


Recycled paper is now being exported to the far east by the
containerload. So much for that :-(

More should be used here. 



Logging would be a[part of the above.

Not that much mining

Not any more. We import coal from South America now.

Local quarrying could reduce transport. 

Local quarrying is done now. But most quarrying is for roadstone for
building roads down south.


Fewer vehicles would nee fewer roads.

Grazing by deer would be reduced over time if shooling was banned.

And wolves introduced. 

Why?  The won't impact on deer populations and will probably get shot
by farmens.

They would impact on deer populations and arrangements would have to be made with farmers. It's been done successfully in Yellowstone national park, where they have reduced elk numbers and farmers are paid for animals killed by wolves.





Here's an interesting question for you.  Should wind turbines be
allowed in the Cairngorm National Park?  If not, why not?


Depends on the size and use of the turbines. I live in the CNP and I'd
like a turbine in the back garden if I could afford one. If any of the
towns in the park wanted to be self-sufficient in electricity and
turbines could make them so then I would support them. I am however
opposed to large clumps of massive wind turbines designed to provide
energy down south. Firstly I'm not convinced than such large wind
factories can provide adequate regular energy or will actually do
anything to reduce global warming. Secondly, power transmission is
incredibly wasteful. I would like to see micro generation of electricity
as close to the point of use as possible as this is the most efficient
way to use electricity.

So you don't care about the aesthetical damage? 

Yes I do care about the aesthetic damage which is why I'm opposed to
large wind farms as opposed to small local turbines.

Gosh! How did I guess that? Tourism?

Nothing to do with tourism but to do with keeping places wild. They can't be wild with a wind farm.



I'm against them for different reasons.

Which are?

Birdstrikes.

Another good reason. And why the RSPB are opposing the huge wind farms proposed for Lewis. I hope you will support their campaign. 






"When it's quiet and peaceful" probably means that it isn't at other
times.


I've already said that both these places can be busy. There are roads to
them.

However they are natural and can still feel wild, unlike the funicular
and ski tows, which are ugly manmade junk whether anyone's there or not.

You seem obsessed by ugliness :-)

I don't know about obsessed but I'm not in favour of it. 

In some way ar railway could be environmentally beneficial. Could it
not?


In general I'm in favour of railways. Trains are environmentally better
than cars. I travel by train regularly. But a train up a mountain that
requires vast amounts of concrete to build, that destroys a mountain
environment and that concentrates people in one spot (bringing large
numbers of cars and buses half way up the hill) is not environmentally
friendly.



I think the provision of a railway in these circumstances could
protect much of the rest of the mountain.

How? 

If you mean "why" I think someone else saved me the bother of
responding to that.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time to Pay!
    ... the fact that the RSPB advertise trips abroad was discussed ... I've never denied that all conservation groups never promote ... environments. ... According to http://www.carbonneutral.com a car gives out around 3.1 tonnes of CO2 per 10,000 miles and an airliner gives out 0.58 tonnes per flight to New York. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Another letter I agree with
    ... RSPB invite you to join and get free entry to over 100 reserves ... done by car and they even provide the car parks, ... However the number of twitchers in the country will run at most to s couple of hundred many/most who aren't members of any conservation organisation. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Another letter I agree with
    ... That's encouraging travel which will mostly be ... done by car and they even provide the car parks, ... What proof have you that giving free entrance to reserves encourages ... hundred many/most who aren't members of any conservation organisation. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Another letter I agree with
    ... RSPB invite you to join and get free entry to over 100 reserves ... That's encouraging travel which will mostly be ... done by car and they even provide the car parks, ... Angus it is not only conservation organisations who should be protecting the environment. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: The chart of comp.lang.c
    ... working environments and he DID do his work in his car, ... This newsgroup is *not* dedicated to work environments, ... group about programming work environments, ... most part, you can't fix anything, and you have to learn to ignore it. ...
    (comp.lang.c)