Re: Protection of the public

In message <csnvc2tv0s4ecerblt71fubbgk82hel6hc@xxxxxxx>, amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:33:30 +0100, Chris Townsend
<Chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <8vjuc2t5hjdoqmp0ih05vf1n7k7u8h8f2r@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:14:05 +0100, Chris Townsend
<Chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <qrvtc25rtq69f5253lot5um9llo8tm7veq@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:52:43 +0100, Chris Townsend
<Chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <inmsc2pc81rhsae6ap1l8fm2oaiidhg3p2@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

Snip

There are a significant number of serious accidents every year and
probably quite a substantial number of smaller ones.

How many serious accidents are there a year? What is a significant
number? Given the number of people who go out into wild places and the
hills every week the number of accidents is very small.

You tell me. You're the one that seems to know.

You're the one saying there's a significant number of accidents every year. I'm asking you what that number is.



snip

Human intrusion is the most damaging activity to the natural
environment and likely to lead ultimately to our extinction.

Well, humans can only exist in the natural environment. We can't do
without it. Most conservation work is to do with minimising and reducing
the impact of humans on nature.

No it's not. The conservationists encourage it.

There's no point arguing this again. Anyone who looks at a conservation
organisation website or magazine will see this isn't true.

Look at most so- called conservation websites and magazines and you'll
see they're exploiting the natural environment.

You'll see how much they are doing to conserve it.

They're exploiting it.

A view that can only be held by someone who can't or won't understand what these organisations actually do.







I don't think the presence of people stops a place
being wild.

Nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? Or are you just coming up with an insult because you
have no arguments?

It all depends on what they do there.

Their presence is enough.

How?

An infestation of wild places.

There's your hatred of people coming out. An "infestation". In most wild
places you'll meet very few people - is this an "infestation"?

I haven't a "hatred" of anyone. I just expose the fake conservation
values of so-called conservationists.

I think infestation is a very appropriate word as I'm sure wildlife
finds people pests.

I'm sure much wildlife doesn't. And much wildlife only still has a
habitat to live in because of the work of conservationists.

Nonsense. If habitats were left alone it would be better for wildlife.

The habitat is only there for wildlife because of conservationists. Otherwise it would be "developed" and destroyed. To leave habitats alone they need to be in the hands of conservationists.








There are masses of wild places in Scotland. Most of the Highlands for a
start.

Don't give me that :-) Hardly a place isn't being tramped on.

Most of the Highlands sees very few people. Most people stick to popular
paths. And the temporary presence of people doesn't stop a place being
wild.

Wild looking rather than wild.

How are you defining "wild"? By the absence of humans? It's certainly
not in a way recognised by anyone else.

Perhaps not by you.

So what is your definition? Do you have one? Most people accept that
Scotland has much wild land, that's why they support organisations like
the John Muir Trust, whose fund raising to buy estates like Ben Nevis
has been amazingly successful.

Ben Nevis is nor "wild". It could probably be described as a
pedestrian motorway. And what is Ben Nevis successful at?

Ben Nevis has one popular route up one side to the summit.

As I said, a pedestrian motorway.

One path up one side. The rest of the mountain is wild.

The rest of
the mountain is certainly wild. Have you ever visited the north face?

I have no wish to.

So you don't know that most of the mountain is wild.


Ben Nevis isn't successful at anything. It's a mountain. But the JMT
were very successful in raising funds from the public to buy it.

Why did they want to buy it? To exploit it in their name?

To conserve it. The purpose of the JMT is to conserve wild land. That's all they exist for.




snip

There are vast numbers of wild places.

Not in Scotland.

Yes in Scotland, by any rational definition of the word. Of course
developers and those who wish to destroy nature might argue there is no
wild land because then there is no need to protect and the environment
can be destroyed. Is that what you want? To industrialise everywhere?

Not at all. The presence of tourism destroys wild places. They are
industrialising everywhere.

I am completely opposed to the industrialisation of wild places. I spend
much time fighting against it. Industrialisation means ski resorts,
quarries, bulldozed roads, buildings, commercial conifer plantations and
other "developments".


So why stop at tourism? That's an industry.

Tourism covers a whole multitude of activities. I'm opposed to what the
late Edward Abbey called mass industrial tourism such as ski resorts and
tourist villages in wild places.

Mass tourism is also walking.

No it isn't. Very few walkers go out in groups larger than 3 or 4. Many walk solo. It's the opposite of mass tourism.

'm also opposed to signposts, new
footpaths, bridges and anything else that reduces the wildness of
places.
But non-damaging tourism in the form of walking and mountaineering I'm
keen to promote.

But walking and mountaineering is damaging. First by travelling to
the destination and then eroding the natural environment.

The erosion in most places is minimal or non-existent. The travelling is less than done by most people because walkers and mountaineers use no mechanised transport during their activities.


snip

No, I would like to see people take enough care that accidents don't
happen. But I don't want wild places tamed, as you would like. Apart
from the fact that protecting all or even most wild places is
impossible.

That's why they're not wild.

No, that's why they are wild. Once the fences you want were built they
wouldn't be wild. You want to destroy nature and wild places.

They're not wild anyway and if fences were put up nature would
overgrow them if it was wild. It's people who destroy wild places not
fences.

They are wild and if fences were overgrown they wouldn't be much of a
barrier.

So what would prevent them from overgrowing?

Regular maintenance, which would require access for workers and
machinery.

Why would they need maintenance?

Everything needs maintenance. Have you see the state of some forestry
fences in the hills?

I thought you didn't want fences?

I don't. But many exist and some are in a state of disrepair.




Fences also act as barriers to wild life, especially deer, so you get
lush vegetation on one side and overgrazed land on the other.

Safety railing wouldn't.

Why not?

Safety railing have wide spaces and need not be high.

They won't be very effective then.




You believe in the nanny state, big brother and controlling people. I
believe in personal responsibility and freedom.

No you don't, or you would agree that people should pay for their own
SAR.

People do pay for this. Heard of taxes? And donations.

That's collective responsibility ; not personal responsibility.

It's both and I believe in both. What do you believe in?

Collective responsibility where it is not abused by those who put
themselves in positions where they likely to require the taxpayer to
pay considerable costs involving activities for which you say they
should be personal responsible.

There is no abuse.

Of course there's an abuse if those who partake in walking don't pay
for their rescue. Did you notice the wording in Sunday's program
about SAR? " the government have no intention of charging for SAR".
They refrained from saying the government will not charge for SAR
"Having no intention" is worth nothing.

At present their is no means to pay for rescue so people it can't be
abuse not to pay.

They abuse it by opposing any suggestion of charges.

So voicing an opinion is abuse? Certainly not.


The government doesn't run SAR so it can't charge for it. The government
can't order mountain rescue teams to charge.

They pay for the helicopters with our money.

The flights would take place anyway. It's called training. And only some rescues involve helicopters. Most are carried out by volunteer ground teams.



Mountain rescue teams were set up as volunteer groups
who have never charged and don't want to charge. If the mountain rescue
teams wanted to charge they could become professional teams and do so
but they don't want to. At present there is no means for people to pay
for rescue except through their taxes and by donations. The people
rescued are tax payers. I'd rather have my taxes used to fund RAF
mountain rescue teams than many other things done with them, including
some by the RAF.

I's rather have them spent on essential services that benefit the
majority of the population.

Exercise does benefit the majority of the population.

You can have exercise without driving hundreds of miles to climb
hills. People can exercise quite easily at home and at sports centres
in towns.

I also believe it is very important that people have contact with nature and go to the fields, hills, moors, woods, rivers, lakes and coasts. Losing contact with the natural environment is a sure way to feel we don't need it or depend on it and that it's okay to destroy it.

I'm sure walkers
and mountaineers cost the NHS far less than couch potatoes who take no
exercise. That's why the government are encouraging people to take up
walking.

Same with people taking exercise near their homes.

Probably not as such people usually do far less exercise because it's not as satisfying or fulfilling. Also, many walkers and mountaineers live in the hills.

All the organisations you oppose are genuine conservation
organisations
doing a great deal for the environment.

All the organisations I oppose say they are conserving the natural
environment but are indulging in, and encouraging, environmentally
damaging activities for their own ends.

You're wrong but nothing I say will change your closed hate-filled mind.

I'm not wrong and you know it.

No I don't. I know you are wrong.

So what so-called conservation organisations are not indulging in and
encouraging environmentally damaging activities?

The RSPB, NTS, JMT, Woodland Trust and many more are trying to minimise
environmentally damaging activities.

Not they don't; they encourage it.

You're talking rubbish. What do you think these organisations exist for?

Mainly for themselves and the wages they make out of it. £100k chief
executives etc

Simply untrue.

Not untrue at all. Fact you seem unable to accept.

Most of the money goes into conservation work and most of
the people who do the work are volunteers. Often, those who are paid for
their work receive far less than they would in private industry. The
organisation I work for as a volunteer doesn't pay anybody as much as
£30K.

The CEO of the Woodland Trust is paid around £70k and the CEO of the
RSPB £100K How much does the CEO of the JMT get?

Much less than that, it's a much smaller organisation. Compared with private industry or government posts those aren't high salaries anyway for running such large organisations.

snip


Most people are motorists.

Sure, but conservationists should be discouraging them, not providing
for them.

No comment I see.

I've already commented elsewhere. Repeating myself is getting tedious.
I've pointed out the Woodland Trust Climate Change campaign which asks
people to pledge to walk or cycle instead of driving and the Cairngorms
National Park work to expand public transport so people don't need to
drive. Look on conservation websites and you'll see other such
campaigns.

Lip service, which falls apart if you look at the situation a little
deeper.

If you look at the situation more deeply you'll see that it's amazing
just how much these organisations achieve.

They achieve virtually nothing in terms of reducing climate change and
encourage others to indulge in environmentally damaging activities.

Climate change is a new campaign for most groups. No one is achieving much yet. But in other conservation fields - the ones for which they exist - they have done a great deal. And conservation organisations are leading the campaigns to reduce climate change.







Just this morning I received a card from the Woodland Trust, a wonderful
conservation organisation that I'm pleased to say is growing rapidly,
headed "Take Action to stop Climate Chaos" that calls on people to make
pledges to help reduce global warming. The pledges include "walk or
cycle instead of driving short journeys whenever possible".

Anyone can say that, But the proof is in the eating. Near me the
Woodland Trust had emission belching excavators and other plant
working for months in a woodland ripping out trees and creating
pathways.


Are you prepared to make that pledge?

No. I'm not a conservationist.

What are you then?

Why should I be anything?

Why are you concerned about this at all then?

I oppose the dishonesty of the fake conservationists.

So you keep saying.

Because it's true.

Because you'd like it to be true even though it isn't.


So you have no positive views?

Yes. Stop being dishonest.

That's neither true nor positive.




snip





If they were real conservationists they would try to persuade people
not to travel at all. And you can't talk either; It appears you make
your living out of encouraging people to travel.

I encourage people to walk.

From where to where?

Wherever they want to walk. Preferably for many days or even weeks at a
time without using mechanised transport.

After travelling thousands of miles by mechanised transport to get
there.

Very few people do that. And even if they do it's better that they spend
their time walking than using more mechanised transport.

Absolute rubbish.

Why?

They could walk from home.

That doesn't make it rubbish. And it's still better to spend their time
walking than using mechanised transport after using the latter to reach
their destination. It's called reducing impact.

Nonsense. Conservationists should be trying to persuade people to
leave their cars at home and not use any form of mechanised transport.
It's a myth about public transport being environmentally friendly.

So you never go anywhere except on foot or by bicycle?

Conservationists are trying to persuade people to leave their cars at home as I've pointed out. And some forms of transport - trains for example - are far more environmentally friendly than cars or planes.

You want no one to travel, no one to visit wild places, no one to do anything except fester at home. I want people to travel and visit new places and have new experiences but I want this to happen in the most environmentally friendly way possible.





I take it you never use mechanised transport?

Of course I do.

And are you trying to minimise your use of it?

Why should I when conservation is a fake industry?

All conservation? Everywhere?

Mostly. I haven't come across one yet that doesn't exploit the natural
environment for its own benefit.

I doubt you ever will because your mind is so closed.

I feel sorry for someone with such a
miserable negative outlook.

Don't feel sorry for me. Fell sorry for the lack of honesty in the
conservation industry.

I can't feel sorry for what doesn't exist.



From Kyoto downwards.

Kyoto is an inadequate start but it's better than nothing.

Kyoto is an environmental fraud.


I recently had occasion to write this:

The whole conservation industry is a flawed from top to bottom. It
starts with the Kyoto scam that countries such as the UK signed up to,
to reduce emissions, but what happens is millions of tons of produce
from countries outside the agreement are imported into the UK. So all
that's happening is the UK's emission responsibilities are being
exported elsewhere. They even had to "manufacture" a last minute
extension of the agreement in Canada last year to keep the scam going.
Carbon trading and the market trading of Renewables Obligation
Certificates on which green energy claims are made are overly complex
and obscure schemes, which make little discernable difference to
combat climate change.

I agree that it's overly complex but not that it's a scam. Rather it's a political fudge because that's the only way politicians from different countries could come to an agreement. As I said it's a start.

Who cares if there's some plants and animals that are not of UK
origin. There's plenty of people live here that are not of UK origin
but if they're born here they're as British as I am.

The concern is if they are destroying native life forms. Some are, some aren't. And how they are used. Sitka spruce are beautiful trees - I have one in my garden - but not in factory forests where they are crammed together and shade out all other life.

But the problem is, all sorts of government supported people have
jumped on the bandwagon of ethnic cleansing of plants and animals and
are screwing money under the conservation label. Some even get CBEs
for their trouble:-(

The problem here is the obsession of so-called conservationists
against non-native species almost to the point of frenzy.

Biodiversity is an anthropocentric red herring and if truth be told is
more about maintaining a country's heritage for tourism, which is one
of the most environmentally damaging activities of our time, than what
it's worth to nature.

This is just wrong. Biodiversty is a key factor in conserving the environment as it means a healthy natural world.

If you want to start doing something constructive about man's
intervention with nature, start by reducing man's impact on the planet
by reducing all man made "species" such as planes, cars and trains
which as far as I am aware have no known predators either, and are
much more environmentally damaging than non-native plants. But the
problem is this would be politically unacceptable and would not
attract grants that keep questionable conservationists in jobs.

The whole conservation movement needs a radical rethink in the light
of climate change with insignificant politically correct and ethnic
cleansing issues that demonise and attack non-native species scrapped
in favour of reducing man's impact on the planet.

Until that happens, conservation, as it is today, will continue to be
probably the biggest fraud ever committed against the natural
environment.

LOL!

By the way, I'm not a conservationist or environmentalist, but I do
expect those who make such claims to be honest about it.

No, you're just someone with a huge grudge.


Recently I went to a meeting at which an official from the

National Park was explaining how they are increasing the public
transport in the area and encouraging people to use it. Other national
parks do the same.

It's lip service. They are encouraging people to visit the NPs from
all over the world. Another reason why they're dishonest!

It's ongoing hard work not lip service.

What hard work is involved?

Endless meetings, mostly.

About what? Encouraging tourism?

About increasing public transport and encouraging people to use it, as I
said above.

In the full knowledge that people are being encouraged to come from
all over the world. It's a pathetic attempt to show concern for the
natural environment. If they were discouraged to travel by true
conservationists that would be an honest approach.

I've covered this elsewhere. Encouraging people to drive less,
encouraging people to walk or cycle rather than drive, working for more
environmentally friendly forms of travel. Your hatred of conservation
organisations means you will reject all these and anything else I say.

I reject it because it's dishonest.

As you keep saying but without any evidence that it's true.

There's plenty of evidence to show it is true. Just look at the
websites.

Which show how conservation organisations are encouraging people to reduce car travel and are campaigning on climate change:

http://www.the-woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/index.htm








And what about the people from all over the world?

Cairngorm NP doesn't encourage people from all over the world. Visit
Scotland does that. CNP does provide information for anyone who wants to
visit, wherever they come from.

Conservationists would discourage people visiting from wherever.

Would they? Why? I'm in favour of encouraging people to visit wild
places.

Which is damaging to the natural environment.

No it isn't. It's necessary to protect it. Only by visiting wild places
do people realise it needs protecting.

Nonsense. If they don't go in the first place it won't need
protecting.

If they don't go in the first place industry is likely to destroy it.

Nonsense. It's not an either/or situation.

In many cases it is just that.


I realised this years ago when
Knoydart was about to be bought by the Ministry of Defence for use as a
tank training ground, which would have totally destroyed the environment
there. Only a massive campaign led by people who knew and loved the
place saved it.

It's certainly not saved from the tramping masses. So why don't you
save it from them as well?

It doesn't need saving from them. Knoydart is a remote area, certainly
not visited by masses. Or do you know different from your visits there.
Knoydart is starting to recover from decades of neglect and mistreatment
with regenerating forests and increasing wildlife. Do you think this is
a bad thing/

I know people from Knoydart who tell me it is being spoiled by mass
tourism.

Evidence? Who are these people? Very few people live in Knoydart. The Knoydart Estate is owned by the local community so presumably they are involved in running it.

http://www.knoydart-foundation.com/

snip

One way
to do that is to encourage people to make long trips and to walk once
they reach their destination and not use cars.

Complete nonsense. The air travel from abroad completely dwarfs
emissions from car travel within the NP. The big issue is the damage
getting there by mechanised transport; not walking around at the
destination.

If someone makes a long trip, whether by plane or car, and then drives
around at their destination they have much more impact than if they then
spend their time walking.

But if they walked from home they'd make much less impact.

True but unfortunately not everyone has that much time and many people
come from overseas.

Nonsense, You need less time to walk from home for exercise that to
travel hundreds of miles to walk elsewhere.

Not it where you want to go is hundreds of miles away.

You don't need to travel hundreds of miles to walk for exercise. You
can walk out of you front door.

People like to see different places. The desire to travel and explore is very healthy.


I'm talking about reducing impacts in a feasible way
now. Calling on everyone only to go where they can walk just isn't
realistic.

It's environmentally beneficial. And real conservationists could
start to encourage it.

Conservationists do encourage it. I quoted the Woodland Trust campaign
earlier - "walk or cycle instead of driving".

As I said; lip service.

Because that's all you can say as you can't deny that they are campaigning on climate change and encouraging people to walk or cycle instead of drive. Which isn't lip service it's fact and a very positive one.




Also, at present air travel only accounts for
around 7% of emissions linked to global warming. This amount is
increasing but emissions from land vehicles, households and industry is
far more significant at present.

So what are the conservationists doing about this? Nothing!

They're doing much about all of these. For example every issue of the
RSPB's Birds magazine contains details of campaigns they are waging and
suggestions for how readers can minimise their impacts.

Provided they read the adverts for world travel :-(

No one has to read adverts.

But they encourage it by accepting such advertisements.

I think this dilemma will be resolved soon.



What are you doing?

I'm certainly not heading off to a bird reserve in the highlands or
islands; and I'm not even a conservationist.

And are you doing anything positive?

See above. That's positive.

I don't see anything positive.







And an
impossibility without destroying the natural environment.

In what way?

Putting up thousands of miles of railings in wild places would involve
the transportation of materials and workers, which would mean vehicle
tracks and dumps of materials.

Sure. What's the problem? After the railing were fixed the dumps
would no longer be there.

Ever heard of maintenance and thought about the damage the dumps would
do? And the roads needed to bring in the materials? You want to destroy
nature and wildlife.

It could be carried by walkers. They could do something useful with
their time.

That's just a joke.

They did it in the past.

? Who did what in the past?

Carried up stones to build walls.

Walks were built by estate workers with local stone (they didn't carry
it up) who often stayed in shelters nearby and who were paid for their
work. Dry stone walling is a skill.

Much of it was carried by people who walked even if they were workers.

The stones came from nearby. No on carries stones any distance to build
a wall.

In many cases they had to be carried from small local estate quarries.

I don't know of any walls like that. All the ones I know were built from local stone. And I imagine that if stone had to be transported horses would have been used.




snip



Only those who invite people onto their land should pay
for safety measures. It seems it takes a long time to sink in :-(

Which would mean that most land wouldn't require safety measures given
that few landowners actually invite people on their land.

Could I remind you what I said in the first post of this thread:

"Protection of the public

I was appalled to learn that the National Trust's "full and exhaustive
investigation" denied even contributory responsibility for the death
of Zoe Skea, who fell into a gorge at the Quoich Water beauty spot, by
their conclusion that "no man-made features or structures were
involved in the accident". Indeed, if there had been a man-made
structure, in the form of a protective railing, this accident may
never have happened.

The National Trust and a plethora of similar charitable organisations
- many akin to big business - are actively promoting their land for
recreational purposes and seek government funding, donations and
memberships to further their aims, yet they are not subject to safety
regulations that other recreational facility operators are required to
meet by law."


Would you think I was insulting if I added confused to the two above.?

Yes, because you would be. And you don't even understand what the
National Trust for Scotland's aims are.

One of them is to encourage people to visit their sites.

Certainly. Nothing wrong with that. It's not a prime aim though, it's a
way of raising the funds needed for their work.

Gosh, really! There's plenty wrong with that. They're meant to be
conservationists not travel agents. And if they didn't encourage so
many people they wouldn't have so much work. They make their own
work.

The people who visit their properties don't make work for the NTS.

Of course they do by path erosion etc.

The NTS are restoring paths so that erosion is minimal. Path construction and repair is now very efficient. In the past the NTS has certainly had policies that led to path erosion - and I and others criticised them for this - but in recent years they have improved enormously.

The
work is there anyway.

See above.




"The National Trust for Scotland is the conservation charity that
protects and promotes Scotland's natural and cultural heritage for
present and future generations to enjoy.

That sounds pretty hollow when they are encouraging environmentally
damaging activities that are, as Mark Avery of the RSPB 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."

You and your fake friends are doing just that.

No, we are trying to do something about it?

You're encouraging the damage.

No, we're trying to reduce the damage.

What are you doing?

Not encouraging the damage.

We're all doing that.


With over 270,000 members it
is the largest conservation charity in Scotland and it depends for its
support on donations, legacies, grants and membership subscriptions.

So what?


Established in 1931, at the initiative of ruralScotland, the Trust acts
as guardian of the nation's magnificent heritage of architectural,
scenic and historic treasures. As an independent charity, not a
government department, it acts on behalf of everyone to safeguard our
heritage.

Not if climate change destroys everything.

Please support our work by visiting our properties, becoming a
member, making a donation or arranging a legacy. By joining, you support
the conservation of these fine parts of Scottish heritage and there is
the additional benefit of free entry to all the properties."

There's no free lunches.

No, you have to pay to joing.


No free lunches.

So?



I'm a member. I recommend it.

I'm sure you are. Just the type :-)

Yes, I believe in being positive and optimistic and trying to do
something to conserve and restore the environment.

But you're not, you are supporting environmental damage by fake
conservationists. Although I haven't read your books I expect they
are encouraging people to travel to far flung places. That's
environmental irresponsibility.

My books don't do that so don't make assumptions.


Nor do you understand that people want
adventure and freedom or that it's good for people to take
responsibility for themselves.

Sure, but that's not what comes across on this newsgroup.

suggestion that people should take responsibility for

paying for their SAS brings howls of derision and
objection. If you
want to take responsibility for your actions you should

responsibility; not just pick and choose what you want.

would be real adventure that would require more than wimps

of a mobile phone bleating for others to help them when the
"adventure" goes wrong.

Everyone who goes into the hills should take responsibility.
No one can
assume a rescue will be available. Not everyone carries a
mobile phone
or uses it if they do except in extreme emergencies.

But the problem is they don't take responsibility or they'd
be quite
prepared to pay for their SAR.


No comment?

See below.



People do pay for search and rescue through taxes and
contributions to
mountain rescue teams but you refuse to acknowledge this

doesn't fit with your dislikes of walkers.

The above is my comment. I see you are still ignoring it.

I already answered it. See below.

Then why did you write "No comment?" if you'd already answered my
comment?

IT was no comment with a question mark - meaning you hadn't


But I had commented and you'd responded to my comment.

No you didn't.

So how could you answer the comment I didn't make?

Here's the comment I didn't make but which you answered again:

"People do pay for search and rescue through taxes and contributions
mountain rescue teams but you refuse to acknowledge this because it
doesn't fit with your dislikes of walkers."

You're confused. Go and look it up again.

No confusion here. That's the comment I made.


Still confused :-))

Yes you are but it's time to stop this silliness. I commented, you
ignored my comment and then said I hadn't commented. That's it.

It's exactly the reverse. You're still confused.

Okay. Explain it to me.

When I said "no comment", I was referring to you not commenting to my
previous post.

Which post?





snip

I come across people now more than ever who are sick to death with
charities and their money grabbing activities and junk mail.

So you're anti-charities too?

In the main fake conservation organisations trade as charities to
avoid taxes.

They are charities.

Charities are tax avoidance vehicles and in many cases not worthy of
the true description.

Examples?

Charities were originally introduced to help the poor. Now they've
been extended into the realms of tax avoiding big business.

Give an example. That's a statement of your opinion.

Pick almost any big charity and you'll find large salaried executives.
I understand the RSPB has approaching twenty executives earning
between £50k and £100k. The one exception I know of is the Salvation
Army and probably one of the few real charities left.

Given the membership of the RSPB those aren't big salaries compared with
what executives in private companies of comparable size earn.

Of course they are. The RSPB admit they are only 10% below commercial
rates.

10% is a great deal. Most people would change jobs in an instant to earn 10% more.



snip

You don't have a choice as to where the
energy comes from. But you can support those bodies providing green
energy and thereby encourage the development of more green energy and
less polluting energy.

Nonsense. If you're paying the same for your "green energy" and
someone else is creaming off a commission, your paying less into the
renewables system.

I'd rather that commission went to a conservation organisation doing
something about climate change than a generating company that isn't.

That would be fraud if they accepted it as green energy.



You can't decide you'll only have energy from a windfarm
say unless you have your own wind turbine. The centralised energy system
is a problem. I'm in favour of decentralised microgeneration.

We can agree on that.

But the fake conservationists don't because they want the money for
attaching their customer base to the major energy generating
companies.

Many conservation organisations are now in favour of decentralised
microgeneration. Greenpeace has a big campaign on this. The JMT are in
favour of local wind farms providing local energy but against big wind
farms in wild areas designed to provide energy for cities far away.

But that's not what the fake conservationists are selling to the
public.

Yes it is. Look at the websites.

Rubbish. They're selling green energy from the National Grid which you
have already condemned.

"RSPB Energy helps the environment
RSPB Energy promotes renewable energy: every unit of electricity you buy will be matched with electricity generated from renewable sources. What's more, some of the money raised by RSPB Energy goes into a fund to invest in renewable energy projects on RSPB nature reserves. Generating electricity from renewable sources is a cleaner, greener alternative to burning fossil fuels (which releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, increasing the risk of climate change)."

That's why it's worthwhile selling "green energy".

And here's Greenpeace on microgeneration:

"Decentralised energy essentially means generating energy close to where it is used. These local energy generators can be Combined Heat and Power stations, but they can also include renewable technologies such as wind farms, solar power and energy from greener fuels such as biomass. A decentralised system encourages better integration of a range of innovative clean technologies to get the best possible mix. Waste heat is captured and channelled through underground networks to heat nearby buildings and provide hot water. Minimal energy is lost as waste heat or in transmission.

Better yet, because decentralised energy is based on smaller, local generating plants, it means that individual buildings – residential, commercial and industrial – can stop being just consumers of energy and start generating it. Whether through solar panels, wind turbines or even natural gas, buildings start generating electricity for use by the local community. As such, a decentralised system gives people more active ownership of their energy sources, changing attitudes to energy and stimulating efficiency in end use."

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/?&CFID=5400511&CFTOKEN=88262169&Menu
Point=D



Green energy is akin to creative accounting.


I'm not going to disagree that this isn't sometimes the case.

There's no other case.

It's not as simple as you think. But you seem to like things in simple
terms.


So what's the complicated case?

That there's a whole host of interested parties including politicians, power generating companies, businesses and industries as well as conservationists who all have to come to agreement on climate change and this is complex and difficult. The best ways to approach it are still being learnt. It involves masses of meetings, documents, discussions. Mistakes have been and will be made. People will disagree. But hopefully we will slowly move forwards.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Protection of the public
    ... You're trying to argue there are many serious accidents to people in wild places and the hills. ... snip environment and likely to lead ultimately to our extinction. ... Anyone who looks at a conservation organisation website or magazine will see this isn't true. ... how green energy worked and asked a couple of questions about it. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Protection of the public
    ... Given the number of people who go out into wild places and the ... snip being wild. ... the destination and then eroding the natural environment. ... Look on conservation websites and you'll see other such ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Protection of the public
    ... Given the number of people who go out into wild places and the ... humans can only exist in the natural environment. ... Most conservation work is to do with minimising and reducing ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Whats the difference?
    ... Because you haven't given any evidence that anyone other than you ... fuels is damaging to the natural environment ... It is also self evident that without dispute that conservation ... You have admitted this damage and said it is more than countered by ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Protection of the public
    ... Given the number of people who go out into wild places and the hills every week the number of accidents is very small. ... snip environment and likely to lead ultimately to our extinction. ... The government can't order mountain rescue teams to charge. ... Most of the money goes into conservation work and most of the people who do the work are volunteers. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)