At first sight the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup
might think this thread is not transport related but consider this, a
motorist who eats meat contributes about three times as much to global
warming than someone who does neither.

"...The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat
production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas
emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds,
for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which
is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon
dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to
double by the middle of the century..."

More:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

"Doug" riseup.net> wrote

the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup

There's only one thing that dominates this newsgroup, Doug.

Doug wrote:

(Edited for accuracy)

But it's a shame he doesn't.

"Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
news:ccb4b601-3da9-4c3c-bc28-b723879f6adf@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

That is SO weak. How on earth is it transport related when all you do is say
"someone who participates in activity A and the completely unrelated acivity
B" has such-and-such an effect?

Even at second sight, this is NOT transport related in any way at all, and
you are an extremely sad specimin to try to make it so.

Doug riseup.net> wrote:

Are a figment of your imagination. It's one barking mad vegan that
dominates this newsgroup.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:32:09 -0700 (PDT), Doug riseup.net>
wrote:

Don't any pedestrians eat meat?

Doug riseup.net> wrote:

At first sight, the comment was made by a noted vegetarian, Dr Rajendra
Pachauri. Do you think that his views may perhaps be a tad biased by his
lifestyle choices, and indeed that his views fall outside his area of
expertise?

Also you failed to quote this section from the same article:

"Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who will also speak
at tomorrow's event in London, said government could help educate people
about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not 'regulate'.
'Eating less meat would help, there's no question about that, but there
are other things,' Watson said."

Why was that, Duhng?

In article b723879f6adf@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

What about the person who buys airfreighted food?

"Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
news:ccb4b601-3da9-4c3c-bc28-b723879f6adf@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

You use the internet, and telecoms. Have you got any idea how much transport
is required to provide the infrastructure and upkeep ?
And then there's the huge amount of energy required by the data centres /
Switch sites etc etc

If you were really bothered about the environment - you'd turn your PC off.

"Conor" hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ihobbFq3q4fU5@mid.individual.net...

I'm guessing that airfreighted beans & lentils is good, and airfrieghted
meat is bad. And therefore a truck load of lentels uses less fuel than a
truckload of meat.
;o)