On 7 Sep, 22:18, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> Doug wrote:
>> On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus"
hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
>> How do you imagine that meat is transported and what about the
>> vehicles involved in rearing meat?
>
> The commodity is immaterial, the same amount of goods will need to be
> transported. In fact, given that veg provides less than meat a higher volume
> of vehicle movements would be need to provide a veggie diet for the whole
> country.
>
But you and others here keep banging on about airfreighted food, which
is but a small subset of food in general.
BTW I counted at least five non-transport related threads posted by
others, not me, on the first page alone. The word 'hypocrites' springs
quickly to mind.
