> 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
>>>> news:ccb4b601-3da9-4c3c-bc28-b723879f6adf@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>>>>> 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.
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.