Graeme Wall  wrote:

> > The lager I most associated with Manchester was Grunhalle, although it
> > was actually from Warrington.
> 
> Thought that was vodka :-)

Same company, Greenhall-Witley hence the dreadfully named and dreadful
to drink Grünhalle (Greenhall) lager.

The directors of Greenhalls should have been taken out and shot for
their decision to demolish Tommy Ducks.

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

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

"Doug"  wrote


the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup




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




-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary   Luton-Huelva

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34657 (New 9th August 2008)

Doug wrote:
> At first sight the Doug who dominates this transport newsgroup
> might think

(Edited for accuracy)

But it's a shame he doesn't.

"Doug"  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.

Doug wrote:
> At first sight the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup
> might think this thread is not transport related  and they would be correct.


-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug  wrote:

> the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup

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 
wrote:

>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.

Don't any pedestrians eat meat?

Doug  wrote:

> 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.

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 <ccb4b601-3da9-4c3c-bc28-
b723879f6adf@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> 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.
> 
What about the person who buys airfreighted food?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Doug"  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.

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"  wrote in message 
news:6ihobbFq3q4fU5@mid.individual.net...
> In article <ccb4b601-3da9-4c3c-bc28-
> b723879f6adf@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>> 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.
>>
> What about the person who buys airfreighted food?

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)

On 7 Sep, 06:32, Doug  wrote:
> 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.

Not transport related, but you have put me in the mood for a nice
juicy steak with some chips. Yummy.
Back on topic thought, I will then have to go out for a nice long ride
to burn off the calories.

Did you know beef is one of the best sources of protein there is for
humans?
It provides one of the best combinations of the different proteins
that we need to survive, as well as vital vitamins and minerals such
as zinc and the B-complex.

http://www.muscle-and-fitness.co.uk/health/diet/beef_nutrition_facts.html

Of course yourself being a vegan you will probably have vitamin
deficiencies, especially with B12

On 7 Sep, 13:30, NotMe  wrote:
> On 7 Sep, 06:32, Doug  wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Not transport related, but you have put me in the mood for a nice
> juicy steak with some chips. Yummy.
> Back on topic thought, I will then have to go out for a nice long ride
> to burn off the calories.
>
> Did you know beef is one of the best sources of protein there is for
> humans?
> It provides one of the best combinations of the different proteins
> that we need to survive, as well as vital vitamins and minerals such
> as zinc and the B-complex.
>
> http://www.muscle-and-fitness.co.uk/health/diet/beef_nutrition_facts....
>
> Of course yourself being a vegan you will probably have vitamin
> deficiencies, especially with B12

Not our Doug, he knows the secret is a diet of veggies covered
liberally in human poo.

Easy when you know how.  Now pass the clothes pegs and dig in!

Fod

"Doug"  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

And they'd be right

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

In article <vOOwk.346502$D01.127000@newsfe17.ams2>, Gizmo. says...

> 
> 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) 
> 
Silly me.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

NotMe wrote:
> On 7 Sep, 06:32, Doug  wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Not transport related, but you have put me in the mood for a nice
> juicy steak with some chips. Yummy.
> Back on topic thought, I will then have to go out for a nice long ride
> to burn off the calories.
> 
> Did you know beef is one of the best sources of protein there is for
> humans?
> It provides one of the best combinations of the different proteins
> that we need to survive, as well as vital vitamins and minerals such
> as zinc and the B-complex.
> 
> http://www.muscle-and-fitness.co.uk/health/diet/beef_nutrition_facts.html
> 
> Of course yourself being a vegan you will probably have vitamin
> deficiencies, especially with B12

And he would starve in the winter if he didn't have his fruit & veg 
flown in.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

NotMe  wrote:

> Of course yourself being a vegan you will probably have vitamin
> deficiencies, especially with B12

I'm sure someone will be able to post a link to a photograph of a
vitamin-deficient, waxy-white emaciated vegetarian.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 15:47:51 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article <vOOwk.346502$D01.127000@newsfe17.ams2>, Gizmo. says...
>
>> 
>> 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) 
>> 
>Silly me.

And remember, when it comes to lentils you don't need pounds of them 

"Just a few will do you".

(Me at any rate)

Derek

On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  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?

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

On 7 Sep, 10:32, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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?

What is it about 'Eating less meat would help' you don't understand,
Filth? If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
even more.

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

Doug  wrote in news:7d8f7890-76da-4772-bea6-f89dcfbd9df4
@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> What is it about 'Eating less meat would help' you don't understand,
> Filth? If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
> even more.
> 

It beggars belief that you breathe the same air the rest of us use. 

-- 
The above post may contain traces of irony

Doug  wrote:

> On 7 Sep, 10:32, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Doug  wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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?
> 
> What is it about 'Eating less meat would help' you don't understand,
> Filth?

None of it. Which bit of "Answer the Fucking Question" is it that you
don't understand?

> If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
> even more.

Which bit of "logic" did you fail to understand, other than "all of it"?

In article <1imwgdc.1ll4mvfe1oiinN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth 
says...
> NotMe  wrote:
> 
> > Of course yourself being a vegan you will probably have vitamin
> > deficiencies, especially with B12
> 
> I'm sure someone will be able to post a link to a photograph of a
> vitamin-deficient, waxy-white emaciated vegetarian.
> 
Here's one..
http://www.rogerwendell.com/images/badguys/adolf_hitler.jpg
-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Doug wrote:
<snip>
> If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
> even more.
> 
So eating nothing at all is best?
After you then.

Doug wrote:
> On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  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?
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

It's also knitting related as one of the drivers was wearing a jumper.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:42:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
>wrote:
>> "Doug"  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?

Good question, what about them?

We are not the ones pontificating about it.

Derek

"Doug"  wrote


 > What is it about 'Eating less meat would help' you don't understand,
> Filth? If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
> even more.


But then cows, pigs and sheep etc would all but become extinct so what you 
are advocating is animal genocide.


-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary   Luton-Huelva

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34657 (New 9th August 2008)

On 7 Sep, 16:30, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> NotMe  wrote:
> > Of course yourself being a vegan you will probably have vitamin
> > deficiencies, especially with B12
>
> I'm sure someone will be able to post a link to a photograph of a
> vitamin-deficient, waxy-white emaciated vegetarian.

Oh, seeing as it's you, OK then:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620828748/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620828418/

and for good measure:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620004521/

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:a93170e2-df56-4cb4-901c-3d39a1438563@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  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?

Same way as the rest of our food, including what you eat. Nice try, but 
wrong again.

Doug wrote:
> On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  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.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT), BrianW
 wrote:

>On 7 Sep, 16:30, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> NotMe  wrote:
>> > Of course yourself being a vegan you will probably have vitamin
>> > deficiencies, especially with B12
>>
>> I'm sure someone will be able to post a link to a photograph of a
>> vitamin-deficient, waxy-white emaciated vegetarian.
>
>Oh, seeing as it's you, OK then:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620828748/
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620828418/
>
>and for good measure:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620004521/

Look, that one of him pickin' his varicose, ulcerated, beshrivelled
cretinous ass is definitely not-on. It's an offront to public decency.

It's narsty ...

Erm ... any more ?

Derek

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 22:18:08 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:
>
>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. 
>

C'mon.

You haven't seen Lugless's proposals for *everybody elses* veggie
diet.

Eggsample 	(No Eggs) 

Starters 	Grass (Various)

Main Course	Forage (Various)

Sweet		Caramelised Bluebell Bulbs Anastasia. (If in season).

		Else: Grass (Various)

Derek

Derek  wrote:

> Look, that one of him pickin' his varicose, ulcerated, beshrivelled
> cretinous ass is definitely not-on. It's an offront to public decency.

It seems a crime against nature that he's been allowed to live to 74.
There aint no bleeding justice.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 23:59:40 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Derek  wrote:
>
>> Look, that one of him pickin' his varicose, ulcerated, beshrivelled
>> cretinous ass is definitely not-on. It's an offront to public decency.
>
>It seems a crime against nature that he's been allowed to live to 74.
>There aint no bleeding justice.

Sorry ...

Bleeding, varicose, ulcerated, beshrivelled, cretinous ass

Oh, and BTW no disrespect intended towards cretins.

Derek

On 7 Sep, 22:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
> > wrote:
> >> "Doug"  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.

On 7 Sep, 19:11, "Knight Of The Road" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote
>
>  > What is it about 'Eating less meat would help' you don't understand,
>
> > Filth? If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
> > even more.
>
> But then cows, pigs and sheep etc would all but become extinct so what you
> are advocating is animal genocide.
>
No they should be allowed to die naturally and not reproduce. It is
expected that the population of such artificially bred animals would
fall to zero while their progenitors still existing in the wild would
continue to exist, humans permitting.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> On 7 Sep, 22:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  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.

Would you list those threads please?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 8 Sep, 08:32, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 7 Sep, 22:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Doug"  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.
>
> Would you list those threads please?
>
Why? Do you have an eyesight problem?

OT help with an infestation.
Vote - Bollen's biggest lie
I'm off to work now.
Shock Discovery
OT but fantastic news!
Gollum on wikipedia - your help is required

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

Doug wrote:
> On 7 Sep, 19:11, "Knight Of The Road" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote
>>
>>> What is it about 'Eating less meat would help' you don't understand,
>>
>>> Filth? If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
>>> even more.
>>
>> But then cows, pigs and sheep etc would all but become extinct so
>> what you are advocating is animal genocide.
>>
> No they should be allowed to die naturally and not reproduce.

That is still genocide.

> It is
> expected that the population of such artificially bred animals would
> fall to zero while their progenitors still existing in the wild would
> continue to exist, humans permitting.

"Doug"  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.

You seem to be having problems with your maths.

The largest single source of agricultural greenhouse gases is nitrous oxide 
emissions from soil - a result of fertilising it for growing food. Non 
livestock agricultural activities produce the equivalent of 4838 million 
tonnes of CO2, compared with the 1792 million tonnes from animal produced 
methane. I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, 
as that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report.pdf

Total global production of CO2 from all forms of transportation is 4760 
million tonnes, of which 644 mt is attributable to passenger cars.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDATASTA/64199955-1178226923002/21322619/LGDB2007.pdf

So, a meat eating car driver contributes 1792 + 644 = 2436 million tonnes, 
compared to the 4838 million tonnes produced by other forms of agriculture. 
Of course, meat-eaters are generally omnivores, so contribute to the latter 
figure, but there would need to be no vegtarians in the world for the car 
driving omnivore to produce three times as much CO2 as from driving cars and 
eating meat alone.

Colin Bignell

On 8 Sep, 08:39, Doug  wrote:
> On 8 Sep, 08:32, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 7 Sep, 22:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> > >> Doug wrote:
> > >>> On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus" 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> "Doug"  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.
>
> > Would you list those threads please?
>
> Why? Do you have an eyesight problem?
>
> OT help with an infestation.
> Vote - Bollen's biggest lie
> I'm off to work now.
> Shock Discovery
> OT but fantastic news!
> Gollum on wikipedia - your help is required

Notice a common theme between five of those threads, Gollum?

On 7 Sep, 22:39, Derek  wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT), BrianW
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On 7 Sep, 16:30, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> NotMe  wrote:
> >> > Of course yourself being a vegan you will probably have vitamin
> >> > deficiencies, especially with B12
>
> >> I'm sure someone will be able to post a link to a photograph of a
> >> vitamin-deficient, waxy-white emaciated vegetarian.
>
> >Oh, seeing as it's you, OK then:
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620828748/
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620828418/
>
> >and for good measure:
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/gollumofcatford/2620004521/
>
> Look, that one of him pickin' his varicose, ulcerated, beshrivelled
> cretinous ass is definitely not-on. It's an offront to public decency.
>
> It's narsty ...
>
> Erm ... any more ?

There were more on the Lewisham cyclists website, but they
mysteriously disappeared before I could archive them.

"nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, as 
> that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.

Not necessarily, since it's perfectly possible for livestock to graze 
amongst trees etc. Or, if goat meat became more acceptable, on uncleared 
scrubland...

OTOH, if you're planting crops, you definitely need to be clearing the 
land. It's much more prevalent, of course, amongst third-world countries 
wishing to develop global food export trade.

Adrian wrote:
> "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, as
>> that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.
>
> Not necessarily, since it's perfectly possible for livestock to graze
> amongst trees etc. Or, if goat meat became more acceptable, on
> uncleared scrubland...
>
> OTOH, if you're planting crops, you definitely need to be clearing the
> land. It's much more prevalent, of course, amongst third-world
> countries wishing to develop global food export trade.

Which would mean that much of our Ancient Woodland would need to be cleared 
to provide additional space for crops.

Are you happy with that Doug?

In article <d6157d7b-fd27-42da-83ca-
77c3846dcc8c@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> On 7 Sep, 19:11, "Knight Of The Road" 
> wrote:
> > "Doug"  wrote
> >
> >  > What is it about 'Eating less meat would help' you don't understand,
> >
> > > Filth? If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
> > > even more.
> >
> > But then cows, pigs and sheep etc would all but become extinct so what you
> > are advocating is animal genocide.
> >
> No they should be allowed to die naturally and not reproduce. It is
> expected that the population of such artificially bred animals would
> fall to zero while their progenitors still existing in the wild would
> continue to exist, humans permitting.
> 
ROFLMAO. The population would increase.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:16:53 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>On 7 Sep, 19:11, "Knight Of The Road" 
>wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote
>>
>>  > What is it about 'Eating less meat would help' you don't understand,
>>
>> > Filth? If eating less meat helps then eating none at all must help
>> > even more.
>>
>> But then cows, pigs and sheep etc would all but become extinct so what you
>> are advocating is animal genocide.
>>
>No they should be allowed to die naturally and not reproduce.

They'll be just as dead. You'll see.

> It is
>expected that the population of such artificially bred animals would
>fall to zero while their progenitors still existing in the wild would
>continue to exist, humans permitting.

You can expect what you like your progenitals will be going up the
chimney at the crem in the next month or two.

Derek

Doug  wrote:

> they should be allowed to die naturally and not reproduce.

If only you could have lived up to that ideal.

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6ik6kbFr4tsdU1@mid.individual.net...
> "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>> I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, as
>> that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.
>
> Not necessarily, since it's perfectly possible for livestock to graze
> amongst trees etc. Or, if goat meat became more acceptable, on uncleared
> scrubland...
>
> OTOH, if you're planting crops, you definitely need to be clearing the
> land. It's much more prevalent, of course, amongst third-world countries
> wishing to develop global food export trade.

It was difficult to quantify different land uses for the clearances from the 
figures available and I didn't want to complicate things too much for Doug. 
He seems to believe that any land that can be used to raise animals can be 
used to grow food crops as it is.

Colin Bignell

On 8 Sep, 17:49, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Adrian"  wrote in message
>
> news:6ik6kbFr4tsdU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
> > much like they were saying:
>
> >> I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, as
> >> that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.
>
> > Not necessarily, since it's perfectly possible for livestock to graze
> > amongst trees etc. Or, if goat meat became more acceptable, on uncleared
> > scrubland...
>
> > OTOH, if you're planting crops, you definitely need to be clearing the
> > land. It's much more prevalent, of course, amongst third-world countries
> > wishing to develop global food export trade.
>
> It was difficult to quantify different land uses for the clearances from the
> figures available and I didn't want to complicate things too much for Doug.
> He seems to believe that any land that can be used to raise animals can be
> used to grow food crops as it is.
>
What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
to animals, a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
used to feed humans directly. Also, land that can grow lush grass can
also grow food crops.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
World meat production has quadrupled in the past 50 years
and livestock now outnumber people by more than 3 to 1.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
> to animals

What YOU seem to be overlooking is the basic concept of _grazing_.

> a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
> used to feed humans directly. Also, land that can grow lush grass can
> also grow food crops.

No, it can't.

Unless you're suggesting that crops could be grown on terrain like 
this...?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39098000/jpg/_39098493_sheep203.jpg

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ef8f0ef4-dff0-4060-963c-6d91f0ae1ed3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Sep, 17:49, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Adrian"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:6ik6kbFr4tsdU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> gurgled happily, 
>> > sounding
>> > much like they were saying:
>>
>> >> I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, as
>> >> that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.
>>
>> > Not necessarily, since it's perfectly possible for livestock to graze
>> > amongst trees etc. Or, if goat meat became more acceptable, on 
>> > uncleared
>> > scrubland...
>>
>> > OTOH, if you're planting crops, you definitely need to be clearing the
>> > land. It's much more prevalent, of course, amongst third-world 
>> > countries
>> > wishing to develop global food export trade.
>>
>> It was difficult to quantify different land uses for the clearances from 
>> the
>> figures available and I didn't want to complicate things too much for 
>> Doug.
>> He seems to believe that any land that can be used to raise animals can 
>> be
>> used to grow food crops as it is.
>>
> What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
> to animals, a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
> used to feed humans directly.

Only in the specific case of beef. Other animals can utilise land that is 
not suitable for crop growing.

> Also, land that can grow lush grass can
> also grow food crops.

Try ploughing an Alpine pasture without your tractor rolling down the 
mountain.

Colin Bignell

Doug  wrote:

> What you seem to be overlooking

Do you have that on a macro key?

Adrian  wrote:

> Unless you're suggesting that crops could be grown on terrain like 
> this...?
> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39098000/jpg/_39098493_sheep203.jpg

Or on terrain like this:

http://www.violetdesigns.co.uk/water_meadows.jpg
http://www.geospectra.net/cheyenne/cb_14.jpg

On 9 Sep, 07:45, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
> > to animals
>
> What YOU seem to be overlooking is the basic concept of _grazing_.
>
Animals do not live on grass alone.
>
> > a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
> > used to feed humans directly. Also, land that can grow lush grass can
> > also grow food crops.
>
> No, it can't.
>
Why not?
>
> Unless you're suggesting that crops could be grown on terrain like
> this...?http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39098000/jpg/_39098493_sheep203...
>
Link doesn't work. I was referring to lush meadows. What did you mean,
steep, overgrazed hills?

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

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to
>> > feed to animals

>> What YOU seem to be overlooking is the basic concept of _grazing_.

> Animals do not live on grass alone.

Could you be any more clueless? G'wan, try. Please. We need a laugh.

> Link doesn't work.

That's because Google Groups has fucked it up. Hey-ho. Anybody using a 
half-decent news server and a proper news client would have had no 
problem. Your loss, eh?

> I was referring to lush meadows.

...as if they were the only places animals were grazed...

> What did you mean, steep, overgrazed hills?

No.

Adrian  wrote:

> That's because Google Groups has fucked it up. Hey-ho. Anybody using a
> half-decent news server and a proper news client would have had no 
> problem. Your loss, eh?

No problem with your link here.

Doug wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 07:45, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>> What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to
>>> feed to animals
>>
>> What YOU seem to be overlooking is the basic concept of _grazing_.
>>
> Animals do not live on grass alone.

ROFL Yet another example of cluelessness.

>>
>>> a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
>>> used to feed humans directly. Also, land that can grow lush grass
>>> can also grow food crops.
>>
>> No, it can't.
>>
> Why not?

ROFL Yet another example of cluelessness

>>
>> Unless you're suggesting that crops could be grown on terrain like
>> this...?http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39098000/jpg/_39098493_sheep203...
>>
> Link doesn't work. I was referring to lush meadows. What did you mean,
> steep, overgrazed hills?

ROFL Yet another example of cluelessness

In article <ef8f0ef4-dff0-4060-963c-6d91f0ae1ed3
@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
> to animals, a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
> used to feed humans directly. Also, land that can grow lush grass can
> also grow food crops.
> 
As you said yourself in another thread...

NON UK TRANSPORT RELATED.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <e30b92ee-695f-48ec-82f7-1051464955cb@
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> On 9 Sep, 07:45, Adrian  wrote:
> > Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
> >
> > > What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
> > > to animals
> >
> > What YOU seem to be overlooking is the basic concept of _grazing_.
> >
> Animals do not live on grass alone.
> 
Cows seem to. Horses seem to. Goats seem to. 


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Doug wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 07:45, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>> What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
>>> to animals
>> What YOU seem to be overlooking is the basic concept of _grazing_.
>>
> Animals do not live on grass alone.
>>> a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
>>> used to feed humans directly. Also, land that can grow lush grass can
>>> also grow food crops.
>> No, it can't.
>>
> Why not?
>> Unless you're suggesting that crops could be grown on terrain like
>> this...?http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39098000/jpg/_39098493_sheep203...
>>
> Link doesn't work. I was referring to lush meadows. What did you mean,
> steep, overgrazed hills?

Link works fine for me.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 9 Sep, 09:06, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:ef8f0ef4-dff0-4060-963c-6d91f0ae1ed3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 8 Sep, 17:49, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "Adrian"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:6ik6kbFr4tsdU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> gurgled happily,
> >> > sounding
> >> > much like they were saying:
>
> >> >> I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, as
> >> >> that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.
>
> >> > Not necessarily, since it's perfectly possible for livestock to graze
> >> > amongst trees etc. Or, if goatmeatbecame more acceptable, on
> >> > uncleared
> >> > scrubland...
>
> >> > OTOH, if you're planting crops, you definitely need to be clearing the
> >> > land. It's much more prevalent, of course, amongst third-world
> >> > countries
> >> > wishing to develop global food export trade.
>
> >> It was difficult to quantify different land uses for the clearances from
> >> the
> >> figures available and I didn't want to complicate things too much for
> >> Doug.
> >> He seems to believe that any land that can be used to raise animals can
> >> be
> >> used to grow food crops as it is.
>
> > What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
> > to animals, a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
> > used to feed humans directly.
>
> Only in the specific case of beef. Other animals can utilise land that is
> not suitable for crop growing.
>
> > Also, land that can grow lush grass can
> > also grow food crops.
>
> Try ploughing an Alpine pasture without your tractor rolling down the
> mountain.
>
How about this then?

"Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate
change..."

"...The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for
just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for
15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread,
pastry and flour for 13%..."

More:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/30/food.ethicalliving

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
World meat production has quadrupled in the past 50 years
and livestock now outnumber people by more than 3 to 1.

Try uk.environment

On 30 Sep, 07:33, Phil Bradshaw
<philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
> Try uk.environment

Why? Are you trying to suggest that polluting motorists don't eat meat
and dairy and never post here on the topic? Or are you merely trying
to censor this newsgroup again?

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

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> How about this then?
> 
> "Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate
> change..."
> 
> "...The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for
> just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for
> 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread,
> pastry and flour for 13%..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/30/food.ethicalliving

Is this the best we get today, Duhg?
Is this the closest we get to you answering any of the points raised in 
yesterday's threads?

Or are you slinking off those and admitting defeat? Again.

Doug wrote:

> On 30 Sep, 07:33, Phil Bradshaw
> <philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
>> Try uk.environment
> 
> Why? Are you trying to suggest that polluting motorists don't eat meat  
> and dairy and never post here on the topic? Or are you merely trying
> to censor this newsgroup again?
> 
A deliberately dishonest misrepresentation, as usual.
1Duhg5.6

Doug wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 09:06, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:ef8f0ef4-dff0-4060-963c-6d91f0ae1ed3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 8 Sep, 17:49, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Adrian"  wrote in message
>>>> news:6ik6kbFr4tsdU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> gurgled happily,
>>>>> sounding
>>>>> much like they were saying:
>>>>>> I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, as
>>>>>> that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.
>>>>> Not necessarily, since it's perfectly possible for livestock to graze
>>>>> amongst trees etc. Or, if goatmeatbecame more acceptable, on
>>>>> uncleared
>>>>> scrubland...
>>>>> OTOH, if you're planting crops, you definitely need to be clearing the
>>>>> land. It's much more prevalent, of course, amongst third-world
>>>>> countries
>>>>> wishing to develop global food export trade.
>>>> It was difficult to quantify different land uses for the clearances from
>>>> the
>>>> figures available and I didn't want to complicate things too much for
>>>> Doug.
>>>> He seems to believe that any land that can be used to raise animals can
>>>> be
>>>> used to grow food crops as it is.
>>> What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
>>> to animals, a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
>>> used to feed humans directly.
>> Only in the specific case of beef. Other animals can utilise land that is
>> not suitable for crop growing.
>>
>>> Also, land that can grow lush grass can
>>> also grow food crops.
>> Try ploughing an Alpine pasture without your tractor rolling down the
>> mountain.
>>
> How about this then?
> 
> "Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate
> change..."
> 
> "...The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for
> just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for
> 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread,
> pastry and flour for 13%..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/30/food.ethicalliving
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> World meat production has quadrupled in the past 50 years
> and livestock now outnumber people by more than 3 to 1.

Unless you are suggesting that I ride a cow to work, what has this to do 
with UK Transport?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 30 Sep, 07:33, Phil Bradshaw
> <philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
>> Try uk.environment
>
> Why? Are you trying to suggest that polluting motorists don't eat meat
> and dairy and never post here on the topic?

Only in response to your rants.

> Or are you merely trying
> to censor this newsgroup again?

Just in case you hadn't noticed each newsgroup is for the discusion of a 
specific topic. This NG is about transport, therefore discussions about 
livestock are off topic.

If you don't like it ....

Fuck off!

Doug wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 09:06, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:ef8f0ef4-dff0-4060-963c-6d91f0ae1ed3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>>> Also, land that can grow lush grass can
>>> also grow food crops.
>>
>> Try ploughing an Alpine pasture without your tractor rolling down the
>> mountain.
>>
> How about this then?
>
> "Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate
> change..."
>
> "...The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for
> just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for
> 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread,
> pastry and flour for 13%..."
>
Still off topic in uk.transport.

Doug  wrote:

> Why? Are you trying to suggest that polluting motorists don't eat meat
> and dairy and never post here on the topic? Or are you merely trying
> to censor this newsgroup again?

Keeping this newsgroup on topic is not "censorship", you stupid
lame-arsed fuckwit.

On 30 Sep, 07:42, Doug  wrote:
> On 30 Sep, 07:33, Phil Bradshaw
>
> <philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
> > Try uk.environment
>
> Why? Are you trying to suggest that polluting motorists don't eat meat
> and dairy and never post here on the topic?

I guess most of the motorists here also watch TV.  Are you going to
start posting reviews of TV programmes as well, Gollum?

> Or are you merely trying
> to censor this newsgroup again?

It can't be censored, you clueless old turd.

On Sep 30, 7:42 am, Doug  wrote:
> On 30 Sep, 07:33, Phil Bradshaw
>
> <philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
> > Try uk.environment
>
> Why?

It would be on topic there.  Plus it would be funny seeing them
destroy your arguements and send you packing again.

That a good enough reason?

Fod

On 9 Sep, 07:11, Doug  wrote:
> On 8 Sep, 17:49, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Adrian"  wrote in message
>
> >news:6ik6kbFr4tsdU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
> > > much like they were saying:
>
> > >> I've not included the 5900 tonnes resulting from land clearanace, as
> > >> that would apply whichever type of agriculture is to be put on it.
>
> > > Not necessarily, since it's perfectly possible for livestock to graze
> > > amongst trees etc. Or, if goat meat became more acceptable, on uncleared
> > > scrubland...
>
> > > OTOH, if you're planting crops, you definitely need to be clearing the
> > > land. It's much more prevalent, of course, amongst third-world countries
> > > wishing to develop global food export trade.
>
> > It was difficult to quantify different land uses for the clearances from the
> > figures available and I didn't want to complicate things too much for Doug.
> > He seems to believe that any land that can be used to raise animals can be
> > used to grow food crops as it is.
>
> What you seem to be overlooking is the land used to crow crops to feed
> to animals, a highly inefficient process where the same land could be
> used to feed humans directly. Also, land that can grow lush grass can
> also grow food crops.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> World meat production has quadrupled in the past 50 years
> and livestock now outnumber people by more than 3 to 1.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Heh... I once shared an office with a couple of vegans.... they seemed
to fart all day long - if we all turn into a nation of veggies we
won't be producing much less methane than when we had beef running
around ;-)

oldMaxim  wrote:

> I once shared an office with a couple of vegans.... they seemed
> to fart all day long 

Wheras Duhg is a fart all day long.

Adrian  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:

>> How about this then?
>> 
>> "Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate
>> change..."
>> 
>> "...The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for
>> just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for
>> 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread,
>> pastry and flour for 13%..."
>> 
>> More:
>> 
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/30/food.ethicalliving

> Is this the best we get today, Duhg?
> Is this the closest we get to you answering any of the points raised in
> yesterday's threads?
> 
> Or are you slinking off those and admitting defeat? Again.

Still quiet on them, Duhg?

No further thoughts on, f'rexample, the move from Heathrow to the Estuary?
Nothing today on Critical Mess?

I'm very disappointed in you.

On 1 Oct, 08:09, Adrian  wrote:
> Adrian  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
> >> How about this then?
>
> >> "Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate
> >> change..."
>
> >> "...The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for
> >> just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for
> >> 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread,
> >> pastry and flour for 13%..."
>
> >> More:
>
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/30/food.ethicalliving
> > Is this the best we get today, Duhg?
> > Is this the closest we get to you answering any of the points raised in
> > yesterday's threads?
>
> > Or are you slinking off those and admitting defeat? Again.
>
> Still quiet on them, Duhg?
>
> No further thoughts on, f'rexample, the move from Heathrow to the Estuary?
> Nothing today on Critical Mess?
>
> I'm very disappointed in you.-

I suppose the GollumSilence is the nearest we get to an admission of
defeat.