On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:10:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 14/11/2017 14:54, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:44:35 +0000
" wrote:

I hear that Vientiane has some impressive French colonial architecture,
though narcotics abuse there is more obvious.

Last month central america, this month is east asia. You ever get the
feeling
he's on the run?

Or is he tryng to do some kind of weird mirror thing with my travel -
two weeks ago Borneo, last week Mexico, this week back in London.

And I got back into London this morning. My trip involved a total of seven
flights, on three Southeast Asian different airlines (two of which I'd not

Your carbon bootprint is probably a size 20 by now. In case you didn't know
(I suspect you do but don't care), a modern airliner produces the same amount
of CO2 *per passenger* as a small car driven the same distance. In the last
month you've probably travelled 20,000 miles so you've helped produce the same
amount of pollution in that time as my car did in 18 months. Congratulations.

wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:10:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 14/11/2017 14:54, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:44:35 +0000
" wrote:

I hear that Vientiane has some impressive French colonial architecture,
though narcotics abuse there is more obvious.

Last month central america, this month is east asia. You ever get the
feeling
he's on the run?

Or is he tryng to do some kind of weird mirror thing with my travel -
two weeks ago Borneo, last week Mexico, this week back in London.

And I got back into London this morning. My trip involved a total of seven
flights, on three Southeast Asian different airlines (two of which I'd not

Your carbon bootprint is probably a size 20 by now. In case you didn't know
(I suspect you do but don't care), a modern airliner produces the same amount
of CO2 *per passenger* as a small car driven the same distance. In the last
month you've probably travelled 20,000 miles so you've helped produce the same
amount of pollution in that time as my car did in 18 months. Congratulations.

Ah, Boltar, the eco-warrier!

wrote in message news
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:10:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 14/11/2017 14:54, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:44:35 +0000
" wrote:

I hear that Vientiane has some impressive French colonial
architecture,
though narcotics abuse there is more obvious.

Last month central america, this month is east asia. You ever get the
feeling
he's on the run?

Or is he tryng to do some kind of weird mirror thing with my travel -
two weeks ago Borneo, last week Mexico, this week back in London.

And I got back into London this morning. My trip involved a total of seven
flights, on three Southeast Asian different airlines (two of which I'd not

Your carbon bootprint is probably a size 20 by now. In case you didn't
know
(I suspect you do but don't care), a modern airliner produces the same
amount
of CO2 *per passenger* as a small car driven the same distance. In the
last
month you've probably travelled 20,000 miles so you've helped produce the
same
amount of pollution in that time as my car did in 18 months.
Congratulations.

except the plane would have flown whether he was on it or not

whereas your car would have gone nowhere

tim

On 2017\11\20 10:45, tim... wrote:


wrote in message news
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:10:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 14/11/2017 14:54, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:44:35 +0000
" wrote:

I hear that Vientiane has some impressive French colonial
architecture,
though narcotics abuse there is more obvious.

Last month central america, this month is east asia. You ever get the
feeling
he's on the run?

Or is he tryng to do some kind of weird mirror thing with my travel -
two weeks ago Borneo, last week Mexico, this week back in London.

And I got back into London this morning. My trip involved a total of
seven
flights, on three Southeast Asian different airlines (two of which
I'd not

Your carbon bootprint is probably a size 20 by now. In case you didn't
know
(I suspect you do but don't care), a modern airliner produces the same
amount
of CO2 *per passenger* as a small car driven the same distance. In the
last
month you've probably travelled 20,000 miles so you've helped produce
the same
amount of pollution in that time as my car did in 18 months.
Congratulations.

except the plane would have flown whether he was on it or not

whereas your car would have gone nowhere

Right, because airlines make no attempt to match supply to demand?

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:31:51 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:10:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 14/11/2017 14:54, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:44:35 +0000
" wrote:

I hear that Vientiane has some impressive French colonial architecture,
though narcotics abuse there is more obvious.

Last month central america, this month is east asia. You ever get the
feeling
he's on the run?

Or is he tryng to do some kind of weird mirror thing with my travel -
two weeks ago Borneo, last week Mexico, this week back in London.

And I got back into London this morning. My trip involved a total of seven
flights, on three Southeast Asian different airlines (two of which I'd not

Your carbon bootprint is probably a size 20 by now. In case you didn't know
(I suspect you do but don't care), a modern airliner produces the same
amount
of CO2 *per passenger* as a small car driven the same distance. In the last
month you've probably travelled 20,000 miles so you've helped produce the
same
amount of pollution in that time as my car did in 18 months. Congratulations.

Ah, Boltar, the eco-warrier!

I'm not lentil munching hippy, but I do my bit. You clearly don't give a toss
but then you've probably only got a few decades left anyway and apparently have
no offspring so why would you.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:36:24 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\11\20 10:45, tim... wrote:
except the plane would have flown whether he was on it or not

whereas your car would have gone nowhere

Right, because airlines make no attempt to match supply to demand?

Quite. The reason cloudless skies in summer over the SE is often a white haze
rather than a nice clear blue is because people like recliner think its
perfectly ok to fly 7K miles on holiday every few months. He probably thinks
the plane works on unicorn **** and moonbeams rather than 100+ tons of kerosene
per flight.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:07:25 +0000
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:08:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
I'm not lentil munching hippy, but I do my bit. You clearly don't give a toss
but then you've probably only got a few decades left anyway and apparently
have
no offspring so why would you.

Depends on what route you want to argue the planet should be saved
for, the majority of living things that form a stable eco system or
one where human beings exist in ever increasing numbers and gradually
destroy everything by the demands placed on resources.

If couples only had a maximum of 2 kids we wouldn't have a spiralling world
population, in fact it would come down a bit. Unfortunately religion and
stupidity generally lead to many cultures having far more and its not helped
when a one child policies as implemented in China are accused of being anti-
feminist or anti-woman or anti-child or some such ******** by clueless
campaigners.

Those who have not bred can claim that some of the resources that they
may using for a generous life style are those that would have been
used by subsequent generations of descendants and by not creating any
they can use a bit more themselves but overall the use of resources
will be a lot less than would have been used by an ever expanding
line of descendants.

Unfortunately the resources their theoretical descendents may or may not have
used in the future are largely irrelevant if the climate predictions are to
be believed. Its what these people are using now that matters.

On 21/11/2017 09:57, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:07:25 +0000
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:08:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
I'm not lentil munching hippy, but I do my bit. You clearly don't give a toss
but then you've probably only got a few decades left anyway and apparently
have
no offspring so why would you.

Depends on what route you want to argue the planet should be saved
for, the majority of living things that form a stable eco system or
one where human beings exist in ever increasing numbers and gradually
destroy everything by the demands placed on resources.

If couples only had a maximum of 2 kids we wouldn't have a spiralling world
population, in fact it would come down a bit. Unfortunately religion and
stupidity generally lead to many cultures having far more and its not helped
when a one child policies as implemented in China are accused of being anti-
feminist or anti-woman or anti-child or some such ******** by clueless
campaigners.


The clueless one here is the troll with the potato fixation.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 21/11/17 09:57, wrote:
If couples only had a maximum of 2 kids we wouldn't have a spiralling world
population, in fact it would come down a bit.
I can't really argue with you there, assuming one coupling per person.

Unfortunately religion and
stupidity generally lead to many cultures having far more
Also true, though I don't think we can blame the need for a tram line on
that (Cambridge not being noted as a hotbed of stupidity).

and its not helped
when a one child policies as implemented in China are accused of being anti-
feminist or anti-woman or anti-child or some such ******** by clueless
campaigners.
On that point, I have to disagree with our potato-based correspondent.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:17:31 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/11/2017 09:57, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:07:25 +0000
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:08:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
I'm not lentil munching hippy, but I do my bit. You clearly don't give a
toss
but then you've probably only got a few decades left anyway and apparently
have
no offspring so why would you.

Depends on what route you want to argue the planet should be saved
for, the majority of living things that form a stable eco system or
one where human beings exist in ever increasing numbers and gradually
destroy everything by the demands placed on resources.

If couples only had a maximum of 2 kids we wouldn't have a spiralling world
population, in fact it would come down a bit. Unfortunately religion and
stupidity generally lead to many cultures having far more and its not helped
when a one child policies as implemented in China are accused of being anti-
feminist or anti-woman or anti-child or some such ******** by clueless
campaigners.


The clueless one here is the troll with the potato fixation.

Uh hu wot dat you said Beavis? Uh huh huh huh.