NationStates Jolt Archive

...that the Heathrow protestors, who are supposed to be eco-warriors, handed a parcel of FISH to staff?

Considering the massive environmental impact fishing has (not to mention eating fish when it's full of mercury etc), this seems a bit stupid to say the least.

They handed the parcel to staff at the offices of Climate Care in Oxford as a "red herring" symbol.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/20/climatechange.activists?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

...that the Heathrow protestors, who are supposed to be eco-warriors, handed a parcel of FISH to staff?

Considering the massive environmental impact fishing has (not to mention eating fish when it's full of mercury etc), this seems a bit stupid to say the least.

Perhaps they were trying to poison them?

Does anyone else not find it strange at all that they have no idea what the OP is on about?

I'm not sure what protest you are talking about, but if the fish were farmed, the environmental impact wouldn't hurt.

Does anyone else not find it strange at all that they have no idea what the OP is on about?

Meh it's just like when the Americans start some American poiltics thread!

I'm not sure what protest you are talking about, but if the fish were farmed, the environmental impact wouldn't hurt.

Oh yes it would. Research it as I can't be arsed looking through my massive list of favourites

Oh yes it would. Research it as I can't be arsed looking through my massive list of favourites
No, it doesn't. Assuming the fish is vegetarian, and that the farm doesn't tear down a forest to build the bin, there is no negative impact on the environment. Please cite something that says otherwise.

EDIT: I read the article, and it said the fish were herring. I've never heard of herring being farmed, so it's true, there probably is a negative environmental effect.

...that the Heathrow protestors, who are supposed to be eco-warriors, handed a parcel of FISH to staff?

Being eco-friendly doesn't mean you have to live in a shack in the woods and never talk to anyone ever again. If all the eco-people did that, the idea would never spread and their goals would fail.

...that the Heathrow protestors, who are supposed to be eco-warriors, handed a parcel of FISH to staff?

Considering the massive environmental impact fishing has (not to mention eating fish when it's full of mercury etc), this seems a bit stupid to say the least.

They handed the parcel to staff at the offices of Climate Care in Oxford as a "red herring" symbol.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/20/climatechange.activists?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Of all the world's problems you decide to focus on a bunch of environmental protesters giving some fish to some office workers?

And even then it's not a proper problem. Your criticisms seem to be directed at an early fish farming industry which has since developed and moved on.

...that the Heathrow protestors, who are supposed to be eco-warriors, handed a parcel of FISH to staff?

Considering the massive environmental impact fishing has (not to mention eating fish when it's full of mercury etc), this seems a bit stupid to say the least.

They handed the parcel to staff at the offices of Climate Care in Oxford as a "red herring" symbol.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/20/climatechange.activists?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Next time, read the article properly. Those weren't the Heathrow protestors, they were protesting against carbon offsetting.

Besides, if they caught the herring themselves (it's possible), then there's very little environmental impact to their actions.

Whether this act was stupid or not, those protesters are damn stupid and naive. Some of them even tried to blockade a nuclear power plant (wtf?).

Does anyone else not find it strange at all that they have no idea what the OP is on about?

QFT

Meh it's just like when the Americans start some American poiltics thread!

But everyone knows American politics because after all, the world revolves around America... or at least that's what some Americans like to think.

They handed the parcel to staff at the offices of Climate Care in Oxford as a "red herring" symbol.
...in which case it was purely symbolic and not an attempt to encourage people to eat more fish. Therefore the environmental harm was precisely the harm done by a single parcel of fish minus any good effects of the demonstration encouraging people to be more environmentally friendly. I suspect the values of both the positive and negative sides of this equation to be so small as not to really matter at all.

...that the Heathrow protestors, who are supposed to be eco-warriors, handed a parcel of FISH to staff?

Considering the massive environmental impact fishing has (not to mention eating fish when it's full of mercury etc), this seems a bit stupid to say the least.

They handed the parcel to staff at the offices of Climate Care in Oxford as a "red herring" symbol.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/20/climatechange.activists?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Considering that they targeted aviation despite it only causing a small percentage of the carbon dioxide pollution, I'd say they're not too bright.

Planes are just very big and visible so they target them. Similar to people who assume that because space travel is very flashy and impressive that it must use a large percentage of taxes.

Also, they're probably more interested in having a good time protesting than actually doing the brainwork necessary to bring useful change.

Considering that they targeted aviation despite it only causing a small percentage of the carbon dioxide pollution, I'd say they're not too bright.

Planes are just very big and visible so they target them. Similar to people who assume that because space travel is very flashy and impressive that it must use a large percentage of taxes.

Also, they're probably more interested in having a good time protesting than actually doing the brainwork necessary to bring useful change.
I think their major problem was with the fact that aviation fuel isn't taxed, thus the govt. isn't making any real attempt to curb or account for the negative externalities generated. That said, I know a couple of people who went and while they aren't hippies, they might be a bit dippy :p They were at least willing to listen to what I had to say about some of their stranger theories, which is more than can be said for members of many other pressure groups.

Considering that they targeted aviation despite it only causing a small percentage of the carbon dioxide pollution, I'd say they're not too bright.
Most things only cause a small percentage - it's when added together that they do all the damage. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle the individual sources because each one alone is small. Anyway, on the subject of aviation emissions:

Between 1990 and 2005, emissions from aviation fuel use more than doubled. Between 2004 and 2005 CO2 emissions from domestic aviation increased by 7.1 per cent whilst International aviation emissions increased by 5.7 per cent due to an increased number of flights.

High altitude aviation has a greenhouse effect over and above that of carbon dioxide alone, but this is not reflected in this indicator.

In other words, emissions from aviation are growing very quickly, and they do more damage than the same amount of emissions released at ground level.

...that the Heathrow protestors, who are supposed to be eco-warriors, handed a parcel of FISH to staff?

Considering the massive environmental impact fishing has (not to mention eating fish when it's full of mercury etc), this seems a bit stupid to say the least.

They handed the parcel to staff at the offices of Climate Care in Oxford as a "red herring" symbol.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/20/climatechange.activists?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/2997/notmonolithzf1.jpg

I *heart* your sig, Levee.