On 01/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:10:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 09:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Because it courtesy to do so. I didn't see the OP, and so the only post
I initially saw was yours.

Why don't you feel the need to comment of *any* of the other OT posts
here?

Probably because they're generally in a killfile.

What is it about the idea of asking people to consider the
consequences of their actions 'that way' (reduction in greenhouse
gasses from live stock) that you find so objectionable? Is it you
don't use air flight but do eat meat or some such?

Once is fine, twice is perhaps ok, but the more you say the same twaddle
mixed with a few lies your posts carry no weight.

The subject was to do with 'Climate change' and 'a' solution being to
do with the reduction in air travel. If we could also reduce the
production of GWGG (even if you don't consider such an issue, many
people (scientists) seem to) to the same or greater extent by doing
'something else', why wouldn't it be valid or why wouldn't people also
consider it?

Then why make the subject wander onto another area.

A reduction of our consumption of animal flesh would be such a
solution PLUS a benefit in many many other ways, including the risk of
more zoonotic pandemics, heart / bowel disease, obesity, diabetes,
global pollution, environmental / habitat destruction and
sustainability. That's ignoring (as many choose to do) all the
unnecessary animal suffering, death and exploitation.

Your solution would be detrimental to people's health.

So, if you feel bad for being part of any of that and don't want to be
reminded of it in a genuine discussion on the subject topic, feel free
to skip over it. ;-)

Why do you believe anyone thinks it's 'bad' to have a natural balanced
diet? Well, apart from the vegan fanatic.