The RSPB have gone on record as saying they will not oppose windfarms, despite the fact that their primary concern should be the welfare of birds, and windfarms and birds clearly don't mix.
They also believe, quite wrongly in my opinion, that it is climate change not overfishing that is starving our seabirds. (See 'Is the RSPB failing seabirds?' and 'Where have all the sandeels gone?' below).
I assume that the RSPB believe climate change to be such a threat to birdlife that overfishing and windfarms are the lesser of two evils?
This is an extremely high-risk strategy to take and if they are wrong, and the policies they pursue fail, the countryside will be littered with wind turbines and overfishing will have killed all our seabirds.
My problem does not stem from whether or not climate change exists but that in the RSPB's efforts to combat it much more pressing issues will be ignored.
The UK government is in a similar dilemma, they compel me to buy a certain type of lightbulb but they subsidise the buying of new cars and cannot protect the rainforests or implement marine reserves.
Surely, prior to tackling the minutiae of climate change, governments and NGO's should demonstrate an ability to adequately tackle grossly overlooked environmental concerns like overfishing before they can convince us that they will be able to make any impression on a warming planet?