heres was the marketing slogan
“FACT: More coal is consumed within 600 kilometres of beijing than in the entire united states”
As a paid supporter of Greenpeace, No doubt there is too much coal use and pollution from it near beijing and I agree with your belief in caps on coal, this is understood, but I disagree with your use of statistics here as marketing, as it seems a little weak when described this way, your talking the diameter of a 1200 kilometre wide circle around beijing, thats a very large area of 1,130,973 km squared ? maybe there is better and more meaningful statistic to use than this, as I think people with half a brain for mathematics wouldn’t be too shocked by that area use unless they understand the amount of coal consumed in that area ? the ratio of coal v nuclear energy production between the two countrys etc, as im sure the majority of americas coal consumption occurs in an even smaller area ?
the word “FACT:” in caps as though its being shouted, though it may be a fact, the question is what is the real relevance of the fact … surely ? some facts are positive and are some are negative, its the weight of a negative statement and fact that is important, as the severity in meaning of such a statement will bring attention to an important cause, and it is vitally important for organisations who should work at the moral end of the spectrum and fight to preserve the truth at all times, otherwise they undermine their own position and argument ?