those three rules for our trade, which I have religiously followed ever since. Have you, L.S, L.H, A.S? The most important rule, of course, is that no carbon shall be emitted when researching, writing and publishing ethical advice. Now I'm afraid, my three (so-called) ethical friends, that if you write for newspapers then you have instantly broken that rule -- in fact, you've broken it, ground it down, spat in it and turned it into toxic sludge. Did you know that the Guardian , for example, which I know that one of you writes for, purchases 114,000 TONNES of paper a year! Do you KNOW how many trees one must bludgeon, fell, imprison and pulp in order to produce that much paper?! No, neither do I -- but I know it is an awful. Probably thousands. Maybe tens of thousands. Maybe trillions. An entire forest, one might say. Twenty forests, perhaps. Are you happy that it takes the sacrifice of TWENTY FORESTS for the communication of your ideas on ethical living? Then there's the newspaper print (chemically produced dyes) -- eerugh. And the carbon emitted in the production of electricity to power printing presses and the thousands of PCs and laptops used by newspaper journalists. And the petrol guzzled up by the delivery vans that drop piles of these dead trees covered in pointless words at various points around the country. L.S, L.H and A.S, you accuse me of 'using electricity' in the production of my ethical advice, as if