>> Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor. Yet the article suggests a number o

>> Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor. Yet the article suggests a number of things for individuals to do, such as installing window screens or keeping cats at home. Why? If "the driving factor" of the decline of bird numbers is habitat loss because of agricultural development, shouldn't concerned individuals be encouraged to take more productive action, such as lobbying their governments or protesting, maybe, to stop the intensification of agriculture? But, instead of doing something that counts, the article suggests doing things that have the only effect of giving people excuses that they "did what they could", so that they go on living as before, with a calm conscience, leaving someone else to figure out how to solve the real problem. I see this a lot in environmental issues but I don't want to start yet another flamewar by pointing out obvious examples. It's probably the biggest reason why most people, who are now convinced that we are destroying the environment, are sitting on their hands and feeling good with themselves while the world is burning. Easy solutions that achieve nothing are constantly suggested as "what you can do", when all "you can do" as an individual amounts to a drop in the ocean compared to what our entire civilisation must do, collectively.