Or just don't buy from supermarkets, buy everything fresh, you'll save money and feels tons healthier.
You won’t save money that’s for sure.
Really? When I was at Uni is when I started cooking things from scratch and 'batch cooking' I certainly saved money.
Really. The supermarkets push many staples out at less than cost price to get people into their stores. If I remember rightly, 'loss-leaders' is the term to describe this. Local shops will never be able to beat them on the price of these items, because they'd go bust sooner or later if they did. If you stick to the basics, buy in bulk and go for stuff with less packaging its highly unlikely you'd get cheaper in a small shop. Where the prices start to rack up in the supermarkets is with our penchant for pre-prepared, pre-washed, ready to eat stuff. The trick is to avoid these, because you pay through the nose for a bit of bulk processing.
As for 'farm shops', don't get me started. Eye-watering prices for those gullible enough to imagine they are getting something better.
I'm lucky enough that I now live in a 'rural city' and can buy directly from farmers at numerous wet markets.
I also found in England that supermarket food was awful, chicken breasts that shrunk whilst cooking etc, so supermarkets may have been cheaper but they certainly didn't offer better value
I would never do anything against a child, particularly one as seemingly courageous, but, equally, I think she is a poor figurehead for the environmental movement. All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well.
She seems to take a very black and white approach, which you would expect for a child, but adults need to see things as more nuanced.
The protestors seem to present this as 'politicians just do not want to do what is necessary to fix the problem' when the reality may be closer to 'the population may not be able to accept the changes that would be needed'. I grew up in Yorkshire in the era of the miner's strike, now even decades later the social consequences are still devastating and yet I hear protestors happily talking about simply ending the use of fossil fuels. Well it is possible in theory, but the social consequences would be astronomic. And if you would be happy with those consequences, what happens if the price is a one-child policy like China used to have.
The point is that there are benefits and consequences to every policy, the UK has done a huge amount already and is continuing to do so, but a balance will always need to be walked and that is not helped by seeing things from a child's perspective.
As a child, it is all too easy to believe that climate change is such an unprecedented challenge that any cost is worthwhile to stop it, because, particularly in the West, there is always food on the table and life is reletively comfortable. As an adult, you have to accept that there may not currently be a good solution, the technology might simply not be there, so any solution might involving continuing the work to reduce climate change, but acknowledging that there is only so much that can be done and working to alleviate the consequences.
Or just don't buy from supermarkets, buy everything fresh, you'll save money and feels tons healthier.
You won’t save money that’s for sure.
Really? When I was at Uni is when I started cooking things from scratch and 'batch cooking' I certainly saved money.
Really. The supermarkets push many staples out at less than cost price to get people into their stores. If I remember rightly, 'loss-leaders' is the term to describe this. Local shops will never be able to beat them on the price of these items, because they'd go bust sooner or later if they did. If you stick to the basics, buy in bulk and go for stuff with less packaging its highly unlikely you'd get cheaper in a small shop. Where the prices start to rack up in the supermarkets is with our penchant for pre-prepared, pre-washed, ready to eat stuff. The trick is to avoid these, because you pay through the nose for a bit of bulk processing.
As for 'farm shops', don't get me started. Eye-watering prices for those gullible enough to imagine they are getting something better.
I'm lucky enough that I now live in a 'rural city' and can buy directly from farmers at numerous wet markets.
I also found in England that supermarket food was awful, chicken breasts that shrunk whilst cooking etc, so supermarkets may have been cheaper but they certainly didn't offer better value
Part of the problem is that us Brits are capable of eating turkey twizzlers. It is heaven sent for supermarkets to sell us pizza's made of fake dough which includes ground animal nails, cheese which isn't cheese - mostly potato starch and pepperoni which is actually dangerous. You cook the pizza and it actually looks like a pizza, and that is all we need as we have not been educated to understand what good fresh food is.
What this program did was honestly labelled the product. And shoppers seeing the honest labels said they wouldn't buy it. Tap water is better for you than bottled water as 90% of all bottled water contains disolved plastics and the minerals do you no benefits. 80% of all the fruit you buy in the supermaket contains pesticides, potatoes can be spayed with them up to 32 times.
We see the word natural and we think, ok that is healthy. This program exposed how you should run a mile when you see that word. It is a vague word that they put on to con us and can legally argue what it means. If they put natural on the product they are trying to con you.
The best fish to buy at a Supermarket is frozen fish. That is because when it is caught, it is frozen. The fish you see on their fake fresh fish displays is going to be about a week old at best and has been frozen and defrosted, sometimes very badly. We assume teh fish has just been caught when we see these displays, don't we.
It is all one big con and I am going to start going to farm shops more. The supermarkets have no care for our health, just making a big profit.
Leuth, you are quite right: they would dwarf them. If the West stops buying gas, coal, and oil in a short period of time, that would provoke a crash in prices. Natural gas revenues are essentially keeping the UK economy alive, so that means a massive recession here with no end in sight. Cities like Aberdeen that rely on the gas industry become the new Castleford and Featherstones. Globally, a price crash means that the Gulf states and Russia pretty much become ungovernable over night, with all the resultant consequences both in those countries and worldwide. Also, if the West takes this decision unilaterally, then the likes of China and India have a huge advantage, again putting more people out of work here. There are no doubt things that can be done, but that requires a nuanced policy, rather than a black-and-white view.
Leuth, you are quite right: they would dwarf them. If the West stops buying gas, coal, and oil in a short period of time, that would provoke a crash in prices. Natural gas revenues are essentially keeping the UK economy alive, so that means a massive recession here with no end in sight. Cities like Aberdeen that rely on the gas industry become the new Castleford and Featherstones. Globally, a price crash means that the Gulf states and Russia pretty much become ungovernable over night, with all the resultant consequences both in those countries and worldwide. Also, if the West takes this decision unilaterally, then the likes of China and India have a huge advantage, again putting more people out of work here. There are no doubt things that can be done, but that requires a nuanced policy, rather than a black-and-white view.
Clearly you are right it can't be done immediately. However that ignores the fact that this is a very urgent problem. We are acting far too slowly on this. Worldwide action needs to be taken immediately and plans for 2050 (which won't be met) are far too lax. A much more aggressive approach is needed. And as for China and India having a huge advantage we can take steps to eliminate this. Things similar to not importing product that has been made by child or slave labour. Currently much of this is done by reputable companies but perhaps should be enshrined in law and for energy certificates as well as workers rights. We need far more investment into producing and storing energy much better. There is a huge amount of solar, wind and water energy available in the world that is ineffeciently captured and processed. To think we shouldn't do this because Aberdeen may suffer is pathetic in my view. Rather save the planet from destruction as we know it.
Or just don't buy from supermarkets, buy everything fresh, you'll save money and feels tons healthier.
You won’t save money that’s for sure.
Really? When I was at Uni is when I started cooking things from scratch and 'batch cooking' I certainly saved money.
Really. The supermarkets push many staples out at less than cost price to get people into their stores. If I remember rightly, 'loss-leaders' is the term to describe this. Local shops will never be able to beat them on the price of these items, because they'd go bust sooner or later if they did. If you stick to the basics, buy in bulk and go for stuff with less packaging its highly unlikely you'd get cheaper in a small shop. Where the prices start to rack up in the supermarkets is with our penchant for pre-prepared, pre-washed, ready to eat stuff. The trick is to avoid these, because you pay through the nose for a bit of bulk processing.
As for 'farm shops', don't get me started. Eye-watering prices for those gullible enough to imagine they are getting something better.
I'm lucky enough that I now live in a 'rural city' and can buy directly from farmers at numerous wet markets.
I also found in England that supermarket food was awful, chicken breasts that shrunk whilst cooking etc, so supermarkets may have been cheaper but they certainly didn't offer better value
Part of the problem is that us Brits are capable of eating turkey twizzlers. It is heaven sent for supermarkets to sell us pizza's made of fake dough which includes ground animal nails, cheese which isn't cheese - mostly potato starch and pepperoni which is actually dangerous. You cook the pizza and it actually looks like a pizza, and that is all we need as we have not been educated to understand what good fresh food is.
What this program did was honestly labelled the product. And shoppers seeing the honest labels said they wouldn't buy it. Tap water is better for you than bottled water as 90% of all bottled water contains disolved plastics and the minerals do you no benefits. 80% of all the fruit you buy in the supermaket contains pesticides, potatoes can be spayed with them up to 32 times.
We see the word natural and we think, ok that is healthy. This program exposed how you should run a mile when you see that word. It is a vague word that they put on to con us and can legally argue what it means. If they put natural on the product they are trying to con you.
The best fish to buy at a Supermarket is frozen fish. That is because when it is caught, it is frozen. The fish you see on their fake fresh fish displays is going to be about a week old at best and has been frozen and defrosted, sometimes very badly. We assume teh fish has just been caught when we see these displays, don't we.
It is all one big con and I am going to start going to farm shops more. The supermarkets have no care for our health, just making a big profit.
Proper education on food and nutrition, plus real cooking classes would do wonders for our youth.
Or just don't buy from supermarkets, buy everything fresh, you'll save money and feels tons healthier.
You won’t save money that’s for sure.
Really? When I was at Uni is when I started cooking things from scratch and 'batch cooking' I certainly saved money.
Really. The supermarkets push many staples out at less than cost price to get people into their stores. If I remember rightly, 'loss-leaders' is the term to describe this. Local shops will never be able to beat them on the price of these items, because they'd go bust sooner or later if they did. If you stick to the basics, buy in bulk and go for stuff with less packaging its highly unlikely you'd get cheaper in a small shop. Where the prices start to rack up in the supermarkets is with our penchant for pre-prepared, pre-washed, ready to eat stuff. The trick is to avoid these, because you pay through the nose for a bit of bulk processing.
As for 'farm shops', don't get me started. Eye-watering prices for those gullible enough to imagine they are getting something better.
I'm lucky enough that I now live in a 'rural city' and can buy directly from farmers at numerous wet markets.
I also found in England that supermarket food was awful, chicken breasts that shrunk whilst cooking etc, so supermarkets may have been cheaper but they certainly didn't offer better value
Part of the problem is that us Brits are capable of eating turkey twizzlers. It is heaven sent for supermarkets to sell us pizza's made of fake dough which includes ground animal nails, cheese which isn't cheese - mostly potato starch and pepperoni which is actually dangerous. You cook the pizza and it actually looks like a pizza, and that is all we need as we have not been educated to understand what good fresh food is.
What this program did was honestly labelled the product. And shoppers seeing the honest labels said they wouldn't buy it. Tap water is better for you than bottled water as 90% of all bottled water contains disolved plastics and the minerals do you no benefits. 80% of all the fruit you buy in the supermaket contains pesticides, potatoes can be spayed with them up to 32 times.
We see the word natural and we think, ok that is healthy. This program exposed how you should run a mile when you see that word. It is a vague word that they put on to con us and can legally argue what it means. If they put natural on the product they are trying to con you.
The best fish to buy at a Supermarket is frozen fish. That is because when it is caught, it is frozen. The fish you see on their fake fresh fish displays is going to be about a week old at best and has been frozen and defrosted, sometimes very badly. We assume teh fish has just been caught when we see these displays, don't we.
It is all one big con and I am going to start going to farm shops more. The supermarkets have no care for our health, just making a big profit.
Proper education on food and nutrition, plus real cooking classes would do wonders for our youth.
Sadly it's also far from just a British problem.
Judging by my kids school there's a huge number of children out there who don't eat anything that isn't fried or can't be dipped in ketchup. When they're given really good food that's prepared on site it almost all goes into the bin untouched. It's also noticeable that the kids with the worst diets have the fattest mum's which is pretty damning.
Well this is a lovely thread, isn't it? On so many levels.
I kind of wish I hadn't started this now, I just thought a young girls life shouldn't be so miserable. Good job I didn't mention Brexit or the Middle East!
I think this idea of her being 'miserable' is actually a lack of awareness about what autism is like. As well as her raising the profile of climate change it has been also impressive to see an autistic person in the public eye, as there seems to be such little understanding of it.
I would never do anything against a child, particularly one as seemingly courageous, but, equally, I think she is a poor figurehead for the environmental movement. All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well.
She seems to take a very black and white approach, which you would expect for a child, but adults need to see things as more nuanced.
The protestors seem to present this as 'politicians just do not want to do what is necessary to fix the problem' when the reality may be closer to 'the population may not be able to accept the changes that would be needed'. I grew up in Yorkshire in the era of the miner's strike, now even decades later the social consequences are still devastating and yet I hear protestors happily talking about simply ending the use of fossil fuels. Well it is possible in theory, but the social consequences would be astronomic. And if you would be happy with those consequences, what happens if the price is a one-child policy like China used to have.
The point is that there are benefits and consequences to every policy, the UK has done a huge amount already and is continuing to do so, but a balance will always need to be walked and that is not helped by seeing things from a child's perspective.
As a child, it is all too easy to believe that climate change is such an unprecedented challenge that any cost is worthwhile to stop it, because, particularly in the West, there is always food on the table and life is reletively comfortable. As an adult, you have to accept that there may not currently be a good solution, the technology might simply not be there, so any solution might involving continuing the work to reduce climate change, but acknowledging that there is only so much that can be done and working to alleviate the consequences.
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.
I would never do anything against a child, particularly one as seemingly courageous, but, equally, I think she is a poor figurehead for the environmental movement. All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well.
She seems to take a very black and white approach, which you would expect for a child, but adults need to see things as more nuanced.
The protestors seem to present this as 'politicians just do not want to do what is necessary to fix the problem' when the reality may be closer to 'the population may not be able to accept the changes that would be needed'. I grew up in Yorkshire in the era of the miner's strike, now even decades later the social consequences are still devastating and yet I hear protestors happily talking about simply ending the use of fossil fuels. Well it is possible in theory, but the social consequences would be astronomic. And if you would be happy with those consequences, what happens if the price is a one-child policy like China used to have.
The point is that there are benefits and consequences to every policy, the UK has done a huge amount already and is continuing to do so, but a balance will always need to be walked and that is not helped by seeing things from a child's perspective.
As a child, it is all too easy to believe that climate change is such an unprecedented challenge that any cost is worthwhile to stop it, because, particularly in the West, there is always food on the table and life is reletively comfortable. As an adult, you have to accept that there may not currently be a good solution, the technology might simply not be there, so any solution might involving continuing the work to reduce climate change, but acknowledging that there is only so much that can be done and working to alleviate the consequences.
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.
I would never do anything against a child, particularly one as seemingly courageous, but, equally, I think she is a poor figurehead for the environmental movement. All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well.
She seems to take a very black and white approach, which you would expect for a child, but adults need to see things as more nuanced.
The protestors seem to present this as 'politicians just do not want to do what is necessary to fix the problem' when the reality may be closer to 'the population may not be able to accept the changes that would be needed'. I grew up in Yorkshire in the era of the miner's strike, now even decades later the social consequences are still devastating and yet I hear protestors happily talking about simply ending the use of fossil fuels. Well it is possible in theory, but the social consequences would be astronomic. And if you would be happy with those consequences, what happens if the price is a one-child policy like China used to have.
The point is that there are benefits and consequences to every policy, the UK has done a huge amount already and is continuing to do so, but a balance will always need to be walked and that is not helped by seeing things from a child's perspective.
As a child, it is all too easy to believe that climate change is such an unprecedented challenge that any cost is worthwhile to stop it, because, particularly in the West, there is always food on the table and life is reletively comfortable. As an adult, you have to accept that there may not currently be a good solution, the technology might simply not be there, so any solution might involving continuing the work to reduce climate change, but acknowledging that there is only so much that can be done and working to alleviate the consequences.
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.
I take it you never studied history at school. To say that she has achieved far more than any adult has is probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
I would never do anything against a child, particularly one as seemingly courageous, but, equally, I think she is a poor figurehead for the environmental movement. All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well.
She seems to take a very black and white approach, which you would expect for a child, but adults need to see things as more nuanced.
The protestors seem to present this as 'politicians just do not want to do what is necessary to fix the problem' when the reality may be closer to 'the population may not be able to accept the changes that would be needed'. I grew up in Yorkshire in the era of the miner's strike, now even decades later the social consequences are still devastating and yet I hear protestors happily talking about simply ending the use of fossil fuels. Well it is possible in theory, but the social consequences would be astronomic. And if you would be happy with those consequences, what happens if the price is a one-child policy like China used to have.
The point is that there are benefits and consequences to every policy, the UK has done a huge amount already and is continuing to do so, but a balance will always need to be walked and that is not helped by seeing things from a child's perspective.
As a child, it is all too easy to believe that climate change is such an unprecedented challenge that any cost is worthwhile to stop it, because, particularly in the West, there is always food on the table and life is reletively comfortable. As an adult, you have to accept that there may not currently be a good solution, the technology might simply not be there, so any solution might involving continuing the work to reduce climate change, but acknowledging that there is only so much that can be done and working to alleviate the consequences.
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.
I would never do anything against a child, particularly one as seemingly courageous, but, equally, I think she is a poor figurehead for the environmental movement. All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well.
She seems to take a very black and white approach, which you would expect for a child, but adults need to see things as more nuanced.
The protestors seem to present this as 'politicians just do not want to do what is necessary to fix the problem' when the reality may be closer to 'the population may not be able to accept the changes that would be needed'. I grew up in Yorkshire in the era of the miner's strike, now even decades later the social consequences are still devastating and yet I hear protestors happily talking about simply ending the use of fossil fuels. Well it is possible in theory, but the social consequences would be astronomic. And if you would be happy with those consequences, what happens if the price is a one-child policy like China used to have.
The point is that there are benefits and consequences to every policy, the UK has done a huge amount already and is continuing to do so, but a balance will always need to be walked and that is not helped by seeing things from a child's perspective.
As a child, it is all too easy to believe that climate change is such an unprecedented challenge that any cost is worthwhile to stop it, because, particularly in the West, there is always food on the table and life is reletively comfortable. As an adult, you have to accept that there may not currently be a good solution, the technology might simply not be there, so any solution might involving continuing the work to reduce climate change, but acknowledging that there is only so much that can be done and working to alleviate the consequences.
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.
I take it you never studied history at school. To say that she has achieved far more than any adult has is probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
She’s galvanised the climate change protest movement more than any man has. I’m not saying she’s achieved more than Leonardo da Vinci.
Comments
I also found in England that supermarket food was awful, chicken breasts that shrunk whilst cooking etc, so supermarkets may have been cheaper but they certainly didn't offer better value
The protestors seem to present this as 'politicians just do not want to do what is necessary to fix the problem' when the reality may be closer to 'the population may not be able to accept the changes that would be needed'. I grew up in Yorkshire in the era of the miner's strike, now even decades later the social consequences are still devastating and yet I hear protestors happily talking about simply ending the use of fossil fuels. Well it is possible in theory, but the social consequences would be astronomic. And if you would be happy with those consequences, what happens if the price is a one-child policy like China used to have.
The point is that there are benefits and consequences to every policy, the UK has done a huge amount already and is continuing to do so, but a balance will always need to be walked and that is not helped by seeing things from a child's perspective.
As a child, it is all too easy to believe that climate change is such an unprecedented challenge that any cost is worthwhile to stop it, because, particularly in the West, there is always food on the table and life is reletively comfortable. As an adult, you have to accept that there may not currently be a good solution, the technology might simply not be there, so any solution might involving continuing the work to reduce climate change, but acknowledging that there is only so much that can be done and working to alleviate the consequences.
What this program did was honestly labelled the product. And shoppers seeing the honest labels said they wouldn't buy it. Tap water is better for you than bottled water as 90% of all bottled water contains disolved plastics and the minerals do you no benefits. 80% of all the fruit you buy in the supermaket contains pesticides, potatoes can be spayed with them up to 32 times.
We see the word natural and we think, ok that is healthy. This program exposed how you should run a mile when you see that word. It is a vague word that they put on to con us and can legally argue what it means. If they put natural on the product they are trying to con you.
The best fish to buy at a Supermarket is frozen fish. That is because when it is caught, it is frozen. The fish you see on their fake fresh fish displays is going to be about a week old at best and has been frozen and defrosted, sometimes very badly. We assume teh fish has just been caught when we see these displays, don't we.
It is all one big con and I am going to start going to farm shops more. The supermarkets have no care for our health, just making a big profit.
Globally, a price crash means that the Gulf states and Russia pretty much become ungovernable over night, with all the resultant consequences both in those countries and worldwide.
Also, if the West takes this decision unilaterally, then the likes of China and India have a huge advantage, again putting more people out of work here.
There are no doubt things that can be done, but that requires a nuanced policy, rather than a black-and-white view.
Do the likes of climate change protestors have a point, yes.
Do they get on my tits, (blocked route from the other day missed train) hell yes!
Moral of the story, don’t jump on the culture war bandwagon, you don’t have to pick a side it’s not football.
And as for China and India having a huge advantage we can take steps to eliminate this. Things similar to not importing product that has been made by child or slave labour. Currently much of this is done by reputable companies but perhaps should be enshrined in law and for energy certificates as well as workers rights.
We need far more investment into producing and storing energy much better. There is a huge amount of solar, wind and water energy available in the world that is ineffeciently captured and processed.
To think we shouldn't do this because Aberdeen may suffer is pathetic in my view. Rather save the planet from destruction as we know it.
Sadly it's also far from just a British problem.
Judging by my kids school there's a huge number of children out there who don't eat anything that isn't fried or can't be dipped in ketchup. When they're given really good food that's prepared on site it almost all goes into the bin untouched. It's also noticeable that the kids with the worst diets have the fattest mum's which is pretty damning.
To say that she has achieved far more than any adult has is probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
I’m not saying she’s achieved more than Leonardo da Vinci.
No need to be so patronising btw.
"If you disagree with her she stops being aneeco warrior activist and becomes a special needs kid.
Hopefully she will turn her eco attention to China."
You get the abuse you deserve sunshine.
A clear concise argument without the need to resort to personal abuse or a flouncy fit."