Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Greta Thunberg Climate warrioress.
Comments
-
I'm lucky enough that I now live in a 'rural city' and can buy directly from farmers at numerous wet markets.Stig said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Really? When I was at Uni is when I started cooking things from scratch and 'batch cooking' I certainly saved money.MrOneLung said:
You won’t save money that’s for sure.Stu_of_Kunming said:Or just don't buy from supermarkets, buy everything fresh, you'll save money and feels tons healthier.
As for 'farm shops', don't get me started. Eye-watering prices for those gullible enough to imagine they are getting something better.
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 value2 -
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.4 -
The social consequences of eliminating fossil fuel energy in 2019 would bear virtually zero resemblance to the tribulations of the miners in the 1980s0
-
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'm lucky enough that I now live in a 'rural city' and can buy directly from farmers at numerous wet markets.Stig said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Really? When I was at Uni is when I started cooking things from scratch and 'batch cooking' I certainly saved money.MrOneLung said:
You won’t save money that’s for sure.Stu_of_Kunming said:Or just don't buy from supermarkets, buy everything fresh, you'll save money and feels tons healthier.
As for 'farm shops', don't get me started. Eye-watering prices for those gullible enough to imagine they are getting something better.
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
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.
1 -
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.
1 -
Well this is a lovely thread, isn't it? On so many levels.
0 -
Do I want to see harm towards a young girl speaking up against an obvious issue, no.
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.0 -
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.StevieKielyStanwat said: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.
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.1 -
Proper education on food and nutrition, plus real cooking classes would do wonders for our youth.MuttleyCAFC said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'm lucky enough that I now live in a 'rural city' and can buy directly from farmers at numerous wet markets.Stig said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Really? When I was at Uni is when I started cooking things from scratch and 'batch cooking' I certainly saved money.MrOneLung said:
You won’t save money that’s for sure.Stu_of_Kunming said:Or just don't buy from supermarkets, buy everything fresh, you'll save money and feels tons healthier.
As for 'farm shops', don't get me started. Eye-watering prices for those gullible enough to imagine they are getting something better.
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
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.
Sadly it's also far from just a British problem.2 -
Stu_of_Kunming said:
Proper education on food and nutrition, plus real cooking classes would do wonders for our youth.MuttleyCAFC said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I'm lucky enough that I now live in a 'rural city' and can buy directly from farmers at numerous wet markets.Stig said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Really? When I was at Uni is when I started cooking things from scratch and 'batch cooking' I certainly saved money.MrOneLung said:
You won’t save money that’s for sure.Stu_of_Kunming said:Or just don't buy from supermarkets, buy everything fresh, you'll save money and feels tons healthier.
As for 'farm shops', don't get me started. Eye-watering prices for those gullible enough to imagine they are getting something better.
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
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.
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.0 - Sponsored links:
-
@tom_k and @wheresmeticket?"Stig said:
You seem to be suggesting that environmentalists shouldn't be allowed to travel.smudge7946 said:
Trains aren't powered by unicorn smiles and pixie dust.Anna_Kissed said:Was about to refer to the same info, @PragueAddick
Greta has posted numerous pictures of her train journeys on Twitter.
Knock, Knock.
Who's there?
Someone spouting ill-informed drivel.
This is how you argue a post.
A clear concise argument without the need to resort to personal abuse or a flouncy fit.
0 -
Would you be pissed off your doctor wasn’t chirpy if he said you have 6 months to live?0
-
Who are you to judge her life to be miserable? I would think it is interesting and rewarding compared to other 16 year old's lives.0
-
I was unaware of this. Do you have any examples?StevieKielyStanwat said:... All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well...1 -
I really don't care what any 16 year old thinks about anything, much less consider them experts on anything. Except being an expert at being 16.
0 -
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.9
-
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.StevieKielyStanwat said: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.1 -
*Sigh*NapaAddick said:I really don't care what any 16 year old thinks about anything, much less consider them experts on anything. Except being an expert at being 16.11 -
That's not always the case.NapaAddick said:I really don't care what any 16 year old thinks about anything, much less consider them experts on anything. Except being an expert at being 16.
I knew everything when I was 16.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Can a mod please move this to the political area where it belongs.
1 -
Thomas DriesenStig said:
I was unaware of this. Do you have any examples?StevieKielyStanwat said:... All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well...6 -
Any other ages you want to write off?NapaAddick said:I really don't care what any 16 year old thinks about anything, much less consider them experts on anything. Except being an expert at being 16.4 -
I take it you never studied history at school.JamesSeed said:
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.StevieKielyStanwat said: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.JamesSeed said:
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.StevieKielyStanwat said: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.
To say that she has achieved far more than any adult has is probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard.1 -
Stig said:
I was unaware of this. Do you have any examples?StevieKielyStanwat said:... All too often, throughout history, movements have been led by perceived savant truth-teller kids and it never ends well...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL_p9qjfu5U
5 -
She’s galvanised the climate change protest movement more than any man has.blackpool72 said:
I take it you never studied history at school.JamesSeed said:
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.StevieKielyStanwat said: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.JamesSeed said:
But she already achieved far more than any adult has.StevieKielyStanwat said: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.
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.2 -
She's no Xena.0
-
So..............
Would ya?0 -
Let me remind you what you said:smudge7946 said:
@tom_k and @wheresmeticket?"Stig said:
You seem to be suggesting that environmentalists shouldn't be allowed to travel.smudge7946 said:
Trains aren't powered by unicorn smiles and pixie dust.Anna_Kissed said:Was about to refer to the same info, @PragueAddick
Greta has posted numerous pictures of her train journeys on Twitter.
Knock, Knock.
Who's there?
Someone spouting ill-informed drivel.
This is how you argue a post.
A clear concise argument without the need to resort to personal abuse or a flouncy fit.
"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.1 -
"This is how you argue a post.smudge7946 said:So..............
Would ya?
A clear concise argument without the need to resort to personal abuse or a flouncy fit."
4
This discussion has been closed.
