Did You Vote For This?

[youngmafbog]

Seems the current liberal left Government, clearly being driven by the Prime Ministers piece installed in No 10 (Princess Nut Nut as DC referred to her) , is intent on turning this country into a third world basket case.

For one:
Target - Cut meat and dairy consumption by a fifth over the next decade

Impact - Someone who has meat for every three meals could only do this twice a week under the new plans.

Similarly, the average Briton would need to shave a fifth of the average milk consumption down to 16ml a day - or roughly three teaspoons.

Really?

Any chance of India or China reducing theirs or are they going to power ahead while we shot ourselves in the foot with impossible green targets?

And here is the rest:

Target - Cut meat and dairy consumption by a fifth over the next decade

Impact - Someone who has meat for every three meals could only do this twice a week under the new plans.

Similarly, the average Briton would need to shave a fifth of the average milk consumption down to 16ml a day - or roughly three teaspoons.

[Stickybottle]

dannyk13
Sticky, it it ok on porridge and all bran?

Yes danny give it a go
You won’t be disappointed

[dannyk13]

Thanks Sticky I'll give it a try.

[Stickybottle]

New Judge
//Almond milk and other plant-based beverages function as milks.//

Indeed they do, danny. But they are not milk and should be called something else – in common with many vegetarian and vegan foods.

Does it really matter all that much ?
Most of them have packaging that says ‘oat drink’ (my Aldi carton just says Oat) anyway it is generally the public that refers to it as ‘milk’ because it is white and is used on cereals and in beverages in place of cows milk but I am sure there are bigger issues to be dealing with

[bhg481]

I've always called the clear fluid from a coconut "Coconut milk" but I wouldn't put it on my cornflakes.

[bhg481]

Nor would I put milk of magnesia on them.

[Untitled]

"Unsustainable and excessive human population growth is. It is the root cause of virtually all the sustainability problems the world faces. "

Not all of them. the greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases... which are overwhelmingly a product of high-emission industries. Having fewer people is fine but not if they continue polluting as much as the current world population is.

[New Judge]

//Having fewer people is fine but not if they continue polluting as much as the current world population is.//

I'm afraid the world is in for a nasty shock. The multitudinous measures which are being taken to "control the climate" will do no such thing. They will cause untold inconvenience to billions of people who will concurrently be fleeced by their governments to pay for their hare-brained schemes. And it will make do difference to the ever-changing global climate whatsoever.

I have sympathy (of sorts) for those who believe it will. They have been bamboozled into thinking that, even if humans are responsible for influencing the climate slightly, they can somehow influence it in the way they wish. I can only say "dream on". But if it keeps them happy, so what. Except that we'll all have to pay for the folly.

[Untitled]

They will not cause anything like as much “inconvenience” as climate catastrophe caused by an unhindered greenhouse effect... you are wrong.

[New Judge]

You may be right (though I doubt it). But mankind will not be able to prevent the "climate catastrophe" (as you put it). So we might as well live decently whilst we can. You seem to have been brainwashed into believing than mankind can somehow control the climate. Quite simply, we can't.

[Togo]

16ml of milk a day? What happened to "Drink a pint o' milk a day"? Perhaps Mrs Thatcher was ahead of her time when she reduced the milk consumption in schools. God help "go to work on an egg". Unless it is an electric one of course.

[jim360]

NJ's claim that there's nothing we can do is mistaken. It's difficult, perhaps, but not impossible. At the very least, we can control our own, sadly significant, contribution to the present period of climate change.

I should perhaps clarify that I use "we" here to mean humanity as a whole; perhaps NJ is thinking primarily of the UK only (if not exclusively). But humankind has had a negative impact on the planet already, and it stands to reason that we can just as well have a positive one if we put our minds to it.

[jim360]

As a separate point, just because milk traditionally meant animal milk doesn't mean it can't also be used to refer to plant-based products. That's how language works -- indeed, fun fact, "milk" in association with plant-based products is about 800 years old, so it isn't even a modern "deception".

That's the trouble with being prescriptive. You're usually wrong anyway, and even if not wrong about earlier etymologies, it's simply wrong about how language works.

[New Judge]

//I should perhaps clarify that I use "we" here to mean humanity as a whole; perhaps NJ is thinking primarily of the UK only//

No NJ is not. He is thinking of global human contributions. It is by no means convincing that the human contribution to climate change is indisputable. But leaving that argument aside, it is even less conclusive that human activity (or the lack thereof) can influence it. The global climate changes. Always has, always will.

As a further aside, "milk" is the liquid secreted by the mammary glands of lactating mammals. Other liquids - such as the watery fluids extracted from various plant products - may be called "milk" but they are not milk. They are (principally) water based plant extracts. Being prescriptive does not mean you are wrong. It means you are being prescriptive. If somebody insists that a dog might be called a cat because it has four legs are wrong. Those who insist a dog cannot be called a cat if it does not bark are being prescriptive.

[jim360]

My point is that the word "milk" has been used to describe any pearly-white liquid for centuries**, so the argument that it only means the milk of a mammal is bogus. You're welcome personally to insist that it must only mean the latter, but it has no historical support (and certainly isn't connected to some vegetarian/vegan deception).***

To the former -- you may be "by no means convinc[ed]" that the human contribution to climate change is significant and indisputable, but it's a position at odds with the evidence. The claim that the climate "always has, always will" change is similarly bogus, not because it's wrong but because it's a distraction. Humanity is perfectly capable of shaping the world around it and disrupting the natural cycle.


**The earliest reference I can find easily is from a 1390s recipe book used by the head cooks of Richard II, which regularly mentions "mlyke of Almandes" in its instructions for making Blancmange and several other recipes:
https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/8102/pg8102.html (see also: milk of magnesia; or latex, which derives from the Spanish for "milk")

*** Indeed, it's only recently that the cows'/sheep's/goats' milk industries have lobbied for an official position that only animal milk products can be called "milk".

[Untitled]

"It is by no means convincing that the human contribution to climate change is indisputable. "

The best method we have for figuring that out is science... which disagrees with you about as much as it is possible to do so.

"ou seem to have been brainwashed into believing than mankind can somehow control the climate. Quite simply, we can't."

And you seem determined to ignore the evidence that we have already influenced the climate because acknowledging it might oblige you to lift a finger for other people...