In the news

If you’re worried about aspartame giving you cancer for gawd sake don’t eat toast or heaven’s forbid pizza.

Just drink less than 17 cans a day and you’re good 👍

Pretty sure yer potassium nitrate in bacon is there to inhibit botulism as much as it’s there to keep it pink. I don’t mind making my own bacon with just salt and sugar, but I don’t think the supermarkets will risk it?

There’s a brand doing pork products without all the sulphites. Naked pork I think.

And prosciutto hasn’t got sulphites - so it’s entirely possible for most pork to be with them.

It’s just a cheaper way of producing the food

Yep, the naked bacon is absolutely fine and I haven't noticed any symptoms of botulism so far.

Air dried hams should also be good and anything with a PDO from Southern Europe probably.

I think it's the nitrites & nitrates specifically that are the problem though, right? I thought sulphites were more of a problem in drinks.

All Parma ham is OK. They're not allowed to call it Parma ham unless it's made the authentic way. It's one of the very few nitrite free things you can get in a mini supermarket. I think Waitrose has quite a few nitrite-free salamis 'n that.

Interesting bit in the Grauniad about climate change marketing being useless and being outspent by fossil fuel. Nobody seems to have a slogan which resonates with the public. Apparently 'global warming' and 'climate change' sound trivial. What would be better? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/14/big-oil-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel-public

In the meantime hardly anyone cares. Every day people are killed by extreme weather, or die of hunger because of crop failure. But the number of commercial flights is growing. https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1679865495112019968

“Boiling alive"

And people boo the just stop oil protesters at Wimbledon etc. They are heroes.

At some point in the future people will say 'why didn't they do anything to stop this'......

Guardian changed their wording a few years ago to "global heating", "climate crisis" etc

Edit to add: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment

Don't worry, the telegraph has you covered
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/style/europe-heatwave-what-pack-summer-holiday-keep-cool/

This has to happen, the amount of vapes you see littering the roads when you are out cycling is crazy. They all contain plastics, batteries, some kind of electronics and a few chemicals thrown in for good measures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66204853

A lot of the animosity is because the protestors keep disrupting things.

If they followed the example of previous successful protests such as the suffragettes or the Civil Rights movement, then I don't think people would mind as much.

If they followed the example of previous successful protests such as the suffragettes or the Civil Rights movement, then I don't think people would mind as much.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not

^ +1

If they followed the example of previous successful protests such as the suffragettes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign

As we know from the argument around helmets (if I hadn’t been wearing one i would’ve died) you can’t prove a negative (i think that’s the correct phrase); so i wonder hypothetically that if JSO and XO hadn’t used their disruptive campaigns if we’d have had the same recent, minor, upsurge in media interest in climatic change?

Wouldn't it be great if the crowd at a disrupted event all stood up and clapped the protestors instead of the security, I would.

Looked to be the result at the Just Stop Oil protest on the Last Leg last night.

Booing at the Proms though.

Wasn't part of the XR plan to make more "moderate" protests more palatable by starting with the more disruptive stuff?

"Blocking emergency services on the M25 is unacceptable but messing up a snooker game seems more reasonable" etc.

I don't think it was XR's original plan but they have more recently come out saying they planned to change tactics for fear of losing public support and would see how it impacts outcomes and perception. Just stop oil will carry on being disruptive. I think its hard for XR though as most public probably view XR/JSO/IB as one blob

No such thing as peaceful protests.

Being arrested isn't much fun, and Starmer says he won't repeal any of the new Tory anti-protester laws. But what can we do in a country obsessed with Range Rovers?

I've just asked a Range Rover driver to switch off his engine. He'd been idling in my street for 25 mins. He and his mate said there was no anti-idling law and no climate change and that I'd been lied to by the newspapers. I said I'd call the police. The registration, which I'd unfortunately not taken a pic of, is for a red Mercedes. So the 101 operator got interested but questioned my memory. I went back out to take a pic but while I was on the stairs he drove off. I've got half a mind to walk around the area to see if he's parked somewhere else.

I suppose the relevance to the thread is that most of the Range Rover drivers in this area (South London) would probably give the same answers. In this case the driver and his mate are black and told me the anti-idling law is my law, not theirs. I've heard this attitude many times before - the footling laws enforced by the racist establishment should be ignored by black people, because white people always get off scot free. I'd probably feel the same way if I'd been excluded from school and beaten up by the police. I can't think of a way to sell climate change to people who feel excluded. I tried the Africa angle - climate change is killing your brothers in Africa every day - but this was just more newspaper lies. Coronavirus has hardened the mistrust of newspapers. It's widely believed that the experimentation on black people in the US has happened in the UK too. Just look at the deaths in childbirth amongst black women. So if you see the white establishment doing anything which you don't like, the answer is always racism.

The rich are funding campaigns that state climate change costs are born by the poor in richer countries. Funding authoritarian anti refugee anti LGBT etc groups.

If those people and companies that take all the wealth would cough up, that would pay for a lot of housing, communal land and refugees shelter and aid for poorer countries. This, of course, they don't do.

As if you can take that £ with it...I don't get it. Surely it's more satisfying to see a dam and social housing with your name on it than another power play?

Then BlackRock and others don't invest in renewables as they want a 12% return instead of the 5 to 8% you can get.

Of course we all need to do things, some of it no fun, but we would be far further if the 1% and finance system would take action against climate change instead of behaving like those nrs on a computer can buy immortality.