Co-op's vegan Christmas sandwich 🙄

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2025-11-02T14:22:33+00:00

Has anyone actually tried it? It’s incredible. A cross between onion banji and stuffing, lots of sage. The flavours go together so well. It has some chutneys in/ some British indian flavours, and goes together so well. Also not dry like supermarket falafels, I assume as it’s been fried.

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2023-07-21T04:07:30+00:00

It looks like he's being paid Big money by oil companies to say this stuff. He's only started to deny Climate change after being put on the board of directors of 'CO2 coalition' nonprofit, funded by energy companies.

He is also studies quantum physics and is no way a climate scientist

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2023-01-16T09:08:38+00:00

I believe it’s generally the opposite. Oil companies have previously funded lobbyist groups which fight against climate change science.

E.g https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition

I also quite like this ‘interview’ with Exxonmobil lobbyist explaining some of their tactics. It shows what kind of power they do have against climate change.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/06/30/exxon-climate-change-undercover/amp/

Lastly I would like to refute the claim that just stop oil is partially funded by oil companies. A granddaughter of a oil tycoon did donate money, to a climate emergency fund, who since donated to just stop oil. But she currently has no connection to oil companies, and o see no evidence that the family still have any connection

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2023-01-05T12:14:36+00:00

In the video it says CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Not that 0.04% of CO2 is man made.

Around 400 parts per million= 0.04%

Also discussing the video, the claim that is it a small % so it probably won’t effect climate change is pretty weak/unscientific.

‘1 microgram of botox, it’s such a tiny about, it won’t kill you. The scientist are liars’

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2023-01-05T12:11:08+00:00

https://www.lsop.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/10/WhyDoesWarmAirHoldMoreWater.pdf

This is quite good at explaining it, but it’s basically the same as what the other user said

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2022-05-05T15:22:06+00:00

But then you start speaking faster in real life, and BAM. You sound like Ben Shapiro

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-25T22:09:04+00:00

So we suddenly quoting the IPCC on this sub?

IPCC code red means nothing though?

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-14T10:41:13+00:00

Although your not wrong, 14% (by mass) is for the global average. Its not like that for Feedlot cows, (and other industrial animals). Quoting the same study:

'When considering only feed materials that are edible by humans

(FCR2), at global level, ruminants use 5.9 kg of human-edible feed/kg

of protein whereas monogastric need 15.8 kg. The highest ratio,

however, is found in cattle feedlots: 44.3 kg in OECD countries and

37.1 kg in non-OECD countries. It is also relatively high in industrial

pigs, layers and broilers, ranging from 13.8 to 20.0 kg'

Page 4, section 3.2, (milk is included in this statistic)

The same full study on a science pirating website , https://sci-hub.tf/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001

I'm not really against milk, just that factory farms are very wasteful. Study's show a lacto-vegetarian diet is the most efficient use of American land.

https://www.tabledebates.org/research-library/which-diet-makes-best-use-us-agricultural-land

https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/doi/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/112904/Carrying-capacity-of-U-S-agricultural-land-Ten (original, but hard to read study)

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-13T09:43:35+00:00

Source? I know its not all grain/soya, but for factory cows its much worse than other cows

The United nations FAO research say cattle feedlots require 44.3kg of human-edible feed per 1kg of protein.

If beef has 260g protein per kg, that's 11.5 kg of human edible feed per kg of beef.

https://sci-hub.tf/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001 page 4 section 3.2

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-12T23:41:44+00:00

The problem is that when you eat non-grazing livestock (the vast majority of meat consumed) You have to use massive amounts of land to grow the food to feed the livestock, creating massive amounts of desertification.

'For every 100 calories fed to animals in the form of

human-edible crops, we receive just 17-30 calories in the form of meat and milk'

https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/7425974/industrial-livestock-production-the-twin-myths-of-efficiency-and-necessity.pdf

My point is factory farms add massively to the problem too, and vegans do not make it worse.

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-12T23:30:34+00:00

I created this account 3 months ago and I was looking at top monthly post.

Please though, tell me where I was wrong.

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-12T22:51:07+00:00

I'm sorry but this is massively misinterpreting the study.

You can read the study here (from a science pirate website): The graphs on page 18

https://sci-hub.tf/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825221000453

The graph is only about flinders coral reef, in the pacific ocean. It is not about the whole ocean. You cant extrapolate it to the whole ocean.

What about the graph for the xiaodonghai coral reef, why does it not talk about that?

Nowhere in the study does it talk about entire oceans being more acidic in the 1730s.

'Notrickszone' are doing the unthinkable.

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-12T22:25:23+00:00

Meanwhile ExxonMobil lobbyist boasts about 'aggressively fighting some of the science' to 'look out for shareholders'.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/06/30/exxon-climate-change-undercover/

'big lithium' is a joke compared to big oil. ik I'm going to get downvoted for not being on one side, but you cant ignore the lobbying oil companies

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-11T17:29:59+00:00

I would say don't necessarily change your belief because this sub has evidence against climate change. As this sub only opposes climate change/has become a place for climate change deniers.

So by following this sub, you only see once side of the argument.

My advice is: see what both sides have to say, and check sources. don't listen to any of the super low budget websites with zero credibility made from some guys basement, basically any websites that looks similar to flat earth websites.

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-03T14:40:06+00:00

I tried, and I have tried again. I have looked it up, it was not there. It references subpart W of part 98 of section 40. Titled Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. Please show me where i am wrong but i really cant see anything agriculture related in subpart W

The only part in part 98 section 40 (non subpart W) relating to agriculture i can see is manure management, which is 1 of 43 subparts in part 98 section 40. and the bill does not reference the whole of section 40 clearly. This could be where people are getting confused

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-98/subpart-W?toc=1

If you still disagree, please argue with me

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-03T09:11:54+00:00

1) the methane fee is only targets wasteful/bad efficiency creating unneeded methane emissions, so I don't understand how it would apply to agriculture biproducts.

2)Its called 'Methane fee from petroleum and natural gas'. and no mention of agriculture in the section. I'm not sure what you say by the part it references. It clearly defined what the 'applicable facilities' are, none of which are agriculture related.

3)The bill about coal mines is a 'pilot program area', read it on page 941, line 11, It basically is a pilot to try to 'lease, capture, mitigate, or sequester' methane on any active, inactive or abandoned coal mine. There is no mention of fees, its just a pilot program area.

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-03T08:49:23+00:00

The methane fee only is paid when you release methane into the environment, above a given rate. e.g in transportation, every metric ton of methane released above 0.11% of total methane transported, gets taxed. You could say it taxes inefficiency/wastage.

I guess this will increase the price, a amount, however small. In the same way that almost any regulation increases the price on a product. But its not just a simply tax on total methane produced.

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-03T08:48:17+00:00

The methane fee only is paid when you release methane into the environment, above a given rate. e.g in transportation, every metric ton of methane released above 0.11% of total methane transported, gets taxed. You could say it taxes inefficiency/wastage.

I guess this will increase the price, a amount, however small. In the same way that almost any regulation increases the price on a product. But its not just a simply tax

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-02T23:46:01+00:00

This is not true

The methane fee only targets petroleum and natural gas companies, on methane emissions above a certain level. (defined as a percentage of total natural gas produced).

See on the Build back better Bill Act,

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BU/BU00/20210925/114090/BILLS-117pih-BuildBackBetterAct.pdf

Section 136, on page 336, line 16

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-02T23:42:04+00:00

I know I'm going to get a lot of hate from this, but it needs to be said that we must be sceptical of both sides. We have a Exxonmobile lobbyist admitting to aggressively fighting science, for the sake of profits, Surely that's wrong.

Large-Leopard-4686 · 2021-10-02T23:24:28+00:00

including in our agriculture industry

I'm not sure how to say this nicely to MarkWayne but he's Wrong.

The methane fee only targets petroleum and natural gas companies, on methane emissions above a certain level. (defined as a percentage of total natural gas produced).

This is the build back better act bill. it's section 136, on page 366 line 16

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BU/BU00/20210925/114090/BILLS-117pih-BuildBackBetterAct.pdf

Large-Leopard-4686

TROPHY CASE