You missed the one that actually matters which is pressure the government to do something about it, instead of shaming individuals into making all those big-hassle, little-impact changes to their lifestyles.

>>4630
This. The onus isn't on us, OP.

>I've found called Octopus Energy which is quite competitive price wise

Fun fact: Octopus Energy is owned by the asset management firm Octopus Investments, who specialise in products which allow investors to qualify for Business Relief and avoid Inheritance Tax. A very significant portion of investment into renewable energy in this country is driven by people looking to avoid IHT.

>>4632

It does make sense that people who are worried about how much money they'll pass on to the next generation are also worried about how much inhabitable planet they'll pass on to the next generation.

>>4633
I don't think most of them really care what the underlying investments are, they just want to avoid tax.

>>4634
Then they could invest in lots of other things.

>>4635
Not many that would avoid IHT, particularly if you've a limited life expectancy.

>>4629
Is that Richard Herring? Why is he dressed up like Braveheart?

Hardcore mode
-Don't make shit threads on /lab/ that nobody asked for.
-Accept that the science of vegetarian/veganism isn't so clear cut and you're being a played a fool.

>>4638
The emissions from the meat industry are very clear cut.

>>4639
Especially if you take the worst examples from America and pretend they're applicable over here.

>>4640
Are you suggesting that American cattle fart more than British cattle and that the million tons of soy we import from South America and feed to our cattle somehow uses up less rainforest area than an equivalent amount imported from there to North America or are you just yet another angry man who feels like his masculinity is being attacked whenever anyone suggests that maybe he should eat less meat?

>>4640

Most of the emissions from ruminant farming are methane, straight from the ruminant's gob. It doesn't really matter how that ruminant is being raised, because it's a little mammalian methane factory.

>>4641

Do you think we have the same amount of cows as America?

Hint : we don't export much meat in the UK.

>>4643

I see you didn't actually read my post.

>>4630
You've misconstrued my OP. I'm not shaming anyone. I'm just providing some lifestyle changes for people who are concerned about climate change, but don't know where to start. On pressuring governments, why can't we do that and make lifestyle changes?

>big-hassle, little-impact
False. If 1 million people took any of those actions it would have a huge impact. See "why should I vote, it won't make any difference".

>>4631
Climate change is a global problem affecting everyone. So the onus is on everyone to make a difference.

>>4632
Thanks or telling me, I didn't know that about them. Other renewable energy tariffs are available.

>>4633
The effects of climate change are being felt now.

>>4637
Yes. It's the image from his Edinburgh Fringe podcast.

>>4642
True most of it is from methane. But you;re forgetting about soil carbon that is lost when animals graze on fields. Also that land must be cleared of trees and other plants to make way for grazing. There are more sustainable ways to raise cattle.

Oh well not sure why I replied, adding fuel to the fire of the cunt-off.

I'm reducing my physical activity to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide I exhale.

>>4641
>Are you suggesting that American cattle fart more than British cattle

Emissions are impacted by practices as anyone who had sprouts over Christmas can attest. Equally the farts from Big Honey seem a little questionable in demanding a vegan diet.

>>4645
>why can't we do that and make lifestyle changes?
We can and it's great if people do, but multinational corporations have been pushing the lifestyle changes, personal responsibility on the general public for about seventy years now. They're actively trying to distract from getting anything real done with that as a tactic. It also tends to get a knee-jerk reaction from people who think they're already doing enough, or shouldn't have to that they then direct as anger towards anyone trying to push for any real change.

>>4647
Honey isn't vegan.

>>4645
>If 1 million people took any of those actions it would have a huge impact. See "why should I vote, it won't make any difference".

It may have some positive impact, but nowhere near enough. The majority of climate change can be traced back to just 90 companies: Exact numbers are Just 90 companies are to blame for the majority of climate change: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says

Climate change is a structural problem. People can make changes which may have some cumulative impact, but ultimately we all have to live within the constraints of a system that burns fossil fuels to generate energy and relies on widespread agriculture to produce food, all under the heavy legal and financial protection of complacent government and corporate power.

These are problems individuals simply cannot address without collective action. If you have any sense of proportion, or urgency, or priority, your post would put political advocacy far above any personal choices.

I agree the two aren't mutually exclusive, but your post emphasises the wrong thing, and people are absolutely correct to point that out.

A .gs guide to fighting climate change would be to support movements like Extinction Rebellion however possible. If you decide to also ride your bike to work, that's great too, but frankly I'd rather one million people become politically active than to make lifestyle changes within a narrow set of consumer choices.

>>4649

>These are problems individuals simply cannot address without collective action. If you have any sense of proportion, or urgency, or priority, your post would put political advocacy far above any personal choices.

Individual change is systematic change. The only solution to climate change is for all of us to consume much, much less; the barrier to systematic change is our unwillingness to do so. We have to individually and collectively accept that our lifestyles are going to have to get a lot worse for a long time.

There are no handwavey solutions where all of the pain falls on corporations and the rest of us get to carry on as normal. Shell and BP cause a shitload of carbon emissions because they flog us petrol. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd cause a shitload of carbon emissions because they move vast quantities of cheap tat from Chinese factories to poundshop shelves. Whatever the means of addressing that problem are, the ends are the same - no more petrol and no more cheap tat.

At present, there is absolutely no political will for that. We'll only have the political will to deliver systemic change if we take personal responsibility for our emissions, whether they're caused directly by our actions or indirectly by our consumer choices. Step one is to consume less; there is no step two.

>>4650

Your argument is backwards. We have extremely limited power as consumers to influence what ultimately ends up on the market. Your original post contains a good example: many people switching to public transport would be an improvement, but what if your city has poor public transport infrastructure? What governs whether your city has a good bus service, or whether electric trams are maintained, or whether new cycling paths are built?

Governments and corporations decide what choices are available to consumers to begin with. Governments choose what to invest in, and what is supported by infrastructure. Another way to skew markets in favour of certain industries is giving them money outright. The UK has among the highest fossil fuel subsidies: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-government-pays-6bn-a-year-in-subsidies-to-fossil-fuel-industry-a6730946.html

What's "handwavey" is refusing to see how our political and economic system works. if someone can change their diet or cut down on car/air travel, that's great. But this is nowhere near enough to stop climate change.

>At present, there is absolutely no political will for that.

This is exactly why collective action is so important. Governments can and have been pressured in the past to recognise issues by the public.

>>4651

A more recent source on UK fossil fuel subsidies: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-fossil-fuels-uk-funding-environment-export-finance-a9129731.html

Is there any point in me washing/delabelling glass bottles and tinnies or is it all going to landfill anyway?

>>4653
They had a segment about this on The One Show years ago. I can't actually remember the outcome, but I have the feeling they wash them at the recycling centre and it's more energy efficient if they do it in bulk rather than everyone doing it individually beforehand.

I do all this for Greta:

-Have meat free Mondays, become a 'flexitarian' (except that I only eat meat _on_ Mondays)
-Invest in businesses working to reduce/reverse climate change
-Home composting of organic waste
-Solar panels
-No air travel

>>4653
Glass and tins, no. Ultimately there's little need for these to be super clean because they end up in a furnace hot enough to vapourise anything that's not metal or glass.

But plastics, these need to be clean and de-labelled. Plastic is only suitable to recycle back into food-grade plastics if it's super clean and well seperated from other grades of plastic. Germany and adjacent countries have a really good recycling rate because deposits on bottles means they have a pre-sorted waste stream of bottles coming straight back after use. In the UK our councils have us chucking it into a kerbside box, and by the time it reaches a sorting centre a lorry full of the assorted waste of a thousand families is so foul that only a portion of the plastics are ever sorted out and recycled, the rest ends up being shipped to third world countries as ballast for empty freighters.

>>4654
I'm glad because sometimes i can't be arsed to pick that last bit of paper off of and/or completely rinse the tin.

>>4656

I watched something recently about the different grades of plastic, and how the average consumer is fucking horrific at sorting them, but the average recycling centre doesn't have the resources to do it either. If I just have the one recycling bin in my yard, is it still worth delabelling all of them and putting them in there?

>>4629


>-Grow your own veg/fruit
>-Insulate your house or upgrade to an environmentally friendly boiler
>-Home composting of organic waste
>-Install a heat pump
>-Solar panels

Okay, so like many other people in the country I rent.

Regarding insulation/heat pumps/solar panels etc. these things are out of the question. There is no incentive for landlords to make these sorts of investments. My rickety old boiler wont get replaced until a catastrophic irreparable breakdown, which is unlikely because it's the type of boiler that lasts forever because there's nothing to go wrong, unlike modern boilers.
(Even so, the payback models which companies will base their pay-back models on for solar panels, are based on south facing high-pitched roofs, the majority of houses in this country will infact never see a return on their investment at current rates.)

Regarding growing food/composting. My garden is hardscaped. I would LOVE to dig it up and grow my own vegetables, but again I would have to pay my landlord a couple of thousand quid to pave it over again when I leave.

>>4654

That's strange, I saw on TV that they send all dirty recycling to land fill and don't bother cleaning it.

This will sound /boo/, but it seems like whenever a post advocating climate activism appears, it's immediately flushed out of view by four or five new (often low effort) posts in succession.

>>4661

What like, in this thread?

>>4661
Yes, it will.

>>4629>>>4630
>You missed the one that actually matters
You both did. Don't create more humans, overridingly the most environmentally destructive decision you can make in your lifetime.

>>4664
While eskimo/Catholic/Indian forced castration would unironically contribute scores more to climate balance than the combined efforts of entire nations up until this point, it's not exactly actionable.

Or ethical, I guess...

>>4661
I don't think anyone's saying being more conscious about the environment is a bad thing, it's just that even when we do all of what OP suggested, (though there's a significant percentage that are unable to do these things due to a multitude of reasons) corporations are the main offender and they aren't slowing down.

But also, it's people who carry on life like normal. People are still doing "10 year" plans and having kids and all this bollocks, like nothing's happening and nothing will change. My carbon footprint is extremely low, but I've grown extremely pessimistic as to what good it's doing after seeing the way the world is behaving these past years.

>>4666

I think you might bave misunderstood my post, by "climate activism" I mean precisely the more political stuff which challenges the corporate power to which you refer.

I would agree with you, that is definitely the more important area to dedicate effort to.

>>4664
No, that particular fascist dogwhistle has been thoroughly and repeatedly demolished in the other thread, despite your attempts to pretend otherwise.

>>4668
Link?

>>4669

>>/b/425684

>>4668

Can you elaborate on the link between fascism and not having children in order to save the environment? I'm sure the point of a dogwhistle is to be unnoticed by those not in the know, in which case this particular dogwhistle has been successful.

>>4671
Do you know how to search for key strings on a page? Ctrl or cmd and f? Do that.

>>4672

Prick.

>>4673
I'm not the one demanding to have something typed out specially for me that I know has already been typed out, instead of just looking for it.

>>4674

No, you're just a prick.

>>4675
And you're a lazy, entitled prick, whoopty doo.

How much carbon does calling each other pricks produce? Can we get a breakdown on that, purphuel?

I just love Greta worshippers, they are totally irrational and easy to trigger. Speaking with them is like speaking with an hardcore "insert any religion or ideology here". Once I tried to explain to a vegan eco hipster that his avocado and asparagus were transported via ship from 3000 Kms away, so their carbon footprint was way bigger than the carbon footprint from a locally sourced beef steak. I also tried to explain him how his electrical scooter was way less fuel efficient than a bus or a subway. He looked ready to murder me.

>>4678

I think they were probably angry because you're giving your opinion in bad faith to someone who is making an effort, however misguided that effort may be.

I'm the one arguing for political activism as a priority over lifestyle changes, to be clear, but I still wouldn't behave that way towards people who are trying.

If you really care about climate change, you'd surely suggest some other course of action as a priority, rather than suggesting someone eats a steak (when they might be vegan for other reasons). But honestly it doesn't sound like you want to do that, you just wanted to knock someone who you felt was a bit of a poser.

Your post does sort of illustrate another pitfall of prioritising personal lifestyle choices, though, even putting aside my genuine belief that climate change is better addressed as a structural problem.

>>4678

>I tried to explain to a vegan eco hipster that his avocado and asparagus were transported via ship from 3000 Kms away, so their carbon footprint was way bigger than the carbon footprint from a locally sourced beef steak. I also tried to explain him how his electrical scooter was way less fuel efficient than a bus or a subway.

You're badly wrong on both counts.

Sea freight is outrageously efficient, averaging around 60g/ton/mile. Shipping a typical 300g avocado from Mexico to Europe therefore produces about 120g of CO2 emissions.

Low-carbon beef production results in about 22kg of CO2e emissions per kg of meat, so your locally sourced 8oz sirloin results in about 5kg of CO2e emissions. Even factoring in road miles and refrigeration, an avocado has vastly lower CO2 emissions than beef per kilo or per calorie.

A bus of typical efficiency with a typical passenger load produces approximately 125g of CO2 per passenger mile. A Xiaomi M365 scooter has a battery capacity of 280wh and a range of 18 miles, giving us a power consumption of around 17 watt-hours per mile factoring in conversion losses during charging. Exceptionally dirty coal-generated electricity results in emissions of about 0.7g/Wh, giving us grid emissions of about 12g per mile in the worst-case scenario. Assuming that the scooter is simply landfilled after 3000 miles rather than being repaired or recycled, the embodied carbon of manufacturing works out to about 40g/mile based on a worst-case estimate.

https://carbonfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/emission-factors_mar_2018_0.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2535638/

https://www.delijn.be/en/overdelijn/organisatie/zorgzaam-ondernemen/milieu/co2-uitstoot-voertuigen.html

>>4679

Stop using this "arguing in bad faith" meme you've picked up from Twitter/Reddit, lad. It's a base fallacy that just neatly sidesteps addressing a potentially valid argument. I've only seen it used by by enthusiastic young lefties who don't understand the purpose of rhetoric, but it's a bad habit they need to grow out of.

>>4681

Arguing in bad faith, as I understand it, is a term used in law and philosophy to mean when someone is arguing a position they don't really have any interest in so that they achieve some other ulterior goal.

I think that's exactly what that poster was doing. Did he really care about climate change, or did he just want to show up a hipster?

You're right, of course, pointing that out does nothing to address his arguments. People like >>4680 are apparently way more equipped to do that than me.

I do still think it's worth pointing out, though, because it's pointless to alienate people who are trying because you don't like them, personally. Again, as someone involved in the political side of things, I work with people who I don't particularly enjoy being around all the time -- but when I talk tactics or best approaches with them, I try to make the case in such a way that doesn't leave them humiliated and angry. If your argument is sound enough, there's no need for it, and I think it actually undermines the cause.

>>4682

As I said, I just wanted to trigger the hipster. It's useless to argue with a fanatic, he will just distort the data, present fake data from dubious sources, or just get irrationally angry.
Even if he loses the argument, he will remove it from his memory and present the same debunked data the next time he argues with somebody. I have seen people pretending to agree when presented with evidence that their data was wrong, then using the same data five minutes later with a different interlocutor.

Arguing with people like this is just a way of poking fun at retards: they have nothing useful to teach you and they cannot learn anything from you because their mental blocks censor everything that does not agree with their ideology.

>>4684
>I just wanted to trigger the hipster.

>>4684

"I just wanted to trigger the hipster".

No one cares, well done for acknowledging you're being a twat for the sake of being a twat.

Chipping in on 'good/bad faith', I've always understood it as a benefit of the doubt thing. You can interpret the same information completely differently depending on whether you think the other person is stupid or smart. Conversations are always a lot more interesting when people assume the latter, in my experience.

>>4684

>they cannot learn anything from you because their mental blocks censor everything that does not agree with their ideology.

How's that tribalism going for ya there pal?

>>4684

>trigger the hipster

Please leave this website, forever. You are dull, and thick.

"Hipster"? What decade is it?

>>4689

It's the twenties.

>>4687

Not well, to be honest. I miss the time when people were not so polarized and extremized. Now it seems that everyone just wants to lock himself in his little subreddit to smell his own farts. It's sad, when I think about it. In the meantime, I just laugh at the clown world. Honk honk.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>4691
Mate.

>>4691

Yay. Assuming that's the same tosser who wanted to 'trigger hipsters', I don't think he realises the ironing regarding his statement on polarisation.

>>4655
Thank you brother.

>>4659
Thank you for your efforts. Reducing food waste is also a big one. If it goes to landfill it lets off methane which is even worse than CO2.

Would you be able to grow your own veg in some large plant pots? Would you be able to rent an allotment? Community gardens also exist where you can volunteer and grow your own.

>>4664
Are you from the voluntary human extinction movement?

>>4665
People from the less developed world emit less CO2 emissions per capita than western countries. Castrate yourself.

>>4677
Reading an email emits a few grams so I assume that much.

https://www.websitecarbon.com/website/britfa-gs/

>>4694
>Would you be able to grow your own veg in some large plant pots?
Yes I do, but yield is limited compared to what you can grow in good ground. There's also the environmental impact of plastic or terracotta pots to consider, and of shop-bought compost if you can't produce enough of your own to fill them.

>Would you be able to rent an allotment? Community gardens also exist where you can volunteer and grow your own.
I've been meaning to put my name down on the waiting list for one of the local allotments, but waiting lists just about everywhere are huge.
....We should be trying to force developers to set aside land for new allotments on larger new housing estates, but land is way to expensive for them to even think of volunteering. Allotments have a huge benefit to local communities, and councils should have more focus on expanding their availability, but they seem to be seen as archaic and burdens on their resources, god forbid they demand developers make a dent in their profit to create new ones.

>>4696
Why not just turn your garden into an allotment? Or don't you have one?

Recycle your cum by eating it. It is a cruelty free source of protein.

>>4698

>cruelty free

Not the way I do it.

I've got the pension thing down, only buying meat from the reduced section and never beef or lamb. Been on renewable energy two or three years now (do not use Green Star Energy they are fucking awful).
Don't grow much veg as the garden's growing wildflowers and insect habitats. Growing a lot of specialist stuff indoors though, mainly in reused or scavenged plastic containers. 2/3 of the outdoor property is paved or concreted over so I'm putting planters out on the concrete and building a green canopy over the paving. Earmarked a space for a greenhouse too, when I can afford that. Vermicomposting didn't work, there's too much waste for the worms to break down so I'll have to build a bigger one for the garden when it gets a bit warmer out.
Only ever walk or use public transport, I'm not flying anywhere. Solar panels and heat pumps I've looked into but they're way out of my price range. Switched to a green bank; Triodos. Direct debit to Greenpeace set up. Stopped buying "new" clothes (except for socks and underwear) not that that was a challenge, as a bloke. Stopped buying non-vegan beer, that was harder (barnivore.com is handy). Spent more time in the past year volunteering for XR than I have on my day job. Done quite a lot for other environmental concerns too, just helping out where I can. My Ecosia counter is up to 1061 which apparently translates to 23 or so trees planted on my behalf.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51197463

>>4701
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/10/29/coca-cola-named-the-worlds-most-polluting-brand-in-plastic-waste-audit/

>>4700
Nice one. I'm gonna start growing out doors in February. But might as well start indoors now.

Smart meters are good but you have to deal with IoT and it possibly spying on you.

>>4704
Doesn't your provider let you set the update frequency? I can do once a month if I wanted.

>>4704
Remember that in IoT, the S stands for security.

>>4700
>Growing a lot of specialist stuff indoors though, mainly in reused or scavenged plastic containers.
I was thinking of growing some things at home, what do you grow, and what have you scavenged to help?

I was growing basil on my windowsill but harvested the lot before Christmas as I was going away for two weeks.

>>4707
Mostly herbs and spices at the moment. Here's some garlic growing in plastic builder's buckets I picked up. They're caked with dried concrete but I hammered some holes in the bottom of two as pots, the ones underneath are the drip trays.

You can do something similar with the plastic takeaway boxes to make propagators; set one base with drain holes in the bottom inside an undamaged one with some cotton poked through as a wick to bring moisture up to the compost/soil the topmost one has in. Keeps it moist without drowning anything. Keep the lid on until the seedlings hit it then replace it with various other larger upturned transparent containers for the greenhouse effect.

Here's a couple of variations of that.

Here's a 4AM idea for one of you two budding climate scientists, catalytic converters for cow arses.

Looking in to it there are significant problems with current level catalysation technology, methane catalysts still require temperatures of 600 C to work and even then aren't perfect, but given how adamant you all are that we can't eat steaks anymore because of methane I'm sure you can come up with a workable solution within the decade.

To break down the solutions, we have a few options, first we have to consider on what scale we're going to trap the cow farts, individually or on a factory scale. If individually we need a device that straps to their rumps, if on a factory scale we need to release shitloads of funds to wall in massive amounts of cow grazing land in an airtight building.

Now the most cost effective solution is obviously the individual scale, so let's look at that. Building a device that can seal around flesh is easy, we already have gas masks, these are just larger versions of those. We can either catalyse the methane in situ or capture it in absorbent filters to be processed elsewhere, changed weekly, daily or even monthly.

The chemical problems: discovering a catalyst that can break down or alter methane, discovering a filter that can absorb methane.

The mechanical problems: allowing waste matter to be expelled while retaining or transforming waste gasses. There's an obvious solution here with mechanical pressure plates and whatnot, but as I understand it methane is lighter than air so should send 90% of its molecules upwards, whereas cow shit will fall straight down. We could solve this problem simply by shaping the device like a plague doctor mask, with an open bottom. We'll capture or catalyse 90% of the methane while allowing cow pats to escape the cow and device without significant levels of soilage.

The social problems: no farmer is going to want to chase down every cow every day to change the filters. Good luck with this one.

>>4766

Yes we could do all that nonsense but
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-swiss-cows/swiss-cow-feed-causes-fewer-farts-and-puts-the-squeeze-on-global-warming-idUSKCN1MD151
seems like a more viable option to me. It still doesn't help cut down on emissions from transporting the meat, or reduce the amount of deforestation or overuse of clean water for cattle rearing and growing cattle feed in the first place. It's a climate and ecological emergency, lab grown meat from a less land and water intensive base is the only realistic way to continue producing meat.

>>47676
It's burps, too, so enjoy your cattle in gimp masks.

>>4767
Didn't I also see that stirring a bit of charcoal into cattle feed has a substantial reduction in methane?
Of course, we'd probably source the charcoal by burning down rain forests.

>>4767

I still find it vaguely amusing that the ironic elephant in the room everyone constantly skirts around is how this ethical vegan future we must adopt necessitates a bovine genocide, merely for the crime of farting too much. I don't know if I'm the only one, it's just some really nice existential black humour I think.

>>4769
I'm fairly sure that number we'd have to kill or let die in a short space of time if we stopped eating and milking them would be much smaller than the amount we kill for food as a matter of course in a relatively short amount of time.

>>4770

That's generally not how cattle farming works, no. You get a lot more beef than you'd imagine from a single bull, and you keep most alive for breeding/dairy production.

Red meat I can agree we generally need less of as a whole (though I'd also imagine it's a very middle class problem, as a poorlad I would mostly exist on chicken, if that and even now I very rarely eat beef outside of a very occasional Sunday roast) but dairy is an entirely different matter. There simply aren't any good alternatives, stuff like almond milk is demonstrably worse for the environment and ecosystem.

>>4769
>a bovine genocide

We artificially inseminate cows to produce their young and stimulate milk production - the resulting males we just shoot in the head because there is no market for veal in this country, while the females are then pumped full of growth hormones and the cycle is repeated. It would be far less cruel to exterminate the lot of them; dairy herds are not wild animals that roam the countryside, they are genetically bred within a narrow window, for food production.

>>4771
If we kill, or otherwise allow to die, the current generation of cattle all in one go then that's Y deaths. If we carry on as usual, when the second generation dies that's 2xY deaths. It's very simple. For food or dairy.

>>4771

>There simply aren't any good alternatives

Oat milk. Almond milk is an environmental shitshow, but oat milk is ridiculously economical.

>>4774
Use it with your porridge to make double porridge. I made this once - it was really nice. What put me off buying oat milk again was the strange singles ad on the side of the box, something about a vegan friend looking for a boyfriend, heavily implying you.

I think grains may become my 'special interest'. Cerial grains are simply grass seeds, according to wikipedia. Facinating! I've been interested in finding a supplyer of various flours and coarse grains for a while now - making ship biscuits, country cakes and other such old fashioned recipes really appeals to me.

>>4775

Do you subscribe to Townsends on YouTube, by any chance?

Shipton Mill do all sorts of poncey flours.

https://www.shipton-mill.com/flour-direct-shop/flour

>>4775
If they're a special interest you should probably learn to spell the most simple one that you've been seeing on the side of your breakfast since you were a wain. I agree though, oat milk even tastes the best of all the milk substitutes.

>>4774

It also tastes fine in tea - once you get used to it. It has a very different mouthfeel however, and you need some good thick stuff otherwise you need to add loads.

I feel like dairy milk is just something you get habituated to, like the way you notice tapwater from different areas when you move around.

>>4778
>I feel like dairy milk is just something you get habituated to, like the way you notice tapwater from different areas when you move around.
I've noticed a difference between supermarket milks, before - enough to ruin tea (until you get used to it, like you say). Sainsburies seems to be sweeter. Every time i have a Tesco milk I can't get the idea out of my head that it's full of cyst liquid - kind of salty. Co-Op is obviously be best because it's the one i'm most used to (well, Gold Top is the best but it's pretty expensive).

>>4774
>>4775

Can you recommended any oat milk brands?

>>4780

It's piss-easy to make - one cup of rolled oats, three cups of water, blend for 30-40 seconds and strain through a coffee filter or a fine sieve. Add salt and/or sugar to taste. If it has a claggy porridge texture, you've blended for too long.

>>4780

I like Partly the best, and it seems most people do because it keeps selling out at the local Sainsbury's. There's a 'full fat' version that's the best imo. I suppose the benefit to buying it is they add minerals to make it an actual milk substitute, if your diet would otherwise be lacking (as it probably would be if you're vegan).

>>4712
How important is vermiculite?

Saw it on here https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/grow-your-own/vegetables/chilli-pepper

>>4788

It acts as a water reservoir, so it'll help prevent the soil from getting either too wet or too dry. It's not necessary, but it'll improve your chances of success.