All Things Environment

[foreverlax]

They thought the storm was going to Alabama.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Trump said so...it must be true.

[youthathletics]

It might circle back around.

[cradleandshoot]

That was quite the sheepdip show on CNN last night. It verifies something I have already know for a very long time. You folks in the chicken little brigade do not give rats rear end about saving the planet. The objective is pushing forward everybody's personal pet agendas. The collective ignorance and stupidity of this group of folks was stunning. I listened to some of the low lights of the evening. Any person that could suffer through 7 hours of this fiasco should be awarded a purple heart.

Yikes, that's some 'review'.

So...where did you find the "low lights"?

I flipped a couple of times into the programming and basically realized that I would do better with my time looking at reviews/comparisons (by the more moderate press...and my fellow posters on here!) of the various folks' thoughts rather than trying to watch all the town meetings 'live'. 7 hours!

I did happen to catch a moment where Warren had a little bit of a deer in the head lights look when asked about whether she agreed with Bernie that the energy companies should be all taken over by the federal government, as 'energy is a right', sort of notion. First I'd heard that Bernie was throwing that idea out there on the bleeding edge left! I was pleased that Warren resisted the impulse to decry private enterprise, the questioner was asking her to reject capitalism...She led with saying that she certainly had demonstrated her willingness to challenge large companies, but that she felt that private enterprise and profit making had an important role in driving the sorts of innovations necessary to address our climate and other environmental and ecosystem challenges. That was reassuring, as I see her as the most likely far lefty to get the nomination and sounds like she's not an anti-capitalist in this realm and wasn't going to go there just because some of Bernie's voters might want her to do so. Not that I want her to be the candidate, but if she is, I was glad she wasn't going to be bleeding edge.

Later, I heard Booker discussing his proposals and he's obviously not bleeding edge, sees questions through a scientific lens, believes in a portfolio set of responses and major increases in R & D, all of which I agree with. On the other hand, $3T investment proposal. I liked that when he was asked a question that he really didn't have an answer on (a scientific approach that's pretty out there), he said so straightforwardly. Didn't try to BS it. Also very interesting that he went to bat for the current technology developments, R&D, in nuclear. Not a popular position with many, but he said he'd dug into the science and safety and believes that it may be the only practical way to achieve the necessary carbon goals in the time frame.

I already know that I'm comfortable with Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar, smart and practical...will have to look at the others, but I expect they're all in a range I'd be fine with...except Bernie.

To me, actually taking the challenge seriously is a no-brainer. If a politician doesn't they've lost me. From there I want to see depth of thought and a degree of restraint that looks at how most effectively to address the challenges while driving post economic outcomes.

I really don't get the anti-science bias out there on the hard right. A lot of overlap with the anti-vaccine fanatics and the Moon landing deniers.

Sure seems flat earth to me.

But maybe it's all part of this 'anti-elite' thing that some find viscerally appealing because it validates their lack of actual expertise themselves, elevates emotions over data and expertise.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... n-control/ This is about as low as it got I think. After 7 hours of this sheepdip it is no wonder Bidens eyeball almost blew up. I have said this before these do not give a rats behind about saving the planet. It is about getting as many trillions dedicated to their pet projects and conning people into believing it is about "saving the planet" If some of you all want to believe these folks are sincere how do you draw the line between saving the planet and Crazy Bernies belief that maybe we just need to eradicate a few hundred million people or so and then the planet will be just fine. I don't know what to tell you MD. When pure unadulterated stupidity jumps up and bites you in the arse, I would think you might feel it. If you think Crazy Bernies idea has merit, I would love to read your opinion(hopefully in under 30 paragraphs)

I am certain most of the folks on this forum thought they were witnessing the best and brightest minds in the country( if you were brave enough to sit through 7 hours) What I observed was a roomful of imbeciles jockeying for position to see who can get more trillions for their ideas. Maybe I am just too cynical in not believing that this is a freaking crisis. IMO it is just a good old fashioned attempt at extortion by scaring people into believing the planet only has 10 more years to be fixed. Raise your hands out there folks. How many of you believe we only have 10 years left to fix it?

[MDlaxfan76]

That was quite the sheepdip show on CNN last night. It verifies something I have already know for a very long time. You folks in the chicken little brigade do not give rats rear end about saving the planet. The objective is pushing forward everybody's personal pet agendas. The collective ignorance and stupidity of this group of folks was stunning. I listened to some of the low lights of the evening. Any person that could suffer through 7 hours of this fiasco should be awarded a purple heart.

Yikes, that's some 'review'.

So...where did you find the "low lights"?

I flipped a couple of times into the programming and basically realized that I would do better with my time looking at reviews/comparisons (by the more moderate press...and my fellow posters on here!) of the various folks' thoughts rather than trying to watch all the town meetings 'live'. 7 hours!

I did happen to catch a moment where Warren had a little bit of a deer in the head lights look when asked about whether she agreed with Bernie that the energy companies should be all taken over by the federal government, as 'energy is a right', sort of notion. First I'd heard that Bernie was throwing that idea out there on the bleeding edge left! I was pleased that Warren resisted the impulse to decry private enterprise, the questioner was asking her to reject capitalism...She led with saying that she certainly had demonstrated her willingness to challenge large companies, but that she felt that private enterprise and profit making had an important role in driving the sorts of innovations necessary to address our climate and other environmental and ecosystem challenges. That was reassuring, as I see her as the most likely far lefty to get the nomination and sounds like she's not an anti-capitalist in this realm and wasn't going to go there just because some of Bernie's voters might want her to do so. Not that I want her to be the candidate, but if she is, I was glad she wasn't going to be bleeding edge.

Later, I heard Booker discussing his proposals and he's obviously not bleeding edge, sees questions through a scientific lens, believes in a portfolio set of responses and major increases in R & D, all of which I agree with. On the other hand, $3T investment proposal. I liked that when he was asked a question that he really didn't have an answer on (a scientific approach that's pretty out there), he said so straightforwardly. Didn't try to BS it. Also very interesting that he went to bat for the current technology developments, R&D, in nuclear. Not a popular position with many, but he said he'd dug into the science and safety and believes that it may be the only practical way to achieve the necessary carbon goals in the time frame.

I already know that I'm comfortable with Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar, smart and practical...will have to look at the others, but I expect they're all in a range I'd be fine with...except Bernie.

To me, actually taking the challenge seriously is a no-brainer. If a politician doesn't they've lost me. From there I want to see depth of thought and a degree of restraint that looks at how most effectively to address the challenges while driving post economic outcomes.

I really don't get the anti-science bias out there on the hard right. A lot of overlap with the anti-vaccine fanatics and the Moon landing deniers.

Sure seems flat earth to me.

But maybe it's all part of this 'anti-elite' thing that some find viscerally appealing because it validates their lack of actual expertise themselves, elevates emotions over data and expertise.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... n-control/ This is about as low as it got I think. After 7 hours of this sheepdip it is no wonder Bidens eyeball almost blew up. I have said this before these do not give a rats behind about saving the planet. It is about getting as many trillions dedicated to their pet projects and conning people into believing it is about "saving the planet" If some of you all want to believe these folks are sincere how do you draw the line between saving the planet and Crazy Bernies belief that maybe we just need to eradicate a few hundred million people or so and then the planet will be just fine. I don't know what to tell you MD. When pure unadulterated stupidity jumps up and bites you in the arse, I would think you might feel it. If you think Crazy Bernies idea has merit, I would love to read your opinion(hopefully in under 30 paragraphs)

I am certain most of the folks on this forum thought they were witnessing the best and brightest minds in the country( if you were brave enough to sit through 7 hours) What I observed was a roomful of imbeciles jockeying for position to see who can get more trillions for their ideas. Maybe I am just too cynical in not believing that this is a freaking crisis. IMO it is just a good old fashioned attempt at extortion by scaring people into believing the planet only has 10 more years to be fixed. Raise your hands out there folks. How many of you believe we only have 10 years left to fix it?

Yikes, from what you described above as Bernie's view "maybe we just need to eradicate a few hundred million people or so and then the planet will be just fine," I was prepared to be be outraged as well. Though I was pretty sure no other Dem candidate else would sign up for that.

Guess I was gullible enough to think Bernie might actually have such a kooky idea.

But I then read the piece.
The only "sheep-dip" is your characterization.

[LandM]

MD,
What is yikes is the people that are the front runners for the D party. If you are gonna ban fracking - good luck in PA. Today on my way to PSU I will probably see thousands of trucks - frackers. The D's will lose PA just on that. I have been in a few stadiums where manure can be smelled. PSU has to be the smelliest - are the D's gonna ban the animals - now you have lost PA, parts of MI and WI. Off shore drilling - now you have a chunk of the east coast in play. Trump will be a buzz saw into each of them. Some of the questionnaires reminded me of Ford, meeky and squeaky and everyone of the supposed front runners cow-towed to a very liberal audience. Hopefully someone steps up as the D's have no shot at winning with their platform.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Like the Republican field last cycle..... I am not paying much attention until the general election. I have found that a lot of the people that were Trump guys last election, are indifferent. A lot of people are going to hold their nose like the last cycle. This is where we are.

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
What is yikes is the people that are the front runners for the D party. If you are gonna ban fracking - good luck in PA. Today on my way to PSU I will probably see thousands of trucks - frackers. The D's will lose PA just on that. I have been in a few stadiums where manure can be smelled. PSU has to be the smelliest - are the D's gonna ban the animals - now you have lost PA, parts of MI and WI. Off shore drilling - now you have a chunk of the east coast in play. Trump will be a buzz saw into each of them. Some of the questionnaires reminded me of Ford, meeky and squeaky and everyone of the supposed front runners cow-towed to a very liberal audience. Hopefully someone steps up as the D's have no shot at winning with their platform.

Well, that's quite a pivot.

The fracking question seems to be a fraught one.
I don't think it's simply about carbon, rather it's mostly about the pollution in the fracking process.
Some communities have had serious issues with this problem.
Put the two together and I understand why some states don't want fracking.

No, you have nothing to worry about 'ban the animals'. Have no idea what you are referring to re manure in stadiums.

[LandM]

MD,
Do not believe to be a pivot so I am not sure what that was intended for, in your comment.
The manure is that at PSU there is a cow farm and AG buildings literally across the road. On some days you can smell the manure watching the game and it is not coming from the field of play . My point was Harris wants to refit what you eat to help climate change - that is a nothing burger

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD,
Do not believe to be a pivot so I am not sure what that was intended for, in your comment.
The manure is that at PSU there is a cow farm and AG buildings literally across the road. On some days you can smell the manure watching the game and it is not coming from the field of play . My point was Harris wants to refit what you eat to help climate change - that is a nothing burger

It’s not so much what we eat versus how much is wasted. We use a lot of water and energy in the commercial production of meat. Less demand shrinks the supply. Every little bit helps. Not about All or Nothing. I am eating more fish. But I will have a steak as well. 2 or 3 less a year ain’t going to kill me.

[cradleandshoot]

That was quite the sheepdip show on CNN last night. It verifies something I have already know for a very long time. You folks in the chicken little brigade do not give rats rear end about saving the planet. The objective is pushing forward everybody's personal pet agendas. The collective ignorance and stupidity of this group of folks was stunning. I listened to some of the low lights of the evening. Any person that could suffer through 7 hours of this fiasco should be awarded a purple heart.

Yikes, that's some 'review'.

So...where did you find the "low lights"?

I flipped a couple of times into the programming and basically realized that I would do better with my time looking at reviews/comparisons (by the more moderate press...and my fellow posters on here!) of the various folks' thoughts rather than trying to watch all the town meetings 'live'. 7 hours!

I did happen to catch a moment where Warren had a little bit of a deer in the head lights look when asked about whether she agreed with Bernie that the energy companies should be all taken over by the federal government, as 'energy is a right', sort of notion. First I'd heard that Bernie was throwing that idea out there on the bleeding edge left! I was pleased that Warren resisted the impulse to decry private enterprise, the questioner was asking her to reject capitalism...She led with saying that she certainly had demonstrated her willingness to challenge large companies, but that she felt that private enterprise and profit making had an important role in driving the sorts of innovations necessary to address our climate and other environmental and ecosystem challenges. That was reassuring, as I see her as the most likely far lefty to get the nomination and sounds like she's not an anti-capitalist in this realm and wasn't going to go there just because some of Bernie's voters might want her to do so. Not that I want her to be the candidate, but if she is, I was glad she wasn't going to be bleeding edge.

Later, I heard Booker discussing his proposals and he's obviously not bleeding edge, sees questions through a scientific lens, believes in a portfolio set of responses and major increases in R & D, all of which I agree with. On the other hand, $3T investment proposal. I liked that when he was asked a question that he really didn't have an answer on (a scientific approach that's pretty out there), he said so straightforwardly. Didn't try to BS it. Also very interesting that he went to bat for the current technology developments, R&D, in nuclear. Not a popular position with many, but he said he'd dug into the science and safety and believes that it may be the only practical way to achieve the necessary carbon goals in the time frame.

I already know that I'm comfortable with Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar, smart and practical...will have to look at the others, but I expect they're all in a range I'd be fine with...except Bernie.

To me, actually taking the challenge seriously is a no-brainer. If a politician doesn't they've lost me. From there I want to see depth of thought and a degree of restraint that looks at how most effectively to address the challenges while driving post economic outcomes.

I really don't get the anti-science bias out there on the hard right. A lot of overlap with the anti-vaccine fanatics and the Moon landing deniers.

Sure seems flat earth to me.

But maybe it's all part of this 'anti-elite' thing that some find viscerally appealing because it validates their lack of actual expertise themselves, elevates emotions over data and expertise.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... n-control/ This is about as low as it got I think. After 7 hours of this sheepdip it is no wonder Bidens eyeball almost blew up. I have said this before these do not give a rats behind about saving the planet. It is about getting as many trillions dedicated to their pet projects and conning people into believing it is about "saving the planet" If some of you all want to believe these folks are sincere how do you draw the line between saving the planet and Crazy Bernies belief that maybe we just need to eradicate a few hundred million people or so and then the planet will be just fine. I don't know what to tell you MD. When pure unadulterated stupidity jumps up and bites you in the arse, I would think you might feel it. If you think Crazy Bernies idea has merit, I would love to read your opinion(hopefully in under 30 paragraphs)

I am certain most of the folks on this forum thought they were witnessing the best and brightest minds in the country( if you were brave enough to sit through 7 hours) What I observed was a roomful of imbeciles jockeying for position to see who can get more trillions for their ideas. Maybe I am just too cynical in not believing that this is a freaking crisis. IMO it is just a good old fashioned attempt at extortion by scaring people into believing the planet only has 10 more years to be fixed. Raise your hands out there folks. How many of you believe we only have 10 years left to fix it?

Yikes, from what you described above as Bernie's view "maybe we just need to eradicate a few hundred million people or so and then the planet will be just fine," I was prepared to be be outraged as well. Though I was pretty sure no other Dem candidate else would sign up for that.

Guess I was gullible enough to think Bernie might actually have such a kooky idea.

But I then read the piece.
The only "sheep-dip" is your characterization.

A question for you MD. when these folks climb up on the stump and scream we only have 10 more years... what are they really saying? Are they dead serious? Are they lying? Are they telling a tall tale? Is it a misstatement? If your gonna throw that line out while begging for trillions of dollars to hunt for unicorns... you should have all your ducks in a row first.

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
Do not believe to be a pivot so I am not sure what that was intended for, in your comment.
The manure is that at PSU there is a cow farm and AG buildings literally across the road. On some days you can smell the manure watching the game and it is not coming from the field of play . My point was Harris wants to refit what you eat to help climate change - that is a nothing burger

It’s not so much what we eat versus how much is wasted. We use a lot of water and energy in the commercial production of meat. Less demand shrinks the supply. Every little bit helps. Not about All or Nothing. I am eating more fish. But I will have a steak as well. 2 or 3 less a year ain’t going to kill me.

This is actually right in my wheelhouse at DinnerTime.com and our joint venture/development project with healthy food search and discovery startup "Sifter" being created by the founders of grocery delivery pioneer Peapod (Ahold Delhaize) and CPG data syndication leader ItemMaster. We're making a major announcement in 1 week at the major conference Groceryshop.

On this particular point, there is a very strong trend in what many folks call "flexitarian" diets that include increased vegetarian and vegan meals mixed with some seafood, meats, dairy etc. Others are choosing "pescatarian" lifestyles, others vegetarian or vegan. But "flexitarian" is a particularly strong trend as many folks (like you and me TLD) don't want to be too rigid but at the same time there's lots of benefits of eating more plant based, nutritionally dense and diverse meals, less meat overall.

There is a tremendous amount of capital interest in meeting this rapidly increasing consumer demand. Both independent start-ups creating meat and fish and dairy alternatives, and major CPG companies and grocers investing in these start-ups and/or bringing out their own R&D lines. For instance, Tyson Foods, the world's largest meat company, was an early investor in Beyond Meat, exiting that investment quite successfully when they decided to bring out their own competitive line. They just invested in alternative shrimp start-up, New Wave: https://www.just-food.com/news/tyson-fo ... 42168.aspx

On the meat side, we see plant based alternatives growing rapidly and we're also seeing lab grown real meat products with the latter's advantage being more efficient and more ethical to produce the same amount of actual beef or pork etc versus the standard process. Both have their issues, but they're rapidly producing better and better alternatives for consumers wishing to make these choices. Similarly, all sorts of dairy products as alternatives to cow milk, same for eggs.

As I have a Type 2 Diabetes brother-in-law in the household, we have also grown accustomed to substituting high protein low carb pastas made from various types of beans. It ain't the same, but for everyday sorts of meals, it enables us to have pasta guilt free. And I like me some pasta. I'll do pasta at a first rate restaurant as a splurge, just the way I'd do a great steak. But I'm much more likely now to order smaller portions or doggy bag while filling up more on the veggies. Pretty common according to our data and that of the industry analysts.

These trends are creating all sorts of disruption in the "Big Food" space with small brands taking share at a rapid clip. Add to this the rise of high quality grocer private label and big CPG is having lots of challenges. So, they're trying to play too ala Tyson's investments.

The DinnerTime/Sifter-Inside project will enable highly personalized meal planning and sale-smart grocery shopping informed by the most-in-depth data on available food products, such that whatever your personal preferences, health concerns, food allergies, medications, tastes, budget, cooking skill etc, you can easily find (automatically recommended as well as search) meals/recipes and healthy products that fit your needs, with a complete shopping list automatically generated instantaneously, connected to your favorite grocer for in-store, pick-up, or delivery.

For food brands we provide a perfect opportunity to reach their target customers and to tell their story in a rich way. And very interesting data.

We see part of our role as being able to generate confidence for CPG brands, large and small, that their innovations will reach the consumers most likely to appreciate their offerings, and for these consumer signals to help drive future offerings. But we're obviously just one small player in the overall ecosystem.

But I have to chuckle at folks getting all in a twist over this as if they won't be able to get a good steak any more...

[MDlaxfan76]

That was quite the sheepdip show on CNN last night. It verifies something I have already know for a very long time. You folks in the chicken little brigade do not give rats rear end about saving the planet. The objective is pushing forward everybody's personal pet agendas. The collective ignorance and stupidity of this group of folks was stunning. I listened to some of the low lights of the evening. Any person that could suffer through 7 hours of this fiasco should be awarded a purple heart.

Yikes, that's some 'review'.

So...where did you find the "low lights"?

I flipped a couple of times into the programming and basically realized that I would do better with my time looking at reviews/comparisons (by the more moderate press...and my fellow posters on here!) of the various folks' thoughts rather than trying to watch all the town meetings 'live'. 7 hours!

I did happen to catch a moment where Warren had a little bit of a deer in the head lights look when asked about whether she agreed with Bernie that the energy companies should be all taken over by the federal government, as 'energy is a right', sort of notion. First I'd heard that Bernie was throwing that idea out there on the bleeding edge left! I was pleased that Warren resisted the impulse to decry private enterprise, the questioner was asking her to reject capitalism...She led with saying that she certainly had demonstrated her willingness to challenge large companies, but that she felt that private enterprise and profit making had an important role in driving the sorts of innovations necessary to address our climate and other environmental and ecosystem challenges. That was reassuring, as I see her as the most likely far lefty to get the nomination and sounds like she's not an anti-capitalist in this realm and wasn't going to go there just because some of Bernie's voters might want her to do so. Not that I want her to be the candidate, but if she is, I was glad she wasn't going to be bleeding edge.

Later, I heard Booker discussing his proposals and he's obviously not bleeding edge, sees questions through a scientific lens, believes in a portfolio set of responses and major increases in R & D, all of which I agree with. On the other hand, $3T investment proposal. I liked that when he was asked a question that he really didn't have an answer on (a scientific approach that's pretty out there), he said so straightforwardly. Didn't try to BS it. Also very interesting that he went to bat for the current technology developments, R&D, in nuclear. Not a popular position with many, but he said he'd dug into the science and safety and believes that it may be the only practical way to achieve the necessary carbon goals in the time frame.

I already know that I'm comfortable with Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar, smart and practical...will have to look at the others, but I expect they're all in a range I'd be fine with...except Bernie.

To me, actually taking the challenge seriously is a no-brainer. If a politician doesn't they've lost me. From there I want to see depth of thought and a degree of restraint that looks at how most effectively to address the challenges while driving post economic outcomes.

I really don't get the anti-science bias out there on the hard right. A lot of overlap with the anti-vaccine fanatics and the Moon landing deniers.

Sure seems flat earth to me.

But maybe it's all part of this 'anti-elite' thing that some find viscerally appealing because it validates their lack of actual expertise themselves, elevates emotions over data and expertise.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... n-control/ This is about as low as it got I think. After 7 hours of this sheepdip it is no wonder Bidens eyeball almost blew up. I have said this before these do not give a rats behind about saving the planet. It is about getting as many trillions dedicated to their pet projects and conning people into believing it is about "saving the planet" If some of you all want to believe these folks are sincere how do you draw the line between saving the planet and Crazy Bernies belief that maybe we just need to eradicate a few hundred million people or so and then the planet will be just fine. I don't know what to tell you MD. When pure unadulterated stupidity jumps up and bites you in the arse, I would think you might feel it. If you think Crazy Bernies idea has merit, I would love to read your opinion(hopefully in under 30 paragraphs)

I am certain most of the folks on this forum thought they were witnessing the best and brightest minds in the country( if you were brave enough to sit through 7 hours) What I observed was a roomful of imbeciles jockeying for position to see who can get more trillions for their ideas. Maybe I am just too cynical in not believing that this is a freaking crisis. IMO it is just a good old fashioned attempt at extortion by scaring people into believing the planet only has 10 more years to be fixed. Raise your hands out there folks. How many of you believe we only have 10 years left to fix it?

Yikes, from what you described above as Bernie's view "maybe we just need to eradicate a few hundred million people or so and then the planet will be just fine," I was prepared to be be outraged as well. Though I was pretty sure no other Dem candidate else would sign up for that.

Guess I was gullible enough to think Bernie might actually have such a kooky idea.

But I then read the piece.
The only "sheep-dip" is your characterization.

A question for you MD. when these folks climb up on the stump and scream we only have 10 more years... what are they really saying? Are they dead serious? Are they lying? Are they telling a tall tale? Is it a misstatement? If your gonna throw that line out while begging for trillions of dollars to hunt for unicorns... you should have all your ducks in a row first.

Again, I think you grossly exaggerate what most of these politicians are saying about "10 years".

The scientists have been warning that absent significant change in trajectory, and darn soon, the challenge will worsen potentially exponentially...and perhaps beyond our chance to mitigate it (ie melting tundra with released carbon capture) etc.

The concern is that if we simply punt this another decade we could be 'too late'. We don't know for sure that cliff isn't 2 decades or 3 decades away absent change, but the scientists are saying that if we wait, the odds of calamity rise a lot. So, taking action now is prudent.

Once you get to that point (which makes sense to me) then the question is how to best, most efficiently, change the trajectory. What are the policy choices, the investments, that have the best chance of having a material positive impact while minimizing negative costs? Can some of these investments drive job growth and economic benefits not merely be an ' insurance cost' ? These are important questions. I want to see them answered rationally, based on science and sound economics, including portfolio risk mitigation.

At the same time the politicians need to be concerned with how to rally capital, consumer, and voter sentiment to support these changes. A 10 year "moonshot" is one way to communicate the virtues of setting goals and deadlines. It's aspirational, but also important to actually drive toward.

But sure there are those who get caught up in the fray of trying to outbid one another in their signaling to voters for whom this is a key decision issue that they have the 'best' plan. I'm looking for the serious plan, not necessarily the biggest.

But whoever replaces the science-deniers currently in the White House, actually delivering on these multiple policy ambitions is never going to be easy as our legislative process is designed to work incrementally not just following the whims of the POTUS of the moment. So, don't expect that the furthest left or largest dollar amounts will prevail legislatively.

That's why I like candidates like Kobuchar who actually understand this dynamic and have successfully moved significant legislation, even when in the minority. That's because she's practical, willing to look for common ground rather than always taking the most extreme position for show.

Whoever does win the White House in 2020, I hope they'll be smart enough to recognize those realities and not blow the opportunity by reaching to the extremes.

[DMac]

McGovern said: "We worked with the Culinary Institute of America to set the gold standard for this product and then created a plant-based shrimp that has had rave reviews from the thousands of people who have tasted it.

Actually, wouldn't plant based shrimp be shrimp that were plant eaters? It's not plant based shrimp, it's plants made to taste like shrimp....should call it primp.

[youthathletics]

McGovern said: "We worked with the Culinary Institute of America to set the gold standard for this product and then created a plant-based shrimp that has had rave reviews from the thousands of people who have tasted it.

Actually, wouldn't plant based shrimp be shrimp that were plant eaters? It's not plant based shrimp, it's plants made to taste like shrimp....should call it primp.

And those that cook and prepare it....pimps.

[MDlaxfan76]

McGovern said: "We worked with the Culinary Institute of America to set the gold standard for this product and then created a plant-based shrimp that has had rave reviews from the thousands of people who have tasted it.

Actually, wouldn't plant based shrimp be shrimp that were plant eaters? It's not plant based shrimp, it's plants made to taste like shrimp....should call it primp.

I dunno what they will be allowed to label it (there's considerable controversy on the topic), but our system will be able to provide such products direct to shopping list in a 1:1 crosswalk in recipes to achieve a great answer for those who wish to choose it instead of actual shrimp.

This is all about meeting consumer demand. Capitalism at work.

If consumers don't want these products they won't buy them.
In our system, you get recommended whatever you tell us you would prefer.

New Wave Foods' debut 'shrimp' product aimed at the foodservice sector has less calories and salt than real shrimp, Tyson said. The product is made with seaweed and plant protein. It has no allergens and zero cholesterol, and like meat and regular seafood contains all eight 'essential" amino acids.

McGovern said: "We worked with the Culinary Institute of America to set the gold standard for this product and then created a plant-based shrimp that has had rave reviews from the thousands of people who have tasted it. Our product is a delicious, one-for-one direct swap for the real thing, and interchangeable in a wide range of recipes. It gives chefs and foodservice operators great menu options while addressing consumers' growing demand for sustainable choices."

It is the latest development in Tyson's plant-based aspirations as the category gains mainstream traction with many of the company's meat-producing counterparts joining the assault on sustainable protein options. In June, the Arkansas-based business launched a 'blended ' range of real meat products combined with plant-based ingredients – Raised & Rooted.

Amy Tu, president of Tyson Ventures, said: "We're excited about this investment in the fast-growing segment of the plant-based protein market. This continues our focus of identifying and investing in companies with disruptive products and breakthrough technologies related to our core business so we can continue to serve a growing global population."

New Wave Foods' McGovern added: "Our plant-based shrimp cooks and tastes just like the real thing, and it matches the texture, taste, performance and versatility of shrimp fresh from the ocean. The proof is in the overwhelming, positive response we have had to the product."

[old salt]

...no shells ?

[Trinity]

Add more horseradish to the cocktail sauce would be my plan. And beer.

[DMac]

Got nothing against it, MD, wish you well and hope the profits are through the roof. Just never have been much for this kind of thing (remember when marjorine was better for you than butter...eggs were no good for you...coffee, etc?), I've always taken the other angle and exercised. Weighed close to 180 as an 18 year old, and maintained that to my early 60s (minus one short period when I put on 50 lbs...lost that in no time, too). That's what's always made me feel best, and I've never given a second's thought to what I eat (but I've never been much of a junk food eater). I'll stick with the real shrimp with shells (boil those babies for the shrimp broth for your rice...or whatever). If I die four years earlier than the guy eating seaweed burgers and primp, I really don't care.

[cradleandshoot]

Got nothing against it, MD, wish you well and hope the profits are through the roof. Just never have been much for this kind of thing (remember when marjorine was better for you than butter...eggs were no good for you...coffee, etc?), I've always taken the other angle and exercised. Weighed close to 180 as an 18 year old, and maintained that to my early 60s. That's what's always made me feel best, and I've never given a second's thought to what I ate (but I've never been much of a junk food eater). I'll stick with the real shrimp with shells (boil those babies for the shrimp broth for your rice...or whatever). If I die four years earlier than the guy eating seaweed burgers and primp, I really don't care.
[/quote
If you keep eating those raw clams you will add 10 years to your life. Maybe 5 if you indulge them by dipping in cocktail sauce. ]