I don't see any call to action in that headline. Seems like they are just "stating a fact".
Well, I would suggest that you read the original study and attack dispassionately analyse the underlying data and method instead of rejecting the conclusion just because you don’t like it, but the Telegraph don’t appear to have provided a link to it, so 🤷♂️. It seems pretty incredible to me too.
Looking at it again though, they're saying that doesn't apply to tomatoes and asparagus.
Maybe because that produce is usually grown far away from the UK and shipped in on polluting ships and planes? I'm not sure.
Maybe because that produce is usually grown far away from the UK and shipped in on polluting ships and planes? I'm not sure.
>dispassionately analyse the underlying data and method
To be fair, I don't know how to do that either. But that's a skill issue on my (and your?) part and I would like to learn.
To be fair, I don't know how to do that either. But that's a skill issue on my (and your?) part and I would like to learn.
The article does seem to be focussing on CO² only.
Also it's entirely possible that they have misunderstood the study they are obliquely referring to (maybe that's why they don't link to it directly). I've heard of journalists doing that before.
Also it's entirely possible that they have misunderstood the study they are obliquely referring to (maybe that's why they don't link to it directly). I've heard of journalists doing that before.