Robin-H

The Peace Gardens? The Gold Route? Grey to Green?

You bought up the value of inclusivity, not me. Either you think it's worth mentioning, or you don't. I don't see how I have confused anything - you can distinguish between values and think some are valid and worth discussing and others aren't all you wish. Doesn't mean we have to agree with you. The fact you think I am a dietary or environmental zealot is laughable. I agree however that there is no value in discussing this further with you.

No - and I never said you had. You did however feel it was necessary to point out that your expense policy was company wide, as if that was in some way relevant (company values, one being inclusivity). I don't therefore see any issue with pointing out that is a value shared seemingly with Igloo, otherwise, why bring it up at all? Yes, it is clear you don't want to discuss the merits of such a policy on environmental grounds. Maybe it's because you realise arguing against a policy that can only do good is a bit silly.

Igloo's policy applies to all too, and their policy has also been derived from their values. They value the planet and our ability to continue to live on it sustainably and share its resources more equitably.

Just like how travel expenses are often exclusionary (we'll pay for your ticket as long as it's booked in advance and for a standard fare - you are free to travel first class if you wish but if you so you can pay for it yourself) rather than incentivised (here's the money for a first class ticket, feel free to book a standard class and you can keep the difference..) I don't have a problem with the former in that scenario, and I don't have a problem with Igloo doing it for subsidence expenses either...

That's not in their power without a change of the law, and I don't think a law proposing that instead of an independent body pay would be decided by themselves again would go down well... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23267244 Ipsa are adamant that they will pay MPs the rise whether they like it or not. What they do with it after they've received it is a matter for them.

No they don't, not anymore at least. Since 2011 MP's pay has been set by the The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Parliamentary_Standards_Authority

Fortunately for Igloo, a lot of people are searching out green and ethical business to give their custom to.

You realise that more than one thing can be bad for the planet at once right? Or do you not believe that the current levels of UK meat consumption are unsustainable and are harming the planet?

Then I don’t understand your question. The whole point of Igloo’s stance is down to the impact on the planet..that’s why they’re doing it.

If there was good evidence that our consumption of tea and coffee was unsustainable and damaging the planet, and that the alternatives the company was still offering to pay expenses for was as widely available and better for the planet, then I personally would absolutely fine with that. I can't speak for makapaka but I would imagine they would feel the same. As it happens, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is reducing consumption of meat and diary.

Igloo clearly understand the damage that unsustainable meat consumption has on the planet. The company voted and agreed that this measure was one small way they could help. If you don't think the typical UK consumption of meat is unsustainable then I suggest you look into it. I don't understand why a company agreeing to do one small thing for the benefit of the planet has got so many people riled up.

No 2. So what was published today?

There isn't a shortage, but the impact on the planet is undeniable, which is the problem. It is also undeniable that the planet could not sustain the UK's meat consumption globally. I find the attitude that we have some god given right to eat as much meat as we want and heaven forbid our employer requests we pay for our choice to do so quite bizarre. Who cares that our desire for meat is damaging the planet, the results of which most negatively impacting the poorest people on the planet. Who cares that those people could only dream of having access to the goods and food we somehow think we have an unquestionable entitlement too...

All they are saying is that they won't pay for your choice to eat meat. You can still eat as much meat as you want. Eating meat should be seen as a luxury if we have any hope of creating a more equal and sustainable planet (until lab grown meat can be produced cheaply and sustainably). By saying they won't pay for meat expenses Igloo are saying they view meat as a luxury, which I believe has to be the direction of travel. It's the same as a company saying they'll pay for your standard class rail ticket but if you want to travel first class you can pay for it yourself. If you have a suggestion how the entire planet could sustainably eat the amount of meat the UK eats per capita then I would be interested to hear it.

I think it's absolutely within their right yes. I don't think saying they won't pay for meat is an 'extreme exclusion' of food products. The company is trying to be more eco conscious, and have determined that incentivising the reduction in meat consumption is a relatively easy way of achieving this, considering the well established and understood negative impacts that meat production has on the environment. They are not saying you can't eat meat. You can work there and gorge 24 hours a day on ribeye steak and nobody could stop you. All they are saying is that they won't pay for the privilege, and let's not forget that the western diet is a privilege. The earth could not sustain us if everyone ate a western diet. It can barely sustain us now. I think people complaining and crying discrimination about this one attempt to reduce their environmental impact need to look at the the bigger picture.

Meat isn’t required to live either. They are still letting people claim for food.

Numbers don't stop being accurate just because you don't like where they were published. They are either accurate or they aren't. Unfortunately that source doesn't back up your claim at all, partially because it's actually talking about an entirely different thing. You said 'spend on Brexit preparations'. The source you provided is about the 'economic cost' of Brexit. Two entirely different things.

We are scheduled to shortly reach a spend level of £500 billion on Brexit preparations? Do you have a source for that? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12075046/Britain-has-given-half-a-trillion-pounds-to-EU-since-1973.html I assume you know why the debt has increased since 2010 and it’s not exactly the Conservatives fault. It’s a legacy of the very high deficit.

What do you define as 'austerity level' budgeting? Spending per head is higher now than it was in 2007 (adjusted for inflation).

Would a company that didn't pay food expenses at all be discriminating against people that eat food?

As the video explains, Inuits managed because they ate raw meat, blubber, raw liver etc. That prevented protein poisoning due to high fat content. They did actually also eat things such as berries, seaweed, tubers so even they didn't eat meat exclusively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine

I find that unlikely. You'd very likely be incredibly unhealthy.

I don't think that's quite right... (bolded bit) Nobody eats meat exclusively. Humans aren't carnivores.

It does explain it. It was cash in kind. What needs explaining?