I agree with the OP although its strayed way off topic now.
The JSO protesters have achieved something if they have brought the craziness of allowing new oil and gas fields to be opened up, rather than channelling resources into renewable energy. Having brought the subject to the public's attention, they have now changed their tactics to things like throwing orange confetti, which causes no-one any harm.
The point they are making however is that opening new oil and gas fields does nothing to help the security of the UK's energy supply. It will be sold on the open market for the benefit of the Oil & Gas companies. If we really wanted to ensure security of oil and gas supplies we should, right at the start, have made the profits go back into the UK economy not global companies and had a wealth fund for the UK benefit, like they did in Norway. In a Climate Crisis opening new fields will just line the pockets of the Oil & Gas industry owners. It's too late to make oil and gas exploration for the benefit of the UK consumer, but we can make renewables the key focus for the benefit of the UK, providing new jobs and prosperity.
As usual more blah, blah, blah without addressing my point. And yes although throwing confetti causes no harm it was at a private event and ruined someone’s wedding. Unacceptable in my opinion.
The OP was complaining about JSO protesters. My first paragraph in reply to your assertion that the thread has gone off track, was that they have achieved their aim in bringing their cause to public attention.
I also disagree that throwing confetti at wedding of a politician who is very much responsible for much of the problems we have today, is unacceptable. It's also been claimed by JSO that the lady wasn't one of their members anyway.
The disruption due to climate change is already being felt across the world, and is far more disruptive than throwing pieces of orange paper.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry. One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits. The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
That’s a lot of people’s jobs you want to change if you target fast food. Not sure how you would balance that all financially and socially. Nor why you wouldn’t be better targeting farmers say or supermarkets.
We need to be realistic about any protests.
I think health education including diet is getting better generally.
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.
So no need to put peoples jobs at risk in the meantime then?
I was thinking that cooking a veggie burger would be the same job as cooking a meat one. And a tree planting job would be the same as deforestation.
Most people don’t want to eat a veggie burger though.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry. One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits. The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
That’s a lot of people’s jobs you want to change if you target fast food. Not sure how you would balance that all financially and socially. Nor why you wouldn’t be better targeting farmers say or supermarkets.
We need to be realistic about any protests.
I think health education including diet is getting better generally.
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.
So no need to put peoples jobs at risk in the meantime then?
I was thinking that cooking a veggie burger would be the same job as cooking a meat one. And a tree planting job would be the same as deforestation.
Most people don’t want to eat a veggie burger though.
I will if I can ask the waiter for bacon on it too Mmm
In the name of Climate Change how much are we personally willing to give up? How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad? Has anyone ditched their car for a bike? Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need? How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.
Exactly. It’s why the only meaningful change has to be top down. We have to be made to change. It’s also part of the problem. Top down means politicians making very difficult and unpopular decisions and we know that won’t happen anywhere in the world. It’s why whatever we do won’t be enough or timely. We’re screwed.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry. One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits. The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
That’s a lot of people’s jobs you want to change if you target fast food. Not sure how you would balance that all financially and socially. Nor why you wouldn’t be better targeting farmers say or supermarkets.
We need to be realistic about any protests.
I think health education including diet is getting better generally.
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.
So no need to put peoples jobs at risk in the meantime then?
I was thinking that cooking a veggie burger would be the same job as cooking a meat one. And a tree planting job would be the same as deforestation.
You suggest we will inevitably change our ways. My observation was protests are therefore not needed at such outlets.
We have to be realistic about what behaviours we expect to change and how.
In the name of Climate Change how much are we personally willing to give up? How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad? Has anyone ditched their car for a bike? Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need? How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.
Exactly. It’s why the only meaningful change has to be top down. We have to be made to change. It’s also part of the problem. Top down means politicians making very difficult and unpopular decisions and we know that won’t happen anywhere in the world. It’s why whatever we do won’t be enough or timely. We’re screwed.
I agree. We're seeing 'top down' on the switch to electric cars.
It won't happen, but I think the time has come when we should all be allocated an annual budget of air miles for personal travel abroad given the contribution flying makes to CO2 emissions. I appreciate that it's a radical idea and an imposition on personnel freedoms though, a fortnight in Mabelthorpe perhaps not as tempting as say in Majorca, with no disrespect intended to the good residents of the Lincolnshire resort, but plenty taken no doubt.
To try and effect a reduction in air travel through taxation measures would likely proportionately disadvantage those least able to afford it.
In the name of Climate Change how much are we personally willing to give up? How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad? Has anyone ditched their car for a bike? Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need? How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.
Exactly. It’s why the only meaningful change has to be top down. We have to be made to change. It’s also part of the problem. Top down means politicians making very difficult and unpopular decisions and we know that won’t happen anywhere in the world. It’s why whatever we do won’t be enough or timely. We’re screwed.
We are, all the time that we let those at the top get away with it; that needs to change and needs everybody else to put pressure on the people at the top. Getting people to actually do that is incredibly difficult, as we've seen from the resistance on this thread alone.
In the name of Climate Change how much are we personally willing to give up? How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad? Has anyone ditched their car for a bike? Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need? How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.
Exactly. It’s why the only meaningful change has to be top down. We have to be made to change. It’s also part of the problem. Top down means politicians making very difficult and unpopular decisions and we know that won’t happen anywhere in the world. It’s why whatever we do won’t be enough or timely. We’re screwed.
I agree. We're seeing 'top down' on the switch to electric cars.
It won't happen, but I think the time has come when we should all be allocated an annual budget of air miles for personal travel abroad given the contribution flying makes to CO2 emissions. I appreciate that it's a radical idea and an imposition on personnel freedoms though, a fortnight in Mabelthorpe perhaps not as tempting as say in Majorca, with no disrespect intended to the good residents of the Lincolnshire resort, but plenty taken no doubt.
To try and effect a reduction in air travel through taxation measures would likely proportionately disadvantage those least able to afford it.
Climate change itself may bring about that change if the current weather conditions are anything to go by. I wouldn't like to be travelling to countries which are predicted to have temperatures in the upper 40s.
In the name of Climate Change how much are we personally willing to give up? How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad? Has anyone ditched their car for a bike? Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need? How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.
Exactly. It’s why the only meaningful change has to be top down. We have to be made to change. It’s also part of the problem. Top down means politicians making very difficult and unpopular decisions and we know that won’t happen anywhere in the world. It’s why whatever we do won’t be enough or timely. We’re screwed.
We are, all the time that we let those at the top get away with it; that needs to change and needs everybody else to put pressure on the people at the top. Getting people to actually do that is incredibly difficult, as we've seen from the resistance on this thread alone.
I’ve really enjoyed ME14s journey from Brexit voting Tory, to liberal open minded and progressive since 2017. Long may it continue, and shame others are falling further down the conspiracy rabbit hole
In the name of Climate Change how much are we personally willing to give up? How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad? Has anyone ditched their car for a bike? Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need? How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.
Exactly. It’s why the only meaningful change has to be top down. We have to be made to change. It’s also part of the problem. Top down means politicians making very difficult and unpopular decisions and we know that won’t happen anywhere in the world. It’s why whatever we do won’t be enough or timely. We’re screwed.
We are, all the time that we let those at the top get away with it; that needs to change and needs everybody else to put pressure on the people at the top. Getting people to actually do that is incredibly difficult, as we've seen from the resistance on this thread alone.
Do you own a car?
Yes I do, but use it far less now than I used to. I struggle to walk far these days, due to arthritis, so it is essential for me. I work at home 3 days a week, so only use the car to get to work on 2 days, shopping and the occasional day out.
I’ve really enjoyed ME14s journey from Brexit voting Tory, to liberal open minded and progressive since 2017. Long may it continue, and shame others are falling further down the conspiracy rabbit hole
Whilst channeling the persona of an ex smoker who doesn’t stop banging on about the dangers of cigarettes
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Overpopulation is the number one cause of environmental and O-Zone damage. Reduce the number of people, planet heals and forests can regrow as the farm land is no longer required.
If we all went vegan this would expedite this, but first you would have to deforest more of the planet to make more vegans... so are you calling for a genocide of people, animals and insects anyway?
In the name of Climate Change how much are we personally willing to give up? How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad? Has anyone ditched their car for a bike? Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need? How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.
Exactly. It’s why the only meaningful change has to be top down. We have to be made to change. It’s also part of the problem. Top down means politicians making very difficult and unpopular decisions and we know that won’t happen anywhere in the world. It’s why whatever we do won’t be enough or timely. We’re screwed.
I agree. We're seeing 'top down' on the switch to electric cars.
It won't happen, but I think the time has come when we should all be allocated an annual budget of air miles for personal travel abroad given the contribution flying makes to CO2 emissions. I appreciate that it's a radical idea and an imposition on personnel freedoms though, a fortnight in Mabelthorpe perhaps not as tempting as say in Majorca, with no disrespect intended to the good residents of the Lincolnshire resort, but plenty taken no doubt.
To try and effect a reduction in air travel through taxation measures would likely proportionately disadvantage those least able to afford it.
Totally impracticle. For a start short journeys use use far more proportionately than long haul. What about people with families abroad. Why pick on air travel. In your Nazi state are you also going to have a budget for car miles? What about a budget for food, or clothes shipped from abroad?
'deforest more of the planet to make more vegans' is staggering stuff. What do you think cattle eat, air?
Interesting I heard what putting something from Daffodils in cattle feed. Apparently it significantantly reduces the gases they produce. No idea how effective or realistic it is.
'deforest more of the planet to make more vegans' is staggering stuff. What do you think cattle eat, air?
Interesting I heard what putting something from Daffodils in cattle feed. Apparently it significantantly reduces the gases they produce. No idea how effective or realistic it is.
Nor me. But I might give it a try after 10 pints and a vindaloo
I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.
Disgrace.
It’s hypocritical. Bang on about climate change yet fly and drive a car.
What a terrible argument.
You can be against climate change and the major issues facing the world without living like a monk unable to participate in society.
E fucking Zackley! I drive (an EV), fly when I have too, but do other things to offset that, be that less meat, use less power at home, or offset in other ways.
The world isn’t binary, as some climate change deniers insist
I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.
Disgrace.
It’s hypocritical. Bang on about climate change yet fly and drive a car.
What a terrible argument.
You can be against climate change and the major issues facing the world without living like a monk unable to participate in society.
And yet people are being told they don’t care about climate change, because even tho they do the same as you in trying to reduce their carbon footprint, they just don’t support JSO disruption tactics.
I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.
Disgrace.
It’s hypocritical. Bang on about climate change yet fly and drive a car.
What a terrible argument.
You can be against climate change and the major issues facing the world without living like a monk unable to participate in society.
And yet people are being told they don’t care about climate change, because even tho they do the same as you in trying to reduce their carbon footprint, they just don’t support JSO disruption tactics.
No, there’s no nuance allowed Gary. They’re all right and anyone who dares to even try and debate it is wrong (and has their head in the sand/reads the Daily Mail/is right wing)
Comments
I also disagree that throwing confetti at wedding of a politician who is very much responsible for much of the problems we have today, is unacceptable. It's also been claimed by JSO that the lady wasn't one of their members anyway.
The disruption due to climate change is already being felt across the world, and is far more disruptive than throwing pieces of orange paper.
It won't happen, but I think the time has come when we should all be allocated an annual budget of air miles for personal travel abroad given the contribution flying makes to CO2 emissions. I appreciate that it's a radical idea and an imposition on personnel freedoms though, a fortnight in Mabelthorpe perhaps not as tempting as say in Majorca, with no disrespect intended to the good residents of the Lincolnshire resort, but plenty taken no doubt.
To try and effect a reduction in air travel through taxation measures would likely proportionately disadvantage those least able to afford it.
and shame others are falling further down the conspiracy rabbit hole
as for ‘nazi state’ I think you need to get outside and turn the computer off
Disgrace.
But I might give it a try after 10 pints and a vindaloo
You can be against climate change and the major issues facing the world without living like a monk unable to participate in society.