Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Just Stop Oil protestors.....
Comments
-
.0
-
If you go to your car and it has been keyed, that's not an aggressive act by someone?swordfish said:
I stand corrected. I always assumed it had to be directed at a person or persons.Todds_right_hook said:
Which is an aggressive actswordfish said:
No. It's vandalism.Todds_right_hook said:
Is throwing orange paint on a building not owned by you not aggressive?swordfish said:
Aggressive?LenGlover said:They are scum in my opinion.
Aggressively inconveniencing decent ordinary people. There is a lot of chatter about Just Stop Oil's right of protest but what about the right of ordinary people to go about their business?0 -
There are actual things that can be done on an individual level to help the climate crisis.
I am uncertain whether individual action can make a huge difference, but if enough people do something as individuals it can make a difference.
Using the Brailsford approach is probably better than a helpless shrug and carrying on as always.
I am not talking about protests but many other actions, based chiefly around how much we consume.1 -
Yes, it is. I've just said so haven't I? I'd actually use words like malicious vandalism, vindictive if it was personal, but only aggressive if someone was either threatening me or physically assaulting me. However, having checked the definition, I've acknowledged I was wrong. No need to rub it in.Todds_right_hook said:
If you go to your car and it has been keyed, that's not an aggressive act by someone?swordfish said:
I stand corrected. I always assumed it had to be directed at a person or persons.Todds_right_hook said:
Which is an aggressive actswordfish said:
No. It's vandalism.Todds_right_hook said:
Is throwing orange paint on a building not owned by you not aggressive?swordfish said:
Aggressive?LenGlover said:They are scum in my opinion.
Aggressively inconveniencing decent ordinary people. There is a lot of chatter about Just Stop Oil's right of protest but what about the right of ordinary people to go about their business?
1 -
0
-
In the real world, as opposed to Extinction Rebellion’s or JSO's world, what does disrupting the lives of people who are already aware of your plight, do to help stop climate change?
It's just become a game of one-upmanship between a bunch of bored retired teachers. Buy a canal boat or something ffs
2 -
.....an electric one that don't have a fossil fuel burnerGribbo said:In the real world, as opposed to Extinction Rebellion’s or JSO's world, what does disrupting the lives of people who are already aware of your plight, do to help stop climate change?
It's just become a game of one-upmanship between a bunch of bored retired teachers. Buy a canal boat or something ffs0 -
...... thinking about it, you're probably better off with a row boat1
-
remember if oil is 'stopped' completely, no more plastic .. and where would we all be without plastic ? .. no more Lego, Airfix, stadium seats yoghurt pots, the list is endless .. oh and unless you have an electric vehicle, in future you'll be on the bus, train, or on shank's pony0
- Sponsored links:
-
Rub it in!! I'm only getting warmed up 😂. I'm never usually in this situation so I'm going to turn the screw 😂swordfish said:
Yes, it is. I've just said so haven't I? I'd actually use words like malicious vandalism, vindictive if it was personal, but only aggressive if someone was either threatening me or physically assaulting me. However, having checked the definition, I've acknowledged I was wrong. No need to rub it in.Todds_right_hook said:
If you go to your car and it has been keyed, that's not an aggressive act by someone?swordfish said:
I stand corrected. I always assumed it had to be directed at a person or persons.Todds_right_hook said:
Which is an aggressive actswordfish said:
No. It's vandalism.Todds_right_hook said:
Is throwing orange paint on a building not owned by you not aggressive?swordfish said:
Aggressive?LenGlover said:They are scum in my opinion.
Aggressively inconveniencing decent ordinary people. There is a lot of chatter about Just Stop Oil's right of protest but what about the right of ordinary people to go about their business?1 -
Or row boat if you're near a stretch of waterLincsaddick said:remember if oil is 'stopped' completely, no more plastic .. and where would we all be without plastic ? .. no more Lego, Airfix, stadium seats yoghurt pots, the list is endless .. oh and unless you have an electric vehicle, in future you'll be on the bus, train, or on shank's pony0 -
In terms of aggression, throwing a bit of paint could be aggressive, particularly if it's at a person. But JSO/XR etc are going out of their way to not actively harm people. Obviously there is harm coming from things like missed medical appointments but it's not intentional.
At present, violent acts around the environment are pretty much all by the people destroying it and mainly on the front lines of that battle, like the journalists killed in the Amazon last year, or the hundreds of environmental activists killed every year in South America. If you thought that our government and major corporations knew that what they were doing was undermining the very basis of human life, and destroying your children's and grandchildren's hopes of a normal life, would disrupting a bit of traffic be enough? This govt pretends it cares about the climate emergency but is opening new mines and oilfields - why would you do that if you really did care? I think these protests should be more targeted, like any sporting event targeted should be the sort sponsored by fossil fuel interests or their enablers.
And for all the comparisons with the civil rights movement in the US, remember loads of the civil rights activists were killed by racists and many more injured and beaten. All of you advocating killing or maiming JSO protestors, have a think about how history might remember you.
2 -
A lot of refrains along the lines of, “I support their cause but…” followed by “why don’t they do something less likely to inconvenience me?” or, “why can’t they do something more proportionate?”.The first point is about social and political awareness. If there isn’t public awareness then alongside politicians we will all continue to bury our heads in the sand. It’s too inconvenient for us to tackle a long term political issue when we have multifarious short term issues always on the personal and political agenda. This is just how awareness causes gradual changes to our political consciousness. Look at any seminal political change and it started with grassroots campaigners raising public consciousness.
Some may find my earlier references to slavery abolitions and civil rights movement’s uncomfortable but my point was that society didn’t take those issues seriously until it became a political imperative to do so under the weight of public pressure.This kind of leads on to the second point about proportionality of response. We all accept slavery abolition, civil rights movements and the suffragette movement as incontrovertible progress for society and noble causes. So, I’d have to ask where you would then place climate change protests on the scale?If you believe the climate scientists then we’re talking about an existential threat to humanity. Not a niche political issue but the very future of mankind is at threat unless society changes. So, it’s hard to think of a bigger issue to be campaigning for. If you want the level of protest to be proportionate to the cause, you will probably have to applaud their restraint to date.
If that sounds hyperbolic, then it would be interesting to understand why you feel climate change isn’t such a big deal or why climate scientists have got it wrong. If you “support their cause but….”, then it might be worth reflecting on the scale of their cause, reminding yourself of the science and reminding yourself that political issues probably don’t get any bigger than this, irrespective of current political annoyances and the irritation of disruption to your commute today.6 -
I give monthly to the WWF which goes towards their climate recovery fund. Funnily enough, that doesn't disrupt normal people going about their daily lives trying to provide for their families.3
-
Is this true though? I haven't seen a single comment on the actual aims of Just Stop Oil. Plenty of people (including you) have commented that they generally support CO2 reductions (only a mad fringe doesn't) but that is not what JSO are campaigning about.swordfish said:
No need to apologize. I'm pleased you started this thread and was just trying to help direct those interested in the underlying cause of the protests rather than the actions of the protestors.golfaddick said:
Sorry, but the Just Stop Oil protestors have brought this away from the Houses of Parliament & general politics and brought it directly into the general public's lives.swordfish said:For those that weren't aware of it, there is now a thread on the House of Commoners section of this forum set up for debating Environmental Issues and Green Politics.
Direct action is met by direct action.
FWIW, you've managed ignite a discussion on this thread that's had nearly as many contributions in less than 24 hours than the other thread has had in nearly two months. Whatever you think of the protestors, they are increasing public awareness and, ironically, aren't going to stop.
Anyone daft enough to deck one of them whilst they're protesting at a major sporting event would find themselves caught on camera and charged with assault and end up with a criminal record. I doubt those protesting want that to happen, but it would add to the publicity, which is their goal.
I agree that some of their tactics are potentially dangerous, not just to them but others, and in targeting racing events I fear a tragedy will occur sooner or later. However, what happened at Wimbledon yesterday was a minor inconvenience and it made the national news. To that extent it was a success, whereas if I was to walk up the high street wearing a sandwich board, not being Greta, I wouldn't get the huge media exposure.
I don't like seeing people inconvenienced or worse by protestors and wouldn't want to join them, but I accept the climate change science and humans influence on it. An inconvenient truth is right as not enough is being done to reduce Co2 emissions in time, so be prepared for protest action of the nonviolent civil disobedient type to escalate as that's their stated strategy.
They are specifically campaigning about the Government's proposals to grant new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This isn't specifically about reducing CO2 emissions as they are not campaigning about consumption of oil and gas. They do not propose demand management - e.g. escalation of fuel duties, ban on new gas boilers etc. Since gas and oil are fungible commodities (i.e traded at the same price worldwide irrespective of its source of production), the banning of licensing of new gas and oil in the UK would in itself have no appreciable effect on prices and therefore CO2 emissions since our production is so low (less than 1% of the world's production in oil and about 0.25% in gas).
An honest campaign would be more complex aimed at massively increasing investment in nuclear, wind and solar, investment in research in battery storage, massive increased taxes and/or spending reductions to subsidise EVs, insulation and ground pumps to replace gas. However the green movement is massively split on all those thing so JSO is performative protest which, if successful would make somewhere between none and negligible difference to the UK's CO2 emissions, let alone the worlds. It is a childish, irrational and dishonest protest movement.
6 -
They can't (now). Taken from the BBC website this morning.meldrew66 said:
…and, therefore, illegal. How the hell someone can legally sit in the middle of a public road is beyond me. This country makes life harder than it needs to be for the law abiding citizen.swordfish said:
No. It's vandalism.Todds_right_hook said:
Is throwing orange paint on a building not owned by you not aggressive?swordfish said:
Aggressive?LenGlover said:They are scum in my opinion.
Aggressively inconveniencing decent ordinary people. There is a lot of chatter about Just Stop Oil's right of protest but what about the right of ordinary people to go about their business?
The maximum penalty for the wilful obstruction of a highway is 51 weeks in prison. Offenders can also be fined.Several transport bodies, including National Highways and Transport for London, have sought High Court injunctions to prevent protesters disrupting major roads.
Those in breach of an injunction can be held in contempt of court and could face imprisonment, an unlimited fine and seizure of assets.
0 -
In a nutshellJints said:
Is this true though? I haven't seen a single comment on the actual aims of Just Stop Oil. Plenty of people (including you) have commented that they generally support CO2 reductions (only a mad fringe doesn't) but that is not what JSO are campaigning about.swordfish said:
No need to apologize. I'm pleased you started this thread and was just trying to help direct those interested in the underlying cause of the protests rather than the actions of the protestors.golfaddick said:
Sorry, but the Just Stop Oil protestors have brought this away from the Houses of Parliament & general politics and brought it directly into the general public's lives.swordfish said:For those that weren't aware of it, there is now a thread on the House of Commoners section of this forum set up for debating Environmental Issues and Green Politics.
Direct action is met by direct action.
FWIW, you've managed ignite a discussion on this thread that's had nearly as many contributions in less than 24 hours than the other thread has had in nearly two months. Whatever you think of the protestors, they are increasing public awareness and, ironically, aren't going to stop.
Anyone daft enough to deck one of them whilst they're protesting at a major sporting event would find themselves caught on camera and charged with assault and end up with a criminal record. I doubt those protesting want that to happen, but it would add to the publicity, which is their goal.
I agree that some of their tactics are potentially dangerous, not just to them but others, and in targeting racing events I fear a tragedy will occur sooner or later. However, what happened at Wimbledon yesterday was a minor inconvenience and it made the national news. To that extent it was a success, whereas if I was to walk up the high street wearing a sandwich board, not being Greta, I wouldn't get the huge media exposure.
I don't like seeing people inconvenienced or worse by protestors and wouldn't want to join them, but I accept the climate change science and humans influence on it. An inconvenient truth is right as not enough is being done to reduce Co2 emissions in time, so be prepared for protest action of the nonviolent civil disobedient type to escalate as that's their stated strategy.
They are specifically campaigning about the Government's proposals to grant new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This isn't specifically about reducing CO2 emissions as they are not campaigning about consumption of oil and gas. They do not propose demand management - e.g. escalation of fuel duties, ban on new gas boilers etc. Since gas and oil are fungible commodities (i.e traded at the same price worldwide irrespective of its source of production), the banning of licensing of new gas and oil in the UK would in itself have no appreciable effect on prices and therefore CO2 emissions since our production is so low (less than 1% of the world's production in oil and about 0.25% in gas).
An honest campaign would be more complex aimed at massively increasing investment in nuclear, wind and solar, investment in research in battery storage, massive increased taxes and/or spending reductions to subsidise EVs, insulation and ground pumps to replace gas. However the green movement is massively split on all those thing so JSO is performative protest which, if successful would make somewhere between none and negligible difference to the UK's CO2 emissions, let alone the worlds. It is a childish, irrational and dishonest protest movement.
0 -
I regard it coming under the umbrella of climate change activism as it's funded by a US network set up in 2019 to promote that as per the attached link.Jints said:
Is this true though? I haven't seen a single comment on the actual aims of Just Stop Oil. Plenty of people (including you) have commented that they generally support CO2 reductions (only a mad fringe doesn't) but that is not what JSO are campaigning about.swordfish said:
No need to apologize. I'm pleased you started this thread and was just trying to help direct those interested in the underlying cause of the protests rather than the actions of the protestors.golfaddick said:
Sorry, but the Just Stop Oil protestors have brought this away from the Houses of Parliament & general politics and brought it directly into the general public's lives.swordfish said:For those that weren't aware of it, there is now a thread on the House of Commoners section of this forum set up for debating Environmental Issues and Green Politics.
Direct action is met by direct action.
FWIW, you've managed ignite a discussion on this thread that's had nearly as many contributions in less than 24 hours than the other thread has had in nearly two months. Whatever you think of the protestors, they are increasing public awareness and, ironically, aren't going to stop.
Anyone daft enough to deck one of them whilst they're protesting at a major sporting event would find themselves caught on camera and charged with assault and end up with a criminal record. I doubt those protesting want that to happen, but it would add to the publicity, which is their goal.
I agree that some of their tactics are potentially dangerous, not just to them but others, and in targeting racing events I fear a tragedy will occur sooner or later. However, what happened at Wimbledon yesterday was a minor inconvenience and it made the national news. To that extent it was a success, whereas if I was to walk up the high street wearing a sandwich board, not being Greta, I wouldn't get the huge media exposure.
I don't like seeing people inconvenienced or worse by protestors and wouldn't want to join them, but I accept the climate change science and humans influence on it. An inconvenient truth is right as not enough is being done to reduce Co2 emissions in time, so be prepared for protest action of the nonviolent civil disobedient type to escalate as that's their stated strategy.
They are specifically campaigning about the Government's proposals to grant new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This isn't specifically about reducing CO2 emissions as they are not campaigning about consumption of oil and gas. They do not propose demand management - e.g. escalation of fuel duties, ban on new gas boilers etc. Since gas and oil are fungible commodities (i.e traded at the same price worldwide irrespective of its source of production), the banning of licensing of new gas and oil in the UK would in itself have no appreciable effect on prices and therefore CO2 emissions since our production is so low (less than 1% of the world's production in oil and about 0.25% in gas).
An honest campaign would be more complex aimed at massively increasing investment in nuclear, wind and solar, investment in research in battery storage, massive increased taxes and/or spending reductions to subsidise EVs, insulation and ground pumps to replace gas. However the green movement is massively split on all those thing so JSO is performative protest which, if successful would make somewhere between none and negligible difference to the UK's CO2 emissions, let alone the worlds. It is a childish, irrational and dishonest protest movement.
https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/
0 -
MrOneLung said:A big contribution to climate change is overpopulation so I presume these protestors are going to have the snip or be sterilised.
This has been David Attenborough mantra for years and homo sapiens and Neanderthals have bred like rabbits since time in memorial. I wonder what the view of AI is as Robots rule ok.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Was just about to ask where the blue hair brigade were going to pop up today but have just gone past them walking along the new kent road blocking traffic.0
-
Generally speaking, the public agree with the JSO sentiment, and we don’t need any more convincing/ publicity for the argument.The power for change lies in Westminster, and that’s where they should be protesting.Stopping punters getting to appointments, or enjoying sporting events is not helping their cause.They should be lobbying every MP (when the House is sitting) on a daily basis and argue for the change they want.0
-
I thought we were discussing Just Stop Oil, the reasons for their protests and the extent to which they had raised public awareness/support for those reasons.swordfish said:
I regard it coming under the umbrella of climate change activism as it's funded by a US network set up in 2019 to promote that as per the attached link.Jints said:
Is this true though? I haven't seen a single comment on the actual aims of Just Stop Oil. Plenty of people (including you) have commented that they generally support CO2 reductions (only a mad fringe doesn't) but that is not what JSO are campaigning about.swordfish said:
No need to apologize. I'm pleased you started this thread and was just trying to help direct those interested in the underlying cause of the protests rather than the actions of the protestors.golfaddick said:
Sorry, but the Just Stop Oil protestors have brought this away from the Houses of Parliament & general politics and brought it directly into the general public's lives.swordfish said:For those that weren't aware of it, there is now a thread on the House of Commoners section of this forum set up for debating Environmental Issues and Green Politics.
Direct action is met by direct action.
FWIW, you've managed ignite a discussion on this thread that's had nearly as many contributions in less than 24 hours than the other thread has had in nearly two months. Whatever you think of the protestors, they are increasing public awareness and, ironically, aren't going to stop.
Anyone daft enough to deck one of them whilst they're protesting at a major sporting event would find themselves caught on camera and charged with assault and end up with a criminal record. I doubt those protesting want that to happen, but it would add to the publicity, which is their goal.
I agree that some of their tactics are potentially dangerous, not just to them but others, and in targeting racing events I fear a tragedy will occur sooner or later. However, what happened at Wimbledon yesterday was a minor inconvenience and it made the national news. To that extent it was a success, whereas if I was to walk up the high street wearing a sandwich board, not being Greta, I wouldn't get the huge media exposure.
I don't like seeing people inconvenienced or worse by protestors and wouldn't want to join them, but I accept the climate change science and humans influence on it. An inconvenient truth is right as not enough is being done to reduce Co2 emissions in time, so be prepared for protest action of the nonviolent civil disobedient type to escalate as that's their stated strategy.
They are specifically campaigning about the Government's proposals to grant new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This isn't specifically about reducing CO2 emissions as they are not campaigning about consumption of oil and gas. They do not propose demand management - e.g. escalation of fuel duties, ban on new gas boilers etc. Since gas and oil are fungible commodities (i.e traded at the same price worldwide irrespective of its source of production), the banning of licensing of new gas and oil in the UK would in itself have no appreciable effect on prices and therefore CO2 emissions since our production is so low (less than 1% of the world's production in oil and about 0.25% in gas).
An honest campaign would be more complex aimed at massively increasing investment in nuclear, wind and solar, investment in research in battery storage, massive increased taxes and/or spending reductions to subsidise EVs, insulation and ground pumps to replace gas. However the green movement is massively split on all those thing so JSO is performative protest which, if successful would make somewhere between none and negligible difference to the UK's CO2 emissions, let alone the worlds. It is a childish, irrational and dishonest protest movement.
https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/
Why is the source of their funding in any way relevant to those matters?0 -
You saying in a discussion about JSO the source of their funding is irrelevant. I wasn't aware of the narrow parameters of this thread, so apologies for that.Jints said:
I thought we were discussing Just Stop Oil, the reasons for their protests and the extent to which they had raised public awareness/support for those reasons.swordfish said:
I regard it coming under the umbrella of climate change activism as it's funded by a US network set up in 2019 to promote that as per the attached link.Jints said:
Is this true though? I haven't seen a single comment on the actual aims of Just Stop Oil. Plenty of people (including you) have commented that they generally support CO2 reductions (only a mad fringe doesn't) but that is not what JSO are campaigning about.swordfish said:
No need to apologize. I'm pleased you started this thread and was just trying to help direct those interested in the underlying cause of the protests rather than the actions of the protestors.golfaddick said:
Sorry, but the Just Stop Oil protestors have brought this away from the Houses of Parliament & general politics and brought it directly into the general public's lives.swordfish said:For those that weren't aware of it, there is now a thread on the House of Commoners section of this forum set up for debating Environmental Issues and Green Politics.
Direct action is met by direct action.
FWIW, you've managed ignite a discussion on this thread that's had nearly as many contributions in less than 24 hours than the other thread has had in nearly two months. Whatever you think of the protestors, they are increasing public awareness and, ironically, aren't going to stop.
Anyone daft enough to deck one of them whilst they're protesting at a major sporting event would find themselves caught on camera and charged with assault and end up with a criminal record. I doubt those protesting want that to happen, but it would add to the publicity, which is their goal.
I agree that some of their tactics are potentially dangerous, not just to them but others, and in targeting racing events I fear a tragedy will occur sooner or later. However, what happened at Wimbledon yesterday was a minor inconvenience and it made the national news. To that extent it was a success, whereas if I was to walk up the high street wearing a sandwich board, not being Greta, I wouldn't get the huge media exposure.
I don't like seeing people inconvenienced or worse by protestors and wouldn't want to join them, but I accept the climate change science and humans influence on it. An inconvenient truth is right as not enough is being done to reduce Co2 emissions in time, so be prepared for protest action of the nonviolent civil disobedient type to escalate as that's their stated strategy.
They are specifically campaigning about the Government's proposals to grant new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This isn't specifically about reducing CO2 emissions as they are not campaigning about consumption of oil and gas. They do not propose demand management - e.g. escalation of fuel duties, ban on new gas boilers etc. Since gas and oil are fungible commodities (i.e traded at the same price worldwide irrespective of its source of production), the banning of licensing of new gas and oil in the UK would in itself have no appreciable effect on prices and therefore CO2 emissions since our production is so low (less than 1% of the world's production in oil and about 0.25% in gas).
An honest campaign would be more complex aimed at massively increasing investment in nuclear, wind and solar, investment in research in battery storage, massive increased taxes and/or spending reductions to subsidise EVs, insulation and ground pumps to replace gas. However the green movement is massively split on all those thing so JSO is performative protest which, if successful would make somewhere between none and negligible difference to the UK's CO2 emissions, let alone the worlds. It is a childish, irrational and dishonest protest movement.
https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/
Why is the source of their funding in any way relevant to those matters?
0 -
Climate Change is accelerating and unless it is taken seriously, the planet is heading for disaster. We had the hottest June on record in the UK, Canada has suffered devastating wildfires, China is currently experiencing floods which have killed many and left many others homeless, much of Europe is in drought, Italy had devastating floods after a period of drought, causing the cancellation of the Italian Grand Prix. Sea temperatures are about 4 degrees higher around the UK this year, which has a devastating effect on wildlife. All of this has taken place in this year alone.
We have a Government that is planning to give new licences for oil and gas production, most of which will take many years to come onstream, by which time it will be too late to affect energy prices. This is a Government run by a party which is largely funded by those who have an interest in the oil & gas industries.
Renewable sources of energy are now much cheaper than oil and gas, though because electricity supplied by the National Grid is based on the cost of the most expensive i.e. gas, the companies supplying renewable energy are paid to match the level of gas. Our bills are being kept artificially high as a result.
The use of oil will have to be drastically reduced in the coming years and a move away from the use of fossil fuels needs to accelerate now; allowing the Oil & Gas companies to open up new sources is madness.
The inconvenience of disrupting a sporting event for a few minutes, is nothing compared to the inconvenience that Climate Change is causing and will increasingly cause in the future.
I've taken the following passage from an article and have posted a link to that article. We should be massively increasing our supply of renewable energy which is great for the planet and will result in lower energy bills for everyone. People need to take off their blinkers and see the reality, we can't keep kicking the can down the road."Although we can partly blame the gas shortage for rising energy prices, gas generates less than half of the UK’s electricity and only about 20% across the EU.
So why are we dealing with pricy energy bills, despite consuming more renewable energy than ever before? It mostly comes down to an outdated energy market.
Professor Michael Grubb, from UCL Bartlett School of Environment, Energy & Resources, claims that “the design of electricity systems has failed to catch up with the revolution in renewable energy”.
Grubb explains that competitive electricity markets are experiencing the largest price rises because these systems rely on the most expensive generator setting the price – and the majority of the time, fossil fuels are the most expensive generator. This is because some gas plants need to run almost constantly, which they won’t do unless the electricity price is high enough to cover their operating cost.
Grubb compares this to having to pay the peak-period price for every train journey you take.
So despite almost half of its energy mix coming from renewables, the UK is experiencing some of the most expensive energy bills in the world because its energy market is determined by gas.
We only need to look at Scotland to see that more needs to be done about the UK's outdated energy system. Despite generating electricity with almost 100% renewable energy (including exports), Scotland is still experiencing some of the most expensive energy bills in Europe."
I recommend reading the full article:
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels
7 -
Fine. What is it relevant to?swordfish said:
You saying in a discussion about JSO the source of their funding is irrelevant. I wasn't aware of the narrow parameters of this thread, so apologies for that.Jints said:
I thought we were discussing Just Stop Oil, the reasons for their protests and the extent to which they had raised public awareness/support for those reasons.swordfish said:
I regard it coming under the umbrella of climate change activism as it's funded by a US network set up in 2019 to promote that as per the attached link.Jints said:
Is this true though? I haven't seen a single comment on the actual aims of Just Stop Oil. Plenty of people (including you) have commented that they generally support CO2 reductions (only a mad fringe doesn't) but that is not what JSO are campaigning about.swordfish said:
No need to apologize. I'm pleased you started this thread and was just trying to help direct those interested in the underlying cause of the protests rather than the actions of the protestors.golfaddick said:
Sorry, but the Just Stop Oil protestors have brought this away from the Houses of Parliament & general politics and brought it directly into the general public's lives.swordfish said:For those that weren't aware of it, there is now a thread on the House of Commoners section of this forum set up for debating Environmental Issues and Green Politics.
Direct action is met by direct action.
FWIW, you've managed ignite a discussion on this thread that's had nearly as many contributions in less than 24 hours than the other thread has had in nearly two months. Whatever you think of the protestors, they are increasing public awareness and, ironically, aren't going to stop.
Anyone daft enough to deck one of them whilst they're protesting at a major sporting event would find themselves caught on camera and charged with assault and end up with a criminal record. I doubt those protesting want that to happen, but it would add to the publicity, which is their goal.
I agree that some of their tactics are potentially dangerous, not just to them but others, and in targeting racing events I fear a tragedy will occur sooner or later. However, what happened at Wimbledon yesterday was a minor inconvenience and it made the national news. To that extent it was a success, whereas if I was to walk up the high street wearing a sandwich board, not being Greta, I wouldn't get the huge media exposure.
I don't like seeing people inconvenienced or worse by protestors and wouldn't want to join them, but I accept the climate change science and humans influence on it. An inconvenient truth is right as not enough is being done to reduce Co2 emissions in time, so be prepared for protest action of the nonviolent civil disobedient type to escalate as that's their stated strategy.
They are specifically campaigning about the Government's proposals to grant new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This isn't specifically about reducing CO2 emissions as they are not campaigning about consumption of oil and gas. They do not propose demand management - e.g. escalation of fuel duties, ban on new gas boilers etc. Since gas and oil are fungible commodities (i.e traded at the same price worldwide irrespective of its source of production), the banning of licensing of new gas and oil in the UK would in itself have no appreciable effect on prices and therefore CO2 emissions since our production is so low (less than 1% of the world's production in oil and about 0.25% in gas).
An honest campaign would be more complex aimed at massively increasing investment in nuclear, wind and solar, investment in research in battery storage, massive increased taxes and/or spending reductions to subsidise EVs, insulation and ground pumps to replace gas. However the green movement is massively split on all those thing so JSO is performative protest which, if successful would make somewhere between none and negligible difference to the UK's CO2 emissions, let alone the worlds. It is a childish, irrational and dishonest protest movement.
https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/
Why is the source of their funding in any way relevant to those matters?1 -
You initially questioned my saying that Co2 reduction was relevant to their cause. It's often the case that protestors views are consistent with those of those who fund them. Co2 reduction is the basis of climate change activism unless I'm much mistaken, which their funders promote. Not granting licences to oil exploration companies isn't inconsistent with that, but as I can see you have an issue with me commenting on this, I'll desist. I'm getting tired of it anyway.Jints said:
Fine. What is it relevant to?swordfish said:
You saying in a discussion about JSO the source of their funding is irrelevant. I wasn't aware of the narrow parameters of this thread, so apologies for that.Jints said:
I thought we were discussing Just Stop Oil, the reasons for their protests and the extent to which they had raised public awareness/support for those reasons.swordfish said:
I regard it coming under the umbrella of climate change activism as it's funded by a US network set up in 2019 to promote that as per the attached link.Jints said:
Is this true though? I haven't seen a single comment on the actual aims of Just Stop Oil. Plenty of people (including you) have commented that they generally support CO2 reductions (only a mad fringe doesn't) but that is not what JSO are campaigning about.swordfish said:
No need to apologize. I'm pleased you started this thread and was just trying to help direct those interested in the underlying cause of the protests rather than the actions of the protestors.golfaddick said:
Sorry, but the Just Stop Oil protestors have brought this away from the Houses of Parliament & general politics and brought it directly into the general public's lives.swordfish said:For those that weren't aware of it, there is now a thread on the House of Commoners section of this forum set up for debating Environmental Issues and Green Politics.
Direct action is met by direct action.
FWIW, you've managed ignite a discussion on this thread that's had nearly as many contributions in less than 24 hours than the other thread has had in nearly two months. Whatever you think of the protestors, they are increasing public awareness and, ironically, aren't going to stop.
Anyone daft enough to deck one of them whilst they're protesting at a major sporting event would find themselves caught on camera and charged with assault and end up with a criminal record. I doubt those protesting want that to happen, but it would add to the publicity, which is their goal.
I agree that some of their tactics are potentially dangerous, not just to them but others, and in targeting racing events I fear a tragedy will occur sooner or later. However, what happened at Wimbledon yesterday was a minor inconvenience and it made the national news. To that extent it was a success, whereas if I was to walk up the high street wearing a sandwich board, not being Greta, I wouldn't get the huge media exposure.
I don't like seeing people inconvenienced or worse by protestors and wouldn't want to join them, but I accept the climate change science and humans influence on it. An inconvenient truth is right as not enough is being done to reduce Co2 emissions in time, so be prepared for protest action of the nonviolent civil disobedient type to escalate as that's their stated strategy.
They are specifically campaigning about the Government's proposals to grant new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This isn't specifically about reducing CO2 emissions as they are not campaigning about consumption of oil and gas. They do not propose demand management - e.g. escalation of fuel duties, ban on new gas boilers etc. Since gas and oil are fungible commodities (i.e traded at the same price worldwide irrespective of its source of production), the banning of licensing of new gas and oil in the UK would in itself have no appreciable effect on prices and therefore CO2 emissions since our production is so low (less than 1% of the world's production in oil and about 0.25% in gas).
An honest campaign would be more complex aimed at massively increasing investment in nuclear, wind and solar, investment in research in battery storage, massive increased taxes and/or spending reductions to subsidise EVs, insulation and ground pumps to replace gas. However the green movement is massively split on all those thing so JSO is performative protest which, if successful would make somewhere between none and negligible difference to the UK's CO2 emissions, let alone the worlds. It is a childish, irrational and dishonest protest movement.
https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/
Why is the source of their funding in any way relevant to those matters?0 -
Agreed.ValleyGary said:.0 -
I don't get that impression at all, either from the 'public' or from the majority of posters on this thread.Valiantphil said:Generally speaking, the public agree with the JSO sentiment, and we don’t need any more convincing/ publicity for the argument.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
1 -
Sensei said:
I don't get that impression at all, either from the 'public' or from the majority of posters on this thread.Valiantphil said:Generally speaking, the public agree with the JSO sentiment, and we don’t need any more convincing/ publicity for the argument.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
Think you're conflating two things - being against the protests and being against the cause / sentiment5
This discussion has been closed.
