Just Stop Oil protestors.....

Rothko said:

JohnnyH2 said:

Rothko said:

Someone remind me of a successful social justice movement, that succeeded by standing by the road? 

Always remember large number of protesters always being outside the South African Embassy during the 80s, keeping their cause in the public profile but never interrupting people trying to get on with their lives.

Not a perfect solution but its far better that JSO methods 

And how was it in Johannesburg?

SELR_addicks said:

Gribbo said:

SELR_addicks said:

Gribbo said:

Rothko said:

SELR_addicks said:

LargeAddick said:

SELR_addicks said:

LargeAddick said:

Croydon said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

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 don't fly (havent since around 2002), I share a relatively green motor with the Mrs that we only use some evenings and at weekends. We do buy quite a bit of produce now we're back in the UK, but always look for the tractor symbol (for a few reasons, not solely environmental). We do buy meat from butcher, but recently went halves with father in law for whole lamb that his friend brought on  (total food miles was probably about 50 miles). Father in law also drive about a mile and a half to the Newhaven fish market and gets a load of seafood that we also get a fair share of too. I get given quite a bit of game too from friends, and once I've built up some private permissions again in the UK, I'll harvest lot more of our meat from there too, as I have done for years. Admittedly, the choices above aren't all directly relating to the environment on my part, although the Mrs is definitely more that way inclined.

I don't deny climate change, but I do completely disagree with JSO and their tactics.

Also reckon it would be interesting to know whose carbon footprint is bigger out of those on either side of the JSO protests, even if the choices are subconscious

I'll tell you whose carbon footprint is bigger....major international corporations and the governments. 

Individual carbon footprint pales in comparison and it's dumb to start playing those games. 

Playing what games? I think it's s fair point to make when I'm questioning JSOs futile protests

If it's governments and international corporations making the biggest impact, target them as some of us have been saying since page 1 of this thread. It would probably be easier to disrupt them than what it is the public

Trying to rubbish whole movements because the Daily Mail will pick on one or two members. 

Happened exactly the same to turn BLM into some marxist conspiracy. It's just a way for people to maintain the status quo and keep heading into oblivion. 

Gribbo said:

Croydon said:

JohnnyH2 said:

ME14addick said:

LargeAddick said:

ME14addick said:

This thread was started because some people don't like the actions of Just Stop Oil, whose aim is to stop the opening of new oil and gas fields, which will only swell the coffers of the big corporate organisations and do nothing to enhance the UK's energy security or reduce prices for the ordinary people of this country.

Today our Government announced the new trade deal with the Indo-Pacific Bloc which could be worth £1.8bn in 10 years time or 0.80% of UK GDP, which is pretty small. What they didn't tell you is that have signed away Britain’s environmental and welfare standards to get the deal over the line, notably failing to ban imports of food from chickens kept in battery cages, and lowering tariffs on palm oil produced on Malaysian plantations that endanger remaining orangutan populations, in effect reneging on deforestation pledges made at the UN climate conference in Glasgow in 2021. Campaigners further warn the Pacific trade deal isn’t a one-time set of rules, but rather gives corporate lobbyists permanent power to force governments to lower standards over time, putting further vital standards at risk, and local farmers at a disadvantage.

Britain has also failed to secure an opt-out from the so-called ‘corporate court’ system, which allows corporations and rich investors from partner countries to sue Britain in secretive international ‘courts’ for any action they believe is unfair. These courts have already proven themselves an obstacle to phasing out climate-destroying fossil fuels and improving  standards to protect our health system or improve animal welfare.

I think Just Stop Oil are fully justified in highlighting the harm that is being done. The anger shown on here to the Just Stop Oil protesters, would be far better directed towards those who are damaging the planet through corporate greed and signing away the UKs control just so that they can prove that they can get a deal outside the EU.

https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/britains-accession-to-pacific-trade-deal-is-betrayal-of-environmental-and-welfare-standards/

I too think Just Stop Oil are fully justified in highlighting the harm that is being done. I just don’t agree with some of the things they are doing to highlight it.

What do you suggest they do, it has at least highlighted the problem. I doubt many who have posted against their actions would even have been aware of the proposal to open up new oil and gas fields. 

1. Protest at the side of roads, outside supporting and entertainment venues so the public can see there message without disrupting peoples lives. Will help get their message across more effectively.

2. Form a political party and stand for Parliament 

Need a change to the FPTP voting system before that would make any difference. Look at the Green Party's lack of influence, despite fairly decent support nationally. 

And UKIP

Rothko said:

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 

SELR_addicks said:

Gribbo said:

Rothko said:

SELR_addicks said:

LargeAddick said:

SELR_addicks said:

LargeAddick said:

Croydon said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

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 don't fly (havent since around 2002), I share a relatively green motor with the Mrs that we only use some evenings and at weekends. We do buy quite a bit of produce now we're back in the UK, but always look for the tractor symbol (for a few reasons, not solely environmental). We do buy meat from butcher, but recently went halves with father in law for whole lamb that his friend brought on  (total food miles was probably about 50 miles). Father in law also drive about a mile and a half to the Newhaven fish market and gets a load of seafood that we also get a fair share of too. I get given quite a bit of game too from friends, and once I've built up some private permissions again in the UK, I'll harvest lot more of our meat from there too, as I have done for years. Admittedly, the choices above aren't all directly relating to the environment on my part, although the Mrs is definitely more that way inclined.

I don't deny climate change, but I do completely disagree with JSO and their tactics.

Also reckon it would be interesting to know whose carbon footprint is bigger out of those on either side of the JSO protests, even if the choices are subconscious

I'll tell you whose carbon footprint is bigger....major international corporations and the governments. 

Individual carbon footprint pales in comparison and it's dumb to start playing those games. 

ME14addick said:

This thread was started because some people don't like the actions of Just Stop Oil, whose aim is to stop the opening of new oil and gas fields, which will only swell the coffers of the big corporate organisations and do nothing to enhance the UK's energy security or reduce prices for the ordinary people of this country.

Today our Government announced the new trade deal with the Indo-Pacific Bloc which could be worth £1.8bn in 10 years time or 0.80% of UK GDP, which is pretty small. What they didn't tell you is that have signed away Britain’s environmental and welfare standards to get the deal over the line, notably failing to ban imports of food from chickens kept in battery cages, and lowering tariffs on palm oil produced on Malaysian plantations that endanger remaining orangutan populations, in effect reneging on deforestation pledges made at the UN climate conference in Glasgow in 2021. Campaigners further warn the Pacific trade deal isn’t a one-time set of rules, but rather gives corporate lobbyists permanent power to force governments to lower standards over time, putting further vital standards at risk, and local farmers at a disadvantage.

Britain has also failed to secure an opt-out from the so-called ‘corporate court’ system, which allows corporations and rich investors from partner countries to sue Britain in secretive international ‘courts’ for any action they believe is unfair. These courts have already proven themselves an obstacle to phasing out climate-destroying fossil fuels and improving  standards to protect our health system or improve animal welfare.

I think Just Stop Oil are fully justified in highlighting the harm that is being done. The anger shown on here to the Just Stop Oil protesters, would be far better directed towards those who are damaging the planet through corporate greed and signing away the UKs control just so that they can prove that they can get a deal outside the EU.

https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/britains-accession-to-pacific-trade-deal-is-betrayal-of-environmental-and-welfare-standards/

swordfish said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

swordfish said:

redman said:

swordfish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

clb74 said:

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? 

Governments around the world, including the UK one, reacted to the COVID crisis by banning much air travel. 

One round trip flight from London to New York on a Boeing 747 carrying 416 passengers has an energy cost per person in aviation fuel used equivalent to leaving a 1KW electric fire on, non-stop, 24 hours a day, all year! That's why I picked on air travel because it's the single most harmful activity we undertake that burns fossil fuels.

On car travel, you won't be able to buy a new petrol car here after 2030, so our Government has already imposed a restriction on us in response to the climate change crisis.

There have already been food shortages experienced at supermarkets with rationing on certain items, not only during COVID, but in response to the war in Ukraine and climate change related, vegetables from Spain badly hit and shelves were left empty as a result (not just Brexit!)

Governments do act to respond to crises, regulating what we can and can't do. If that makes them your 'Nazi States' and you don't like their policies, at least you have the right to protest here. Those in JSO who don't like the Government's policy on fossil fuel are choosing to do just that.

Have you compared a 747, which have been replaced by more fuel efficient aircraft by every airline in Europe bar Lufthansa, with a small domestic electric heater which can only heat a room of 14 cubic meters? 

Not personally. I should have credited the source. David Mackay, a professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge, or was at the time he wrote the book from which it came "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" (an excellent read imo) which would explain why it's out of date now, but I'm assuming would have been right at the time. I don't have an up to date equivalent comparison for the newer planes. 

Friend Or Defoe said:

swordfish said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

swordfish said:

redman said:

swordfish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

clb74 said:

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? 

Governments around the world, including the UK one, reacted to the COVID crisis by banning much air travel. 

One round trip flight from London to New York on a Boeing 747 carrying 416 passengers has an energy cost per person in aviation fuel used equivalent to leaving a 1KW electric fire on, non-stop, 24 hours a day, all year! That's why I picked on air travel because it's the single most harmful activity we undertake that burns fossil fuels.

On car travel, you won't be able to buy a new petrol car here after 2030, so our Government has already imposed a restriction on us in response to the climate change crisis.

There have already been food shortages experienced at supermarkets with rationing on certain items, not only during COVID, but in response to the war in Ukraine and climate change related, vegetables from Spain badly hit and shelves were left empty as a result (not just Brexit!)

Governments do act to respond to crises, regulating what we can and can't do. If that makes them your 'Nazi States' and you don't like their policies, at least you have the right to protest here. Those in JSO who don't like the Government's policy on fossil fuel are choosing to do just that.

Have you compared a 747, which have been replaced by more fuel efficient aircraft by every airline in Europe bar Lufthansa, with a small domestic electric heater which can only heat a room of 14 cubic meters? 

Not personally. I should have credited the source. David Mackay, a professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge, or was at the time he wrote the book from which it came "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" (an excellent read imo) which would explain why it's out of date now, but I'm assuming would have been right at the time. I don't have an up to date equivalent comparison for the newer planes. 

Fair enough, guess out of context it seemed a bit odd. I assume his point was how more efficient electricity is to fossil fuel. Newer planes are about 40% more efficient btw and they're working on ways to improve on it, probably more for financial reasons than environmental! 

PrincessFiona said:

Why don't they lobby China and India rather than naffing off people here?

Personally I can't see what they are doing making a jot of difference and just annoys people going about their daily business

ME14addick said:

LargeAddick said:

ME14addick said:

LargeAddick said:

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 disruption due to climate change is already being felt across the world, and is far more disruptive than throwing pieces of orange paper.