Say what you like about Just stop oil (and I personally have said on here that I felt their techniques needed to evolve after the initial good publicity before people turned on them) but, their stated aim of no new oil and gas is now government policy.
Say what you like about Just stop oil (and I personally have said on here that I felt their techniques needed to evolve after the initial good publicity before people turned on them) but, their stated aim of no new oil and gas is now government policy.
Protests work? Effective lobbying?
I wouldn't say policy changed because of folk rising up in support of JSO's cause, but their antics did raise public awareness, as they intended. However, they probably alienated more of those opposed to their tactics than felt moved to protest with them as a result.
That said, not for a second do I believe anyone who understands the science would have changed their minds due to what JSO were doing, so their actions never harmed support for the cause amongst those accepting of it, and those who reject it are beyond reasoning with anyway.
Better not be. Pays my pension. Ironically, I spent most of my working life working on contracts for the manufacture and supply of line pipe for the oil & gas industry giants to lay.
Is the fact you've posted this here supposed to relate the climate emergency, and if so, how?
I just think it's wonderful that dirty plant isn't emitting any more pollution
…and replaced it with a coal fired plant thousands of miles away churning out even more pollution and then transporting the steel to the UK…#notsavingtheplanetfromaclimateemergency
I'll keep making my savings while Katie Perry blasts into space for a10 minute jolly. Seems reasonable.
The rocket is fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, with the main emission being water vapour. The flight will probably emit significantly less greenhouse gas than the reporters who drive to the launch site to cover the pointless, narcissistic joy ride.
I'll keep making my savings while Katie Perry blasts into space for a10 minute jolly. Seems reasonable.
The rocket is fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, with the main emission being water vapour. The flight will probably emit significantly less greenhouse gas than the reporters who drive to the launch site to cover the pointless, narcissistic joy ride.
If it's a joy ride, it's not pointless. Joy is the very point of it.
I'll keep making my savings while Katie Perry blasts into space for a10 minute jolly. Seems reasonable.
The rocket is fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, with the main emission being water vapour. The flight will probably emit significantly less greenhouse gas than the reporters who drive to the launch site to cover the pointless, narcissistic joy ride.
If it's a joy ride, it's not pointless. Joy is the very point of it.
I'll keep making my savings while Katie Perry blasts into space for a10 minute jolly. Seems reasonable.
The rocket is fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, with the main emission being water vapour. The flight will probably emit significantly less greenhouse gas than the reporters who drive to the launch site to cover the pointless, narcissistic joy ride.
So a magic carbon free tree created all the Infrastructure, testing, design etc. Pardon me if I don't fall for the PR bollocks
I'll keep making my savings while Katie Perry blasts into space for a10 minute jolly. Seems reasonable.
The rocket is fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, with the main emission being water vapour. The flight will probably emit significantly less greenhouse gas than the reporters who drive to the launch site to cover the pointless, narcissistic joy ride.
So a magic carbon free tree created all the Infrastructure, testing, design etc. Pardon me if I don't fall for the PR bollocks
It seems this rocket emits water vapour (i.e. steam?); but also burns a lot of nitrogen especially during take off. I think the flames are a give away in that there is a significant amount of combustion occurring. There's an interesting bbc video pointing out the harm done by this and other space launches; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr5dr518zmpo (they point out that water vapour itself is harmful to the ozone layer- it doesn't naturally occur there).
This Independent article from 2021 goes into more depth and compares the different emission types of the various billionaire's rocket systems that had by then been developed, making the point that more data was needed, plus an outline summary, at the end, of the case for taxing these recreational fights - https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/blue-origin-launch-carbon-emissions-b1937774.html
Recycling the rocket parts seems to be the sustainability USP for Blue Origin; but the whole enterprise seems more about rich people having fun at the expense of us other living creatures, with only other humans having the capacity to stop them.
Comments
Protests work? Effective lobbying?
That said, not for a second do I believe anyone who understands the science would have changed their minds due to what JSO were doing, so their actions never harmed support for the cause amongst those accepting of it, and those who reject it are beyond reasoning with anyway.
Seems reasonable.
Government's messaging is all over the place on this.
It seems this rocket emits water vapour (i.e. steam?); but also burns a lot of nitrogen especially during take off. I think the flames are a give away in that there is a significant amount of combustion occurring. There's an interesting bbc video pointing out the harm done by this and other space launches; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cr5dr518zmpo (they point out that water vapour itself is harmful to the ozone layer- it doesn't naturally occur there).
Also this article from earlier this week says similar: https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/diversity-circularity-blue-origins-all-women-crew
This Independent article from 2021 goes into more depth and compares the different emission types of the various billionaire's rocket systems that had by then been developed, making the point that more data was needed, plus an outline summary, at the end, of the case for taxing these recreational fights - https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/blue-origin-launch-carbon-emissions-b1937774.html
Recycling the rocket parts seems to be the sustainability USP for Blue Origin; but the whole enterprise seems more about rich people having fun at the expense of us other living creatures, with only other humans having the capacity to stop them.