Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Just Stop Oil protestors.....
Comments
-
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.LargeAddick said:
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.ME14addick said:
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.LargeAddick said:I agree with the OP although its strayed way off topic now.
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.
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.5 -
Most people don’t want to eat a veggie burger though.seth plum said:
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.valleynick66 said:
So no need to put peoples jobs at risk in the meantime then?seth plum said:
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.valleynick66 said:
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.seth plum said:
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry.valleynick66 said:
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?seth plum said:
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses.valleynick66 said:
Why fast food specifically?seth plum said:Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen.
Environmental protestors could target 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.
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.We need to be realistic about any protests.I think health education including diet is getting better generally.0 -
I will if I can ask the waiter for bacon on it too MmmMrOneLung said:
Most people don’t want to eat a veggie burger though.seth plum said:
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.valleynick66 said:
So no need to put peoples jobs at risk in the meantime then?seth plum said:
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.valleynick66 said:
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.seth plum said:
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry.valleynick66 said:
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?seth plum said:
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses.valleynick66 said:
Why fast food specifically?seth plum said:Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen.
Environmental protestors could target 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.
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.We need to be realistic about any protests.I think health education including diet is getting better generally.0 -
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.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.2 -
You suggest we will inevitably change our ways. My observation was protests are therefore not needed at such outlets.seth plum said:
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.valleynick66 said:
So no need to put peoples jobs at risk in the meantime then?seth plum said:
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.valleynick66 said:
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.seth plum said:
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry.valleynick66 said:
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?seth plum said:
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses.valleynick66 said:
Why fast food specifically?seth plum said:Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen.
Environmental protestors could target 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.
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.We need to be realistic about any protests.I think health education including diet is getting better generally.We have to be realistic about what behaviours we expect to change and how.0 -
I agree. We're seeing 'top down' on the switch to electric cars.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.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.
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.
1 -
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.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.0 -
Thing is the whole top down thing is also pointless if it doesn’t mean the whole world. It never will.1
-
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.swordfish said:
I agree. We're seeing 'top down' on the switch to electric cars.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.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.
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.0 -
Do you own a car?ME14addick said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.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.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
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 hole14 -
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Do you own a car?ME14addick said:
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.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.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.
1 -
Whilst channeling the persona of an ex smoker who doesn’t stop banging on about the dangers of cigarettesRothko 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 hole0 -
Dazzler21 said:
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.seth plum said:Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen.
Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
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?
3 -
'deforest more of the planet to make more vegans' is staggering stuff. What do you think cattle eat, air?0
-
I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.1
-
It will no doubt be in tomorrows guardian6
-
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.ShootersHillGuru said:I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.1 -
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.Croydon said:
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.ShootersHillGuru said:I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.4 -
Sponsored links:
-
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?swordfish said:
I agree. We're seeing 'top down' on the switch to electric cars.ShootersHillGuru said:
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.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.
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.0 -
we always have top down switches, it’s how all technological change has happened in the past 30 years.
as for ‘nazi state’ I think you need to get outside and turn the computer off4 -
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.Leuth said:'deforest more of the planet to make more vegans' is staggering stuff. What do you think cattle eat, air?0 -
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.LargeAddick said:
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.Croydon said:
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.ShootersHillGuru said:I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
Disgrace.5 -
It’s hypocritical. Bang on about climate change yet fly and drive a car.SELR_addicks said:
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.LargeAddick said:
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.Croydon said:
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.ShootersHillGuru said:I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
Disgrace.2 -
Nor me.redman said:
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.Leuth said:'deforest more of the planet to make more vegans' is staggering stuff. What do you think cattle eat, air?
But I might give it a try after 10 pints and a vindaloo0 -
What a terrible argument.LargeAddick said:
It’s hypocritical. Bang on about climate change yet fly and drive a car.SELR_addicks said:
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.LargeAddick said:
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.Croydon said:
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.ShootersHillGuru said:I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
Disgrace.
You can be against climate change and the major issues facing the world without living like a monk unable to participate in society.11 -
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.SELR_addicks said:
What a terrible argument.LargeAddick said:
It’s hypocritical. Bang on about climate change yet fly and drive a car.SELR_addicks said:
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.LargeAddick said:
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.Croydon said:
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.ShootersHillGuru said:I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
Disgrace.
You can be against climate change and the major issues facing the world without living like a monk unable to participate in society.The world isn’t binary, as some climate change deniers insist4 -
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.SELR_addicks said:
What a terrible argument.LargeAddick said:
It’s hypocritical. Bang on about climate change yet fly and drive a car.SELR_addicks said:
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.LargeAddick said:
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.Croydon said:
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.ShootersHillGuru said:I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
Disgrace.
You can be against climate change and the major issues facing the world without living like a monk unable to participate in society.11 -
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)ValleyGary said:
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.SELR_addicks said:
What a terrible argument.LargeAddick said:
It’s hypocritical. Bang on about climate change yet fly and drive a car.SELR_addicks said:
I heard she eats food too and actually breathes.LargeAddick said:
So? She still flew there. She drives a car too.Croydon said:
The holiday was in 2020, but that typically misleading headline is all most will read.ShootersHillGuru said:I think I need slightly better confirmation of identification before I’m outraged at that.
Disgrace.
You can be against climate change and the major issues facing the world without living like a monk unable to participate in society.6
This discussion has been closed.
