Just Stop Oil

[Bilo]

17 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

This is, sadly, my feeling. 

 

I 100% support their message and cause (along with Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain) and also think their methods have merit, in small doses.

However, unlike Black Civil Rights or Women's suffrage, they don't have that other side; a Martin Luther King. They need someone who can go on TV and smartly explain their cause. Someone who can say "here is why your bills are so expensive and here are the people who are to blame."

Yep.

 

I don't necessarily have any issue with them disrupting sporting events or targeting oil companies and politicians.

 

The problem is that they choose instead to stop people getting to work and hospital appointments followed by them sending Tarquin and Indigo onto GMB to try and justify it. 

[Captain...]

47 minutes ago, Bilo said:

Yep.

 

I don't necessarily have any issue with them disrupting sporting events or targeting oil companies and politicians.

 

The problem is that they choose instead to stop people getting to work and hospital appointments followed by them sending Tarquin and Indigo onto GMB to try and justify it. 

Agreed disrupting sport events and the Chelsea flower show are fine by me and possibly hit a wider audience, but they are still failing to get the message across.

[Foxdiamond]

I don't have anything against the arguments of the JSO but it is easy to support the disruption of sporting and other events when you are not bothered about them. Not sure many here would say well done if Leicester were winning a vital game with 10 minutes to go and it had to be abandoned and then lose the rematch.

[Jon the Hat]

Even if they succeed in the UK it’ll make **** all difference.  They’d be better off trying to convince people to stop buying imported goods.

[Kopfkino]

If you were actually arsed about a cause, you’d find a way to actually do something that takes people along with you.

 

If you’re bunch middle class willy pullers looking for a cause to put purpose into their miserable, Machiavellian lives you do what they do.

 

As an environmentalist and active volunteer on ecological projects they boil my piss and I’m saddened by people around me who know they’re problematic but won’t say it cos they think they’re denouncing the cause if they do.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

If you were actually arsed about a cause, you’d find a way to actually do something that takes people along with you.

 

If you’re bunch middle class willy pullers looking for a cause to put purpose into their miserable, Machiavellian lives you do what they do.

 

As an environmentalist and active volunteer on ecological projects they boil my piss and I’m saddened by people around me who know they’re problematic but won’t say it cos they think they’re denouncing the cause if they do.

You'd really like to think that such folks are smart enough to differentiate between the problem, the cause, what helps the cause....and what doesn't. And be able to state it.

 

That's a damn shame.

[LiberalFox]

26 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

If you were actually arsed about a cause, you’d find a way to actually do something that takes people along with you.

 

If you’re bunch middle class willy pullers looking for a cause to put purpose into their miserable, Machiavellian lives you do what they do.

 

As an environmentalist and active volunteer on ecological projects they boil my piss and I’m saddened by people around me who know they’re problematic but won’t say it cos they think they’re denouncing the cause if they do.

Do you think the government should be granting new licenses for fossil fuel extraction? 

[Kopfkino]

59 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Do you think the government should be granting new licenses for fossil fuel extraction? 

No

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You'd really like to think that such folks are smart enough to differentiate between the problem, the cause, what helps the cause....and what doesn't. And be able to state it.

 

That's a damn shame.

I can only speak of the people I’m around who are ‘sympathisers’ but not active and smartness goes out of the window when challenging it means you get aggro about something that you attach your identity or status to. The tactic is very clear to imply ‘complicity’ if you challenge it, no matter your view on the actual topic.

 

And then my interactions with active members of many of these groups are that there’s a portion of them that would be on a deradicalisation programme if they were far-right or Muslim and they drive it all and then a bunch of other people away with the fairies going along with it looking for purpose. Both trump any intelligence.

[westernpark]

If you’re not selfish on a macro level, you can only support them.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

I can only speak of the people I’m around who are ‘sympathisers’ but not active and smartness goes out of the window when challenging it means you get aggro about something that you attach your identity or status to. The tactic is very clear to imply ‘complicity’ if you challenge it, no matter your view on the actual topic.

 

And then my interactions with active members of many of these groups are that there’s a portion of them that would be on a deradicalisation programme if they were far-right or Muslim and they drive it all and then a bunch of other people away with the fairies going along with it looking for purpose. Both trump any intelligence.

That all sounds very disconcerting.

 

Well, we go on and keep working to make the more sensible approach to changing things round work. We need to - the stakes are pretty high.

[dsr-burnley]

14 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Do you think the government should be granting new licenses for fossil fuel extraction? 

If the government stopped granting new licences and decided that in future all oil should be imported, I doubt it would satisfy Just Stop Oil.  They would just change their ambitions, perhaps to something more logical like trying to reduce oil consumption?

 

There isn't a great deal of ideological difference, actually.  The government favours net zero, so does Just Stop Oil.  Just Stop Oil's complaint is presumably that (not having been elected) they can't decide exactly how and when it is done.

[breadandcheese]

14 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Do you think the government should be granting new licenses for fossil fuel extraction? 

 It amazes me how this has become such a binary option. From an energy security point of view, yes.

 

We will still need fossil fuels. The entire world is made of them and will still be in 30 years. The alternative is we still use the fossil fuels but purchase them and end up enriching awful regimes in countries like Iran, Saudi, Russia (even with sanctions Russian oil and gas is making its way into Western markets). 

 

Should this win out over environmental factors at this time, on balance, probably yes due to the small amount we contribute as a country to climate change. Especially when it doesn't stop us trying to greenify our economy at the same time.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

 It amazes me how this has become such a binary option. From an energy security point of view, yes.

 

We will still need fossil fuels. The entire world is made of them and will still be in 30 years. The alternative is we still use the fossil fuels but purchase them and end up enriching awful regimes in countries like Iran, Saudi, Russia (even with sanctions Russian oil and gas is making its way into Western markets). 

 

Should this win out over environmental factors at this time, on balance, probably yes due to the small amount we contribute as a country to climate change. Especially when it doesn't stop us trying to greenify our economy at the same time.

....and the effects of that climate change will somehow not affect us because we're not one of the big users because....?

 

I know that wasn't what was said, but what I'm hearing here is the same old argument to engage in a race to the bottom in a classical free-rider problem.

 

There is and will be a market for oil to create plastics. There should not, need not, be one for oil to be used in energy generation and fuelling, and the objective should be for everyone (the UK not excepted) to transition away from that ASAP.

[breadandcheese]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

....and the effects of that climate change will somehow not affect us because we're not one of the big users because....?

 

I know that wasn't what was said, but what I'm hearing here is the same old argument to engage in a race to the bottom in a classical free-rider problem.

 

There is and will be a market for oil to create plastics. There should not, need not, be one for oil to be used in energy generation and fuelling, and the objective should be for everyone (the UK not excepted) to transition away from that ASAP.

They will affect us, but I suspect they can be mitigated and lived with. Admittedly this is supposition on my part and based on no evidence.

 

Cheap abundant energy should be the goal. Obviously the mix is important and carbon free the goal.

 

But I can't ignore that the attempt to quickly transition from to carbon neutral will increase poverty, across the world. That is just as much a moral issue as we know the link to excess deaths from this. So I don't see it as a straight forward moral question between good and evil. Which is why I question the speed of the carbon neutral approach, rather than the aim.

Edited 29 May 2023 by breadandcheese

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

They will affect us, but I suspect they can be mitigated and lived with. Admittedly this is supposition on my part and based on no evidence.

 

Cheap abundant energy should be the goal. Obviously the mix is important and carbon free the goal.

 

But I can't ignore that the attempt to quickly transition from to carbon neutral will increase poverty, across the world. That is just as much a moral issue as we know the link to excess deaths from this. So I don't see it as a straight forward moral question between good and evil. Which is why I question the speed of the carbon neutral approach, rather than the aim.

Certainly they can be lived with. However, I cannot speak for hundreds of millions of people elsewhere than the UK, and the social and economic upheaval that will visit on everyone, the UK included.

 

The quick transition will come at a cost, and that cost increases all the time, and that should concern people. However, I'm sorry, but the empirical evidence we have shows such a cost pales in comparison, in terms of both economic and human life and suffering, to what will happen if we don't get this done in a timely fashion. That's reasonably obvious, I think.

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

 It amazes me how this has become such a binary option. From an energy security point of view, yes.

 

We will still need fossil fuels. The entire world is made of them and will still be in 30 years. The alternative is we still use the fossil fuels but purchase them and end up enriching awful regimes in countries like Iran, Saudi, Russia (even with sanctions Russian oil and gas is making its way into Western markets). 

 

Should this win out over environmental factors at this time, on balance, probably yes due to the small amount we contribute as a country to climate change. Especially when it doesn't stop us trying to greenify our economy at the same time.

I can understand the argument but I'm also very skeptical because I feel with the war in Ukraine and the current energy price crisis and with a Conservative government it's inevitable that fossil fuel lobbyists are going to try and use that to their advantage.

 

 

[Captain...]

4 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

If the government stopped granting new licences and decided that in future all oil should be imported, I doubt it would satisfy Just Stop Oil.  They would just change their ambitions, perhaps to something more logical like trying to reduce oil consumption?

 

There isn't a great deal of ideological difference, actually.  The government favours net zero, so does Just Stop Oil.  Just Stop Oil's complaint is presumably that (not having been elected) they can't decide exactly how and when it is done.

As a government they agreed to not pursue new licenses as part of the Paris Climate agreement. This is as much about oil as the government lying and in doing so undermining their own and global efforts to manage climate change. 

[grobyfox1990]

 

Great article, don't let these morons or any others gaslight you into thinking work isn't being done: 

 

While the climate fight is far from won, there is cause for cautious optimism. In 2022, the EU produced more power from wind and solar than from gas. The US Inflation Reduction Act marked the single largest-ever climate action taken by the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. Global climate pledges, including from developing nations, have reached the point where they would keep the world well below 2C of warming if fully implemented.

Climate investments have also weathered the broader market slump. Last year saw a record near $500bn invested in renewable energy. There were over 1,000 venture and growth equity investments into climate start-ups in 2022; the number of deals grew in every quarter, with over $40bn deployed.

These dramatic shifts in infrastructure, policy and finance are supported by a subtle, but powerful, force: a good narrative. Climate action is no longer just righteous, it is now the stuff of exciting careers. This is no longer a field only for engineers and scientists.

Narratives can create a virtuous circle of action. Pioneering governments and companies kick-started markets for lower-carbon products and services; the economic logic for climate action encouraged entrepreneurs and investors to enter a visibly thriving sector, leading to more ambitious net zero commitments and investment.

[Zear0]

39 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

 

Great article, don't let these morons or any others gaslight you into thinking work isn't being done: 

 

While the climate fight is far from won, there is cause for cautious optimism. In 2022, the EU produced more power from wind and solar than from gas. The US Inflation Reduction Act marked the single largest-ever climate action taken by the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. Global climate pledges, including from developing nations, have reached the point where they would keep the world well below 2C of warming if fully implemented.

Climate investments have also weathered the broader market slump. Last year saw a record near $500bn invested in renewable energy. There were over 1,000 venture and growth equity investments into climate start-ups in 2022; the number of deals grew in every quarter, with over $40bn deployed.

These dramatic shifts in infrastructure, policy and finance are supported by a subtle, but powerful, force: a good narrative. Climate action is no longer just righteous, it is now the stuff of exciting careers. This is no longer a field only for engineers and scientists.

Narratives can create a virtuous circle of action. Pioneering governments and companies kick-started markets for lower-carbon products and services; the economic logic for climate action encouraged entrepreneurs and investors to enter a visibly thriving sector, leading to more ambitious net zero commitments and investment.

I was at a seminar last week and the presentations that got the engineers the most excited (perish the thought) was the ones from MoltexFLEX SMR Molten Salt plant, Hydrogen4Hanson, Helion and the West Burton STEP reactors.  All aiming at small scale, potentially private industry led,  low carbon production.  There's a real buzz about all this tech and hope it'll continue.

Edited 29 May 2023 by Zear0

[Captain...]

47 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Global climate pledges, including from developing nations, have reached the point where they would keep the world well below 2C of warming if fully implemented.

And this is the point.

 

Amongst that the UK pledged to not grant any new oil licenses.

 

They are going back on it and in quite spectator fashion and in doing so undermine all of the above.

 

If you're a struggling developing nation seeing the UK go back on its pledges why should they uphold theirs?

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

 

Great article, don't let these morons or any others gaslight you into thinking work isn't being done: 

 

While the climate fight is far from won, there is cause for cautious optimism. In 2022, the EU produced more power from wind and solar than from gas. The US Inflation Reduction Act marked the single largest-ever climate action taken by the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. Global climate pledges, including from developing nations, have reached the point where they would keep the world well below 2C of warming if fully implemented.

Climate investments have also weathered the broader market slump. Last year saw a record near $500bn invested in renewable energy. There were over 1,000 venture and growth equity investments into climate start-ups in 2022; the number of deals grew in every quarter, with over $40bn deployed.

These dramatic shifts in infrastructure, policy and finance are supported by a subtle, but powerful, force: a good narrative. Climate action is no longer just righteous, it is now the stuff of exciting careers. This is no longer a field only for engineers and scientists.

Narratives can create a virtuous circle of action. Pioneering governments and companies kick-started markets for lower-carbon products and services; the economic logic for climate action encouraged entrepreneurs and investors to enter a visibly thriving sector, leading to more ambitious net zero commitments and investment.

 

4 hours ago, Zear0 said:

I was at a seminar last week and the presentations that got the engineers the most excited (perish the thought) was the ones from MoltexFLEX SMR Molten Salt plant, Hydrogen4Hanson, Helion and the West Burton STEP reactors.  All aiming at small scale, potentially private industry led,  low carbon production.  There's a real buzz about all this tech and hope it'll continue.

Good cause for optimism here, then!

 

As the Cap above says, however, now we need to stick to those pledges and make this all happen. Or continue to do so. At speed.

 

We can do this. We have to do this.

[grobyfox1990]

8 hours ago, Captain... said:

And this is the point.

 

Amongst that the UK pledged to not grant any new oil licenses.

 

They are going back on it and in quite spectator fashion and in doing so undermine all of the above.

 

If you're a struggling developing nation seeing the UK go back on its pledges why should they uphold theirs?

We are still well on course for net zero though, and hopefully developing nations will see the $$$$ potential in doing so and follow us. 

[Wymsey]

 

 

[Phil Bowman]

On 28/05/2023 at 11:14, leicsmac said:

For the layman on this topic, off the top of my head, I would recommend the superb Kurzgesagt:

Thank you! I'd never heard of Kurzgesagt, and they are indeed absolutely brilliant. Top, top stuff.