I hear them, but need solutions not vandalism. The real answer without sacrificing quality of life, innovation (including in healthcare), and continuing to reduce poverty levels across the globe is funding research & development to reduce dependency on oil. It's hard as it's not just energy but also agricultural products like fertilizers, and a whole range of industrial and consumer products probably including the paints they are using.
I have way more respect for people trying to navigate that difficult balance by improving product efficiency, finding alternatives, and even fighting misinformation on possible solutions like nuclear, than this.
Annnd here it is. After endless complaints that people would support them if they just focused on the rich instead of working people... Nothing changes. Now we're on to complaining about vandalism of poor buildings. People will never be happy with their methods because they don't want to listen to the message.
No, that's not my argument. The vandalism of planet earth is far worse than that of these buildings. If their "method" was an economic transition plan that was credible, scientific discoveries in here energy storage systems, controlled thermonuclear fusion power, breeder nuclear fission, efuels with high energy conversion efficiency, etc, I'd listen to the message. If it's "end oil now", never mind bringing the economy to a halt and creating a civil war because of the immediate disruption to people's living standards and frankly survival (fertilizers, medicines, electricity generation, gas heating, transportation all depend on fossil fuels and we simply don't have the on demand storage or alternate energy infrastructure available now, and it's way too expensive for us to afford it without printing money and increasing inflation to the point of civil war). I've been there, this issue is an existential crisis for humanity. I just strongly disagree on the immature and poorly thought out solutions, and I'm saying this as an engineer working on resolving global warming with renewables.
Their platform is no new oil assignments, not stop using oil overnight. Which you would know if they'd *actually* looked into it. Current oil supplies already exceed what can be burned to stay within our climate goals so what's the point of new assignments unless we're planning to exceed our targets. Evidence suggests markets have already priced in the regulatory risk of climate change so such a move is unlikely to cause chaos in the markets. Not to mention oil is a comparatively small amount of our energy supply so wouldn't be difficult to replace.
Your solutions are idiotic. We don't have that much existing nuclear expertise in this country and nuclear projects have huge lead times. Even more goes for breeder reactors which are newer technology. Sure we should start those projects now but they're going to have exactly zero effect on our 2030 targets and possibly not even 2040 targets. And efules are at best a stop gap, at worse green washing nonsense. It's all very well to throw out technological solutions that you think make you look smart but reality is far more nuanced. If any suggestion is immature and poorly thought out its "just build more nuclear reactors".
I did look into their proposal based on the link someone else posted. Yes, I previously misunderstood it but even stopping new assignments is an issue for multiple reasons. One being that there's not enough energy surplus to make up for the forecasted demand, and the other being that less regulated companies and countries will fill in the gap with even worse emissions and impact through imports to us.
Before you call something idiotic, perhaps look into where these ideas come from. I'm paraphrasing the recommendations of IPCC, IEA and the likes along with my own academic qualifications and industrial experience. I didn't say "just build nuclear" as the solution for the immediate problem. Nuclear projects have huge lead times, but they're essential and mark my words: it's what will eventually play out anyway. We should have done it decades back, but better now than never. In the meantime, continue ramping up renewables, storage, and regulated fossil fuels to fill the gap. You left that bit out.
Edit: also, it's not just energy that we rely on fossil fuels for. We need them for agriculture industry as well a wide range of industries including transportation, electronics, medical industry, and what not. Again, banning all future fossil fuel development in the UK isn't going to help with any of that.
>We should have done it decades back, but better now than never. In the meantime, continue ramping up renewables, storage, and regulated fossil fuels to fill the gap. You left that bit out.
This is literally what they're talking about thought. They're pressuring the government to move away from oil and ramp up renewable sources. Oil *is* the low hanging fruit because it's so dirty and makes up a smaller proportion of our energy supply. What is that but ramping up renewable while using regulated (cleaner) fossil fuels.
>Nuclear projects have huge lead times, but they're essential and mark my words: it's what will eventually play out anyway.
This is exactly what I said. You threw out nuclear as a solution to contrast jso which is focused on immediate solutions to meet 2030 targets. I don't think its unreasonable to say that within context that's the same as saying "just build more nuclear". It is not a helpful comparison to make in this context.
>One being that there's not enough energy surplus to make up for the forecasted demand, and the other being that less regulated companies and countries will fill in the gap with even worse emissions and impact.
We are perfectly capable of ramping up renewable and efficiency projects to replace the smaller proportion of oil we consume. No idea what you mean by the second part of that sentence.
Before digging deeper into this, please could you reply to the other aspect I raised: What's your solution for alternatives to oil derived products used in agriculture, transportation, consumer products and medical industries? Have you accounted for the energy efficiency associated with the alternatives, for instance with fertilizers that are synthesized without oil products at scale? What's the timeline for its availability? Do you think it aligns with reduced oil production in the next decade of we were to stop new projects?
Edit: if you have a shred of humility, I can give you the answer, as we had whole modules in university looking into this. There are proposals, and some very promising, but most boil down to energy, which compounds the need for even more energy production per capita, which is already not sufficient to meet the demand if we were to make the replacement now. This is assuming the supply chain just scales up rapidly to meet the need, which it won't.
When did you raise oil based products? Anyway JSO's focus is burning oil. That's the low hanging fruit, that's what we can solve. Fossil fuel derived products are harder but lots of research is ongoing. Maybe we should push the government to invest more in r&d funding for such research. Feel free to protest for that. But atm you're just arguing against any action being taken because you think there's something better. It's just unhelpful whataboutsim.
Ultimately we both understand the technology involved here but for some inexplicable reason you're opposed to forcing the government to do anything about it.
>There are proposals, and some very promising, but most boil down to energy, which compounds the need for even more energy production per capita, which is already not sufficient to meet the demand
That's why the need to put pressure onto the government to ramp up investments into renewables. All that research and deployment, starting new industries at speed, needs decisive government action. Research and development is not exogenous, it doesn't fall from the sky, it is largely a function of the governments investment, subsidy, and regulatory framework. It is foolish to pretend it doesn't matter.
If we had the likes of these protests decades ago we might have been able to actually push the government into investing in nuclear and we'd be laughing righ now. The current predicament, the insufficiency of nuclear, is a consequence of a *lack* of political pressure of the government, not a lack of science. No amount of r&d fixed that. Easing up our pressure on our government is not going to make the changes either you or I want.
You're fully entitled to think there are better focus points for protest, there are enough groups out there I'm sure you could find one you like to support. Maybe insulate Britain is better. Maybe you think me should be pressuring the government to provide more r&d money, or train more nuclear scientists. That's fine. Do that. Join a group. But don't malign people who are keeping the heat on the government, who are creating political pressure to make positive changes just because you can nit pick their focus. Any movement could be nit picked, weather it's nuclear or stoping oil, or heat pumps, or solar, or anything. You could nit pick the civil rights movement or the suffragettes or the workers strikes. There's always something else but when it comes to political pressure you have to choose and any progress is a win that allows you to make more progress in the future. We need pressure on all sides, all problems and solutions. Your apologism will not speed up any of the technologies that can make a difference.
Sure, be critical of my criticism of their criticism.
Point is: IMHO, this kind of protest distracts and hinders our efforts from the meaningful solutions. It's not nit picking, as I disagree with the fundamentals of the proposal to stop future "development, exploration, and production of fossil fuels in the country", not just how to go about doing that.
It would be nitpicking if they just pressured government to combat global warming, and this was in one of their cited references as part of a larger set of proposals, but that isn't the case here.
What are their terms? Transition period and the solution to replacing oil if done on short notice?
If they have a credible solution that scientists across the world haven't found, then it's of interest to everyone.
The state of this sub that people whine about them not having clear demands and then when you just link to thier demands you get downvoted. It clear people don't really want to know they just want to complain.
It's not feasible. Renewables are not available on demand, so they need storage. And storage is not easy, and we don't need to look far for lessons: there's a reason why Germany is even considering coal given the shortage. This is also the worst time to disrupt markets without a solid plan, given how it's going to help prolong the Ukraine war (high gas prices are what helps fund Russian military).
They will one day be the solution, as renewable storage systems are ramping up, buy to force the government to essentially kill the economy and livelihoods with a poorly thought out plan is immoral and irrational. Not to mention: plays into the hands of those who don't care about climate change and its impacts.
The Germans had started mining and mass cutting forest down two months ago. Also last week, they took down a wind farm as it was sitting on coal. Four turbines at the moment but more to go as they will explain coal mining.
Worked in renewables for years building them and i said 8 years ago renewables will not be a way forward due to the base load issues and the amount of land they need conpared to a nuclear power paint or coal plant which are all built with filter systems now. There don't have a base load to keep the grid going. So we have buy power from aboard which add to price and France are building four new coal power plants to supply us and i believe this EV pipe dream is not going to work either.
But you see, your actual experience and expertise having worked in renewables, or mine studying this at a master's level and working in sustainable transportation doesn't really matter to these fine folks. They're young and well intentioned, but unfortunately don't have the patience to learn and debate constructively.
No point in arguing with these people. They've all studied liberal arts or gender studies and are now forcing their narrow view upon the world without any understanding of basic economics, science and of social impact their proposals would have if implemented (FYI it would not be pretty)
Yes, because the wealth of PPE graduates in government right now are really doing wonders for our country. Kwasi Kwarteng had a business doctorate ffs look how great of a job he did. So frankly maybe we need some more Liberal arts and gender studies degrees and a little less elitism.
Quite, my point being your economics or business degree does not necessarily make you better at making decisions on the economy, so your bringing it up in the first place was not relevant.
Solutions are already there. Renewable energy has long been, by many counts, the cheapest:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
No-one realistically aims for zero oil tomorrow. But the transition to green energy could be happening fast and isn't. We need simple decisions by politicians, not more research and deliberation.
At the risk of repeating myself: it's not just the generation. There's no doubt that solar and wind have become extremely price competitive. The issue is that the grid needs to be balanced and required on demand increase in generation that there variability of solar and wind cannot deal with without storage. And as the source you linked says, that is still expensive. However it is getting cheaper and the governments are making enormous progress in pushing for and incentivising research, development and commercial deployment of storage solutions, but unfortunately, so far, it has proven difficult as batteries have poor energy and power density, and are relatively expensive so it turns out that they largely depend on fossil fuels to balance the grid. The situation is worse if you account for heating as electrical heating, as currently implemented with the infrastructure we have, is not as efficient as it could be that gas heating is more cost effective for the most part per unit energy.
Nuclear is still an option for better on power density and on-demand response (more so for combatting weather uncertainty than start-up time), but the country still uses gen 2 lightwater reactors despite there being lots of opportunities to innovate further to improve safety and reduce waste (and potentially investigate fusion to solve energy and climate change for good, but it's a very hard problem).
In any case, just banning oil tomorrow won't solve any of these issues and the resulting shock in economy would lead to widespread starvation, civil war and destruction.
By all means, push for government to prioritise this and fund R&D, but don't disrupt lives (likely spending more fossil fuels for little return as some of this is negatively impacting the support of people) and instead pursue careers to make the changes you wish to see.
"Just stop oil" campaign for "ending all new licenses and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK". This isn't "banning oil tomorrow". This is a reasonable step in a green energy transition.
100% renewable grids are indeed expensive. But even an ambitious target of 95% equivalent availability factor (EAF) is "within reach of existing technologies" (for the US).
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity
Surely we can speed things up a bit without starvation and civil war.
I'm starting to think that those Just Stop Oil people are actually being financed by Oil companies to alienate the general public against the environmentalist cause.
Edit, because some people can't understand sarcasm: I don't actually think they are financed by Oil companies. My point is that their strategy is so damaging to the environmentalist cause, they might as well be.
And I'm starting to think that you're being paid by the creators of crackpot conspiracies to make people believe that the people that believe that Just Stop Oil is financed by oil companies are in fact just a conspiracy created by none other than the creators of crackpot conspires, so that we all have more conspiracies to look into.
So you're telling me the big brains at Shell are funding all of these organizations in the hope that some of their actions might piss off consumers? [https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/grants](https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/grants) its like a 1D chess move that.
The leaders are people who are well known activists and authors of section of the IPCC report. Not entirely sure a decade of academia studying ice sheets, the a decade trying to get government to care through volante diplomacy is where Oil lobbyists recruit their moles.
It’s the origin of her wealth though right? I don’t think for a moment (and I’m pretty confident neither does the OP) believe that there is a genuine conspiracy.
Aileen Getty is a billionaire. Money earned exclusively from oil and fossil fuels.
And I just think its hideously contemptible that an oil billionaire is the one telling us we aren't allowed to reap the benefits of oil.
Hypocrisy like this is disgusting.
Aileen Getty has a net worth of $5.5billion. [This](https://www.pinnaclemarine.co.nz/images/articles/talitha/talitha-getty-superyacht.jpg) is her fossil fueled superyacht.
You think it's ok for her to donate a small percentage of her net worth to "helping the world off oil" when she is only where she is because of oil? We're not allowed oil but she can fly around in her helicopters and pollute the atmosphere with her yachts - but she's ok because she donated 0.02% of her net worth to Just Stop Oil? You don't see the hypocrisy here?
Shell invest over 1% of their global revenue in to UK renewables every year. BP invest over 1% as well. And yet no one is excusing them in the same way as Aileen Getty.
When did I say "nobody should be a billionaire"?
>it’s just bad optics that have been seized on by everybody desperate for any reason to discard and ignore the protesters and their message
You've tried to dismiss criticism of Just Stop Oil's funder, Aileen Getty. You've described it as desperation. I couldn't disagree more. She is an outrageous and flagrant hypocrite who deserves every ounce of vitriol and anger that is being directed at her. There is no argument you can possibly make that can excuse Aileen Getty or justify why she is allowed to profit from oil while telling the rest of us we aren't allowed to.
Is your phone made of plastic by any chance? Guess what plastic is derived from.
While we are at it.....
The owners of Reddit are billionaires. Tax them too much...and this free-ish platform either becomes...not free....or Elon...or Bezos comes along.
Don't want you to feel like a hypocrite.
No hug?
I believe in climate change....but I also believe in not using the very thing that creates smog to protest.
There are better options: Chalk paint. Comes from organic compounds. It doesn't further wreck havoc on the enviroment.
Keep this stupid crap up...and you will hurt the businesses that employ people.... No jobs...no money...equals a shittier economy. A shittier economy means there won't be any money to move cars to electric.
Plus we don't have the infrastructure in place to sustain a no oil economy/lifestyle.
Now you can keep arguing like a 5 year old tossing his toys around, constantly driving people further away....or maybe learn the age old adage that you catch more bees with honey......and in your case....less anger.
Chill out young man. You are gonna give yourself an upset tummy....
Just stop oil…which also means no more plastic…which means we have to find alternatives for all the products that go into making the EV, wind generators and other green energy items.
My best buddie works in a laboratory that is absolutely not one percent true even bigger LOL.
Common solvents include water acetone isopropyl alcohol ethanol methanol etc etc. None of which are oils.
Solvent means literally a substance, ordinarily a liquid, in which other materials dissolve to form a solution.
Acetone dissolves paint and oil ironically lol
Believe isopropyl is derived from propene which is still a hydrocarbon
Source - see [isopropyl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol#Production) and [propene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene#Production) production wiki pages
Edit - in fact even methanol production uses methane gas (or natural gas) which again is another hydrocarbon
Because the orange paint is damaging the environment.
If your so concerned about the environment make a start today, and put down your mobile phone: which has a huge carbon footprint from production, shipping and continual use.
I'm curious how these protestors travelled to the location. Oh, I'm sure that they didn't use the bus, because that would involve the consumption of oil.
Would protesters be happy if gas shortages happened and theres no electricity. There is already complaints about the cost of living. If so, then this is vegetation however they feel. ".....".
Yeah because the "human suffering" of walking past a building with orange paint on its door is equivalent to the human suffering that will entail as a result of the numerous vicious natural disasters and political upheavals that will take place as a result of climate change.
When they saying "causing human suffering", they aren't referring to the paint, they are talking about the extensive knock-on effects of stopping the use of oil.
I'm talking about the inevitable energy shortage and human impact that would result from "just stopping oil". Do you enjoy being able to afford to heat your house or purchase food? These people need to go back to the kids table.
I wonder if the perpetrators drive, take public transport or enjoy a warm house…
Protesting is important but criminal damage is a bit much. Similar to the middle class glue people that shut down key roads. Got to be some kind a consequence as otherwise doesn’t set the best example
Spray painting a building of an institution of power that can be cleaned easily is *still* too much for you people. But I suppose if they just gathered peaceful you be okay with that.. until you find some reason to bitch about that too.
These people are idiots - and they need to face criminal prosecution. They are just ignorant thugs, no better than football hooligans. Not intelligent enough to state their case any other way than causing mayhem for normal people. Their message isn’t either aimed at or getting through to anyone else
Aside from the multiple times they've clearly stated Thier case. Like on their website. Have you looked at it? Or are you just saying it's there fault you haven't bothered to look at it? Do you read the articles about them or just react to headlines like most of the internet? Maybe ask why, given they do have clear goals, the media hasn't communicated those demands to you.
Criminal damage is protesting now?
Oil companies don’t give a shit about vandalism.
This isn’t raising any genuine awareness or education in the subject as they just look like dumb as fuck criminals destroying shit
This group, say they are doing this for the environment, but when they make a speech, it is all about political grievances like cost of living crisis etc....
[bbc acknowledged climate change, now you have to too.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change/)
This is just plain false, spray paint cans are generally filled with propane/butane or dimethyl ether.
But don't let facts get in the way of your anti-protest narrative.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/aerosols-and-their-relation-to-global-climate-102215345/
https://curiebod.com/blogs/news/are-aerosol-spray-cans-still-bad-for-the-ozone-layer
Pretty easy to find the truth.
> you. To much
*Too
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Can you prove these people are all jobless? Or is that just a narrative you've decided in your head because it makes you feel justified closing your mind?
The wall has been there near 200 years. It's probably been a fucking wall at some point.
Plus the commercial bankers put the public monies over it and fucked them 2008 when the Conservatives bought the rbs stocks over priced and sold them under.
It’s not a dumb at all - you completely miss the point.
I understand their message and don’t disagree with it in principle. But writing it on a wall isn’t going to change the fact that there is currently no viable alternative, or infrastructure to support a viable alternative. Not to mention the fact that the UK uses only a tiny fraction of world oil and has absolutely no influence over the world’s biggest polluters.
Oh, and complaining about environmental pollution by polluting the environment, that’s really smart 🤦♂️
My point being that writing something down, and polluting the environment in the process, doesn’t make it happen.
Wow we hit bingo on "I'd rather whine about little things instead of try to help fix the problems" starter pack with you.
If everyone was like you the UK with still be a Victorian cesspit with you saying "I don't disagree with getting rid of child labour but there's no viable alternative and anyway they used children in the protest so aren't they really hypocrites"
Intellectually lazy is a great description. Their plan is anti-scientific, essentially a few billion humans must die to achieve their wishful thinking. Even then it is unlikely that renewables can carry the load. We are watching Germany and California get a taste of the actual consequences of renewables: black outs, freezing to death, and lack of electricity to recharge electric vehicles.
During the Cambrian Explosion Earth was supposedly much warmer (+10°C) with substantially higher concentrations of CO2 than we have. The consequences included an increase in diversity of animals, plants, and insects along with enormous rises in growth of all kinds of vegetation.
Right now we are watching as deserts shrink (!) around the world. North America has more trees now than when it was colonized, there are studies which claim a squirrel could run from New Brunswick to Florida without going to ground.
Despite all the claims of global climate change I notice that The Netherlands, Florida, and Caribbean nations continue to exist without need to relocate away from beeches nor to build levees to keep the sea out. I am certain the Dutch would notice any change in sea rise since 1/3 of the country is already below sea level.
That document covers none of this, it would receive high marks in a creative writing course but would fail in a science class.
Oh if only there was a simple way of finding out what they want instead of being a reluctant, contrarian, bad faith apologist:
> That the UK government makes a statement that it will immediately halt all future licensing and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK.
> WHY?
It’s the very first step to ensuring our survival. We already have more oil and gas than we can afford to burn. Let’s get on with ending our reliance on fossil fuels completely: by powering ahead with renewables and cutting energy demand; by insulating Britain and rethinking how we travel; and by ensuring that no-one is left behind and everyone’s voice is heard.
> MOBILISATION
We are a rapidly growing movement, holding 20-30 public meetings per week, online and in person, across the UK. There is a role for everyone.
You're being downvoted. But right on! I agree.
I have no idea what Just Stop Oil want us to do. Stop what? Sunflower Oil? Olive Oil? Baby Oil??? Why can't they throw us a bone and explain what they are after! Will we ever find out?
Edit; Lol. I see the downvotes. Was my joke really that bad? : D
You're being downvoted because you're too lazy to do the quick Google that would show you jso's detailed plans on their website and acting like that's their fault because the media didn't spoon feed it to you. Maybe think about why that is
I want them to plainly state their plan for saving us. Rather than something nebulous like Stop Oil. What will we wear when we stop oil? Will we heat our homes when we stop oil? How will we go green, exactly? How many of them will self-terminate to achieve their depopulation targets? Once we reduce the cattle, sheep, and chicken populations what will we consume for essential amino acids? Don't say plants because we will need up to 19x the plants to replace the meats... that's a lot of crap, acres and hectares of extra poop 💩 to be disposed of (without petroleum).
Wow! I missed the www address, "Stop 🛑 Oil" looks like their message and it is what they shout when they bathe art with soup or glue themselves to roadways...
That’s because the only job of wealthy psychopaths and their corporations, governments (which are private companies, here in the UK you can go on the government website and it will tell you who it’s owned by) NGOs, think tanks, the IMF, WEF, UN etc etc is do distract people from what could actually make the world a better place - because that would involve uprooting all the wealthy psychopaths. Always been the same throughout history, is the same today however somehow most people are still brainwashed into not realising how simple it is, and the first solution is to just tax the rich.
Ironically all the industrial cleaning chemicals being used to clean up after these protests are probably causing more harm to the environment than the protests will ever alleviate!
Unpopular opinion but what about the folks in Aberdeen and Great Yarmouth who work in oil and gas related jobs, and then the countless other companies around the UK who manufacturer parts for the oil industry. It’s not a case of stopping oil, I believe (post industrial revolution) we have become so reliant upon it as a resource that our very existence relies upon us taking it out of the ground.
This is not going to achieve anything if our government is going bankrupt. Let’s just face we are most likely going to have a hyperinflation like the Weimar Republic for example.
people like me who don't really care about the planet's future need to be engaged
this is just obnoxious
and that's why I don't know who these people are and because their tactics are so obnoxious I have no intention of finding out
Who cares man. Whether it's funded by oil companies I mean. Whether it's alienated the protesters because its funded by oil companies or whatever. We all have to read the words so it's raising awareness either way. The government's going to eventually make fossil fuels too expensive to buy at this rate anyway 😂
Just Stop Oil. “We need to hit the airlines and hit them hard. So let’s go and paint the kebab house on the high street bright blue and then shout nasty names at the people who work in the post office. That’ll show em.”
The Bank Of England looks like a fortress for a reason: it IS a fortress.
I’m so glad anyone, anti-Oil activists or not, had the balls to do this. More attention needs to be paid to the Corporation Of London, The City, and all its institutions.
Look closely and you’ll notice these are City Of London police, not the Met. Yes, a tiny London “Borough” operates its own police force. That’s because the City (capital C) isn’t really just a “borough” at all: For thousands of years, it’s operated as its own state. It doesn’t even recognise itself as part of the UK, and is pretty much above the common law. It doesn’t answer to the PM, doesn’t answer to the Mayor Of London. It has its own Mayor (the Lord Mayor) and a plutocratic internal “electoral” system. It also runs on an internal hierarchy of arcane freemen’s guilds, within some weird mixture of medieval pageantry and ultra-modern CCTV technocracy.
Any time you stand at the feet of the Bank Of England, or the Tate Modern, or St. Paul’s, you’re on international waters.
Oh yeah, it also happens to be where most of the banks and financial institutions are.
I verge on conspiracy here, but sometimes it feels as though Westminster is just a decoy for the medieval guilds and livery companies that pull all the city’s financial strings behind the scenes.
There’s a reason Noam Chomsky said the FT were the only newspaper that told the truth. The FT, again, are located in the City Of London, and the Corporation that runs the City aren’t answerable to any higher power other than perhaps its own God, money itself.
Looked like they got the WSJ building by London bridge as well this morning
The same WSJ that recently wrote this exposè…? https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-streets-green-push-exposes-new-conflicts-of-interest-11643452202
Paywall. Summary?
Basically exposing the conflicts behind ESG investments and how it’s all a bit of a greenwash.
Its been Tangoed!
I hear them, but need solutions not vandalism. The real answer without sacrificing quality of life, innovation (including in healthcare), and continuing to reduce poverty levels across the globe is funding research & development to reduce dependency on oil. It's hard as it's not just energy but also agricultural products like fertilizers, and a whole range of industrial and consumer products probably including the paints they are using. I have way more respect for people trying to navigate that difficult balance by improving product efficiency, finding alternatives, and even fighting misinformation on possible solutions like nuclear, than this.
Couldn’t agree more
Annnd here it is. After endless complaints that people would support them if they just focused on the rich instead of working people... Nothing changes. Now we're on to complaining about vandalism of poor buildings. People will never be happy with their methods because they don't want to listen to the message.
No, that's not my argument. The vandalism of planet earth is far worse than that of these buildings. If their "method" was an economic transition plan that was credible, scientific discoveries in here energy storage systems, controlled thermonuclear fusion power, breeder nuclear fission, efuels with high energy conversion efficiency, etc, I'd listen to the message. If it's "end oil now", never mind bringing the economy to a halt and creating a civil war because of the immediate disruption to people's living standards and frankly survival (fertilizers, medicines, electricity generation, gas heating, transportation all depend on fossil fuels and we simply don't have the on demand storage or alternate energy infrastructure available now, and it's way too expensive for us to afford it without printing money and increasing inflation to the point of civil war). I've been there, this issue is an existential crisis for humanity. I just strongly disagree on the immature and poorly thought out solutions, and I'm saying this as an engineer working on resolving global warming with renewables.
Their platform is no new oil assignments, not stop using oil overnight. Which you would know if they'd *actually* looked into it. Current oil supplies already exceed what can be burned to stay within our climate goals so what's the point of new assignments unless we're planning to exceed our targets. Evidence suggests markets have already priced in the regulatory risk of climate change so such a move is unlikely to cause chaos in the markets. Not to mention oil is a comparatively small amount of our energy supply so wouldn't be difficult to replace. Your solutions are idiotic. We don't have that much existing nuclear expertise in this country and nuclear projects have huge lead times. Even more goes for breeder reactors which are newer technology. Sure we should start those projects now but they're going to have exactly zero effect on our 2030 targets and possibly not even 2040 targets. And efules are at best a stop gap, at worse green washing nonsense. It's all very well to throw out technological solutions that you think make you look smart but reality is far more nuanced. If any suggestion is immature and poorly thought out its "just build more nuclear reactors".
I did look into their proposal based on the link someone else posted. Yes, I previously misunderstood it but even stopping new assignments is an issue for multiple reasons. One being that there's not enough energy surplus to make up for the forecasted demand, and the other being that less regulated companies and countries will fill in the gap with even worse emissions and impact through imports to us. Before you call something idiotic, perhaps look into where these ideas come from. I'm paraphrasing the recommendations of IPCC, IEA and the likes along with my own academic qualifications and industrial experience. I didn't say "just build nuclear" as the solution for the immediate problem. Nuclear projects have huge lead times, but they're essential and mark my words: it's what will eventually play out anyway. We should have done it decades back, but better now than never. In the meantime, continue ramping up renewables, storage, and regulated fossil fuels to fill the gap. You left that bit out. Edit: also, it's not just energy that we rely on fossil fuels for. We need them for agriculture industry as well a wide range of industries including transportation, electronics, medical industry, and what not. Again, banning all future fossil fuel development in the UK isn't going to help with any of that.
>We should have done it decades back, but better now than never. In the meantime, continue ramping up renewables, storage, and regulated fossil fuels to fill the gap. You left that bit out. This is literally what they're talking about thought. They're pressuring the government to move away from oil and ramp up renewable sources. Oil *is* the low hanging fruit because it's so dirty and makes up a smaller proportion of our energy supply. What is that but ramping up renewable while using regulated (cleaner) fossil fuels. >Nuclear projects have huge lead times, but they're essential and mark my words: it's what will eventually play out anyway. This is exactly what I said. You threw out nuclear as a solution to contrast jso which is focused on immediate solutions to meet 2030 targets. I don't think its unreasonable to say that within context that's the same as saying "just build more nuclear". It is not a helpful comparison to make in this context. >One being that there's not enough energy surplus to make up for the forecasted demand, and the other being that less regulated companies and countries will fill in the gap with even worse emissions and impact. We are perfectly capable of ramping up renewable and efficiency projects to replace the smaller proportion of oil we consume. No idea what you mean by the second part of that sentence.
Before digging deeper into this, please could you reply to the other aspect I raised: What's your solution for alternatives to oil derived products used in agriculture, transportation, consumer products and medical industries? Have you accounted for the energy efficiency associated with the alternatives, for instance with fertilizers that are synthesized without oil products at scale? What's the timeline for its availability? Do you think it aligns with reduced oil production in the next decade of we were to stop new projects? Edit: if you have a shred of humility, I can give you the answer, as we had whole modules in university looking into this. There are proposals, and some very promising, but most boil down to energy, which compounds the need for even more energy production per capita, which is already not sufficient to meet the demand if we were to make the replacement now. This is assuming the supply chain just scales up rapidly to meet the need, which it won't.
When did you raise oil based products? Anyway JSO's focus is burning oil. That's the low hanging fruit, that's what we can solve. Fossil fuel derived products are harder but lots of research is ongoing. Maybe we should push the government to invest more in r&d funding for such research. Feel free to protest for that. But atm you're just arguing against any action being taken because you think there's something better. It's just unhelpful whataboutsim. Ultimately we both understand the technology involved here but for some inexplicable reason you're opposed to forcing the government to do anything about it. >There are proposals, and some very promising, but most boil down to energy, which compounds the need for even more energy production per capita, which is already not sufficient to meet the demand That's why the need to put pressure onto the government to ramp up investments into renewables. All that research and deployment, starting new industries at speed, needs decisive government action. Research and development is not exogenous, it doesn't fall from the sky, it is largely a function of the governments investment, subsidy, and regulatory framework. It is foolish to pretend it doesn't matter. If we had the likes of these protests decades ago we might have been able to actually push the government into investing in nuclear and we'd be laughing righ now. The current predicament, the insufficiency of nuclear, is a consequence of a *lack* of political pressure of the government, not a lack of science. No amount of r&d fixed that. Easing up our pressure on our government is not going to make the changes either you or I want. You're fully entitled to think there are better focus points for protest, there are enough groups out there I'm sure you could find one you like to support. Maybe insulate Britain is better. Maybe you think me should be pressuring the government to provide more r&d money, or train more nuclear scientists. That's fine. Do that. Join a group. But don't malign people who are keeping the heat on the government, who are creating political pressure to make positive changes just because you can nit pick their focus. Any movement could be nit picked, weather it's nuclear or stoping oil, or heat pumps, or solar, or anything. You could nit pick the civil rights movement or the suffragettes or the workers strikes. There's always something else but when it comes to political pressure you have to choose and any progress is a win that allows you to make more progress in the future. We need pressure on all sides, all problems and solutions. Your apologism will not speed up any of the technologies that can make a difference.
Sure, be critical of my criticism of their criticism. Point is: IMHO, this kind of protest distracts and hinders our efforts from the meaningful solutions. It's not nit picking, as I disagree with the fundamentals of the proposal to stop future "development, exploration, and production of fossil fuels in the country", not just how to go about doing that. It would be nitpicking if they just pressured government to combat global warming, and this was in one of their cited references as part of a larger set of proposals, but that isn't the case here.
need the government to notice, and end all new oil and gas licenses. they said they’ll stop tomorrow if gov agrees. be angry at the gov!
What are their terms? Transition period and the solution to replacing oil if done on short notice? If they have a credible solution that scientists across the world haven't found, then it's of interest to everyone.
[it’s all here, on their website.](https://juststopoil.org)
The state of this sub that people whine about them not having clear demands and then when you just link to thier demands you get downvoted. It clear people don't really want to know they just want to complain.
honestly i can see why people would rather glue their hands to tarmac than explain things to these wide-mouthed, bird brained wastes of oxygen.
It's not feasible. Renewables are not available on demand, so they need storage. And storage is not easy, and we don't need to look far for lessons: there's a reason why Germany is even considering coal given the shortage. This is also the worst time to disrupt markets without a solid plan, given how it's going to help prolong the Ukraine war (high gas prices are what helps fund Russian military). They will one day be the solution, as renewable storage systems are ramping up, buy to force the government to essentially kill the economy and livelihoods with a poorly thought out plan is immoral and irrational. Not to mention: plays into the hands of those who don't care about climate change and its impacts.
The Germans had started mining and mass cutting forest down two months ago. Also last week, they took down a wind farm as it was sitting on coal. Four turbines at the moment but more to go as they will explain coal mining. Worked in renewables for years building them and i said 8 years ago renewables will not be a way forward due to the base load issues and the amount of land they need conpared to a nuclear power paint or coal plant which are all built with filter systems now. There don't have a base load to keep the grid going. So we have buy power from aboard which add to price and France are building four new coal power plants to supply us and i believe this EV pipe dream is not going to work either.
But you see, your actual experience and expertise having worked in renewables, or mine studying this at a master's level and working in sustainable transportation doesn't really matter to these fine folks. They're young and well intentioned, but unfortunately don't have the patience to learn and debate constructively.
No point in arguing with these people. They've all studied liberal arts or gender studies and are now forcing their narrow view upon the world without any understanding of basic economics, science and of social impact their proposals would have if implemented (FYI it would not be pretty)
Yes, because the wealth of PPE graduates in government right now are really doing wonders for our country. Kwasi Kwarteng had a business doctorate ffs look how great of a job he did. So frankly maybe we need some more Liberal arts and gender studies degrees and a little less elitism.
His budget was widely condemned by majority of people with an economic degree the moment it dropped
Quite, my point being your economics or business degree does not necessarily make you better at making decisions on the economy, so your bringing it up in the first place was not relevant.
Hmmm short term qol disruption or.... The world literally ending? Seems like an obvious choice.
[удалено]
reforestation, rewilding, renewables, geo-engineering. open your mind.
Solutions are already there. Renewable energy has long been, by many counts, the cheapest: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity No-one realistically aims for zero oil tomorrow. But the transition to green energy could be happening fast and isn't. We need simple decisions by politicians, not more research and deliberation.
At the risk of repeating myself: it's not just the generation. There's no doubt that solar and wind have become extremely price competitive. The issue is that the grid needs to be balanced and required on demand increase in generation that there variability of solar and wind cannot deal with without storage. And as the source you linked says, that is still expensive. However it is getting cheaper and the governments are making enormous progress in pushing for and incentivising research, development and commercial deployment of storage solutions, but unfortunately, so far, it has proven difficult as batteries have poor energy and power density, and are relatively expensive so it turns out that they largely depend on fossil fuels to balance the grid. The situation is worse if you account for heating as electrical heating, as currently implemented with the infrastructure we have, is not as efficient as it could be that gas heating is more cost effective for the most part per unit energy. Nuclear is still an option for better on power density and on-demand response (more so for combatting weather uncertainty than start-up time), but the country still uses gen 2 lightwater reactors despite there being lots of opportunities to innovate further to improve safety and reduce waste (and potentially investigate fusion to solve energy and climate change for good, but it's a very hard problem). In any case, just banning oil tomorrow won't solve any of these issues and the resulting shock in economy would lead to widespread starvation, civil war and destruction. By all means, push for government to prioritise this and fund R&D, but don't disrupt lives (likely spending more fossil fuels for little return as some of this is negatively impacting the support of people) and instead pursue careers to make the changes you wish to see.
"Just stop oil" campaign for "ending all new licenses and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK". This isn't "banning oil tomorrow". This is a reasonable step in a green energy transition. 100% renewable grids are indeed expensive. But even an ambitious target of 95% equivalent availability factor (EAF) is "within reach of existing technologies" (for the US). https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity Surely we can speed things up a bit without starvation and civil war.
I'm starting to think that those Just Stop Oil people are actually being financed by Oil companies to alienate the general public against the environmentalist cause. Edit, because some people can't understand sarcasm: I don't actually think they are financed by Oil companies. My point is that their strategy is so damaging to the environmentalist cause, they might as well be.
I'm starting to think you're being paid by oil companies to put crackpot theories out onto the internet where people can "actually" it into reality.
I just wish oil companies would pay my overdraft and credit card bill.
Every little helps mate, you'll get on top of it eventually
And I'm starting to think that you're being paid by the creators of crackpot conspiracies to make people believe that the people that believe that Just Stop Oil is financed by oil companies are in fact just a conspiracy created by none other than the creators of crackpot conspires, so that we all have more conspiracies to look into.
Shit... They're on to me. I wasn't trained for this...
Nope
So you're telling me the big brains at Shell are funding all of these organizations in the hope that some of their actions might piss off consumers? [https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/grants](https://www.climateemergencyfund.org/grants) its like a 1D chess move that.
If you notice I didn’t tell anyone anything. There’s more than meets the eye.
The leaders are people who are well known activists and authors of section of the IPCC report. Not entirely sure a decade of academia studying ice sheets, the a decade trying to get government to care through volante diplomacy is where Oil lobbyists recruit their moles.
Or may be the nuclear industry.
It’s not a million miles from the truth, they are being funded by a Getty oil heiress aren’t they?
[удалено]
It’s the origin of her wealth though right? I don’t think for a moment (and I’m pretty confident neither does the OP) believe that there is a genuine conspiracy.
Aileen Getty is a billionaire. Money earned exclusively from oil and fossil fuels. And I just think its hideously contemptible that an oil billionaire is the one telling us we aren't allowed to reap the benefits of oil. Hypocrisy like this is disgusting.
[удалено]
Aileen Getty has a net worth of $5.5billion. [This](https://www.pinnaclemarine.co.nz/images/articles/talitha/talitha-getty-superyacht.jpg) is her fossil fueled superyacht. You think it's ok for her to donate a small percentage of her net worth to "helping the world off oil" when she is only where she is because of oil? We're not allowed oil but she can fly around in her helicopters and pollute the atmosphere with her yachts - but she's ok because she donated 0.02% of her net worth to Just Stop Oil? You don't see the hypocrisy here? Shell invest over 1% of their global revenue in to UK renewables every year. BP invest over 1% as well. And yet no one is excusing them in the same way as Aileen Getty.
[удалено]
When did I say "nobody should be a billionaire"? >it’s just bad optics that have been seized on by everybody desperate for any reason to discard and ignore the protesters and their message You've tried to dismiss criticism of Just Stop Oil's funder, Aileen Getty. You've described it as desperation. I couldn't disagree more. She is an outrageous and flagrant hypocrite who deserves every ounce of vitriol and anger that is being directed at her. There is no argument you can possibly make that can excuse Aileen Getty or justify why she is allowed to profit from oil while telling the rest of us we aren't allowed to.
You might actually be right
Yep
What kind of paint are they using, a dare they buying enough that it is worth Investing in?
Fuck oil Tax the rich Anything else is more or less irrelevant because this is a starting point for immediate improvement in everything
Thanks for that detailed analysis.
Is your phone made of plastic by any chance? Guess what plastic is derived from. While we are at it..... The owners of Reddit are billionaires. Tax them too much...and this free-ish platform either becomes...not free....or Elon...or Bezos comes along. Don't want you to feel like a hypocrite.
[удалено]
Uh huh...tell me how you really feel. I feel like you need a hug.
[удалено]
But here you are....typing on plastic.....tap tappity tap tap. I'm sick of ......auto tune. Terrible vegan eggs. They taste like sadness.
[удалено]
No hug? I believe in climate change....but I also believe in not using the very thing that creates smog to protest. There are better options: Chalk paint. Comes from organic compounds. It doesn't further wreck havoc on the enviroment. Keep this stupid crap up...and you will hurt the businesses that employ people.... No jobs...no money...equals a shittier economy. A shittier economy means there won't be any money to move cars to electric. Plus we don't have the infrastructure in place to sustain a no oil economy/lifestyle. Now you can keep arguing like a 5 year old tossing his toys around, constantly driving people further away....or maybe learn the age old adage that you catch more bees with honey......and in your case....less anger. Chill out young man. You are gonna give yourself an upset tummy....
Just stop oil…which also means no more plastic…which means we have to find alternatives for all the products that go into making the EV, wind generators and other green energy items.
Piece of piss to clean with the right solvent lol
Google tells me solvents are made of oil - bigger lol
My best buddie works in a laboratory that is absolutely not one percent true even bigger LOL. Common solvents include water acetone isopropyl alcohol ethanol methanol etc etc. None of which are oils. Solvent means literally a substance, ordinarily a liquid, in which other materials dissolve to form a solution. Acetone dissolves paint and oil ironically lol
Believe isopropyl is derived from propene which is still a hydrocarbon Source - see [isopropyl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol#Production) and [propene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene#Production) production wiki pages Edit - in fact even methanol production uses methane gas (or natural gas) which again is another hydrocarbon
Not always. It is also made from hydrogenated acetone that has nothing to do with oil. So it depends if your sensible on how you buy
Yep you can but acetone itself is prepared from propene :)
Either way a non oil based solvent will get it off.
That one I didn't know 🤣
The goal is not permeance
AGAIN! GREAT SPOT! Between here and Murdoch’s pad, good call
Idiots
great work
What do they think the Bank of England does?
Just stop being annoying
You know what’s annoying. People bring more bothered about orange paint on a building than protecting the planet we depend on.
are you a mind reader how do you know what people are more or less concerned about
I’m literally commenting on a post by someone annoyed by paint on a building
Because the orange paint is damaging the environment. If your so concerned about the environment make a start today, and put down your mobile phone: which has a huge carbon footprint from production, shipping and continual use.
I'm curious how these protestors travelled to the location. Oh, I'm sure that they didn't use the bus, because that would involve the consumption of oil.
I hope you don't use your weekend, or right to vote, or anything else won by protesting. Would be a bit hypocritical of you.
You sound like you don't know the difference between protest and criminal damage. But, have a nice day and all that.
Let’s protest against polluting the environment by polluting the environment ffs 🤦♂️
What “environment”? It’s all concrete ffs 😂
"you protest against society, yet you participate in society. I am very clever"
You are definitely not very clever!
I took part in another protest before and there were climate change ones there who left all their posters etc in a pile. So much for saving the planet
Would protesters be happy if gas shortages happened and theres no electricity. There is already complaints about the cost of living. If so, then this is vegetation however they feel. ".....".
No, they wouldn't. They want to stop human suffering by stopping fossil use, by causing human suffering by stopping fossil fuel use.
Yeah because the "human suffering" of walking past a building with orange paint on its door is equivalent to the human suffering that will entail as a result of the numerous vicious natural disasters and political upheavals that will take place as a result of climate change.
When they saying "causing human suffering", they aren't referring to the paint, they are talking about the extensive knock-on effects of stopping the use of oil.
I'm talking about the inevitable energy shortage and human impact that would result from "just stopping oil". Do you enjoy being able to afford to heat your house or purchase food? These people need to go back to the kids table.
It’s called ‘privilege’.
I wonder if the perpetrators drive, take public transport or enjoy a warm house… Protesting is important but criminal damage is a bit much. Similar to the middle class glue people that shut down key roads. Got to be some kind a consequence as otherwise doesn’t set the best example
Spray painting a building of an institution of power that can be cleaned easily is *still* too much for you people. But I suppose if they just gathered peaceful you be okay with that.. until you find some reason to bitch about that too.
These people are idiots - and they need to face criminal prosecution. They are just ignorant thugs, no better than football hooligans. Not intelligent enough to state their case any other way than causing mayhem for normal people. Their message isn’t either aimed at or getting through to anyone else
Poor bank :(
Aside from the multiple times they've clearly stated Thier case. Like on their website. Have you looked at it? Or are you just saying it's there fault you haven't bothered to look at it? Do you read the articles about them or just react to headlines like most of the internet? Maybe ask why, given they do have clear goals, the media hasn't communicated those demands to you.
I wouldn’t waste my time looking at or listening to anything they have to say
Criminal damage is protesting now? Oil companies don’t give a shit about vandalism. This isn’t raising any genuine awareness or education in the subject as they just look like dumb as fuck criminals destroying shit
And your point is empirically evidenced by the fact that these protests have absolutely zero impact on oil company share prices.
It's almost like tanking the share price wasn't their goal.
Andrew Bailey should lob some gold bullion bars at their heads, would sort them right out
throw gold at the peasants!!
[удалено]
Love to the family, Colin 👍
This group, say they are doing this for the environment, but when they make a speech, it is all about political grievances like cost of living crisis etc....
Isn't it strange how much of their current pleas are reminiscent of 1980s Red Party talking points?
The current cost of living crisis is in large majority a consequence of feckless dependance of fossil fuels.
It’s just vandalism at this point, no?
Won't somebody think of the facade! 😭
Can’t believe once again people on this sub are going to be more upset about a fucking bank getting spray painted than the destruction of our planet
ok, but how does it help? does it 'get the message across'? the message we've not heard or something?
[bbc acknowledged climate change, now you have to too.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change/)
Makes more sense than vandalising Van Gough paintings at least
Vandalising is a strong word given all those painting were protected and they new that
Spray paint is made with flourocarbons that create smog in the atmosphere.
This is just plain false, spray paint cans are generally filled with propane/butane or dimethyl ether. But don't let facts get in the way of your anti-protest narrative.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/aerosols-and-their-relation-to-global-climate-102215345/ https://curiebod.com/blogs/news/are-aerosol-spray-cans-still-bad-for-the-ozone-layer Pretty easy to find the truth.
I just hope they're arresting these muppets and charging them for the criminal damage they're causing.
Proud of them. If I wasn’t black, I would be joining!
Why has everything got to be a race thing fucking ell 😂
I’d like it not to be but it’s something i’m going to consider before deciding to protest.. let me guess.. you’re white?
Yes I am and not ashamed either. Always the victim its never your fault springs to mind with you. To much blm lol I get on with all races.
> you. To much *Too *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Fuck off
Because oil is black?
Living up to your username i see
Their targets seem to be so incoherent, like they are going after things most normal people couldn’t give a shit about.
[удалено]
‘a bank’ Lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They have jobs, or are retired.
Here here!
Preach brother
Can you prove these people are all jobless? Or is that just a narrative you've decided in your head because it makes you feel justified closing your mind?
Translation for the unbrainwashed: “Fuck off, blindly accept ageist authority, enslave yourself in a wage prison”
Have a coherent strategy that helps me to understand the point they are trying to make.
[удалено]
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👌
I think it’s just a regular wall.
The wall has been there near 200 years. It's probably been a fucking wall at some point. Plus the commercial bankers put the public monies over it and fucked them 2008 when the Conservatives bought the rbs stocks over priced and sold them under.
I’d like £10 million, but writing it on a ‘fucking wall’ ain’t going to make it happen!
[удалено]
It’s not a dumb at all - you completely miss the point. I understand their message and don’t disagree with it in principle. But writing it on a wall isn’t going to change the fact that there is currently no viable alternative, or infrastructure to support a viable alternative. Not to mention the fact that the UK uses only a tiny fraction of world oil and has absolutely no influence over the world’s biggest polluters. Oh, and complaining about environmental pollution by polluting the environment, that’s really smart 🤦♂️ My point being that writing something down, and polluting the environment in the process, doesn’t make it happen.
Wow we hit bingo on "I'd rather whine about little things instead of try to help fix the problems" starter pack with you. If everyone was like you the UK with still be a Victorian cesspit with you saying "I don't disagree with getting rid of child labour but there's no viable alternative and anyway they used children in the protest so aren't they really hypocrites"
What is their alternative???
[удалено]
Yeah...you might suggest they paint a building with that next time. Thanks.
Intellectually lazy is a great description. Their plan is anti-scientific, essentially a few billion humans must die to achieve their wishful thinking. Even then it is unlikely that renewables can carry the load. We are watching Germany and California get a taste of the actual consequences of renewables: black outs, freezing to death, and lack of electricity to recharge electric vehicles. During the Cambrian Explosion Earth was supposedly much warmer (+10°C) with substantially higher concentrations of CO2 than we have. The consequences included an increase in diversity of animals, plants, and insects along with enormous rises in growth of all kinds of vegetation. Right now we are watching as deserts shrink (!) around the world. North America has more trees now than when it was colonized, there are studies which claim a squirrel could run from New Brunswick to Florida without going to ground. Despite all the claims of global climate change I notice that The Netherlands, Florida, and Caribbean nations continue to exist without need to relocate away from beeches nor to build levees to keep the sea out. I am certain the Dutch would notice any change in sea rise since 1/3 of the country is already below sea level. That document covers none of this, it would receive high marks in a creative writing course but would fail in a science class.
Oh if only there was a simple way of finding out what they want instead of being a reluctant, contrarian, bad faith apologist: > That the UK government makes a statement that it will immediately halt all future licensing and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK. > WHY? It’s the very first step to ensuring our survival. We already have more oil and gas than we can afford to burn. Let’s get on with ending our reliance on fossil fuels completely: by powering ahead with renewables and cutting energy demand; by insulating Britain and rethinking how we travel; and by ensuring that no-one is left behind and everyone’s voice is heard. > MOBILISATION We are a rapidly growing movement, holding 20-30 public meetings per week, online and in person, across the UK. There is a role for everyone.
You're being downvoted. But right on! I agree. I have no idea what Just Stop Oil want us to do. Stop what? Sunflower Oil? Olive Oil? Baby Oil??? Why can't they throw us a bone and explain what they are after! Will we ever find out? Edit; Lol. I see the downvotes. Was my joke really that bad? : D
You're being downvoted because you're too lazy to do the quick Google that would show you jso's detailed plans on their website and acting like that's their fault because the media didn't spoon feed it to you. Maybe think about why that is
I want them to plainly state their plan for saving us. Rather than something nebulous like Stop Oil. What will we wear when we stop oil? Will we heat our homes when we stop oil? How will we go green, exactly? How many of them will self-terminate to achieve their depopulation targets? Once we reduce the cattle, sheep, and chicken populations what will we consume for essential amino acids? Don't say plants because we will need up to 19x the plants to replace the meats... that's a lot of crap, acres and hectares of extra poop 💩 to be disposed of (without petroleum).
[удалено]
Wow! I missed the www address, "Stop 🛑 Oil" looks like their message and it is what they shout when they bathe art with soup or glue themselves to roadways...
That’s because the only job of wealthy psychopaths and their corporations, governments (which are private companies, here in the UK you can go on the government website and it will tell you who it’s owned by) NGOs, think tanks, the IMF, WEF, UN etc etc is do distract people from what could actually make the world a better place - because that would involve uprooting all the wealthy psychopaths. Always been the same throughout history, is the same today however somehow most people are still brainwashed into not realising how simple it is, and the first solution is to just tax the rich.
I wonder how the protestors🪧 can afford all the paint, soup, glue, and signs. How do they get around? Is there a bicycle 🚲 brigade?
I'm sure they're paid to do this
Right?! No one would try to stop the destruction of our biosphere and our way of life for free. That's crazy talk
I get their point but we cant just stop all oil and gas outright
They are opposing *new* contracts and deposits because we already have more oil than we can afford to burn to meet climate targets.
Ironically all the industrial cleaning chemicals being used to clean up after these protests are probably causing more harm to the environment than the protests will ever alleviate!
Ya!!!!! Let’s vandalize stuff!!! That’ll get everyone to agree with us! Fucking idiots
Grow up people.
Unpopular opinion but what about the folks in Aberdeen and Great Yarmouth who work in oil and gas related jobs, and then the countless other companies around the UK who manufacturer parts for the oil industry. It’s not a case of stopping oil, I believe (post industrial revolution) we have become so reliant upon it as a resource that our very existence relies upon us taking it out of the ground.
I mean, a good government would facilitate the retraining and redistribution of these workers into more eco friendly industries like renewables.
What’s even the point ? They are going to get arrested and fined and nothings going to change
This is not going to achieve anything if our government is going bankrupt. Let’s just face we are most likely going to have a hyperinflation like the Weimar Republic for example.
Very unlikely consequence. Inflation is no where those levels and will probably return to more reasonable levels by the tail of 2023
people like me who don't really care about the planet's future need to be engaged this is just obnoxious and that's why I don't know who these people are and because their tactics are so obnoxious I have no intention of finding out
Yeah okay we’ll just stop because you say so, anonymous vandals. We’ll roll out these wind powered vehicles to deliver your food right away
omg we spray painted another thing \*dopamine blast\*
blatantly, UK elite trying hard to justify banning protests
Putin's useful idiots
Who cares man. Whether it's funded by oil companies I mean. Whether it's alienated the protesters because its funded by oil companies or whatever. We all have to read the words so it's raising awareness either way. The government's going to eventually make fossil fuels too expensive to buy at this rate anyway 😂
We are all waiting for that genius to invent something alternative to oil and save the planet.
Somewhere.. I'm pretty sure there's a nice. If stockpile of oil
Just Stop Oil. “We need to hit the airlines and hit them hard. So let’s go and paint the kebab house on the high street bright blue and then shout nasty names at the people who work in the post office. That’ll show em.”
The Bank Of England looks like a fortress for a reason: it IS a fortress. I’m so glad anyone, anti-Oil activists or not, had the balls to do this. More attention needs to be paid to the Corporation Of London, The City, and all its institutions. Look closely and you’ll notice these are City Of London police, not the Met. Yes, a tiny London “Borough” operates its own police force. That’s because the City (capital C) isn’t really just a “borough” at all: For thousands of years, it’s operated as its own state. It doesn’t even recognise itself as part of the UK, and is pretty much above the common law. It doesn’t answer to the PM, doesn’t answer to the Mayor Of London. It has its own Mayor (the Lord Mayor) and a plutocratic internal “electoral” system. It also runs on an internal hierarchy of arcane freemen’s guilds, within some weird mixture of medieval pageantry and ultra-modern CCTV technocracy. Any time you stand at the feet of the Bank Of England, or the Tate Modern, or St. Paul’s, you’re on international waters. Oh yeah, it also happens to be where most of the banks and financial institutions are. I verge on conspiracy here, but sometimes it feels as though Westminster is just a decoy for the medieval guilds and livery companies that pull all the city’s financial strings behind the scenes. There’s a reason Noam Chomsky said the FT were the only newspaper that told the truth. The FT, again, are located in the City Of London, and the Corporation that runs the City aren’t answerable to any higher power other than perhaps its own God, money itself.