Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

[berbatrick]

20 meat and dairy firms emit more greenhouse gas than Germany, Britain or France
Livestock companies with large emissions receive billions of dollars in funding, campaigners say
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...greenhouse-gas-than-germany-britain-or-france


this framing means it's going to become one of those annoying factoids like "100 companies responsible for 70% of emissions" or whatever it is, with no connection made between popular consumption choices and the inevitable results, as though companies are emitting for the sake of it.

 

[hungrywing]

20 meat and dairy firms emit more greenhouse gas than Germany, Britain or France
Livestock companies with large emissions receive billions of dollars in funding, campaigners say
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...greenhouse-gas-than-germany-britain-or-france


this framing means it's going to become one of those annoying factoids like "100 companies responsible for 70% of emissions" or whatever it is, with no connection made between popular consumption choices and the inevitable results, as though companies are emitting for the sake of it.

Word choice perhaps too kind there. At 'best' it's 'innocent' ignorance, AKA were someone to show your post to the author/editor, they'd react with 'Huh?'

At worst it's 'stochastically' directed copy, AKA 'write it like this, so that upwards of 70% of the population, including doctors lawyers engineers nurses firefighters librarians farmers cobblers physios footballers teachers salesman scientists painters bricklayers ministers housewives schoolchildren chefs actors cab-drivers theater-projectionists soldiers basket-weavers binmen chocolatiers etc are given the idea that they're disenfranchised and the smart thing to do is to realize it and give up'.

 

[Cheimoon]

From today's Nature Briefing:

Fossil fuels must be left in the ground

Almost all economically viable global coal reserves must remain untapped if we are to have a chance of hitting internationally agreed climate-change goals. An updated model suggests that for us to have a 50% chance of remaining below 1.5 °C degrees of global warming — the more aspirational goal of the 2015 Paris agreement — the world must not emit more than 580 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide before 2100. Under this scenario, 89% of coal reserves, 58% of oil reserves and 59% of gas reserves must remain unextracted. The model also assumes substantial use of carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture and storage, because if they aren’t included — or are included at a smaller scale — “that target is unfeasible”, says environmental and energy economist Dan Welsby.

Full article: Most fossil-fuel reserves must remain untapped to hit 1.5 °C warming goal (nature.com)

 

[Buster15]

From today's Nature Briefing:

Full article: Most fossil-fuel reserves must remain untapped to hit 1.5 °C warming goal (nature.com)

Difficult to argue with that logic. But significantly more difficult to convince those who are going to profit from its usage.

I can remember when North Sea Oil and Gas was discovered. We could not wait to exploit that natural resource. Now think about how others will feel.
There has to be a way of incentivising countries to not exploit theirs.

 

[Gehrman]

Difficult to argue with that logic. But significantly more difficult to convince those who are going to profit from its usage.

I can remember when North Sea Oil and Gas was discovered. We could not wait to exploit that natural resource. Now think about how others will feel.
There has to be a way of incentivising countries to not exploit theirs.

Well not just profit but also meet demands.

 

[Buster15]

Well not just profit but also meet demands.

Yes of course. That too. But demand means profit.

 

[Gehrman]

Yes of course. That too. But demand means profit.

I meant in a more general way. Ie demands not met = lights go out. Stuff like that.

 

[Cheimoon]

I meant in a more general way. Ie demands not met = lights go out. Stuff like that.

Except if there were some kind of international agreement on the quantity of fossil fuels countries have to leave in the ground. That will never happen, of course, but if there would be such a worldwide consensus, just watch how quickly governments and companies would get round to greening all infrastructure and products.

I would argue that what we're having is a self-contained cycle: we have fossil fuel-dependent infrastructure > we need to extract fossil fuels > we extract fossil fuels > we can have fossil fuel-dependent infrastructure > we have fossil-fuel-dependent infrastructure > etc. We are currently trying to break that cycle by gradually transforming that infrastructure, but it's going far, far, far, far (far, far, far - you get the idea) too slowly compared to the problem we're facing. Something more radical is required, and I am sure we will then see that we (humanity) are capable of much more than we're currently showing.

And yes, I am fully aware that the some forces completely block something more radical from happening. We still need it though.

 

[Gehrman]

Except if there were some kind of international agreement on the quantity of fossil fuels countries have to leave in the ground. That will never happen, of course, but if there would be such a worldwide consensus, just watch how quickly governments and companies would get round to greening all infrastructure and products.

I would argue that what we're having is a self-contained cycle: we have fossil fuel-dependent infrastructure > we need to extract fossil fuels > we extract fossil fuels > we can have fossil fuel-dependent infrastructure > we have fossil-fuel-dependent infrastructure > etc. We are currently trying to break that cycle by gradually transforming that infrastructure, but it's going far, far, far, far (far, far, far - you get the idea) too slowly compared to the problem we're facing. Something more radical is required, and I am sure we will then see that we (humanity) are capable of much more than we're currently showing.

And yes, I am fully aware that the some forces completely block something more radical from happening. We still need it though.

I just think the idea that green energy can supply us what we need is massively naive. But we're going to run out of fossil fuels anyway some time anyway. Nuclear energy isn't quite hot with the enviromentalists for obvious reasons, but it might become more and more necessary.

 

[Buster15]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58520330

So despite the UK hosting COP26 in November and the government trying to claim that we are world leaders in climate change, the truth is somewhat different.

 

[noodlehair]

I got stuck on my way trying to do a work site visit yesterday because a bunch of protesters blocked off the M25 roundabout.

They were protesting about insulating houses because apparently we don't insulate houses enough. I'm not against protesting about climate change in general where there's a point to it, but this is all getting a bit silly.

Do these people actually have a real clue? Are they experts on current UK insulation standards? Part L of the building regulations? Construction techniques and avoiding cold bridging, and why its nigh on impossible in older homes? The obscene number of reports and studies into the issue many of which the government has commisioned? I don't understand what they want that can realistically be done and that would make any real difference?

I also don't understand the logic in spending loads of money, and causing loads of emissions in the process of insulating millions of houses to an impossiblly high standard, to save a little bit on electricity, when by the time we'd be done 99% of our electricity could feasably come from renewable sources anyway, which if we threw the money at that instead would probably happen three times as fast..

I feel like people are missing or losing the bigger picture or amongst the need to show they are angry/care about things. We need game changers like moving completely away from fossil fuel or emission related construction materials, not silly targets that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things, or tiny gains that are often cancelled out by the embodied emissions required to achieve them,, or attention they divert from elsewhere.

Don't we have a "net carbon nuetral" premier league game this weekend as well? This is the sort of thing I'm getting at. Everyone's at it. What does this even mean? The football is made from old recycled newspapers and all the players are going to walk to the stadium from their houses? The planet wont be saved because someone thought it was trendy to combine football with lip servicing carbon emissions, or because some people stood on a roundaboout complaining about insulation. It will be saved by no longer chopping half the rainforest down every 2 weeks to build new homes, or by converting fully to solar and wind power and building turbines that actually last more than 15 years and don't require a shit tonne of concrete...and we just don't have all the answers to things like this yet.

 

[Cheimoon]

I got stuck on my way trying to do a work site visit yesterday because a bunch of protesters blocked off the M25 roundabout.

They were protesting about insulating houses because apparently we don't insulate houses enough. I'm not against protesting about climate change in general where there's a point to it, but this is all getting a bit silly.

Do these people actually have a real clue? Are they experts on current UK insulation standards? Part L of the building regulations? Construction techniques and avoiding cold bridging, and why its nigh on impossible in older homes? The obscene number of reports and studies into the issue many of which the government has commisioned? I don't understand what they want that can realistically be done and that would make any real difference?

I also don't understand the logic in spending loads of money, and causing loads of emissions in the process of insulating millions of houses to an impossiblly high standard, to save a little bit on electricity, when by the time we'd be done 99% of our electricity could feasably come from renewable sources anyway, which if we threw the money at that instead would probably happen three times as fast..

I feel like people are missing or losing the bigger picture or amongst the need to show they are angry/care about things. We need game changers like moving completely away from fossil fuel or emission related construction materials, not silly targets that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things, or tiny gains that are often cancelled out by the embodied emissions required to achieve them,, or attention they divert from elsewhere.

Don't we have a "net carbon nuetral" premier league game this weekend as well? This is the sort of thing I'm getting at. Everyone's at it. What does this even mean? The football is made from old recycled newspapers and all the players are going to walk to the stadium from their houses? The planet wont be saved because someone thought it was trendy to combine football with lip servicing carbon emissions, or because some people stood on a roundaboout complaining about insulation. It will be saved by no longer chopping half the rainforest down every 2 weeks to build new homes, or by converting fully to solar and wind power and building turbines that actually last more than 15 years and don't require a shit tonne of concrete...and we just don't have all the answers to things like this yet.

While that may all be true, it's good if people do what they can. The PL can't change climate change, but this game will raise awareness for some of the many potential solutions out there that are currently heavily underused. And those people protesting are at least raising the issue. It's a bit misguided maybe, but probably more effective than my forum posts on the subject, for example.

 

[Smores]

While that may all be true, it's good if people do what they can. The PL can't change climate change, but this game will raise awareness for some of the many potential solutions out there that are currently heavily underused. And those people protesting are at least raising the issue. It's a bit misguided maybe, but probably more effective than my forum posts on the subject, for example.

That's exactly the point indeed. Noodles summation there seems to be only protest about the big things which we actually can't do anything about yet so maybe don't protest at all. There's an obvious flaw there.

Change and especially governmental led change isn't coming from an environment with no social protest. These 'pointless' endeavours are what keeps the pressure on, the awareness raised and lead to moving the dial bit by bit.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Idiots block M25
Protesters blocking several parts of the m25 bringing traffic to a halt, several cases of stuck motorists dragging them off the road. Id say thats mild, it should be perfectly legal to drive over people who decide to sit in the middle of a motorway.

 

[Pexbo]

Idiots block M25
Protesters blocking several parts of the m25 bringing traffic to a halt, several cases of stuck motorists dragging them off the road. Id say thats mild, it should be perfectly legal to drive over people who decide to sit in the middle of a motorway.

Kill protestors!

What’s your views on fascism out of interest?

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Kill protestors!

What’s your views on fascism out of interest?

No issue with protesters, Im just a big believer in actions having consequences, protest outside the houses of parliament, dont sit in a motorway. The consequence of that should be getting run over. My sympathies in this are with people who miss flights, lose jobs, miss delivery slots, miss medical appointments, miss saying goodbye to a loved one, not some twat who thinks they can do as they like and feck everyone else. Also it really doesnt help spread your message by acting like a total and utter twat. feck em.

 

[Pexbo]

No issue with protesters, Im just a big believer in actions having consequences, protest outside the houses of parliament, dont sit in a motorway. The consequence of that should be getting run over. My sympathies in this are with people who miss flights, lose jobs, miss delivery slots, miss medical appointments, miss saying goodbye to a loved one, not some twat who thinks they can do as they like and feck everyone else. Also it really doesnt help spread your message by acting like a total and utter twat. feck em.

Protest but don’t cause inconvenience to anyone. Got it.

I too always found that the protests which cause no disruption are always the ones that get the most media coverage so that’s a bonus I guess.

 

[horsechoker]

Dragging people off the motorway sounds appropriate, running them over doesn't.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Protest but don’t cause inconvenience to anyone. Got it.

I too always found that the protests which cause no disruption are always the ones that get the most media coverage so that’s a bonus I guess.

There is inconvenience, and then there is something else. Inconvenience is an annoyance, closing down the busiest sections of motorway in the country for hours is not a protest, its bordering on terrorism, cave to our demands or we will completely feck everything up for tens of thousands of people and keep doing so. I was being hyperbolic when I said run them over, but these people deserve no sympathy, they did the same thing 3 days ago, at some point enough is enough. How would you feel if you have a loved one waiting on an organ transplant, only to find out the organ they were expecting is no longer viable as its been held up by some wankers sat on a motorway? (Extreme case, I accept, but makes my point). And it doesnt even help, it just turns public support away from your cause, Im actually in favour of major changes to combat climate change, but cant support halfwits like these.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Dragging people off the motorway sounds appropriate, running them over doesn't.

Granted I dont actually endorse running them over, that was a bit of an exaggeration

 

[AllGoodNamesRGone]

its bordering on terrorism

 

[Pexbo]

There is inconvenience, and then there is something else. Inconvenience is an annoyance, closing down the busiest sections of motorway in the country for hours is not a protest, its bordering on terrorism, cave to our demands or we will completely feck everything up for tens of thousands of people and keep doing so. I was being hyperbolic when I said run them over, but these people deserve no sympathy, they did the same thing 3 days ago, at some point enough is enough. How would you feel if you have a loved one waiting on an organ transplant, only to find out the organ they were expecting is no longer viable as its been held up by some wankers sat on a motorway? (Extreme case, I accept, but makes my point). And it doesnt even help, it just turns public support away from your cause, Im actually in favour of major changes to combat climate change, but cant support halfwits like these.

Do you think climate change is going to feck everything up for more or less than “tens of thousands of people”?

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Do you think climate change is going to feck everything up for more or less than “tens of thousands of people”?

I think that alienating the very people you need to tempt to your cause is fecking stupid. It show a complete lack of joined up thinking and will just put people off supporting you.

 

[Brwned]

There is inconvenience, and then there is something else. Inconvenience is an annoyance, closing down the busiest sections of motorway in the country for hours is not a protest, its bordering on terrorism, cave to our demands or we will completely feck everything up for tens of thousands of people and keep doing so. I was being hyperbolic when I said run them over, but these people deserve no sympathy, they did the same thing 3 days ago, at some point enough is enough. How would you feel if you have a loved one waiting on an organ transplant, only to find out the organ they were expecting is no longer viable as its been held up by some wankers sat on a motorway? (Extreme case, I accept, but makes my point). And it doesnt even help, it just turns public support away from your cause, Im actually in favour of major changes to combat climate change, but cant support halfwits like these.

People who are turned away from the cause of climate change by the inconvenience of a closed motorway are not really part of the cause in the first place, to be fair. Because that exact inconvenience will happen as a result of climate change simply by people plodding along thinking "well what more can we do, let's be realistic here folks". People need to be jolted out of their complacency, which has the direct consequence of inconveniencing people. If we're worried about being inconvenienced we're not really worried about the right thing. Inconvenience is already baked into the problem. It's just when that inconvenience happens and how large the consequences of that inconvenience are. A closed motorway is a pretty small one compared to the things climate activists are animated by.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

People who are turned away from the cause of climate change by the inconvenience of a closed motorway are not really part of the cause in the first place, to be fair. Because that exact inconvenience will happen as a result of climate change simply by people plodding along thinking "well what more can we do, let's be realistic here folks". People need to be jolted out of their complacency, often through inconvenience.

Would you say the same thing if this inconvenience cost you a job, or a contract, deliberately fecking with people lives, especially at a time when the country is already in a huge mess is not helping. Plenty of people can be on the fence about an issue, and it doesnt take much to sway them one way or another. I fully endorse their right to protest, and I agree that a successful protest involves causing some inconvenience, but this goes way beyond inconvenience.

 

[Pexbo]

I think that alienating the very people you need to tempt to your cause is fecking stupid. It show a complete lack of joined up thinking and will just put people off supporting you.

Do you think the people in the cars are the ones who make these decisions? Do you think the few thousand people who had to sit in their car for a couple of hours will ultimately vote against climate interests because of that? If they’re that fickle and think that the impending doom of climate change is comparable to their inconvenience do you think it really matters what they do?


Seriously, I don’t think you do understand how serious the climate crisis is because if you did you would realise how stupid it is to moan about people who are trying to do something about it. Fast forward 30-40 years and see how climate change had made parts of the world that are currently very desirable completely uninhabitable, thousands of species of animals lost, all coral beds bleached and dead, extreme and unpredictable weather conditions making farming a virtually impossible living in many developed countries, the list goes on.


Imagine the conversation…

“Why didn’t anyone protest to stop this happening?”

“They did but people found blocking the road for a few hours inconvenient and wouldn’t support their cause”

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Do you think the people in the cars are the ones who make these decisions? Do you think the few thousand people who had to sit in their car for a couple of hours will ultimately vote against climate interests because of that? If they’re that fickle and think that the impending doom of climate change is comparable to their inconvenience do you think it really matters what they do?


Seriously, I don’t think you do understand how serious the climate crisis is because if you did you would realise how stupid it is to moan about people who are trying to do something about it. Fast forward 30-40 years and see how climate change had made parts of the world that are currently very desirable completely uninhabitable, thousands of species of animals lost, all coral beds bleached and dead, extreme and unpredictable weather conditions making farming a virtually impossible living in many developed countries, the list goes on.


Imagine the conversation…

“Why didn’t anyone protest to stop this happening?”

“They did but people found blocking the road for a few hours inconvenient and wouldn’t support their cause”

And again, there are plenty of ways to protest that dont involve putting more hardship on people that are already struggling. Go and fecking protest at lord henrington arse twats country estate, downing street, the mall, you know, the people who are actually going to make or not make the decisions. And if they are really that concerned about climate change maybe causing a 40 mile tailback and extending the journey times of tens of thousands of vehicles isnt the best idea?

 

[Brwned]

Would you say the same thing if this inconvenience cost you a job, or a contract, deliberately fecking with people lives, especially at a time when the country is already in a huge mess is not helping. Plenty of people can be on the fence about an issue, and it doesnt take much to sway them one way or another. I fully endorse their right to protest, and I agree that a successful protest involves causing some inconvenience, but this goes way beyond inconvenience.

I think it's natural for protests to escalate and push the boundaries and create more problems for society as the scale of the problem grows and the likelihood of a positive outcome lessens. Protest in a convenient way and nobody listens, protest in an inconvenient way and cause anger, that's always been the dichotomy. I don't agree with the idea that there's some perfect middle ground here, I do agree that people should strive for that, ideally with creativity sprinkled in there, but I don't agree that's the right standard to hold people to because that would dampen the appetite for protest which would create greater harm in the long run. If you've been involved in architecting protests you'll know striving towards that ideal is really challenging, and watching time sink away as you strive for that is in some senses immoral. So a less than perfect solution is better than no solution, a lot of the time.

I do agree that for people who are unconvinced about making serious sacrifices to tackle the climate problem, protests like this don't help them. But they're also not aimed at them. Generally I have no sympathy for those people either, maybe a decade ago, not now. If they're unconvinced now then I don't think any form of protest would motivate them, they need other kinds of persuasion from other groups. Likely they'll need the appropriate "incentives" from people in power, rather than being persuaded by ideas.

I agree that some protests cause harm to people and people should bear the consequences of that. Many protesters are willing to do exactly that, to take themselves to jail as a trade-off for forcing the issue down people's throats. Sometimes I agree with the methods, sometimes I don't. More than anything I'm sure that they're doing the right thing more often than I am, on an issue that's clearly essential to humanity, so on balance I would criticise myself before I criticise them.

 

[Pexbo]

Would you say the same thing if this inconvenience cost you a job, or a contract, deliberately fecking with people lives, especially at a time when the country is already in a huge mess is not helping. Plenty of people can be on the fence about an issue, and it doesnt take much to sway them one way or another. I fully endorse their right to protest, and I agree that a successful protest involves causing some inconvenience, but this goes way beyond inconvenience.

Spoiler: An inconvenience

Spoiler: Not worth protesting against

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

I think it's natural for protests to escalate and push the boundaries and create more problems for society as the scale of the problem grows and the likelihood of a positive outcome lessens. Protest in a convenient way and nobody listens, protest in an inconvenient way and cause anger, that's always been the dichotomy. I don't agree with the idea that there's some perfect middle ground here, I do agree that people should strive for that, ideally with creativity sprinkled in there, but I don't agree that's the right standard to hold people to because that would dampen the appetite for protest which would create greater harm in the long run. Striving towards that ideal is really challenging, and watching time sink away as you strive for that is in some senses immoral. So a less than perfect solution is better than no solution, a lot of the time.

I do agree that it for people who are unconvinced about making serious sacrifices to tackle the climate problem, protests like this don't help them. But they're also not aimed at them. Generally I have no sympathy for those people either, maybe a decade ago, not now. If they're unconvinced now then I don't think any form of protest would motivate them, they need other kinds of persuasion from other groups. Likely they'll need the appropriate "incentives" from people in power, rather than being persuaded by ideas.

I agree that some protests cause harm to people and people should bear the consequences of that. Many protests are willing to do exactly that, to take themselves to jail as a trade-off for forcing the issue down people's throats. Sometimes I agree with the methods, sometimes I don't. More than anything I'm sure that they're doing the right thing more often than I am, on an issue that's clearly essential to humanity, so on balance I would criticise myself before I criticise them.

Totally agree with that point, so surely the best course of action is to inconvenience those in power, give THEM a reason to get behind you, close down the mall, downing street etc, I fully appreciate the need for drastic changes, I really do, I just think this kind of thing is totally counter productive.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Spoiler: An inconvenience

Spoiler: Not worth protesting against

And yet again, we are differing over what is classed as an inconvenience, what they have done is not an inconvenience, it is deliberately fecking over people with no power to change things, for their to be meaningful change then the ruling classes need to be behind you. A: That tailback isnt going to mean a thing to them
B: Pissing off the people they did is not going to get the general population to harass their mps for climate change, so there is no motivation for them to tackle it. Get the public onside, and when enough of them are on side the leaders will have to listen.

 

[Brwned]

Totally agree with that point, so surely the best course of action is to inconvenience those in power, give THEM a reason to get behind you, close down the mall, downing street etc, I fully appreciate the need for drastic changes, I really do, I just think this kind of thing is totally counter productive.

I just think you should separate people into groups.

People like you and I who say we believe we need drastic changes but take very few actions to enact that do need the issue to be forced upon us in various ways from various angles. The protests are mostly aimed at us, not the people on the fence. The people who already agree it's a big problem but right now the problem seems distant and creates very few problems for. They're creating problems now so we have fewer problems later. The government won't take actions as a result of protesters on their doorstep, they'll take action when a majority of the population force them to make sacrifices that are currently politically unviable. They do also protest outside Downing Street too. Generally it gets much less attention so it serves a different purpose. It's why it doesn't get talked about in here.

The people who are still on the fence now will follow after that happens. Or at least that's the current perception that drives the strategy. It's a complicated problem so they might be wrong. They'll inevitably make mistakes. I'm just not keen on criticising those mistakes before criticising the myriad of other things we do as a society that forces them to potentially put themselves in jail just to make us think about this thing.

Unfortunately the reality we're in means problems are going to be created en route to finding the solutions. A lot of well-meaning people are still uncomfortable with that fact. This is one of the ways we're forced to confront it. If enough well-meaning and thoughtful people are outraged by these tactics to the point where they find out a better way to create awareness and drive action, that's a good thing, the movement will happily adopt those tactics too. Some people just like to create chaos and tag along to protests, often just to vent their anger, but most of them do it with the sincere intention of improving society. So if they find a better route they'll be delighted. No-one considers the current reality a good outcome. These protests are acts of desparation. And yeah sometimes desperate people do stupid things. I'd rather we removed the desperation rather than punished the stupid outcomes it leads to.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

I just think you should separate people into groups.

People like you and I who say we believe we need drastic changes but take very few actions to enact that do need the issue to be forced upon us in various ways from various angles. The protests are mostly aimed at us, not the people on the fence. The people who already agree it's a big problem but right now the problem seems distant and creates very few problems for. They're creating problems now so we have fewer problems later. The government won't take actions as a result of protesters on their doorstep, they'll take action when a majority of the population force them to make sacrifices that are currently politically unviable. They do also protest outside Downing Street too. Generally it gets much less attention so it serves a different purpose.

The people who are still on the fence now will follow after that happens. Or at least that's the current perception that drives the strategy. It's a complicated problem so they might be wrong. They'll inevitably make mistakes. I'm just not keen on criticising those mistakes before criticising the myriad of other things we do as a society that forces them to potentially put themselves in jail just to make us think about this thing.

Unfortunately the reality we're in means problems are going to be created en route to finding the solutions. A lot of well-meaning people are still uncomfortable with that fact. This is one of the ways we're forced to confront it. If enough well-meaning and thoughtful people are outraged by these tactics to the point where they find out a better way to create awareness and drive action, that's a good thing, the movement will happily adopt those tactics too. Some people just like to create chaos and tag along to protests, often just to vent their anger, but most of them do it with the sincere intention of improving society. So if they find a better route they'll be delighted. No-one considers the current reality a good outcome. These protests are acts of desparation. And yeah sometimes desperate people do stupid things. I'd rather we removed the desperation rather than punished the stupid outcomes it leads to.

I totally agree with your first paragraph until the bolding stops. Thats where we differ, you arent going to get enough of the population on board by acting like today, you are going to turn people against your issue. As you say, people like us are already aware of the issue and need for change, fecking over the people who arent is just going to set them against you. The vast majority are self interested, the only way to get them on board is to incentivise, for once I actually agree with something the government did with the grants towards buying electric cars, tax cuts for green businesses, incentives for people to embrace renewable energy and penalties for those that dont, these are the things that will win people round.

 

[Brwned]

I totally agree with your first paragraph until the bolding stops. Thats where we differ, you arent going to get enough of the population on board by acting like today, you are going to turn people against your issue. As you say, people like us are already aware of the issue and need for change, fecking over the people who arent is just going to set them against you. The vast majority are self interested, the only way to get them on board is to incentivise, for once I actually agree with something the government did with the grants towards buying electric cars, tax cuts for green businesses, incentives for people to embrace renewable energy and penalties for those that dont, these are the things that will win people round.

I guess it depends on how many people are on the fence about this.

I think the majority of people agree it’s a huge problem and significant sacrifices need to be made, they don’t need to be persuaded on that argument, they just need to be forced out of their comfort zone. If that majority is motivated then the political will follows. I don’t think more people need to be brought into the movement, they just need to engage with it differently.

If the majority of the population are still on the fence about whether big sacrifices are necessary to prevent climate change then yeah, this tactic won’t work very well, I agree. But then I also think we’re fecked. If it’s taken this long to convince a minority, not through protest but through science, policy, NGO comms, etc. Then I don’t think any form of protests will make a big enough dent to convert that to a majority.

I’m cautiously optimistic, personally. I think it’s a sleeping majority, not a vocal minority.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

I guess it depends on how many people are on the fence about this.

I think the majority of people agree it’s a huge problem and significant sacrifices need to be made, they don’t need to be persuaded on that argument, they just need to be forced out of their comfort zone. If that majority is motivated then the political will follows. I don’t think more people need to be brought into the movement, they just need to engage with it differently.

If the majority of the population are still on the fence about whether big sacrifices are necessary to prevent climate change then yeah, this tactic won’t work very well, I agree. But then I also think we’re fecked. If it’s taken this long to convince a minority, not through protest but through science, policy, NGO comms, etc. Then I don’t think any form of protests will make a big enough dent to convert that to a majority.

I’m cautiously optimistic, personally. I think it’s a sleeping majority, not a vocal minority.

We can only hope, Im ducking out for lunch, been a pleasure as always.

 

[Brwned]

We can only hope, Im ducking out for lunch, been a pleasure as always.

Likewise!

 

[Cheimoon]

The vast majority are self interested, the only way to get them on board is to incentivise, for once I actually agree with something the government did with the grants towards buying electric cars, tax cuts for green businesses, incentives for people to embrace renewable energy and penalties for those that dont, these are the things that will win people round.

I agree that we need massive government intervention to make change happen; but how will you get the government to do that? Cause complacency seems highest in those circles: as long as it doesn't get us voted out of office, all is fine. Protests outside government locations won't change that, especially since it gets little attention since it's so commonplace (as @Brwned said). From that perspective, it might indeed be a better idea to inconvenience people. Even if they might not like you for it, they, or some of them, might pressure the people they elect because of it.

I'm not sure how effective that really is, but I can see the sense in that kind of thinking. It's certainly worth trying, given that our current snail's pace of change is actively harmful to humanity and not accelerating anywhere near enough.

 

[NotThatSoph]

No issue with protesters, Im just a big believer in actions having consequences, protest outside the houses of parliament, dont sit in a motorway. The consequence of that should be getting run over. My sympathies in this are with people who miss flights, lose jobs, miss delivery slots, miss medical appointments, miss saying goodbye to a loved one, not some twat who thinks they can do as they like and feck everyone else. Also it really doesnt help spread your message by acting like a total and utter twat. feck em.

How much money would you pay to murder these people?

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

How much money would you pay to murder these people?

Because thats exactly what I said isnt it. I admitted I was exaggerating, and dont actually advocate running them over, dont be such a weapon.

 

[hungrywing]

from Here