Just Stop Oil
- Thread starter Port Vale Devil
- Start date
Loads of people asking for their arrest in the comments. People will hate on these kids no matter what they do.
In portugal a few months back climate protesters threw paint at the environment minister and some gas ceo at a conference sponsored by gas companies where the minister was basically breaking election promises. In theory no target would be better than this. The poor kids were dragged through the mud, the vast majority of people were against it.
People simply don't want any kind of protest because it's a reminder they do nothing to improve the world and it's better to hate on others than to deal with their guilty conscience.
They give enough ammunition when they are busy travelling around the country in fossil fuel burning vehicles, wearing mass produced internationally sourced clothes and tweeting/postin incessantly on their electronic gadgets, that they will never give up. In other words they are hypocrites in the main, but such is life.
one of the “kids” was 73.
Yes, the guilt 'cuts in' around the 35-45 age range, I wouldn't say it was 'hatred of others' its usually that they regret they gave in too soon.
I took part in a protest march in the centre of Manchester in the early 70's, ( I was in my early 20's) it was trade union organised, and named the "Kill the Bill" march; it was about stopping the forth coming Industrial Relations Act. It did no good because Ted Heath's Tory government went ahead and introduced it, and then produced the Industrial Relations Court (President was Judge 'Black Jack' Donaldson) it was only when Labour got in fours years later that it was abolished.
However, when Mrs T got back in roughly ten years later she went after the Unions again, by then I was married with two kids and a big mortgage... my protest marching days were over.
Last edited:
There not really doing anything other than antagonising the general public and ironically wasting energy, because every stunt needs cleaning up one way or another and that will inevitably involve using energy that probably creates some man made CO2 along the way.
They would be much better actively researching or working in the energy/transport sector pushing the ongoing transition towards net zero. That is actually happening in this country at the very least. We need solutions to problems, and the people power to implement the solutions to those problems, not people just causing problems raising awareness of an issue that is talked about daily.
Replace kids with people, the point remains the same.
Looking at social media, hatred seems to be the correct word.
This entire post is an assumption. Plenty of people have no gadgets and drive no fossil fuel burning car. They do all wear clothes, but there isnt really an alternative there obviously.
Even if they do all those things, it's still a very good thing if governments stop sponsoring oil companies.
By the same token plenty of people, countries etc rely on fossil fuels for a basic standard of living, to even lift some out of poverty. Hydrocarbons are not just used for fuel either.
For what it is worth the fossil fuel industry is held to a far higher standard than pretty much any other, rightly so given historical issues. I agree there needs to be tighter control, but stopping oil and gas exploration in 2030 is utterly ridiculous. The way they go about protesting is utterly ridiculous too.
I was also responding to Maniak, who quoted a tweet from JSO. So while there may be plenty who try to live a fossil fuel free live there are clearly many who don't.
Is it just me that thought, are these muppets being paid to muddy the waters and make this movement look bad?
I get that it puts the movement in the limelight but it's something that can be universally condemned and be justified in doing so. People don't want to be aligned with a fecking movement that vandalises heritage sites, blocks amublances or kids from getting to school..
Surely it gives those that oppose them, very easy wins.. 'oo look at what these nutjobs are up to now'
You need to get the people on side, if you have a movement that does things that are hard to condemn and for a good cause.. people will want to align with that movement. You'll never attract everyone, people even shat on Rashford for what he did.
Difference is, the government was forced to act because they looked like numpties.
Where's in this case the protesters honestly look fecking stupid, you're not going to attract the masses by doing something so easily condemned regardless of your cause.
I get that it puts the movement in the limelight but it's something that can be universally condemned and be justified in doing so. People don't want to be aligned with a fecking movement that vandalises heritage sites, blocks amublances or kids from getting to school..
Surely it gives those that oppose them, very easy wins.. 'oo look at what these nutjobs are up to now'
You need to get the people on side, if you have a movement that does things that are hard to condemn and for a good cause.. people will want to align with that movement. You'll never attract everyone, people even shat on Rashford for what he did.
Difference is, the government was forced to act because they looked like numpties.
Where's in this case the protesters honestly look fecking stupid, you're not going to attract the masses by doing something so easily condemned regardless of your cause.
congrats you did the meme
The eradication of fossil fuels, or hydrocarbons in general, will have a hugely detrimental affect on many of the poorest in society. So meme away. It's nothing to do with being intelligent, it is simple logic.
I agree that completely shutting it down by 2030 is not realistic (and not their goal I think?), but the transition to green energy will never fully happen unless it becomes profitable to do so. A way to do this is by stopping all subsidies for not going green. The world is a capitalist place and if we wait untill industries change out of the goodness of their hearts we will all burn sooner rather than later.
What is just completely mind blowing to me, is that people are angry about some carrot residue on Stonehenge and not that we're completely eradicating our planet. Well it doesn't blow my mind, because one thing is immediately visible and the other thing is complicated and easy to ignore or deny, but it's sad.
Last edited:
JSO agrees with you, that's why they only want to stop new licenses, not all exploration.
I assume you mean some people like politicians (and twitter idiots) who are ignoring the positives of JSO? I think it's perfectly valid to be concerned about the environment, but not particularly like the choice of Stonehenge for this protest.
I dunno, targeting Stonehenge generates lots of attention. And I'm pretty sure Stonehenge will be fine. Sitting down on highways is actually a poorer choice as that can seriously harm innocent people.
I guess that's where people will have different opinions, but as long as we're aligned with being behind helping the environment it's for the greater good. At the end of the day there's very few 5,000 year old man-made objects in the world and personally I think we should be giving them extra protection whether damage was caused or not.
That's fair enough I suppose.
They've messed with the wrong people this time. My fellow Swifties will take this personally #RIPJustStopOil
Oh give over. If they were full of a billion quid of oil they’d have found their way into a car engine by now.
They threw some dust on some stones. It’s already gone and people are visiting again.
I get the emotional hook. It got me for about an hour or so. But it’s really just stones and some orange dust. The moral outrage is so over the top.
They’ve not all been standing like that for thousands of years, they were altered and moved in the last 100. They had cranes on site, it’s been curated and turned into a tourist attraction. They’re not precious or fragile.
I went there for sunrise once and it was oddly eerie and really quite nice. But they’re still just stones.
It is the poorest, generally, (globally), which are most affected by global warming. Your point doesn't hold up. It is already (the non-eradication, whatever the form) having disastrous effects upon the poorest. The inverse is economic speculation.
What shall we get them to chain themselves to?
Stonehenge? The danger is they would just get left there.
What on earth are you talking about? The very poorest in the world will be by far the worst affected by global warming.
Opinions eh. I don't think there's any moral outrage for most people (myself anyway), but do think it would be good to protect ancient and historic objects. That's about as far as it goes.
Yeah fair. I suspect we’re not that far apart. I wouldn’t extend protections to Stonehenge, but would have switched ‘sides’ had they used actual paint or oil.
My response to yours pulled in sentiment from other posters too, so sorry if it was sharp. We don’t agree, but I probably left one on ya there.
Just an FYI, the three stones involved had metal chains wrapped around them and were hoisted into the air during the 60s, because one fell over.
They survived. The cornstarch is already gone.
They survived. The cornstarch is already gone.
No worries, I actually got the same hour you talked about when I read about them protesting there, but I think we've just ended up in a different position. I've got no hatred of JSO, just think there's certain things that are good to protect generally (not specifically from them)
Great memecongrats you did the meme
Anyone in this thread happened to have read ‘Ministry For The Future’ by Kim Stanley Robinson?
Drove past today, no orange but also hugely busy for Solstice.
It's barely cogent.
stop staring at a mirror etc
If you look at the photos taken during the ‘improvement’ work it’s easy to arrive at a point that suggests this is all confected and uninformed outrage.
I mean…
I don't do cocaine.
I've decided that algae has more redeeming features than humanity and thus the protesters should be hanged.
I tried to explain why I'm so despairing of climate activism.
This is a screenshot of mostly lefties all replying to another lefty account, who had said it's good to keep the AC temperature relatively high. "I won't budge till the corporations do" is one of the most common views I've seen online, and has been popularised by Guardian headlines like "top 30 companies do 80% of emissions" or something like that.
So, these people, who accept the science, and presumably care about its effects, feel comfortable in behaving exactly like those conservatives who trigger the libs by running their SUVs for hours. Because apparently these "top corporation" emissions are caused, not by generating electricity to feed consumer demand, but because they are villains who get money from burning extra oil and cackling evilly.
If you confront these people that "dismantling" corporations to cut emissions would mean cutting emissions by restricting or taxing their personal consumption, I would guess half of them discover a medical condition that requires their colder temperature, or simply change their politics.
This is a screenshot of mostly lefties all replying to another lefty account, who had said it's good to keep the AC temperature relatively high. "I won't budge till the corporations do" is one of the most common views I've seen online, and has been popularised by Guardian headlines like "top 30 companies do 80% of emissions" or something like that.
So, these people, who accept the science, and presumably care about its effects, feel comfortable in behaving exactly like those conservatives who trigger the libs by running their SUVs for hours. Because apparently these "top corporation" emissions are caused, not by generating electricity to feed consumer demand, but because they are villains who get money from burning extra oil and cackling evilly.
If you confront these people that "dismantling" corporations to cut emissions would mean cutting emissions by restricting or taxing their personal consumption, I would guess half of them discover a medical condition that requires their colder temperature, or simply change their politics.
Fossil fuel is pretty much a resource most poor and developing economies are based on. I don't think anyone in those countries care about Global Warming when they are fighting for basic living conditions.
US still has the second largest carbon footprint despite having a fraction of population of India and China. Same with Canada, Japan, Korea and a bunch of European developed nations....high per Capita CO2 footprint. If you look at fossil fuel consumption, pretty much the same culprits.
.
Anyway back on topic, I consider JSO as eco terrorists. I'd be happy if they all go away.
"GW will destroy out life and culture in future. To prevent it, we'll destroy them now"
Last edited: