Do you have proof they engage in violence and intimidation to achieve their goals?
If you don't, that's a pretty silly statement.
Just Stop Oil
- Thread starter Port Vale Devil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Do you have proof they engage in violence and intimidation to achieve their goals?
If you don't, that's a pretty silly statement.
Meh! Terrorism does include destruction of property....which gets more weight given they target property of historical significance.
I'm just going to assume you're having a laugh.
The poorest people will be disproportionatly impacted by all sorts of things like rising sea levels and catastrophic weather amongst other things.
Explain how it impacts their day to day life please.
Yeah. Sure.
The world's poorest being forced to flee their homes because of rising sea levels and land becoming inhabitable: Explain how it impacts their day to day life please.
Powder on stones that washes away in the rain: Terrorism.
Powder on stones that washes away in the rain: Terrorism.
Crops don't grow due to droughts.
It really shows some people put a lot of thought into this.
I guess you're going by random online articles.
Speaking from personal experience, Droughts and floods are part of the lifecycle decades earlier. I doubt you can attribute that specifically to global warming. I grew up with drinking waters available only few days a week and food prices through the roof because of water scarcity.....and those were way before all GW became a popular topic.
And why would that impact only developing economies and not the developed ones?
And anyway, this is out of topic for this thread.
it affects it disproportionately because a much higher percentage of people work on the land
your anecdotal experience is interesting though when I was growing up I remember a drought too
I think many being underwater, homeless, jobless (or dead), and with the huge food shortages that will occur, in places like Bangladesh, or Tivalu which is about to cease to exist, might impact daily lives a tad.
It is estimated that 200 million people will be displaced by 2050 with huge implications for refugee migration from developing to developed countries. On top of existing levels.
And exactly why the wealthy nations need to do far more of the heavy lifting in reducing emissions.
Last edited:
And rich nations can afford mitigation measures.
And floods.
I think groups like this are just a mild, slightly farcical/comical prelude to what we'll see as things get worse and countries inevitably become more authoritarian in response to the issues with resources and population displacement climate change is going to cause. This won't stop at petty vandalism and peaceful protest, it's going to become militant and violent, more comparable to the political radicals/revolutionaries of the 19th and 20 century, but of course by then it'll be far too late, even assuming that direction ever had a chance to work anywhere in the first place.
yeah, i'm not optimistic.
yeah, i'm not optimistic.
I'd say this was a very successful protest. Nothing and nobody was harmed. Huge publicity and discussion was generated - this thread shows that. And if you protest in ways that nobody sees or talks about it is just about pointless.
I'm sure the suffargettes pissed lots of people off but they got the job done and women eventually got the vote.
I'm sure the suffargettes pissed lots of people off but they got the job done and women eventually got the vote.
Last edited:
Thats the thing. The suffragettes invented the letter bomb, blew up post boxes in the street. They were far more destructive than just stop oil. Yet they are seen as the heroes they were today. How they got the vote for women is lost in the celebrations of the fact they got the vote for women.
Only a small part of their actions and they never killed anyone as they were careful. As far as I know the only death was a suffaraget killed by a horse during a protest.
I don't know what you mean by your first sentence. Aren't we all going by articles we read?
Scientists agree that climate change will cause more droughts and more severe ones, so we humans have caused a change in the normal cycles.
If there's a severe drought in portugal we will get food from somewhere else. Sure, it might cause some scarcity and increased prices but in general people will manage fine. If there's a severe drought in a poor country it's likely many people will lose their only means of making money and worse, many will probably starve.
It's pretty obvious poor countries will be affected much more severely by something we are making much much worse.
They will build walls and border patrols to keep those displaced people from coming in and keep pumping poison in the atmosphere for economic prosperity. I am 100% sure this is what is going to happen.
4 dead, 24 injured.
One suffragette also thre an axe at the prime minister of the time, asquith, missed him and hit an MP.
They planted a bomb in the home secretaries, office which, had it not been discovered, would have killed everyon in the room.
The newspapers of the time called them terrorists.
Fortress Europe 2.0
The Open University degree course says this " As far as we know, militant suffragette actions didn't claim a single life.". Presumably that excludes suffragettes who were killed during protests.
2 People died in fires in bradford, and two in portsmouth.
They also tried to push an MP off a bridge to kill him, and twice blew up lloyd george's home. Its in bearman's book. I suspect that open university only talk about the bombs, rather than the entire terror campaign.
Someone never got to play with a non-Newtonian fluid at school I see.
If they'd mixed cornflour with liquid and thrown it at a rock it would have bounced off.
Not good science this. Bird's custard is primarily cornflour and it can stick to stuff.
I'm coming around to them more. The Stonehenge painting is definitely an improvement over the counter productive and pointless traffic stoppages and painting private jets is definitely a further step in the right direction drawing attention and targeting a high profile issue that contributes and outsize amount to global warming. If they can keep this focus on targets like private jets if the elite I think that's them finding an actual effective means of protest.
£52k to clean the private jets, feck off 
Lying, thieving polluting bastards.
Lying, thieving polluting bastards.
I think that has always been the norm in recent history. Take Bangladesh, which you used as example...it has floods pretty much every year and a huge one every decade or so. There are large number of homeless/jobless or those under poverty line struggling to make ends meet. Food shortages are rampant and children suffer from malnutrition even now....and none of those are due to Global Warming. GW is probably not even on their radar for things to improve. I just struggle to see how GW would make their lives any more miserable in 2050 that it is now.
It's probably the western/developed countries who will suffer more as they may not have their usual plethora of luxuries if/when they make serious effort to end carbon emissions. No muscle car and half the mid-west would rebel.
Just lacks context of reality or you suffer from same bias as the author.
Last edited:
One thing about climate change is that extreme weather events are going to increase. Wealthy nations/regions are going to cope way better with that than poor regions. When things happen like the freezing in Texas last few years, wealthy neighborhoods are going to be a little less comfortable, poverty neighborhoods are going to have increased deaths and disease.
The argument that the poor regions need fossil fuels to increase standard of living is a little flawed because fossil fuels benefitted and benefit massively from all sorts of subsidies and tax breaks. As we start to switch those to renewable energy, as we should done 25 freaking years ago, then that will become the source of improving standard of living in the developing regions. That and building more geodesic domes for the developing world which are far more energy efficient than box structures.
There's a lot of different stuff you've conflated into a single response. Let me try to parse it.
Firstly, any impact on standard of living driven by renewable energy is very indirect. For the common person it just isn't something that he can attribute to in everyday life. Not like "Oh, I switched to Tesla and I'm having a better life now" or "My home is powered by renewable, so I have better quality of life now". There are various other social, economic & political factors that influence standard of living far far more than renewable energy debate. It would have an impact, but ascertaining exactly how much would be pretty much a intellectual exercise.
Secondly, if you look at raw numbers of energy produced by renewable energy, countries like India, China & USA are already on top of the charts. Ironically these are the same countries who also top the carbon emissions charts. China and India produce far more renewable energy than all European nations. The biggest culprit again, being the US.
Thirdly, the main reason for fossil fuel subsidy is not because they encourage them, but rather the only way to keep them affordable to run the economy. Having grown up in India, we always get a subsidy when oil prices go up, so fuel doesn't become so expensive to crash the economy. It's just a necessity. Both India & China have plans to grow their nuclear energy and move away from fuels and this has been in the works for some time now.
Last edited:
Im not sure that taking the moral high ground against just stop oil and at the same time dismissing the impact of climate change on poorer parts of the world is as foolproof an argument as people think it is.
4-5 years is disgusting for what amounts to planning a protest.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...pporters-jailed-over-protest-that-blocked-m25
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...pporters-jailed-over-protest-that-blocked-m25
That's insane. Actual violent criminals get less.
Yeah, but what about all the people who would be late for work?
Even the charge sounds lame. Conspiracy to cause a nuisance. My kids are guilty of this daily.
How on earth did the judge get to the conclusion that essentially planning a protest was worth that sort of sentence.
In fact any sort of sentence for planning a protest seems crazy to me. Heading towards thought crime level madness
They should be locked up as well because they are in on it, trying to create an excuse for being late
Police would arrest half of high schoolers on a daily bases.