Just Stop Oil

[Jev]

Because if people's issue with the sentence is how harsh it is, not how harsh it is for climate activists specifically, then ...

While I sense that you feel very clever and superior, I’m not sure I know what you’re trying to say. If you’re arguing that this is just people taking issue with the severity of punishments in the British justice system in general, and the fact that the perpetrators in this case were climate activists had nothing to do with it, then this discussion makes no sense.

 

[NotThatSoph]

While I sense that you feel very clever and superior, I’m not sure I know what you’re trying to say. If you’re arguing that this is just people taking issue with the severity of punishments in the British justice system in general, and the fact that the perpetrators in this case were climate activists had nothing to do with it, then this discussion makes no sense.

I'm obviously failing at communicating something that is extremely simple, which is usually not a sign of someone being clever, so I don't feel that way at all.

 

[Red_toad]

What an odd thing to say. If sending them round to a member of the public's house and vandalising it means we get jog on with climate change, then sure. I nominate mine if that's an issue?


But it's a weird point because attacking someone's house will do nothing, whereas these are attacks on establishment no?

Why is it odd? That painting 100% does not belong to the UK government. So which ‘establishment’ were they after?
I don’t advocate damaging someone property to change things you disagree with.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Why is it odd? That painting 100% does not belong to the UK government. So which ‘establishment’ were they after?
I don’t advocate damaging someone property to change things you disagree with.

Except it 100% does?

 

[Red_toad]

Except it 100% does?

Not really, it belongs to the British public.
Then there’s the whole it didn’t change anything when they had their little protest.
I don’t actually see any UK government stopping all new oil developments as it’d damage the already fragile economy. That is until there’s a viable way to do so.
Like I said I don’t agree with damaging property to get your point across, there’s always a better way.

 

[TwoSheds]

Presumably liquids and antique wooden frames don't mix well. It likely had gold leaf on too or some form of gilding that may have been damaged.
They're exquisitely carved and probably quite fragile.

It's art, you've just given it a better story and it's value goes up.

 

[TwoSheds]

Not really, it belongs to the British public.
Then there’s the whole it didn’t change anything when they had their little protest.
I don’t actually see any UK government stopping all new oil developments as it’d damage the already fragile economy. That is until there’s a viable way to do so.
Like I said I don’t agree with damaging property to get your point across, there’s always a better way.

I actually think the economy will be at risk more from a bunch of unprofitable oil development projects than it would be by investing in renewable energy, batteries, hydrogen, etc etc. we need to invest in producing things people want, not what they don't.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Not really, it belongs to the British public.
Then there’s the whole it didn’t change anything when they had their little protest.
I don’t actually see any UK government stopping all new oil developments as it’d damage the already fragile economy. That is until there’s a viable way to do so.
Like I said I don’t agree with damaging property to get your point across, there’s always a better way.

"The National Gallery is an exempt charity, and a non-departmental public body of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.[3] Its collection belongs to the government on behalf of the British public, and entry to the main collection is free of charge."

Going back to the original point, it's quite obvious attacking the national gallery and attacking some randomers house are two completely different things, aren't they.

 

[NotChatGPT]

I actually think the economy will be at risk more from a bunch of unprofitable oil development projects than it would be by investing in renewable energy, batteries, hydrogen, etc etc. we need to invest in producing things people want, not what they don't.

You should ask the swedish government what they feel about battery production, Northvolt is going to shits. The supply is much larger than the demand.

And offshore windmill farms is money down the drain.

 

[Red_toad]

"The National Gallery is an exempt charity, and a non-departmental public body of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.[3] Its collection belongs to the government on behalf of the British public, and entry to the main collection is free of charge."

Going back to the original point, it's quite obvious attacking the national gallery and attacking some randomers house are two completely different things, aren't they.

Attacking anything to gain publicity or change government policy isn’t great any which way you look at it.
I don’t advocate vandalism, thought I’d made that clear. There are always better ways. You appear to think it’s ok, so enjoy your opinion.

.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Attacking anything to gain publicity or change government policy isn’t great any which way you look at it.
I don’t advocate vandalism, thought I’d made that clear. There are always better ways. You appear to think it’s ok, so enjoy your opinion.

.

Why did you bring up the claim that it's not owned by the government or part of the establishment, when obviously you never actually cared about that either way?

 

[Jippy]

I actually think the economy will be at risk more from a bunch of unprofitable oil development projects than it would be by investing in renewable energy, batteries, hydrogen, etc etc. we need to invest in producing things people want, not what they don't.

It's obviously good to invest in renewables and new technologies, but let's not pretend oil usage is ending any time soon.
Oil consumption topped 100m barrels for the first time last year.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/20/...nsumption of oil, coal,output by 8% last year.

 

[TwoSheds]

It's obviously good to invest in renewables and new technologies, but let's not pretend oil usage is ending any time soon.
Oil consumption topped 100m barrels for the first time last year.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/20/climate/fossil-fuel-emissions-record-climate-intl/index.html#:~:text=Global consumption of oil, coal,output by 8% last year.

That's great, but do you know how long it takes to develop a new oil field? They will be loss making their entire lives most likely, unless they're super easy to extract.

 

[NotChatGPT]

That's great, but do you know how long it takes to develop a new oil field? They will be loss making their entire lives most likely, unless they're super easy to extract.

It depends how far it is away from already existing infrastructure

 

[TwoSheds]

You should ask the swedish government what they feel about battery production, Northvolt is going to shits. The supply is much larger than the demand.

And offshore windmill farms is money down the drain.

Who says we have to produce the batteries? I mean obviously we ought to have the capability for national security reasons, much like we ought to have the capability to make (green) steel and suchlike, but I'm talking about installing BESS systems for the grid, pylons, sub-stations. Boring shit that will save everybody money and transform our lives and the economy.

And you should go and tell the offshore wind folks about your theory. https://davidturver.substack.com/p/obscene-profits-offshore-wind-farms

The genius of a wind farm is it doesn't need fuel so the operating costs are super low but they can sell the electricity for more or less the same price as a gas power station.

Also, build onshore wind. Build onshore solar. Produce the electricity close to where it's needed e.g. urban centres, industrial parks, ports, military bases etc etc.

 

[Red_toad]

Why did you bring up the claim that it's not owned by the government or part of the establishment, when obviously you never actually cared about that either way?

Is whatever you’re on about relevant to the thread?

 

[DOTA]

Is whatever you’re on about relevant to the thread?

I believe it is in regard to a post you made in this thread, yes.

Why is it odd? That painting 100% does not belong to the UK government. So which ‘establishment’ were they after?
I don’t advocate damaging someone property to change things you disagree with.

It's this one here I think.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Is whatever you’re on about relevant to the thread?

I'd think so, yes.

Usually, when people present an argument or reason for something being bad, it's because they honestly believe in those things. If, instead, when you present a reason, and then upon finding out that was wrong immediately retreat to something else instead of changing your opinion, then you're basically lying.

You obviously don't agree with their form of protest, and that's fine. I'm curious why you attempted that private vs public property thing, when it's not something you actually believe in and it wasn't relevant to you at all, instead of just being honest from the start. One option is that you were lying on purpose, because you thought presenting it that way instead of your actual beliefs would play better. Another option is that when you thought it wasn't government property you felt it was relevant, but when you learned otherwise something switched in your brain and you suddenly discovered that it doesn't matter either way. Or, it could be something else I can't think of at the moment, so I'm asking.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Attacking anything to gain publicity or change government policy isn’t great any which way you look at it.
I don’t advocate vandalism, thought I’d made that clear. There are always better ways. You appear to think it’s ok, so enjoy your opinion.

.

What are the better ways exactly?

 

[Red_toad]

What are the better ways exactly?

Google it!

 

[NotChatGPT]

Who says we have to produce the batteries? I mean obviously we ought to have the capability for national security reasons, much like we ought to have the capability to make (green) steel and suchlike, but I'm talking about installing BESS systems for the grid, pylons, sub-stations. Boring shit that will save everybody money and transform our lives and the economy.

And you should go and tell the offshore wind folks about your theory. https://davidturver.substack.com/p/obscene-profits-offshore-wind-farms

The genius of a wind farm is it doesn't need fuel so the operating costs are super low but they can sell the electricity for more or less the same price as a gas power station.

Also, build onshore wind. Build onshore solar. Produce the electricity close to where it's needed e.g. urban centres, industrial parks, ports, military bases etc etc.

I suppose everything is relative, but operating costs of wind farms aren't super low.

In terms of my theory, it depends heavily on where it is and i'm not entirely sure how accurate it is to simply look at their profits as it depends on what they get for the power they produce, what the government guarantee per MWh and how overall subsidized the projects are, who actually picks up the bill and who gets the profits. Walney Extension reports losses. Didn't the UK have a disaster auction round recently?....I can't be bothered to spend time looking at calculated costs in UK, but to put things in perspective, apart from 2022 the market price for electricity has consistently been lower than the guaranteed price.

https://kvartal.se/artiklar/pengarna-borta-med-vinden/

Onshore wind, we don't know how big the consequences will be over time and how much damage it will cause to the wildlife.

 

[NotChatGPT]

I'll draw the line at hurting random members of the public or terrorism.

Explain how they should do it properly.

How do they change things democratically when people don't vote en masse for parties who will put the environment first?

A lot of people just want them to resolve the problems quietly without disrupting their life in any way, I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that.

That's a funny statement.

 

[TwoSheds]

I suppose everything is relative, but operating costs of wind farms aren't super low.

In terms of my theory, it depends heavily on where it is and i'm not entirely sure how accurate it is to simply look at their profits as it depends on what they get for the power they produce, what the government guarantee per MWh and how overall subsidized the projects are, who actually picks up the bill and who gets the profits. Walney Extension reports losses. Didn't the UK have a disaster auction round recently?....I can't be bothered to spend time looking at calculated costs in UK, but to put things in perspective, apart from 2022 the market price for electricity has consistently been lower than the guaranteed price.

https://kvartal.se/artiklar/pengarna-borta-med-vinden/

Onshore wind, we don't know how big the consequences will be over time and how much damage it will cause to the wildlife.

The disaster auction round was because they didn't guarantee a high enough energy price for the private firms to securely deliver the projects given the massive inflation and volatility of raw materials prices (thanks HS2, Brexit). But those capital costs affect every type of energy project. Onshore wind is cheaper to build and connect than offshore, but it's also not as reliable so generates a bit less.

And as for the environmental impact of onshore wind, utter scaremongering codswallop. We know very well what the (minimal) environmental impacts are after all these years and what we can do to mitigate them. We also know even better what the (massive) environmental impacts of oil and gas are and their devastating effect on the environment and wildlife. It's not even a contest.

 

[Reiver]

Onshore wind, we don't know how big the consequences will be over time and how much damage it will cause to the wildlife.

I don't know that this is true but, whatever the impact, I'm going to guess that continuing to use oil is a lot worse.

 

[NotChatGPT]

That's generally how it works yes, that and the likes of X which is also full of this debate. There's not much point in protests if the protest isn't seen.

There isn't much point in protests where the end result is that people are more annoyed at the people protesting than they are about the cause. Right or wrong, at the end of the day there just isn't anywhere close to substantial support. It’s not as if it’s complicated to end up in the news.

The disaster auction round was because they didn't guarantee a high enough energy price for the private firms to securely deliver the projects given the massive inflation and volatility of raw materials prices (thanks HS2, Brexit). But those capital costs affect every type of energy project. Onshore wind is cheaper to build and connect than offshore, but it's also not as reliable so generates a bit less.

And as for the environmental impact of onshore wind, utter scaremongering codswallop. We know very well what the (minimal) environmental impacts are after all these years and what we can do to mitigate them. We also know even better what the (massive) environmental impacts of oil and gas are and their devastating effect on the environment and wildlife. It's not even a contest.

I suppose you mean thanks to Covid, followed by the invasion of Ukraine which prompted an energy crisis due to European countries dependancy on Russian oil and gas, thanks to what now? Oh yeah…Also, it wasn’t only about inflation, but also a question of the guaranteed sum.

Not sure how you’ve concluded that it’s scaremongering, there’s plenty of reports about the noise emissions and how it effects animal life. https://www.luke.fi/en/news/review-several-groups-of-birds-and-mammals-avoid-wind-turbines

https://www.birdlife.no/innhold/bilder/2020/06/16/7323/faggrunnlag_fugler.pdf

Not to mention the amount of birds colliding, like eagles in Norway.

 

[TwoSheds]

There isn't much point in protests where the end result is that people are more annoyed at the people protesting than they are about the cause. Right or wrong, at the end of the day there just isn't anywhere close to substantial support. It’s not as if it’s complicated to end up in the news.


I suppose you mean thanks to Covid, followed by the invasion of Ukraine which prompted an energy crisis due to European countries dependancy on Russian oil and gas, thanks to what now? Oh yeah…Also, it wasn’t only about inflation, but also a question of the guaranteed sum.

Not sure how you’ve concluded that it’s scaremongering, there’s plenty of reports about the noise emissions and how it effects animal life. https://www.luke.fi/en/news/review-several-groups-of-birds-and-mammals-avoid-wind-turbines

https://www.birdlife.no/innhold/bilder/2020/06/16/7323/faggrunnlag_fugler.pdf

Not to mention the amount of birds colliding, like eagles in Norway.

The invasion of Ukraine would be a blessing for renewable energy given what happened to gas prices. But yes, general worldwide economic instability and inflation, whatever floats your boat. But yeah onshore wind is roughly half the price to deliver compared to offshore which is why the Tory ban on onshore wind was mental.

And it's very easy to reduce the numbers of birdstrikes on a wind farm. For example painting one of the blades a different colour drops the number hugely. I should think oil slicks and climate change have killed a hell of a lot more birds than wind turbines ever will.

And if you want to talk about noise emissions, oil tankers are responsible for deaths and health problems in all kinds of marine wildlife - whales, orcas, dolphins etc. The environmental effects are not even a little bit comparable to wind or solar, they're night and day.

 

[RedSky]

I don't know that this is true but, whatever the impact, I'm going to guess that continuing to use oil is a lot worse.

It's hilarious and equally frustrating how stupid people can be about defending oil.

 

[NotChatGPT]

The invasion of Ukraine would be a blessing for renewable energy given what happened to gas prices. But yes, general worldwide economic instability and inflation, whatever floats your boat. But yeah onshore wind is roughly half the price to deliver compared to offshore which is why the Tory ban on onshore wind was mental.

And it's very easy to reduce the numbers of birdstrikes on a wind farm. For example painting one of the blades a different colour drops the number hugely. I should think oil slicks and climate change have killed a hell of a lot more birds than wind turbines ever will.

And if you want to talk about noise emissions, oil tankers are responsible for deaths and health problems in all kinds of marine wildlife - whales, orcas, dolphins etc. The environmental effects are not even a little bit comparable to wind or solar, they're night and day.

The invasion of Ukraine and different focus on energy security policies hasn’t been much of a blessing.

The studies into painting the turbine blades is still ongoing to study the effects in larger sample sizes.

Are you referring to seismic vessels, or are you talking about crude oil spills since you are referring to shuttle tankers?

 

[NotChatGPT]

It's hilarious and equally frustrating how stupid people can be about defending oil.

Not sure what you’re on about. Pointing out the downside of planting a substantial amount of windmill farms, both onshore and offshore, has little to do with defending the downsides of oil. Disagreeing with some of the suggested alternatives doesn’t mean that a person disagrees about the need for alternative solutions

 

[TwoSheds]

The invasion of Ukraine and different focus on energy security policies hasn’t been much of a blessing.

The studies into painting the turbine blades is still ongoing to study the effects in larger sample sizes.

Are you referring to seismic vessels, or are you talking about crude oil spills since you are referring to shuttle tankers?

The noise of shipping fecks with wildlife the world over. Seismic surveys for oil deposits also feck with them. Oil spills also feck with them. Warming oceans also fecks with them. Anybody trying to pretend there is an equivalence of harm with wind turbines is either disingenuous or foolish. It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep working on improving wind farms of course.

 

[NotChatGPT]

The noise of shipping fecks with wildlife the world over. Seismic surveys for oil deposits also feck with them. Oil spills also feck with them. Warming oceans also fecks with them. Anybody trying to pretend there is an equivalence of harm with wind turbines is either disingenuous or foolish. It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep working on improving wind farms of course.

You do need geophysical surveys for offshore wind farms, if that helps. Australia are opening up substantial areas for offshore wind farms, so there will be quite a lot of surveys in the years to come.

Not sure where i, or anyone else for that matter, has claimed there’s an equivalence of harm. There are however plenty of immeadiate downsides, including financial ones, for wind farms onshore and offshore, to the point where the Director for Power & Renewable Energy at Pareto has quite a few concerns about it’s future. I don’t think it’s much of a solution to jump at anything that’s better than oil and throw as much money as possible at it, especially with large parts of the world not following in the same path.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Google it!

That old chestnut.

 

[nickm]

What are the better ways exactly?

I think we should be allowed to disagree with how JSO protests without also being obliged to come up with alternatives for them.

 

[SalfordRed18]

I think we should be allowed to disagree with how JSO protests without also being obliged to come up with alternatives for them.

The question isn't reserved for just stop oil, it's open question about protesting in general.

 

[Wibble]

Onshore wind, we don't know how big the consequences will be over time and how much damage it will cause to the wildlife.

Infinitely less than global warming will inflict.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Infinitely less than global warming will inflict.

Doesn’t make it an viable alternative.

 

[Wibble]

Doesn’t make it an viable alternative.

No. Being a very cheap form of renewable energy is what makes it a viable alternative. Denmark already get 40% of their energy from wind. Even here in Australia, where we have been very slow to get going despite conditions being fantastic for wind farms, it is the cheapest form of energy and already produced 8% of our needs. Soon to be far far more and with the huge amount of small scale rooftop solar is undoubtedly going to be a huge provider of energy in the future.

Its viability is a question that was answered ages ago.

 

[NotChatGPT]

No. Being a very cheap form of renewable energy is what makes it a viable alternative. Denmark already get 40% of their energy from wind. Even here in Australia, where we have been very slow to get going despite conditions being fantastic for wind farms, it is the cheapest form of energy and already produced 8% of our needs. Soon to be far far more and with the huge amount of small scale rooftop solar is undoubtedly going to be a huge provider of energy in the future.

Its viability is a question that was answered ages ago.

And in Norway, we’re in the high 90% for electricity generated from hydropower. We do however export and import.

I have no idea about the regulations in Australia and prices on wind farm electricity, i know that in Norway it’s an extremely costly alternative and the interest is generally low due to the proposed subsidies. Viability isn’t only a question of the energy you can get from it, but how costly it is. If the conditions in Australia make it ideal for low cost installations that covers a substantial part of your energy needs without government funding then perfect. That’s not the scenario in quite a few places and especially not in the UK where the government has to compensate for the large difference in electricity prices.

Small scale rooftop solar is going to be an important part of the energy balance.

 

[Wibble]

And in Norway, we’re in the high 90% for electricity generated from hydropower. We do however export and import.

I have no idea about the regulations in Australia and prices on wind farm electricity, i know that in Norway it’s an extremely costly alternative and the interest is generally low due to the proposed subsidies. Viability isn’t only a question of the energy you can get from it, but how costly it is. If the conditions in Australia make it ideal for low cost installations that covers a substantial part of your energy needs without government funding then perfect. That’s not the scenario in quite a few places and especially not in the UK where the government has to compensate for the large difference in electricity prices.

Small scale rooftop solar is going to be an important part of the energy balance.

Here it is the cheapest form of energy, with coal and nuclear the two most expensive. It is anticipated that wind will generate 50% of national needs within 5/6 years. Rooftop solar is also great for those of us in many parts of the country and home batteries will become normalised as the price comes down and FIT's disappear during the day/expect at peak early evening demand. Huge solar farms will also happen and we are already looking at exporting energy from a huge solar farm to our northern neighbors soon (we hope). That said rooftop solar is so cheap that it is or soon will be worth getting most places in the world even if it isn't as sunny as where I am.

There are of course challenges as various infrastucture changes will be needed as we eliminate fossil fuels but even with these costs coal and gas (and even more so nuclear) are far more expensive inclosing of building costs.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Here it is the cheapest form of energy, with coal and nuclear the two most expensive. It is anticipated that wind will generate 50% of national needs within 5/6 years. Rooftop solar is also great for those of us in many parts of the country and home batteries will become normalised as the price comes down and FIT's disappear during the day/expect at peak early evening demand. Huge solar farms will also happen and we are already looking at exporting energy from a huge solar farm to our northern neighbors soon (we hope). That said rooftop solar is so cheap that it is or soon will be worth getting most places in the world even if it isn't as sunny as where I am.

There are of course challenges as various infrastucture changes will be needed as we eliminate fossil fuels but even with these costs coal and gas (and even more so nuclear) are far more expensive inclosing of building costs.

Yeah, the bolded seems like a no brainer. Enormous amounts of space, enormous amounts of sunshine.