Just Stop Oil
- Thread starter Port Vale Devil
- Start date
Not quite. The green energy transition could happen MUCH quicker if governments and companies really wanted to. But they don't, they worry about the next elections and their profits - and that's what's been stalling things for decades now.
What we need is for everyone to get sufficiently pissed off at this inaction that the pendulum swings the other way: worry about elections and profits because you're NOT doing enough. That's the sort of awareness and feeling of urgency that groups like this one are trying to create.
That funding point is a bit indirect, isn't it? From Wikipedia: "In April 2022, it was reported that Just Stop Oil's primary source of funding was donations from the American-based Climate Emergency Fund. Through that fund, a notable donor to the group has been Aileen Getty, a descendant of the family which founded the Getty Oil company. In response, the Climate Emergency Fund stated that Getty did not work in the fossil fuel industry herself." Also, Just Stop Oil isn't aiming to change individual behaviours, is it? I think they're aiming much higher.
What's the vandalism from the protesters here? And when did it become acceptable to try and bully protesters away?
Also, how is this dude throwing milk over people not his isolated reaction to their protest?
The problem with them is that they're made up of people who you'd avoid like the plague in any social setting. Smelly arts student bores who could do with a KFC and a wash.
I don't particularly disagree with their cause and a lot of what they do. But the fecking state of them. Yuck!
I don't particularly disagree with their cause and a lot of what they do. But the fecking state of them. Yuck!
They should be glad it wasn't a pig farmer, 'cos he wouldn't have used milk
Say that they changed their approach, and as a result some of the people in this thread complaining instead got on their side. What would be the point of that, what would it achieve?
Aileen Getty is very open and clear about her motives for funding climate change protests. Funneling money recieved from a destructive source into a reperative one makes perfect sense.
When someone is awarded damages due to harm caused, accepting the money isn't an endorsement of the offence.
I'm okay with them disrupting events more than I am them stopping ordinary people getting about.
Don't think they're doing it to make friends, it's just an awareness campaign and it works.
If people have sense they'll take it as a future warning because if things don't change we're going to see more than just mild disruptions. Thankfully I don't think it'll come to that and perhaps JSO are moaning whilst the change is already underway but there's enough at stake for me not to care about mild annoyances.
There is a complete lack of ambition and a general takeover of the states by companies (we all knew this already, we just called it politics but the divide, public and private, grows so thin as to make it seem as there is no public at all, in certain European and other democratic stats). Leaving it to a vanguard of fortune 500 types, which is the general way it is being handled, is a waste of time. Those are the people that look at the stock prices of oil. Consider: why does oil have any worth on the futures market, beyond a certain cut-off date, I dunno, like ten years into the future, if any of these cnuts are seriously acting behind all the vebiage they spew?
Their feet will have to be held to the coals. Or the species will die.
Also, these protests are a pain in the arse if you're caught up in them but the media, again, goes out of its way to frame them in very specific types of caricatures.
GreenPeace CheeseEating EcoWarriers Disrupts Patriots On the Way to Keep Britain Running, says GBNews or whatever other cancerous such outlet is dubbed liberal right-wing these days, and the liberal left is scarecely better (they want the liberal right to frame it this way so they have a talking point to weigh back in on). A dying system evident in the parasitical organs of the body politic (again, global).
https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/crude-oil/light-sweet-crude.quotes.html
The price of crude, seven years into the future, which you may or may not bother to look at, is where it was circa 2006 and certain periods in the early austerity era. Lower than today, which is price-gouged mania, whatever about the war, (67-54 not being tiny, but it was at sub-40 for various years and lower for various quarters). If it is to exist at all, as viable entity, it will be as petro-chemical which implies a vast depreciation in value as many more engines cease to use the refined version. But I don't see this in markets. Taking every last penny they can get, the OPEC and non OPEC states (Americans included here, see the campaign if you follow the primaries and the various pipelines through indigenous lands, think Canada has such a problem but may be old news), before the transition as if there wasn't an immediate necessity to feck it off by 2030.
Short-termism by the state and general incestuous business dividing line ensuring public/private contributions and post-political careers, by same money, essentially fecks the world over. These dickheads have the best seats on the Titanic.
Last edited:
Disagree. Everybody knows we need to move away from oil. Nobody knows how. Neither do they. They're telling people what they already know without providing any solutions, and pissing them off in the process, which if anything experience says will turn people away from their cause. Soon enough one of these protests will escalate into serious violence.
I'm yet to see a protestor aggressively throw milk on someone whilst verbally abusing them.
People do know how, but they won't or can't pay for it and the decision makers know that, but you're right in that these protesters don't offer any solutions at all.
At some point some of them will get flattened by an artic or whatever and the driver will claim they didn't see them
Those same people will have dead children or Mad Max children within twenty years. You figure out which is the more stupid thing to be doing. These protestors are the problem or my children are basically non-organisms. Roughly at that inflection point. Curious to see where the reactionary tendency will come from (the same voices thus far, not here, but generally).
There are feasible means of turning away from oil like various dam projects, if the state can be bothered to pay for them (all you need is a coastline), and then new generations of non-carbon engineed vehicle. It's expensive but then there's a 100tn in offshore accounts held by the various people who make money by price gouging the current oil crisis which, of course, will be called "no price gouge" at all. Or maybe we've passed that.
It would be annoying, but nobody is going to die from them stopping a football match. My main issue with them is stopping traffic. Disrupting the decision makers would be the best thing to do.
Well, feck. I don't know, then. They have to cause some disruption to get people to take notice. Nobody will care if they protest in some random field.
Sitting in roads isn't just a mild annoyance, though. It can cost lives. They're not trying to make friends, but they still need to get the public on side.
More people caring about the issue is better than less. Change is more likely to happen if more people want it. At least that's how I see it.
You say this as if they would be keen your company. I think they're as scared of you of you as you are of them.
But these people complaining about the protests already claim to care about climate change, so getting on the side of Just Stop Oil wouldn't change that. Are they changing their vote from Labour to Tory because of these protests? From the Green Party to Labour? Were they going to engage politically, but changed their minds? I very much doubt it. They don't matter.
The corollary to that being that her motives being a guilt complex doesn't mean she now has some sort of moral high ground on the subject. And there's nothing reparative about Just Oil. The biggest funders of these propaganda campaigns ARE fossil fuel companies. Look up Quadrature Climate Foundation . The entire business model is the shifting of blame from the companies themselves on to (????) exactly? Tennis players? Spectators?
@Cheimoon I'm always extremely wary of the true motives behind these actions, personally. A case in point being the sudden climate drive toward recycling in the United Kingdom after Blue Planet 2 caused China to stop allowing plastic waste to be sent there from our country circa January 2018. It amused me seeing Michael Gove on television unironically suggesting a "plastic tax" on people in the United Kingdom - after all we'd been so SUSTAINABLE before, when we were selling all our recycled garbage to China. This wasn't something widely reported, nor were the links really made abundantly clear, but to me at least they're obvious. "Look how sustainable we are!", we crow, importing 99% of our textiles and goods from the Far East on diesel liners. The truth is that to be genuinely sustainable, even the clothes we wear will end up generally unaffordable if that's the way we want to go.
understand I'm not suggesting it's not a road we SHOULDN'T go down - we probably should. But the teething pains are going to cause an unbelievable amount of hardship and death. It's not as easy as just stopping oil, and I certainly won't take responsibility for the state of planet Earth given the people behind these things will still be flying private jets in 2050 I expect.
understand I'm not suggesting it's not a road we SHOULDN'T go down - we probably should. But the teething pains are going to cause an unbelievable amount of hardship and death. It's not as easy as just stopping oil, and I certainly won't take responsibility for the state of planet Earth given the people behind these things will still be flying private jets in 2050 I expect.
Who are these people who recognise climate change as an issue who are doing a u-turn because of JSO? Has anyone ever met one?
No one needs to support JSO, turning against them doesn't make anyone less aware of the issue.
The oil companies should face complete taxation, in the hundreds of billions, which is threatened in the United States, over misleading the public regarding climate change for fifty or more years. Now they should receive one of two options: firstly, they can keep the money if and only if it is necessitated that the captial is placed into massive green/economic (various dam/inductive/non-low-carbon infrastructure) ventures, but state mandated. With many conditions (wage insurances, Bidennomics as it goes, and so on). Or, they can forfeit it. The first is the easiest option.
Again, cite the futures market. Crude is worth more if you're bidding today in ten years than it was 15 years ago. Wrap your head around that. It shouldn't have a future after a cut-off date. What you're seeing is a genuine cartel of ganster, but cowardly, types misdirecting the public as they seek to sell off a commodity at a juiced rate, protecting investments and stocks, rather than doing anything drastic which has a knock-on effect for the entire political-private establishment. When they cite pension funds, you should remember that aside from a few public servant types without a clue but some dignity, these people, politicians, tend to mean their own (public and private).
Again, cite the futures market. Crude is worth more if you're bidding today in ten years than it was 15 years ago. Wrap your head around that. It shouldn't have a future after a cut-off date. What you're seeing is a genuine cartel of ganster, but cowardly, types misdirecting the public as they seek to sell off a commodity at a juiced rate, protecting investments and stocks, rather than doing anything drastic which has a knock-on effect for the entire political-private establishment. When they cite pension funds, you should remember that aside from a few public servant types without a clue but some dignity, these people, politicians, tend to mean their own (public and private).
Poor me.
From here on I'm just gonna assume the motivation behind all your views is some particularly hot twenty something crusty that you didn't manage to make it happen with.
There's a private company with nine boats which figures, with shoestring budget, that it can take 10% or much more of all plastics from ocean/rivers within ten years. That's a multi million dollar thing. Now, imagine if that were ninety boats. These things just aren't funded as they should be. It's an entire spectrum response to a Gilgamesh event which is entirely lacking. I am not overstating it: we are awaiting a flood. The only question is if nuclear war (biological/nuclear) kills us before climate change at this rate.
Anyway, the point is a seven year overhaul in the fundamental premise upon which the world's economy is run. If tentative agreements are not struck, including ends to various wars by the end of this year, which wars merely preclude the only viable solution to the cirsis, then the world is fecked. There'll be a kind of nihlistic burning of capitals twenty years (or much sooner) down the line, but what use then when everyone is dead. Not that it's useful anyway.
Forget clothing. Think energy production. Cut off all coal plants, minus a few strategic, and demand massive investment, not passed onto the public, in any sense, into entirely clean energy and water production. Quantative Easing cost the public many trillions. I see not a single multi trillion (twenty trillion easily if we include strategic taxcuts, seven billion in Trump's administration alone) plan to combat species extinction. It doesn't really add upp.
Then we blame the few people active enough to go out and make some actual soundwave noise about the topic for something that is a social plus and long overdue. It's media training of public response mechanisms (we have been trained to dislike these people whether they are striking for better pay or for an end to carbon pollution: we = x% of population over decades of ruling class divide and self-kill stupidity, or divide and rule a dead planet which has their children in it too, such is their genius if you listen to x, y, or z speak about nefarious scheming.
I say it again, though not a UK solution, but the desert scheme wherein vast amounts of algae are used in spiralling oases and immense zero-polluting inductive oceanic pressure (underground inductive - novel) is implemented, across strategic zones, which ticks every box for all nations involved and is not even that fecking expensive (pays for itself in the long-run: three gorges cost 40bn~, adjust labour and material costs and it's about five times that or much less for a strategic opening). This is the scale at which the world solves the problem. Any other scale is pissing in the wind.
(just x amount of y desert areas given over to z amount of carbon sinks to solve desertifcation, increase agricultural production, and also, as it goes, divine a rather perpetual source of energy to replace hoover dam type apparati, on top of species barrier and irrigation). you see these plans nowhere except in literture, speculative/scientific, despite it being the only viable solution. What the Libyans did with groundwater can very easily be done with Oceanic negative pressure dam apparatus except far more advanced and much more beneficial. 20bn was the Libyan cost for the world's largest desert-tropical oasis irrigation scheme. The one I'm talking about is even easier, in theory, you just take square miles of already extant organic materials, and let nature do its job (in one silo: entire spectrum solution - just not mentioned). And it's not because it isn't feasible, it's because it isn't publicised and there is a complete lack of vision (public/private nonsense amidst a dying economic, and potentially, human, order).
Last edited:
That's a rather simplistic view. Previous protests from the likes of Greenpeace have turned people off an issue, that doesnt mean they all of a sudden disagree with that issue. Any negativity towards a cause is a bad thing.
Plus they will force in stricter protest laws which will make it harder for everybody else.
Ok, you’ve clearly made a conscious decision to appear to ‘not understand’ the underlying motivation. It’s deliberate ignorance on your part, and I know that you know that.
I'm just jumping in here and am not looking to cause a ruckus but...
Even though I agree and clearly the middle east agrees oil won't be sustainable (sports and real estate washing says hello)- one thing I have yet to see a good response to is what the world is doing to ensure the lithium and cobalt mining doesn't continue ending up causing environmental concerns themselves, not to mention the human rights abuses and conflicts that come along with it.
If EVs are the solution, I have yet to feel much better about going down that hole. It feels a bit like chosing between two dark sides. Biofuels, hydrogen etc have their issues as well, but so far I have yet to hear it is anywhere close to the already existent negative scale of impact the oil industry has, and the ever growing negative impact the development of batteries will have on planet earth.
Even though I agree and clearly the middle east agrees oil won't be sustainable (sports and real estate washing says hello)- one thing I have yet to see a good response to is what the world is doing to ensure the lithium and cobalt mining doesn't continue ending up causing environmental concerns themselves, not to mention the human rights abuses and conflicts that come along with it.
If EVs are the solution, I have yet to feel much better about going down that hole. It feels a bit like chosing between two dark sides. Biofuels, hydrogen etc have their issues as well, but so far I have yet to hear it is anywhere close to the already existent negative scale of impact the oil industry has, and the ever growing negative impact the development of batteries will have on planet earth.
Most of our energy comes from European petro-states like Norway and Scotland.
I'm not in Europe but I'm sure that's true, however I don't think it changes the point that at least those countries whose entire economy hinges on oil seem to have aggressively started to diversity their interests a while ago.
Problem being that nobody really pays attention to anything at Westminster (unless they can get into the house of commons during PM's questions which would likely be impossible.)
A bunch of people protesting outside Downing Street or outside Big Ben or wherever would just be par for the course and nobody would care. They have to go to places where people are invested to make a difference.
I get people are rightfully pissed off if they've lost money cause they're late for work or if they've got a relative going to hospital and so on. It's shit, but effectively it's collateral damage when we're staring at huge swathes of the planet being unlivable isn't it? People get pointed to the small things to stop them seeing the bigger picture. These folks are right, no matter what we think about how they're going about their business. We're fecked unless we all fundamentally change the way we live (so basically, we're fecked).
They want the government to stop issue more oil, gas and coal licenses. Seems like a pretty specific goal.
I don't disagree but all they are doing is pissing off the average Joe who can do little about it
There’s nothing more British that requesting a protest be quieter.
Honestly, if they had the gumption to blow up Billionaires Lear Jets every time they dared take off… I’d clap.
The passiveness of this country, the keep calm and carry on, the belief in the system, the ‘it’ll be alright on the night’, the limp dicked shitty acceptance of everything is maddening.
I support everything they do and will do until the government listens to them.
Honestly, if they had the gumption to blow up Billionaires Lear Jets every time they dared take off… I’d clap.
The passiveness of this country, the keep calm and carry on, the belief in the system, the ‘it’ll be alright on the night’, the limp dicked shitty acceptance of everything is maddening.
I support everything they do and will do until the government listens to them.
Good
I generally side with protesters, strikers, left wing groups etc but even I think these people are daft. In answer to your question, they'd achieve as much as what they're doing now and would be much less hated. They've made themselves the issue rather than oil.
Please, explain to me. Say that, for instance, they did something that @Red in STL agreed with. What would that accomplish? Why would they want his approval?
I think they might really be onto something in terms of visibility and getting their name out there. I always thought "good on em, but it's not going to impact, it's too tame", however I think their current strategy is irritating enough people to keep them relevant. The "not these wankers again" branding has imprinted them on the public's psyche and the message might register later.
Whenever a gammon cnut tweets or reports on them they help in elevating the message.
It's sort of what Trump and the Tories do with their racist bigotry. Ruffle the libs with it anf they end up promoting it.
Whenever a gammon cnut tweets or reports on them they help in elevating the message.
It's sort of what Trump and the Tories do with their racist bigotry. Ruffle the libs with it anf they end up promoting it.
Yeah, I think it's effective. It ain't likely it's gonna fecking save us but the things that could come with consequences too severe to ask of anyone.
This thread is full of people who prefer not to think about climate change who've been manipulated in to publicly discussing climate change. That's a positive.
I'd pay good money to see them blow up deface a billionaires jet or three*
*this statement is not legally binding don't arrest me later
*this statement is not legally binding don't arrest me later
A guy I worked with until relatively recently really wanted to mow them down, went on and on about it. That’s obviously really fecked up, but it made me think that would be amazing PR for the cause. Hard to complain about some snooker table being dusted when 60 year old retired lecturer Jeffrey was plowed into by a shitty Skoda doing 50. The Just Stop Oil movement would explode in popularity and support.
He might be unhinged enough to do it as well, but we live so far away from civilisation that he’s unlikely to cross paths with Jeffrey and his cohort.
He might be unhinged enough to do it as well, but we live so far away from civilisation that he’s unlikely to cross paths with Jeffrey and his cohort.
Have you read Ministry For The Future? If not, do. It’s ace.