[News] Just Stop Oil

[beorhthelm]

Why would you do this? It means nothing. All that matters is that we're burning more fossil fuels than ever before.

Claiming in public that we've "turned a corner" ranks alongside the stupidest comment I've read on NSC. And I read the matchday threads

there is a direct correllation between economic output and energy, therefore emissions. usually lower emissions is a signal of lower economic output, recessions, depressions etc. if you want to stop all industry and commerce we can lower emissions tomorrow. if you want to maintain some standard of living, need to lower emissions by being more efficient and ween off hydrocarbons to other sources. we should acknowledge the progress, not insist on excessive actions as if nothing has been done.

 

[usernamed]

there is a direct correllation between economic output and energy, therefore emissions. usually lower emissions is a signal of lower economic output, recessions, depressions etc. if you want to simple stop all industry and commerce we can lower emissions tomorrow. if you want to maintain some standard of living, you need to lower emissions by being more efficent and ween off hydrocarbons to other sources. we should acknowledge the progress, not insist on excessive actions as if nothing has been done.

I’m not sure the ask from “Stop the Oil” is excessive, it’s frankly bloody minded stupidity to not do what they’re suggesting we do.

They’re not suggesting shutting down what we have, just that we stop enabling the building of more. Given that we already have numerous alternatives that are cheaper and environmentally friendly, it’s slightly depressing that a protest group is even necessary.

 

[Swansman]

I'm not sure you're going to save the planet by organising a protest using devices that take tonnes of water to make, driving round the M25 and smashing up a petrol pump, Greta.

Pretty sure similar things have been said about pretty much every direct action protest in history. "Not sure how you're going to save a club by invading the already doomed pitch and getting points deducted, possibly meaning you'll be relegated to Conference."

Direct action and civil disobedience is rarely popular when it happens, its not until people see the results and benefits that they quickly say "obviously was the right thing to do... knew it all along..."

 

[dsr-burnley]

The government has already declared for, and is taking action towards, net zero emissions, abolition of gas as fuel, renewable energy regardless of cost, electric vehicles, etc etc etc. These people are still protesting as if we were building coal-fired power stations like China. Why don't they move a bit further afield to protest rather than protesting in one of the countries with a better record of "greenness"?

Obviously they themselves won't buy imported products or use central heating or drive fossil-fuel cars. They would be hypocrites if they did. Why don't they campaign on that basis - rather than protesting to make the government do what it's already doing, campaign so we can all make the same sacrifices they are presumably making? Why don't student unions protest about unnecessary heating in student lecture halls and accommodation - instead of minimum 18 degrees, make it 10, and wear thicker sweaters and fingerless gloves? It would be a meaningful gesture because it would show they are serious about making sacrifices for themselves rather than aiming to make other people suffer.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I’m not sure the ask from “Stop the Oil” is excessive, it’s frankly bloody minded stupidity to not do what they’re suggesting we do.

They’re not suggesting shutting down what we have, just that we stop enabling the building of more. Given that we already have numerous alternatives that are cheaper and environmentally friendly, it’s slightly depressing that a protest group is even necessary.

What are the numerous options that are cheaper than oil?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Pretty sure similar things have been said about pretty much every direct action protest in history. "Not sure how you're going to save a club by invading the already doomed pitch and getting points deducted, possibly meaning you'll be relegated to Conference."

Direct action and civil disobedience is rarely popular when it happens, its not until people see the results and benefits that they quickly say "obviously was the right thing to do... knew it all along..."

Direct action?

Give me a shout when they're over in China destroying coal burning factories, in Saudi stopping the production of oil at source or in a bluechip board meeting disrupting the CEO's speech or tanking their shares.

Causing the exact same ecological damage as the other cars on a motorway to keep Mr Smith from Dartford in a car park till someone turns up with a jerry can isn't even our Carlisle pitch invasion in comparison. In fact, it's an own goal.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The government has already declared for, and is taking action towards, net zero emissions, abolition of gas as fuel, renewable energy regardless of cost, electric vehicles, etc etc etc. These people are still protesting as if we were building coal-fired power stations like China. Why don't they move a bit further afield to protest rather than protesting in one of the countries with a better record of "greenness"?

Obviously they themselves won't buy imported products or use central heating or drive fossil-fuel cars. They would be hypocrites if they did. Why don't they campaign on that basis - rather than protesting to make the government do what it's already doing, campaign so we can all make the same sacrifices they are presumably making? Why don't student unions protest about unnecessary heating in student lecture halls and accommodation - instead of minimum 18 degrees, make it 10, and wear thicker sweaters and fingerless gloves? It would be a meaningful gesture because it would show they are serious about making sacrifices for themselves rather than aiming to make other people suffer.

What have student unions got to do with it?

 

[Whitechapel]

Brighton fans moaning about protesters causing criminal damage to highlight their cause is quite funny, tbh.

 

[Swansman]

The government has already declared for, and is taking action towards, net zero emissions, abolition of gas as fuel, renewable energy regardless of cost, electric vehicles, etc etc etc. These people are still protesting as if we were building coal-fired power stations like China. Why don't they move a bit further afield to protest rather than protesting in one of the countries with a better record of "greenness"?

Obviously they themselves won't buy imported products or use central heating or drive fossil-fuel cars. They would be hypocrites if they did. Why don't they campaign on that basis - rather than protesting to make the government do what it's already doing, campaign so we can all make the same sacrifices they are presumably making? Why don't student unions protest about unnecessary heating in student lecture halls and accommodation - instead of minimum 18 degrees, make it 10, and wear thicker sweaters and fingerless gloves? It would be a meaningful gesture because it would show they are serious about making sacrifices for themselves rather than aiming to make other people suffer.

Are the governments doing enough however? Is it going quickly enough? Is it not in a lot of cases just papering over the cracks - "look at us, we've reduced transmissions... because we've outsourced production of all the shit we still want and need to China and other countries".

There appears to be a strange relation between the decrease of emissions AND productivity in the West, and the increase of emissions and productivity elsewhere... and also there seems to be some kind of relation with the increasing imports.

Its almost as if our countries continue to destroy the planet, we've just moved the sources of destruction where we can't see them.

 

[carlzeiss]

I suggest they take a trip to Ukraine and glue themselves to a Russian T-72 with a 800hp V-12 diesel engine that has zero emission control systems in place and see how it goes

 

[rippleman]

I think I'm with you here....but wavering. Just Stop Oil are campaigning to stop the UK granting any more licences for oil and gas exploration/extraction. There seems to be a lot of evidence (some of it produced by the government itself) that granting such licences would be incompatible with the commitments we made at Cop26 (just a few months ago). Yet the government continues to grant more licences, whilst at the same time doing little to help us reduce our energy use (ie, insulate our homes!).

I fully back the objectives of Just Stop Oil, and also Insulate Britain. I think there is a place for peaceful direct action - just not convinced causing criminal damage to a petrol station is the right way to do it. The problem is, the government is making it almost impossible to protest in any other way (although that's a whole different can of worms...)

My bolding.

Wouldn't worry too much. If it's anything like the licences dished out for PPE half of them won't turn up and the other half won't work.

 

[Swansman]

Direct action?

Give me a shout when they're over in China destroying coal burning factories, in Saudi stopping the production of oil at source or in a bluechip board meeting disrupting the CEO's speech or tanking their shares.

Causing the exact same ecological damage as the other cars on a motorway to keep Mr Smith from Dartford in a car park till someone turns up with a jerry can isn't even our Carlisle pitch invasion in comparison. In fact, it's an own goal.

China (and Saudi for that matter) would possibly not be willing and definitely not be able to do much of that coal burning if not the entire Western lifestyle depended on them doing exactly that.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

I'm not convinced they're going about this the right way but to suggest that these are not 'extreme circumstances' is somewhat burying your head in the sand at going lalalalala in an attempt to ignore the science.

But it isn't though, is it? This isn't something that people don't know about and needs awareness raising. People aren't going to be swayed in their opinion because some youngsters commit criminal damage. Environmental awareness is growing and has been for years. Our company has a sustainability manager working on renewable energy and making us net zero. Electric car sales are up massively. Recycling is up massively.

I understand they are massively frustrated at the lack of progress but I cannot see their actions as anything other than counter productive. The only people happy with what they are doing are those that already supported the movement. This isn't a suffragette moment or even a Goldstone pitch invasion moment. Those incidents massively increased awareness of the cause. That is not the case here.

 

[usernamed]

What are the numerous options that are cheaper than oil?

Remove the subsidies from both oil and renewables (wind and solar) - and the renewables are already significantly cheaper than oil. And if you fear that the sun does not alway shine, and the wind does not always blow, then consider the humble battery.

Here’s a report from 2020, the renewable energy sources coming online are significantly undercutting fossil fuel generated power.

https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020

We will need nuclear in the short-medium term because we haven’t utilised the fact we’re an island to invest in tidal power, but on a cost basis solar and wind are already the cheaper options and have been for some time now.

 

[Uter]

there is a direct correllation between economic output and energy, therefore emissions. usually lower emissions is a signal of lower economic output, recessions, depressions etc. if you want to stop all industry and commerce we can lower emissions tomorrow. if you want to maintain some standard of living, need to lower emissions by being more efficient and ween off hydrocarbons to other sources. we should acknowledge the progress, not insist on excessive actions as if nothing has been done.

In recent months the government has cut air passenger duty for domestic flights and reduced fuel duty (which had been frozen for over 10 years) whilst increasing the price of train tickets. I don't doubt there are lot of other things that could be added to this list, e.g. reducing feed-in tariffs.

From an emissions perspective doing nothing would have been preferable to these retrograde actions. This is the opposite to weaning us off. This is feeding our addiction.

As recent world events have shown, energy independence has other benefits too.

Instead of locking up and vilifying the Insulate Britain protestors maybe we should have listened to them.

They (the government) could and should be doing a whole lot more to reduce emissions.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are being disingenuous. These people don't believe in any one cause, they want to change the world and are committing actual crimes in their attempts. This isn't about oil, it's all about them.

That's right. It's all about them. And we should stop them doing it, just like that nice Mr Putin does. That'll learn 'em.

 

[KZNSeagull]

But it isn't though, is it? This isn't something that people don't know about and needs awareness raising. People aren't going to be swayed in their opinion because some youngsters commit criminal damage. Environmental awareness is growing and has been for years. Our company has a sustainability manager working on renewable energy and making us net zero. Electric car sales are up massively. Recycling is up massively.

I understand they are massively frustrated at the same progress but I cannot see their actions as anything other than counter productive. The only people happy with what they are doing are those that already supported the movement. This isn't a suffragette moment or even a Goldstone pitch invasion moment. Those incidents massively increased awareness of the cause. That is not the case here.

Agreed.

Stopping oil usage is not a new idea nor is it something that can be done overnight. Since Cop26 finished a war has started, one which has meant that our short term aim is to stop using oil and gas from a very large supplier. If that means getting more of our own gas and oil from the North Sea then so be it but that should be a short term fix to a specific problem. The long term solution is to stop oil usage and I would guess that most people currently agree with this. Smashing up a petrol stations is not going to positively change anything..

 

[jcdenton08]

That's right. It's all about them. And we should stop them doing it, just like that nice Mr Putin does. That'll learn 'em.

If you owned a business and became a target of fanatics smashing up your stuff, you would feel differently. A lot of hypocrisy here I'm afraid.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Smashing up a petrol station is not going to positively change anything..

Really? As you can see, at the very least, it has started a debate. If this can focus a few extra minds on this topic it will have succeeded.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Remove the subsidies from both oil and renewables (wind and solar) - and the renewables are already significantly cheaper than oil. And if you fear that the sun does not alway shine, and the wind does not always blow, then consider the humble battery.

Here’s a report from 2020, the renewable energy sources coming online are significantly undercutting fossil fuel generated power.

https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020

We will need nuclear in the short-medium term because we haven’t utilised the fact we’re an island to invest in tidal power, but on a cost basis solar and wind are already the cheaper options and have been for some time now.

OK, I'll consider the humble battery. (Which Irena hasn't done in its costings.) I don't know how much it would cost me personally for a battery big enough to power my house and car for say 2 weeks in February when the sun isn't hot and the wind isn't blowing, but I bet it would be a fair chunk. And even if taken on a national basis, that much battery storage would cost a bomb. Stick that in the formula and see how cheap it is. I suspect you'll find that it would be cheaper to keep gas power stations on line but idle unless needed.

One good thing. If wind and solar are already cheaper than gas, then there is no need for the fossil fuels surcharge on the bills any more. As soon as we have enough renewable capacity plus batteries, then no-one will want to produce gas-fuelled electricity.

PS - I think it makes a difference that that report is talking about worldwide costs. Wouldn't we need to tow the UK nearer the equator to get the benefit?