As the climate change and environment activist group Just Stop Oil started their tenth week of protests in the country’s capital, things came to a head when a cyclist decided to take matters into his own hands and started pushing and pulling the protestors, telling them to “f****** move” and “go and protest properly”.
Dressed in blue shirt and blue shorts with a bike in hand, the cyclist appeared to aggressively shove the activists blocking the Holloway Road in Islington, London this morning to draw attention to the group’s demand for the government to stop licencing all new oil, coal, and gas projects.
“All of you, get out of the f****** way! Move!” screamed the cyclist, as he was joined by another man wearing a blue shirt. The two of them managed to clear off a section of the road to let drivers by.
As the cyclist was leaving the site, he said: “Go and protest properly, you s*** a*** c****!”
*Warning: clip contains strong language*
? What are we supposed to do in a crisis caused by our government? Sit tight and wait until they decide to call an election? pic.twitter.com/VQPCtB4OmM
— Just Stop Oil (@JustStop_Oil) June 26, 2023
However, Just Stop Oil asked: “What are we supposed to do in a crisis caused by our government? Sit tight and wait until they decide to call an election?”
Meanwhile, some people suggested if the cyclist was guilty of assault, and questioned if the police would take action against the cyclist.
After today’s incident, Just Stop Oil has replied to road.cc regarding the cyclists’ involvement and him asking the activists to “protest properly”.
A spokesperson said: “We understand that it is frustrating when individuals like this cyclist get caught up in disruption, but history shows that only disruptive protest works. We’re not prepared to stand on the pavement and be ignored, the stakes are too high.
“We face increasingly frequent extreme weather events such as heatwaves, wildfires and floods which threaten transport, homes, health and livelihoods. Our crops will not survive and we will face mass starvation and the collapse of ordered civil society unless we stop new oil and gas.
“We need everyone, including cyclists, to join us on the streets.”
> Just Stop Oil begin slow cycling protests
The Metropolitan Police confirmed enforcement actions had been taken after today’s slow march, which saw four groups march in different locations on the capital. Officers, issuing the Section 12 used against unlawful assemblies, including blocking roads, cleared the Islington road later and informed that traffic was back to moving now.
Those assaults are intentional and deliberate; if he wanted to ride his bike through he could very obviously have done so.
— Drew Law (@Drew129Law) June 26, 2023
The incident has once again heightened the violent rhetoric against activists, with another incident showing a motorcyclist driving through two protestors holding a banner. Figures like Howard Cox have declared on live television that he is “tempted to run the protestors over”.
After today’s video went viral, reactions were mixed. Some people pointed out that the drivers for whom the cyclist was clearing the way would “happily run him off the road”, while others claimed that the man had done more than anyone “to amend cyclist-driver relations”.
Irony being most drivers would happily run him off the road.
— Samanta’s Wildlife (@SamantaWildlife) June 26, 2023
Man done more for for the promotion of good cyclist/motorist relations than anyone bar none. https://t.co/aiPRtGNx2Q
— Richard (@DickyTrickle) June 26, 2023
It’s not the first time that a cyclist has found himself in opposition to the environment activist group.
Previously in May, a cyclist on the pavement of the same road as the incident today approached the Just Stop Oil protestors and accused them of “harming the cause” and “f***ing it up for all of us”.
The rider – who pointed out to the protesters that he was “a liberal and a cyclist” – told them: “Everyone is just trying to go about their business, go about their day, and you are f***ing it all up for all of them.
“You might feel better about yourselves, but all you are doing is harming the cause because everyone hates you.”
He added: “I’m a liberal, and a cyclist, and I live in north London – and I hate you.”
The incident, as expected, divided cyclists’ opinions on social media, with people questioning how can you be a cyclist and oppose Just Stop Oil, while others claimed that despite being a cyclist they didn’t agree with the methods used by the group.
Three weeks ago, Just Stop Oil, which usually takes to the roads on foot and organises slow marches to cause disruption and draw attention to their cause, staged its first ‘slow cycle’ demonstration, as activists rode their bikes slowly in London’s West End.
A spokesperson from Just Stop Oil told road.cc that the change was part of the group’s plans to “evolve” its tactics in the face of what it claims is the government’s attempt to “restrict our legitimate rights to protest”.
“This criminal government is quietly signing off on over 100 new oil and gas projects that will hasten climate collapse and destroy the conditions that make human life possible. It is an act of war against the young and millions of people in the global south,” the spokesperson said.
“At the same time, they are enacting laws to ensure that no-one can stop them. They are restricting our legitimate rights to protest and to march in the road as people have done throughout history to express dissent. So, our tactics will continue to evolve.
“We are happy to show solidarity with cyclists everywhere and ask them to join us in civil resistance. Whether marching or cycling we will continue to do whatever is non-violently possible to end new oil and gas.”
What do you think? Should cyclists be in support of Just Stop Oil’s environment activism or is their disruption too much of an inconvenience in the face of climate change?
125 thoughts on ““Go and protest properly!”: Cyclist pushes Just Stop Oil protestors off the road to make way for traffic”
Whether one is either pro- or
Whether one is either pro- or anti-JSO (and I personally I am more anti than pro regarding their tactics) it is surely obvious that what we have here is a bullying thug taking the opportunity to indulge his propensity for violence by enjoying a free shot at people (Including women) whom he knows won’t retaliate. Suspect, as with several of the people who have done this sort of thing recently, he fancies getting his mug in the Daily Mail so everyone down his local will say good old Fred, standing up to the nonces. A performance worthy of Ronnie Pickering himself.
The tabloids have footage of
The tabloids have footage of a bloke on a motor scooter speeding through the middle of one of the these ‘go slow’ protests and driving off with their banner.
Which is surely driving carelessly or without due car and attention…?
(edit) In any case, isn’t Mr Blue Shirt No Neck committing assault of one kind or another by grabbing and dragging those people about?
Hard to be sure, but it
Hard to be sure, but it certainly looks like he starts the confrontation by cycling straight into the protestors. I would be surprised if the police aren’t searching for him.
This chap aside, I would think JSO would be encouraging cyclists through their protest? What better way to demonstrate the benefit of cycling than to have a load of cyclists slip through with no delay.
HoldingOn wrote:
I think we’re at the point now that people changing to cycling is going to do very little in the grand scheme of things (rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic). What does make sense though is to not look for more oil to dig out of the North Sea for burning and of course opening new coal mines is hardly the correct course of action.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherfarmbrough/2022/12/09/uk-government-approves-first-coal-mine-in-30-years-in-cumbria/?sh=435aa9e1258b
hawkinspeter wrote:
Indeed – those with slightly longer-term vision need to stop digging up oil and coal and start vastly increasing their grubbing up of lithium. Otherwise others will have cornered that market!
Sadly the Duke of Edinburgh’s trolling comment comes to mind here. We may live into interesting times…
The digging up of much of
The digging up of much of anything will have to stop.
If you read French here’s a good explanation why there’s no technological way out:
http://carfree.fr/index.php/2018/03/19/quelles-technologies-pour-une-societe-durable/
Much better to mine the stuff
Much better to mine the stuff elsewhere on the planet and then ship it here…
Shurely mine it on another
Shurely mine it on another planet?
Oh yes, many misspent hours
Oh yes, many misspent hours in my early 80s youth to become merely Dangerous.
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s some kind of false dichotomy you’re building there.
80% of the coal mined is expected to be exported from England and drilled oil will be for sale on the general market, so is also likely to be exported.
The problem is that everywhere needs to stop burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, though it’s likely that even if we completely stopped that tomorrow, it would still be too late for us. Might help future generations though.
I know you don’t consider it practical to stop burning oil immediately, but I would question the wisdom of us continuing to destroy our environment despite the warning signs. We had the opportunity to act during the end of the 20th century, but a lot of people decided that turning a profit was a better use of our resources.
It will likely be exported to
It will likely be exported to Europe which is a significantly shorter distance than coking coal typically travels.
The mine will also be subject to far stricter environmental regulations than mines in Russia, one of the world’s largest producers, for example.
Fewer emissions in production, fewer emissions in transportation. No economically viable alternative for the next few decades. What’s not to like?
Rich_cb wrote:
The first rule of finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
Looking across at people in Russia and figuring that they’re digging quicker than you are, so you might as well carry on digging for a bit longer is motivated by how much dirt you can sell and not about how we’ll get out of the hole.
Also, there’s not a fixed demand for coal/oil, so increasing our production is unlikely to make any difference to the production of other countries. Similar to building roads, there’s induced demand if people want to sell off their coal cheap and then we’re just back to learning about our mistakes and continuing to make them.
If we assume that one day we
If we assume that one day we won’t require any more coking coal and that between now and then there will be a finite amount required it makes sense to extract and transport that coal in the cleanest way possible.
A UK mine ticks both those boxes.
At present it is impossible to build green infrastructure without steel and large scale virgin steel production is not economically viable without coking coal.
Reducing the carbon intensity of coking coal reduces the carbon intensity of wind turbines, electrified railways, heat pumps etc etc.
Just humour me here, as I don
Just humour me here, as I don’t know enough about the subject, but isn’t coking coal used to make steel? We either make steel or import it, and is it not better to make it here? If we’re going to make wind turbines and solar arrays, it requires lots of steel in the short-term surely?
Turbines? Lots of concrete
Turbines? Lots of concrete for the bases, steel and currently difficult-to-recycle composites on top. (All the metal can be reused).
Of course, if you don’t require your turbines to fuel everyone’s heating and driving around (or even flying!) then you might be able to get away with lower grade metal and natural composites…
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/06/wooden-wind-turbines.html
That’s interesting thanks. It
That’s interesting thanks. It was more the solar arrays, a mate of mine used to design the frames they’re housed on, and the inverter sheds, it’s a *lot* of metal despite his efforts to reduce material cost while retaining the structure.
On your other point ref less driving around, I’ve just pulled the pin on another bike to fulfil travel to the office 2 or 3 times a week. Only 11km each direction but (living at sea level) 190m elevation in the first 5km on the way out due to the South Dorset Ridgeway that’s in the way – on a road bike or the folder with a laptop & other kit it’s difficult not to be like a conflagration in the cycling aisle of a French sports retailer* on arrival. So I’ve ordered an ebike with belt drive, automatic geared hub, built-in lights & radar, mudguards, pannier rack, basket option, etc and it’s on the way. Looking forward to seeing how it goes. I’m not getting rid of my van but the reduced short journeys will stop the DPF complaining and I get to ride a bike more.
* road.cc forum comments passim
mark1a wrote:
Nice! Let us know how it goes. I started skeptical on eBikes mostly because decades ago I was fitter and they were a lot weedier. Also because humans so “wants, not needs”. Not got one yet but have tried a few last 5 years, they’re cheerful! Hope to stay smug on (mostly) 2nd hand bikes for a bit though.
For some applications the old
For some applications the old tech was used (or there as a backup) until pretty recently.
mark1a wrote:
Yes it is and it’s not sustainable. Electric Arc Furnaces are an alternative and are currently repsonsible for approx 30% of the world’s steel production. Hydrogen direct reduction is also an interesting technology that’s being developed. It’s ironic that the Tories idea of looking to the future seems to use 18th centrury technology that we know has no place in a sustainable future.
There’s some info here about it: https://greenallianceblog.org.uk/2021/02/09/why-europe-doesnt-need-cumbrias-coking-coal/
Arc furnaces require scrap
Arc furnaces require scrap metal to be able to produce steel. It’s only useful for recycling. That’s where the 30% figure that your article disingenuously quotes comes from.
There is no economically viable alternative to coking coal for virgin steel production.
Hydrogen can be used in place of coking coal but is currently prohibitively expensive and requires entirely new furnaces etc.
Coking coal will be used in European virgin steel production for decades to come.
Until there’s a viable alternative we need coking coal. If we need coking coal it makes sense to use the least impactful coal available.
The Cumbria mine will produce coking coal with a far lower environmental footprint than the alternatives. It also won’t fund Putin’s atrocities.
Those who oppose it simply haven’t looked at the big picture.
Rich_cb wrote:
Again, the first rule of finding yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!
From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/08/government-approves-cumbria-coalmine-legal-challenge
From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/17/cumbria-coalmine-uk-climate-goals-methane-emissions:
And from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/01/steel-boss-dismisses-claim-that-sector-needs-new-cumbrian-coalmine
Surely the solution is just
Surely the solution is just to accellerate what we have been doing for a while now? (Via a variety of routes / under various political, economic and social driving forces). Just get the dirty / unpleasant / basic stuff made elsewhere? Or even just import products in an even more advanced state.
Hey presto! Less troublesome extractive industry here, fewer spills / leaks / fires / fatiguing and boring jobs and we’ve moved the emissions accounting to someone else’s books! Everyone’s a winner!
Snark aside I’ve never figured out a really good way to sell “we promise you more effort for less shiny new material goods”. But then it’s the job of politicians and marketers to convince people of stuff…( On that subject there was an interesting series on Radio 4 recently exploring “convenience”).
chrisonatrike wrote:
How about less effort for less shiny new goods? bringing in the 4 day week and working against excess consumption.
It seems it’s much easir to cut the carbon emissions by buying fewer consumer goods, than by making just as many in a low carbon form. It’s like companies arguing it would be uncompetetive to reduce carbon, while we can see them wasting energy.
A pretty myopic set of quotes
A pretty myopic set of quotes.
We shouldn’t mine in the UK and capture between 50-95% of carbon emissions.
Instead we should mine in Russia and capture what percentage exactly? I’m guessing it’s a round number.
My entire point is that a UK mine will be less carbon intensive than the current alternatives. Your quotes back that up.
Entirely carbon free British steel making is not possible by 2035 (unless you destroy the entire industry) and there is no official target to do so. British Steel have a net zero target of 2050 for example.
It’s likely that most of the early (2030s) decarbonisation efforts will focus on capturing the carbon emissions from blast furnaces so coking coal will still be used.
It will also still be used throughout Europe for decades.
The choice is either a very clean mine in the UK with minimal transportation emissions or a far dirtier mine far further away.
It’s not a hard decision.
Not sure where you are
Not sure where you are getting your info from but thje vast majority of the coal to be mined in Cumbria will be for export. It isn’t of high enough quality for use in British steelworks.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/07/uk-first-new-coalmine-for-30-years-gets-go-ahead-in-cumbria
As for carbon capture, apart from a few rudimentary operations in Norway iirc nobody has developed the technology yet to do it at scale, so your points are a tad mute.
Export to Europe. It’s not
Export to Europe. It’s not that far away.
Certainly closer than Russia or Australia.
The only semi feasible way to decarbonise virgin steel in the medium term is carbon capture. I didn’t say it would be easy. Hydrogen fuelled furnaces are so far from being economically viable that they won’t be a mainstream option until the 2040s at least.
Rich_cb wrote:
From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64538296
We “hope” to produce 5m
We “hope” to produce 5m tonnes by 2030.
Just 1995m tonnes to go then.
I’d say my prediction of that not being “mainstream” technology before the 2040s is pretty safe.
Rich_cb wrote:
How curious – you present an unshakeable faith in the proclamations of Tories’ climate policies despite the evidence from the Climate Change Committee and yet suddenly have doubts about predictions from people actually working with the new technologies.
From: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/28/uk-has-made-no-progress-on-climate-plan-say-governments-own-advisers
I notice that you have not produced any evidence to back up your various claims, despite me producing numerous examples that show your arguments are untenable. I think you’re clearly arguing in bad faith.
They “hope” to produce 0.25%
They “hope” to produce 0.25% of the world’s steel using hydrogen within 7 years. I really don’t think it’s an unreasonable position to say that they will struggle to make hydrogen made steel a mainstream technology within 10 years of that.
My whole point has always been that a UK mine would produce fewer emissions than the mines in Russia/Australia it would displace. Your own links confirm this. The fact that the UK mine is also much closer to Europe wil obviously reduce transport emissions.
My other claim was that there is no plan to decarbonise UK steel by 2035. Your last quote confirms that too.
What evidence do you want besides what you’ve already provided?
Carbon emissions don’t care about borders. Banning UK mines and then importing coal from far more polluting foreign mines is just rank stupidity. We need to focus on reducing our use of fossil fuels but while we still require fossil fuels (like in steel making) we should be using the least impactful version of that fuel.
Do you honestly think mining coal in Australia/Russia and shipping it to Europe would produce fewer emissions than mining it here?
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re banging the “need to import coal” drum again which I’ve disproved.
You’re failing to understand that no matter what tiny benefits you can scrape from the bottom of the barrel , it is clearly not in the world’s interest to extract more coal.
As I say, you’re just arguing in bad faith, I won’t bother continuing this.
You absolutely have not
You absolutely have not disproved it.
You’ve found somebody ‘hoping’ to make miniscule quantities of steel using hydrogen by 2030.
Where’s the rest of the virgin steel going to come from?
Coal powered blast furnaces that’s where.
Where’s the coal coming from for those blast furnaces?
Australia and Russia mainly.
Myopic policies that actually create more global carbon emissions are exactly what the world doesn’t need. Pointlessly focusing on emissions inside our borders is counterproductive, we have to take a holistic global view.
It might seem counterintuitive but opening a new coal mine in the UK is the greenest option available to us. We should take it.
You neglected to answer my question so I’ll try again. Do you honestly think that mining coal in Australia and then shipping it halfway around the world will produce fewer emissions than mining it in the UK?
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re just going round in circles and you’re getting extremely tiresome.
From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/11/new-cumbria-coalmine-backlash-grows-as-steel-industry-plays-down-demand
I’m not answering your pathetic question as you’re being ridiculous and claiming that there is a need for coal, but not providing any evidence of that whatsoever.
Good day.
There’s no European demand
There’s no European demand for coking coal?
Strange that they import 40 million tonnes of it every year.
A UK mine would displace imports from Russia/Australia. Australia and Russia are continuing to expand their coal mines so reduced demand would lead to fewer new mines in those countries.
You’ve refused to answer the question because you can’t without demolishing your entire argument.
For completion’s sake the answer is that every tonne of imported coking coal has a carbon footprint 1.5-3x higher than coking coal mined in Europe.
Using European mined coal is, in carbon terms, the equivalent of converting at least a third of blast furnaces to hydrogen.
Take off your blinkers. If you want to reduce carbon emissions then we need to get mining.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/towards-a-european-coking-coal-and-steel-community/
Spot on. He has no legal
Spot on. He has no legal right to proceed and assault those individuals.
Thug.
There’s always going to be
There’s always going to be people that don’t agree with how protests are carried out and whether they are ‘harming the cause’. However, I consider the most important point, whether you agree with their tactics or not, is that protests are most decidedly required as we’re going full tilt into some very big shake ups with the climate and weather.
The most alarming data that I’ve seen recently has been the ocean temperatures dramatically increasing.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/
What this shows is that the ocean has been saving us from climate warming by absorbing huge amounts of energy and now, we’ve run out our grace period. (There’s also the issue of reduced sulphur emissions that are responsible for the sudden temperature increases too – it was expected that cleaner fuels would increase warming, but not by this amount).
Basically, we’re just entering the period of finding our what climate change and rising sea levels look like. I think the biggest immediate problem is going to be food production as it only takes a few weeks of anomalous weather to devastate various crops and as the world seems to operate with a ‘just-in-time’ attitude towards food, this is going to lead to famines. About the only place that a sizable amount of food is stored is within the oceans, and we’re going to see a LOT of changes in the next few months.
Also worth having a look at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/26/its-absolutely-guaranteed-the-best-and-worst-case-scenarios-for-sea-level-rise
https://twitter.com/astridwilde1/status/1673089711676723201
Also worth having a read of
Also worth having a read of Professor Eliot Jacobson’s blog (well worth it if you haven’t read enough doom recently):
https://climatecasino.net/
We are going to learn a lot
We are going to learn a lot about mass extinction kill mechanisms in the coming decades to compare with the fossil record; interesting experiment!
levestane wrote:
We already are: How many
We already are. I tried to post a link to the WWF website but my tech skills are insufficient…. just like my wattage!
We are losing up to 2 000 species a year already and it will only get worse unless we do something NOW.
Cyclist can be assholes too ?
Cyclists can be assholes too? Who knew…
That bloke is a bloody legend
That bloke is a bloody legend. Needs an award for that.
wilkij1975 wrote:
Burly bloke assaulting women is an odd thing to regard as “legend” material. Happy for him to treat your daughters, sisters, mother like that if they happen to aggravate him?
This isn’t the sun. Wrong
This isn’t the sun, fail or telegraph. Wrong place 2 B !
No, it’s far worse.
No, it’s far worse.
Hey, c’mon. It’s time you
Hey, c’mon. It’s time you embraced the 15 minute cities concept. It’s inevitable. Ditch the motor. Get some fresh air…
The future is green.
Absolutely. Play stupid games
Absolutely. Play stupid games kids…
You forgot to add: “Whilst we
You forgot to add: “Whilst we have a planet left to play on.”
Or rather until we have made
Or rather until we have made our life on the planet too horrible to want to play.
I sympathise with people
I sympathise with people getting angry and even have an aggressive reaction if their safety is threatened by deliberate or negligent behaviour. I have no sympathy with anyone getting aggressive with people, simply because they are being a nuisance. The “cyclist” is out of order, and should be charged with assault if any of the protesters were harmed by his aggression. Regardless of how futile JSO protests might be, if we suppress and prevent protests because we don’t agree with them, then we will do much more damage to free society. Men didn’t agree with women voting. White didn’t agree with black having basic rights. Heteros didn’t agree with Bi’s. etc.
“Just go and protest properly
“Just go and protest properly”?
Such as?
Poll tax riots?
Waving placards around at the side of the road?
Doesn’t seem to be doing the junior doctors much good with their pay-rise demands.
Personally, I don’t think JSO, XR, or whoever else are anywhere near radical, or direct enough.
The time for being uncontroversial are over, we’ll be facing oblivion within the next decade, if we continue as we are.
This.
This.
If we are genuinely facing
If we are genuinely facing oblivion within the next decade then the time to act has already passed.
Historic emissions have already baked in almost all of the climate change we’re going to see in the next decade.
2024 is predicted to be the hottest year since the industrial revolution, not because of emissions in 2024 but because of emissions in the decades leading up to it.
There is a scientific consensus that our CO2 emissions are warming the planet and changing the climate, there is no such consensus for what form that change will take. Outlandish claims about oblivion within a decade will only fuel nihilism.
Rich_cb wrote:
There is consensus that it will be harmful and extremely disruptive for human existence across the whole planet. Mass migration, heatwaves, devastating floods, crop failures, food shortages will all have huge impacts on all our lives, even if those things are initiated on other continents.
Meanwhile climate change sceptics and deniers continue to question the scientists’ knowledge and statements about temperature change, sea level rise etc as if the scientists are scaremongering amateurs and these things are unlikely to happen when in fact the sceptics know less than most of us about the facts. They don’t want to engage with the facts.
We have a government that has fought tooth and nail to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies and the very wealthy and trodden over the rights and interests of everyone else; has fought against measures to reduce CO2 emissions in so may ways; has sucked vast amounts of public money into private hands (and not just cash-for-peerage or -questions / PPE scandals and the other rotten shit that has been going on); it has done more than any UK government in living memory to undermine democracy and even passed laws to prevent people from protesting. It’s knowingly allowed the country’s rivers to be so polluted because profit is more important than people or planet. And we have a media that has colluded with that government to demonise the poor, refugees, environmental protestors, striking public sector workers, LGBT people and anyone else that questions their right to do exactly as they want.
Perhaps, instead of arguing in favour of more roads (which inevitably means more traffic) and questioning climate scientists, you could try do something more helpful before it’s too late. Not voting Tory would be a step in the right direction.
Nice diatribe. Ironically you
Nice diatribe. Ironically you seem to ignore multiple facts yourself.
If the government has ‘fought against measures to reduce CO2′ can you explain how they have managed to reduce CO2’ emissions from electricity generation by nearly 3/4? A happy accident or the result of government policy? Why are ICE vehicles set for a ban? Surely not government policy? Why are there large grants to replace fossil fuel heating? Not government policy again?
Why have we reduced our CO2 emissions at a faster rate than any other major advanced economy?
There is no scientific consensus as to what form climate change will take.That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to avoid it but the catastrophe merchants need to accept that their apocalyptic predictions are not certainties but merely possibilities.
Rich_cb wrote:
Maybe. But why take the chance?
To some extent we have
To some extent we have externalised our emissions faster than similar economies. We also had the advantage of North Sea gas which enabled an early and almost complete move away from coal and oil for electricity and space heating.
The move away from coal for
The move away from coal for electricity came long after North Sea gas had peaked. We were still generating a large proportion of our electricity from coal just a decade ago.
Even when factoring in the externalisation of emissions we’ve still decarbonised rapidly.
UK gas production peaked
UK gas production peaked between 2000 and 2002, Between 1990 and the end of 2000 the UK electricity industry added over 20GW of gas powered electricity generation capacity substantially lowering CO2 production from older oil and coal powered generation stations. Decarbonisation was well underway over 25 years ago, albeit for primarily economic reasons, though was reversed to some extent by rising gas prices and low global coal prices for a few years around 2010. That though is not to deny the remarkable success of off shore wind in the last few years.
Scientists have been warning
Scientists have been warning of tipping points compounding for the past decade or two. That’s when the problems will really start. The highest variance in temperatures between the long term average and actual present day readings are found in the high northern latitudes, up and around the Arctic circle where massive amounts of methane are trapped beneath the perma-frost of the Siberian tundra which, depending upon whose data one chooses to believe, could be released into the atmosphere as early as the next decade. Methane is by far and away the worst of the carbon intensive gases currently trapped in a relatively inert state.
Add in our dwindling clean water resources that provide the growth for the very food the world’s population needs to keep us all fed as glaciers and high level snow recede at alarming rates and oblivion can surely be the only outcome.
Perhaps a decade is too alarmist, but putting a timeliness of a century or two from now is just another form of kicking the can down the road, while burying our heads in the sand.
You mention that we are producing more clean energy than ever, yet there is still a huge way to go.
It was reported yesterday that worldwide production of energy from fossil fuels had actually gone up in the last year, even though wind and solar production is at the highest levels ever, such is the demand for electricity as the planet heats up.
I think you’ll find the nihilists are those who seek to deny that there is a problem, rather than those who do engage.
There have been apocalyptic
There have been apocalyptic predictions for the last few decades, none have so far come to pass.
The transition to net zero is going to take several decades if political consensus is maintained. Maintaining that consensus will be harder once deadlines for “oblivion” are passed with no such oblivion. Catastrophism is therefore detrimental to the overall cause.
I don’t think the increased demand for electricity is primarily driven by climate change but rather by 100s of millions of people becoming wealthier and moving towards the lifestyles enjoyed by the citizens of advanced economies. As the price of renewables continues to fall we should be able to accommodate this without jeopardising our overall climate goals.
Transfer of space heating and
Transfer of space heating and transport energy needs to electricity from gas and oil will considerably increase electricity demand in developed economies like that of Britain. Renewable generation capacity in Britain is not unlimited. Without substantial attitude changes and consumption habits, the future is very uncertain.
I agree.
I agree.
The political consensus to pay for the huge changes needed is very fragile, that’s what JSO is putting at risk IMHO. Without that consensus net zero by 2050 is impossible.
FWIW I think nuclear is our only real hope. 4 new big plants (inc. Hinckley C) and a smattering of SMRs and net zero is probably achievable.
Much more dangerous to
Much more dangerous to concensus is the unrestrained carbon dioxide production of the global rich. What was the carbon cost of 5 people playing at deep submersible grockle gawping? Or a single flight on Branson’s rocket ride? Step down and it is burgeoning private and luxury class jet flights, 3 tonne electric Range Rovers on the drive, and a heated swimming pool , down a step or two more are all those takers of long haul holidays to exotic locations, understandably they say why should we go without when noone seems to bother about the big consumers. Ultimately it is me saying why shouldn’t I put up the heating a notch when I’m having to wrap myself in a blanket to watch a tv program on a winters evening.
On a global scale virtually
On a global scale virtually everybody in the UK is “the global rich”.
The annual emissions from each domestic boiler are roughly double the entire annual emissions of each person in the developing world.
Yes billionaires have a very high carbon footprint compared to the average person in the UK but that doesn’t change the fact that the average person in the UK has a sky high carbon footprint.
I don’t deny that, but if the
I don’t deny that, but if the merely affluent are to accept measures that actively curtail their carbon footprint, they will need to see their discomfort shared, and I believe the massive unrestrained overconsumption of a conspicuous few is going to be more damaging to creating such a consensus than a handful of idealistic protestors causing occasional minor inconvenience.
It’s not just carbon
It’s not just carbon footprint. Ecological footprint is a more comprehensive measure of an individual’s contribution to the problem.
Hmm. I wonder… if you
Hmm. I wonder… if you consider the compromises which have arisen in human societies over time – or indeed exist for many right now. People will accept immense disparity and objectively poor conditions.
However we are very sensitive to losing “status” (now most often measured in material goods) because of our psychology.
Rich_cb wrote:
Good point. As David Hembrow rants we are in the elite earning (and polluting) few on the planet.
That doesn’t stop the UK being a relatively unequal country for “advanced nations”. This status will be little consolation to those at the bottom of the heap in the UK – and for the rest of us we’re always conscious of wealth relative to local peers and conditions.
Permafrost atmospheric
Permafrost atmospheric release of methane may be substantially moderated by concomitant proliferation of methanotrophic bacteria, so the worst case scenarios hopefully will not pan out, particularly with ever improving understanding of the microbial ecology of warming permafrost regions.
Not even a real cyclist – not
Not even a real cyclist – not a stitch of lycra or helmet in sight. Agent Provocateur if you ask me.
Oh, I don’t know! Man of a
Oh, I don’t know! Man of a certain age, carrying a bit of weight, attitude, cap, looks like he’s got cycling shoes, shiny bike albeit it’s a flat bar…
Plenty enought stereotypes.
Sounds like me on a Sunday
Sounds like me on a Sunday afternoon ride….
Come off it! He “found” that
Come off it! He “found”* that bike on the Lea Valley path.
*Found = Robbed.
Cross dresser then.
Cross dresser then.
Was he going to the rocky horror show ?
He’s not wearing a helmet so
He’s not wearing a helmet so he ought to create a real dilemma for the cycle haters.
Agreed.
Agreed.
He may also be on day release. I couldn’t see an ankle tag but perhaps off his meds too? If so. Hope his case handler is watching. He does have a case handler. Doesn’t he?
He’s never a cyclist. The
He’s never a cyclist. The language. The lard. The shiny head.
Assaulting protesters. He’ll only encourage more JSOP’s to turn up next time.
If Triple H was donning the orange vest, and next in line for some “rough justice”, he’d have shat himself.
I bet he drives a 2013 x5. With a union jack sticker somewhere.
Extinguishers are you ready?
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
Oi! Foul mouthed lardarses with bald heads can be cyclists too you know (being defensive of, ahem, a friend).
Erm. Apologies. That thug
Erm. Apologies. That thug boils my blood.
Shiny heads can have fun too.
Rant over.
The shiny head is why some of
The shiny head is why some of us wear helmets.
Union Jack sticker? How dare
Union Jack sticker? How dare he have national pride.
He needs the crushing white guilt you lot seem to all have.
Most of us don’t need to
Most of us don’t need to fetishise a bit of cloth to take pride in some aspects of our British history and traditions whilst deploring others! “Butcher’s Apron” is a nickname that flag earned with much truth.
Come on. That thug is a
Come on. That thug is a terwaat.
news flash – Middle class
news flash – Middle class white kids enforce their political views on others, claim Facism when stopped from doing so.
I see you are still using the
I see you are still using the “Stupid Comment 2000 generator.” I think its time to update your software.
I note that this morning JSO
I note that this morning JSO have daubed orange paint on Total Energies offices. This still appears, according to the Daily Heil, to be doing it the wrong way. I’m not sure how they can actually protest without attracting the acrimony of the climate change deniers or ignorers (the same thing in my book).
From: https://www.theguardian
From: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/27/we-could-lose-our-status-as-a-state-what-happens-to-a-people-when-their-land-disappears
I personally find the reliance on economic arguments to continue destroying our planet to be offensive.
This topic always brings out
This topic always brings out the Grade A Nutters! Complete with pseudo-science as a bonus.
Always good as a tour of
Always good as a tour of “where we get our beliefs from and how we justify them”. If you’re up for a less comfy experience (if you’re honest) you can try applying this to yourself!
Also on why yer “logic” isn’t always a winner and why “facts” are always up for debate.
Anyway – a good spotters’ guide (on a different but related topic) here!
Case in point.
Case in point.
Whose? Yours?
Whose? Yours?
You haven’t made a point to anyone but yourself if it’s impenetrably cryptic or nonsensical. Even for sarcasm.
Guess the internet is for venting too though!
The Left are never funny.
The Left are never funny.
Chin up Sunshine.
Bernard Manning was never
Bernard Manning was never funny and he got paid for making people laugh. At least you’re doing it for free. Keep ’em coming.
We great to announce that
We great to announce that Bernard Manning who was told to lose 5 stone or die has today lost 5 stone.
Roulereo wrote:
*Alexei Sayle enters the chat*
hawkinspeter wrote:
So, can anyone think of some funny right-wing comedians?
I’ve had enough of this.
I’ve had enough of this. So:
Hitler.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Germany was having trouble, what a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore its former glory
Where, oh where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me and now it’s
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay
We’re marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race
Isn’t Jacob Rees Mogg a Borat
Isn’t Jacob Rees Mogg a Borat style invention of some comedian?
Mungecrundle wrote:
If only
Pseudo-science, like a man
Pseudo-science, like a man identifying as a woman, is a woman?
Anyway, look on the bright
Anyway, look on the bright side
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/28/uk-has-made-no-progress-on-climate-plan-say-governments-own-advisers
good to see we are showing the world how it should be done.
Crisis?
What crisis.
Where’s the face palm emoji when you need it?
In my opinion JSO are not
In my opinion JSO are not focusing their efforts effectively. I think they would be better advised to target the individuals who are directly responsible for deciding not to make the necessary changes. For example the directors and board members of certain companies. Blockade the roads outside their homes when they hold private social events. Disrupt the performance of a play they are attending. Fly drones over the runway when their private jets are scheduled for departure, protest and disrupt their company AGM.
Gluing oneself to a commuter train* seems a bit stupid to most people. Blocking a major road* is annoying to regular people who might otherwise broadly support the cause.
*Not sure why JSO bother when unions and drivers regularly bring disruption to rail services and roads without any assistance.
They have gone to far now –
They have gone to far now – disrupting the Test match !
George Davis is innocent !
Hirsute wrote:
Absolutely, they’ve lost my sympathy. I mean good God, disrupting the coronation and all that sort of thing, fine, but some things are simply sacred.
All I can think of is the two
All I can think of is the two Aussies there with a bat each, and the lost opportunity…well done Jonny anyway.
In most walks of live,
In most walks of live, assulting someone like he did would result in arrest and certaintly in football or rugby, you would be sent off for violent conduct.
The wicketkeepers actions one of a thug and thus, he should be comdemed. It is not for him to take the law into his own hands.
essexian wrote:
To be fair to Bairstow all he did was pick up the non-resisting protester and carry him off the field of play, no violence was inflicted or harm done. It is legal to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from a property; by entering the field of play the protester was guilty of aggravated trespass (with which he has now been charged), so fairly sure Bairstow is on pretty safe legal ground. As someone who believes it’s a scandal that my Surrey boy Ben Foakes isn’t keeping wicket, I was just surprised to see Bairstow didn’t drop him.
Okay, but its still voilent
Okay, but its still voilent conduct for which, in football or rugby, the player would have rightly been sent off.
Its not the players role to police the crowd.
There goes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-26KjYWNNCE
essexian wrote:
Why not? Are we all to become mere bystanders to the breakdown of order? And if the lawbreaker had been a drunk driver or a burglar perhaps, should we stand by while he continued on his merry way?
You can’t intervene on
You can’t intervene on everything you consider to be breaking the law, otherwise you will be open to assault charges.
Of course not. The law allows
Of course not. The law allows a person to use reasonable force to stop a burglar, or a drunk driver but the laws of cricket: see my post below, does not allow a player to act in the way the wicket keeper did.
That’s the difference. One is allowed by law and indeed, should be expected by society as a whole, the second is not.
essexian wrote:
Pretty sure the laws of cricket do not cover the actions of external persons coming onto the field in order to commit a crime (which, agree with them or not, the JSO protesters were doing, to enter the playing field at a sporting event is aggravated trespass) and so a player taking action to prevent such persons would not be sanctioned under the laws of the game.
He already posted
He already posted
Level 4 offence in Cricket:
42.5.1 Any of the following actions by a player shall constitute a Level 4 offence:
But then it comes down to the understanding and definition of assault.
Hirsute wrote:
I know he already posted, and I read the law with interest, but I am suggesting that those laws are formulated as applicable to the actions of a player during play and towards their fellow competitors, the umpires, physios etc. I do not believe that the laws prohibit a player taking action to prevent an external person committing a criminal offence.
Sorry, I added a sentence but
Sorry, I added a sentence but you replied first
“But then it comes down to the understanding and definition of assault.”
That seems to be the crux of it as to whether it was ok.
Hirsute wrote:
Indeed, and according to gov.uk ““Anyone refusing to leave the premises when asked becomes a trespasser, and can be lawfully ejected from the premises using only such force as is necessary (Scotland – using only such force which is ‘reasonable’)”. As Bairstow didn’t punch, kick or otherwise attempt to harm the protestor but simply picked them up and carried them off the pitch I’m 99% certain any court would accept that as “using only such force as is necessary”.
essexian wrote:
Can you point me to the laws of cricket where they specifically prohibit such actions?
It seems to me that any laws generally deal with what is NOT allowed, they do not list everything that is allowed.
You may try to argue this is violet conduct, but others (including the umpires it would seem) disagree.
He already posted
He already posted
Level 4 offence in Cricket:
42.5.1 Any of the following actions by a player shall constitute a Level 4 offence:
But then it comes down to the understanding and definition of assault.
If you ever need proof that
If you ever need proof that cyclists aren’t a monoculture, I present a Gammon/carbon roadie hybrid.
I love cycling. Exciting.
I love cycling. Exciting. Often exhilarating. Never boring. That’s for cricket fans!
And yes. I have, also, previously, fallen asleep at a test match. Never again.
Tyre extinguishers. Are you ready!?!
Ive falken asleep before
Ive falken asleep before grand tour stages…
Funny how the media are quick
Funny how the media are quick to report the JSO and IB protests as harmful but slow to report the physical harm done to the protestors at all.
Also on the ‘anti-working class’ thing: surely every day we gain by delaying the inevitable is more than a day taken from future generations? By simply carrying on and getting to work we’re destroying future jobs and lives. We should accept the lesser sacrifice now to prevent the greater loss in the future.
Cool, you want to “just stop
Cool, you want to “just stop oil” so embrace nuclear energy, because it isn’t all about cars and with governments pushing to stop the sale of ICE based cars manufacturers are already pushing for full electrification, but these things are not done overnight. Example being stallantis who own a lot of brands pushing to full EV across their brands and taking the bold move to start with Alfa Romeo being 100% EV by 2027.