Just Stop Oil

[maniak]

Isn't it the job of a good news organization that serves the public to have them on prime time explaining to the whole country what they want to achieve?

Do they go on tv? Are they invited? Do they decline?

 

[Bebe]

By that same logic I could ask you: do you think their tactics further their cause? As in, are there people who go, "I didn't really care about the global warming, but now that I've been two hours late for work/picking up my kid I see things differently!!!"? I think it's fine to try and send messages at sporting events or when they punch upwards, against politicians and private jets or whatever. But this messing with the daily grind of regular people is punching downwards and I don't think they will win over many people that way.
I think in general some progressive movements have lost perspective and it feels like some upper class people are having their circle jerk, while "simple people" feel patronized and drift towards right wing populists.

Bingo

 

[Balljy]

Isn't it the job of a good news organization that serves the public to have them on prime time explaining to the whole country what they want to achieve?

Do they go on tv? Are they invited? Do they decline?

I'm not sure about on the news, but Just Stop Oil have been on Question Time and discussed on programs like Today in prime time slots. They also have an article on what they do which was front page on the website for a while and have updates from them over their protests.

Just Stop Oil: What is it and what does it want? - BBC News

Just Stop Oil deny disrupting George Osborne wedding - BBC News

Whether anybody is reading it with an open mind is another question though.

 

[Gehrman]

Isn't it the job of a good news organization that serves the public to have them on prime time explaining to the whole country what they want to achieve?

Do they go on tv? Are they invited? Do they decline?

Well Roger Hallem i mentioned earlier who is one of the leaders was on spectator tv late year and talk tv, but that was when he was more associated with Extinction rebilliion than JSO so i wouldnt be able to say he was speaking for JSO in those interviews despite them only being 8 months old.

 

[Red in STL]

Isn't it the job of a good news organization that serves the public to have them on prime time explaining to the whole country what they want to achieve?

Do they go on tv? Are they invited? Do they decline?

TBH I've no idea but the TV folks probably don't want orange studios

 

[cafecillos]

Bingo

Is that happening to you? If not, isn't it also somewhat patronising to claim people are drifting towards right wing populism because they feel antagonised by the left and so they throw their toys out of the pram instead of right wing being their actual ideology all along? How puerile do you think they are?

 

[Bebe]

Is that happening to you? If not, isn't it also somewhat patronising to claim people are drifting towards right wing populism because they feel antagonised by the left and so they throw their toys out of the pram instead of right wing being their actual ideology all along? How puerile do you think they are?

Yes.

I don't consider myself a right wing populist by any stretch (they don't tend to like folks who look like me), but I definitely think its true that the modern left has...well...left...a number of its previous adherents behind by embracing positions that benefit the "upper class circle jerk" the poster I was responding to described. It's not so much throwing toys out of the pram as it is a recognition that the direction of the political left is no longer in accordance with the priorities of the "common man" (ie anyone not in the aforementioned circle jerk).

 

[cafecillos]

Yes.

I don't consider myself a right wing populist by any stretch (they don't tend to like folks who look like me), but I definitely think its true that the modern left has...well...left...a number of its previous adherents behind by embracing positions that benefit the "upper class circle jerk" the poster I was responding to described. It's not so much throwing toys out of the pram as it is a recognition that the direction of the political left is no longer in accordance with the priorities of the "common man" (ie anyone not in the aforementioned circle jerk).

And the direction of the political right wing is?

 

[Bebe]

And the direction of the political right wing is?

They've expanded their messaging to start appealing to the neutrals/centrists etc, in my opinion. Some of it could be said to be in good faith, such as an emphasis on cost of living concerns, criticism of military budgets etc (what a time to be alive, where Fox News is the media outlet pushing back on military spending) etc. Some of it, such as the "defend women's rights from the trans movement" is obviously an opportunistic ploy.

 

[cafecillos]

They've expanded their messaging to start appealing to the neutrals/centrists etc, in my opinion. Some of it could be said to be in good faith, such as an emphasis on cost of living concerns, criticism of military budgets etc (what a time to be alive, where Fox News is the media outlet pushing back on military spending) etc. Some of it, such as the "defend women's rights from the trans movement" is obviously an opportunistic ploy.

Say what?

 

[Bebe]

Say what?

This might be an area where the UK situation differs. As an example, where I live carbon taxes have been introduced by the largely "left" current government that mean, put simply, the common person is paying more at the pump. The "left" wants to further a new future, while the "right" is pointing out that we can't afford the magnitude of change the left desires, at the speed the left desires. I won't claim to have enough knowledge to say whose is correct on that point either way.

I don't have a great understanding of the UK's energy situation, but from the headlines I've seen it would seem that the UK common person is being absolutely gouged on energy prices, large energy providers are sucking up the profits and a conservative government is happy for it all to continue. Which would be a very different situation from the one I described in.

 

[maniak]

So basically you don't care about the environment. In that case it makes sense the left look like loons and the right is appealing.

 

[Gehrman]

This was a fairly chaotic watch.

 

[Wibble]

From an earlier posted tweet.

"A few years ago I threw paint over the central hall of Kings College to force the university to stop fossil fuel investment. Within 5 minutes the Vice Principal was on the scene. He says, "Roger actions like this shut down the conversation". I said ... "this is the first conversation I've had with you". BANG BANG.

You make the mistake of thinking the whole lovely nicey nice approach is going to make a difference. Its done absolutely fecking nothing for the last 25 years.
Wake up.
More Orange paint please, more pissed off people attending disrupted events.
The debates and conversations get fired up far quicker than your proposed snooze fest.

Yes and they are completely unworkable but they have successfully in the last 6 months made far more noise than the previous 25 years of nicey nice talky talk.
Wake up.
Softly softly has done absolutely fecking nothing. Its time for disruption. Its irritating and inconvenient, its better than the convenience of doing nothing.

I tend to agree. We are sleepwalking to a dire future.

 

[HTG]

By that same logic I could ask you: do you think their tactics further their cause? As in, are there people who go, "I didn't really care about the global warming, but now that I've been two hours late for work/picking up my kid I see things differently!!!"? I think it's fine to try and send messages at sporting events or when they punch upwards, against politicians and private jets or whatever. But this messing with the daily grind of regular people is punching downwards and I don't think they will win over many people that way.
I think in general some progressive movements have lost perspective and it feels like some upper class people are having their circle jerk, while "simple people" feel patronized and drift towards right wing populists.

I think what’s fascinating is that you call the very same people you don’t want to be patronised „simple people“.

 

[do.ob]

I think what’s fascinating is that you call the very same people you don’t want to be patronised „simple people“.

I think you misunderstand me, I think democracy is by and large like herding sheep. If you want to achieve something it's more about how you sell it than it is about whether it's a good idea.

 

[The Boy]

Have they specifically targeted the working class?

Did you not see George Osborne's wedding?

 

[cafecillos]

I think what’s fascinating is that you call the very same people you don’t want to be patronised „simple people“.

Exactly, the argument is so incredibly flimsy it almost feel dishonest: "I think what these people, who I believe can turn to far right ideology after the slightest inconvenience (that's how little I think of them), don't want to be patronised about human rights, really".

 

[Abizzz]

It's not that they will become racist right wingers if stuck in a traffic jam. It will be the racist right wingers who offer very acceptable solutions to the cause of those traffic jams that will make the annoyed consider voting for them.

Not exactly a new populists tactic to be honest.

 

[horsechoker]

It's not that they will become racist right wingers if stuck in a traffic jam. It will be the racist right wingers who offer very acceptable solutions to the cause of those traffic jams that will make the annoyed consider voting for them.

Not exactly a new populists tactic to be honest.

What solutions do right wingers offer to traffic?

 

[Abizzz]

What solutions do right wingers offer to traffic?

Probably nothing useful but they'll be quick (if they aren't already, I don't listen to them) to call for harsh treatment of these protesters by the police for a start. The next escalation will be for motorists to be allowed to lay hands on them to free the road. There are a lot of options that could appeal to someone pissed off at a protester sitting on the motorway...

 

[The Boy]

What solutions do right wingers offer to traffic?

They can't even stop fecking boats let alone traffic jams!

 

[horsechoker]

They can't even stop fecking boats let alone traffic jams!

Maybe Just Stop Oil should go sit in front of immigrant boats!

 

[Cascarino]

I don't have a problem with that as a goal, but they need a broad mass of people to agree with them if they want to effect change. I don't see how they get that with these tactics. They also need someone on TV making an argument, which you never see - just these tedious stunts.

Regarding the bolded, I think in part because we all know what the end result of climate change will be, but it’s also kind of boring now. We’ve all seen talking heads on tv telling us the world will end, and (at least it feels this way to me) this has lost a lot of impact. I really like @KirkDuyt post earlier in the thread but I can’t find it.

I think you misunderstand me, I think democracy is by and large like herding sheep. If you want to achieve something it's more about how you sell it than it is about whether it's a good idea.

It's not that they will become racist right wingers if stuck in a traffic jam. It will be the racist right wingers who offer very acceptable solutions to the cause of those traffic jams that will make the annoyed consider voting for them.

Not exactly a new populists tactic to be honest.

I think you’re both right about the answers offered, but this is an age old problem. One on hand you have a group of people saying “This is a critical situation, we need to overhaul certain parts of how we function, it seems like an intangible opaque threat but millions will be affected” vs

“You don’t have to do anything, feck’em, it’ll be fine”

I don’t think JSO have much hope, and they could have done things better, but they have an aim and a plan. The other answer isn’t a solution, it’s a fantasy, as Nigel Pearson would say they’re an Ostrich. Kick the can down the road but the devil always takes its due.

I know neither of you are suggesting their ignoring plan is the correct one. I’m just pointing out the problem with trying to sell the former plan, it involves effort and sacrifice. When you compare that to the sweet reassurances of a right populist, it’s hard to compete.

 

[Gehrman]

I don't have a problem with that as a goal, but they need a broad mass of people to agree with them if they want to effect change. I don't see how they get that with these tactics. They also need someone on TV making an argument, which you never see - just these tedious stunts.

But they have been on tv.


And one their main donors feels their tactics have become counterproductive.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/25/trevor-neilson-just-stop-oil-donor-counterproductive/

 

[Cascarino]

But they have been on tv.

Honestly with a name like that she had no chance. Get me on there, with a pint of cider and my footie top on and I will speak to the heart of the people. Sorted.

 

[Gehrman]

Honestly with a name like that she had no chance. Get me on there, with a pint of cider and my footie top on and I will speak to the heart of the people. Sorted.

 

[McGrathsipan]

But they have been on tv.


And one their main donors feels their tactics have become counterproductive.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/25/trevor-neilson-just-stop-oil-donor-counterproductive/

Hysterical ramblings of a mad woman.

 

[neverdie]

As an aside, they should revert to calling it Global Warming. That's what it actually is. They cited science, selectively, to Orwellian alter the term (as Shell-Shock to Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder, or Murder Indiscriminate to Collateral Damage). They say, well, "some parts are warming and others are cooling". Right, but the overall effect is the world is burning, its icecaps are melting, and the planet is becoming "warmer". Hotter. Which place is destined to become frozen over the next twenty years or cooler than it was with an immense degree of difference? Not one. It's all going in the "warming" direction just unevenly. This idea of "well the climate is changing and we have to adapt to it" is less alarming than the truthful description of "we're cutting the lungs of the world down, sending billions of years of fossil fuels up, with no carbon sinkage to then accommodate that thus feedback-loop, so called, or Greenhouse Gas effect, being precisely that: the global warming caused by human economy".

That's us "changing" the climate on the right. Anthropogenic alteration, or cumulative effect of human economic practice, dubbed carbon/whatever output, over centuries (two), equalling global warming.

Now, you could do something like carbon capture on site. You could, in theory, take those (if not all) energy producing (dirty) factories and flatten the means by which the fumes relase into the atmosphere in the first instance. Horizontal, inductive, chimney (exhaust) premise which thus deposits into the sediment and reduces, if not eliminates, all that which just flows into the atmosphere 24/7 = 25% of all global emissions. That requires retrofitting already existing power stations over a decade or so and minimal lifestyle changes. You would still use oil, for a time, and it would never get into the atmosphere. The nuclear principle, basically, but the storage of methane/carbon/whatever within the sediment, very far down (from whence the stuff is sourced) is less hazardous than refined nuclear waste which is likewise stored.

Think of a chimney. Now flatten it. The flow of the combustion engine, just call it a furnace, is inducted (basic science, but with advanced techniques) in such a way that it goes against the "rising" principle (hot air risies). Now, put a small, but highly strong alloy-compound turbine within that chimney, grounded, and the toxic fume material, when it reaches critical mass, thus turns, by force-value (heat/volume/pressure), spins, a turbine which, itself, can be isolated from the carbon capture, primary, and fed back into the factory's own power grid. It might only = 5% or 2% or whatever % of "freely given electrical power", but it works. Carbon capture post atmposheric release: that is stupid. It's trying to catch something after it is feasible to catch it en masse. Either you cease all such usage of such fuels, or you get people together and figure out a way to make it work (via such premises as this wherein the technology arlready fecking exists).

Will that work for all factories? No, but it will absolutely work for many. Rare mentions of the premise. Now, until people start thinking that way, industrialists, mostly, we're basically fecked. If you can do this and simultaneous desert schemes, algae/oases/species barrier restoration, over the next ten years, as but one stone toward the overall solution, there is indeed a solution. But it is that macro. Recycling isn't going to cut it. Though cleaning the oceans up is something that is worthwhile and ought to be funded by the billions not the millions.

Keep saying it: QE and taxbreaks = >10tn easily over ten years. Offshore accounts, not to scapegoat, have 100tn, estimated, in seclusion. World's GDP is 100tn per year. War Spending is 2tn per year. I see no Defense Economic initiative to pivot, entirely, over a ten year period into the new economic mode (the necessary one). Whatever one's solution is.

What I do see is news/politics/etc., trying to manage people's expectations as the corporations still profit to the tune of trillions, every year, by the very means which = right side of that picture. And a future's market for crude oil wherein the price, bidding, now, is higher in 2034 than it is/was in 2006/2010 and other periods, barring covid, with inflation (insofar as you can) taken into account. That to me tells me all I need to know about how seriously private and public sectors are taking the entire thing.

 

[alexthelion]

Bunch of fecking cnuts.

Is the correct description of them.

 

[CallyRed]

They have just interrupted The Last Leg Live on Channel 4.

They also interrupted the opening night of the proms. Nothing worse than posh people ruining other posh peoples night with a protest.

 

[Salt Bailly]

They have just interrupted The Last Leg Live on Channel 4.

Didn't see it but I'm guessing it was pre-planned? I imagine the last leg guys all support what JSO are doing.

 

[CallyRed]

Didn't see it but I'm guessing it was pre-planned? I imagine the last leg guys all support what JSO are doing.

Apparently not, Adam Hills said it wasn't planned.

 

[TheLiverBird]

I’m starting too like them

how can you not??

 

[Port Vale Devil]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Stack]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[hasanejaz88]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Don't agree with blocking roads to be honest. Derailing everyday people's work will not put them on your side as they have little power in this matter, it's the politicians whose life you have to make miserable.

We don't know that the people pushing them away had to do, could have been an emergency, shouldn't judge without knowing.

 

[Bert_]

Apparently not, Adam Hills said it wasn't planned.

Definitely not. He started to put the vest on that one of the protesters gave him until he was told off and said he wasn't allowed.

 

[stw2022]

Their methods are affective at publicity but I would question whether as a result there's been any real change or rise in public awareness of climate change.

Almost every single reaction has been either praise or criticism of their chosen mode of protest, and almost absolutely nothing else beyond that. They're effectively piggybacking off environmental issues to raise awareness for themselves.

They've been extremely successful in getting people taking about the nature/art of protests, but that seems to be about it. Public support of stopping oil and the wider climate change agenda has been an open goal for many years. Not entirely convinced now public discourse that was one dedicated to that being almost entirely dedicated to the debate around orange paint at the snooker, has been as useful as some think.

 

[11101]

Isn't it the job of a good news organization that serves the public to have them on prime time explaining to the whole country what they want to achieve?

Do they go on tv? Are they invited? Do they decline?

They've done a few interviews but they rarely go well, wouldn't surprise me if they avoid it now. The ones I've seen they've been mostly upper class entitled students descending into a rant.