Aug 27-Sept 2 Climate Camp returns to London

[TopCat]

Well the CC mob should be well on their way to clearing up and dismantling their camp by now. I think it will be pristine given the attention to detail and organisation. In my mind they have done well on this overall action.

They refused to discuss plans with the police.

They successfully seized (and held) the space they wanted to use as a camp.

They kept most of the nutters attracted to this sort of thing busy or outside.

They (after a wee lapse) refused to let the police on site, having all meetings off of site,.

They were very well organised and showed much planning in what they did.

The toilets were fabulous, not smelling after 5 days is a great achievement. Always having loo paper and a candle in a jar was very welcoming.

Much of the camp had lit boarded walkways which helped wheelchair users and the visually impaired.

Being a bunch of environmentalist types, the whole camp only had necessary lighting and was semi invisible set up on the heath. The music stopped at midnight on the Saturday so bothered no one (unless you hate the Inner Terrestrials and were present).

I never expected any of their away day actions to cause the demise of Capitalism so I was not too let down by the limited reach of what was done.

They got a lot of local people interested and indeed on board.

I might not agree with much of what they profess but I'm glad they are out there...

 

[jæd]

which seems to differ from the account offered by a friend who works in the same building.

Some PR hacks not being able to get their lunch isn't exactly "disruption".

The problem with stuntism is that its the "me, me, me" version of lobbying. Their solution it must be done because they can shout the loudest.

 

[shaman75]

Some PR hacks not being able to get their lunch isn't exactly "disruption".

Oh. You know him? Brilliant.

I didn't realise he was a hack or in pr. Must have changed jobs. Last time we spoke he was working for tfl.

Never mind. I'm sure there was no disruption caused to staff of other companies. Even if they weren't allowed to enter or leave the building in which they work.

Which means the chief exec of the targeted company was right in asserting that there was no disruption.

Quite a relief, as I thought he might have been trying to play down the impact of the protest by stretching the truth.

 

[cesare]

Oh. You know him? Brilliant.

I didn't realise he was a hack or in pr. Must have changed jobs. Last time we spoke he was working for tfl.

Never mind. I'm sure there was no disruption caused to staff of other companies. Even if they weren't allowed to enter or leave the building in which they work.

Which means the chief exec of the targeted company was right in asserting that there was no disruption.

Quite a relief, as I thought he might have been trying to play down the impact of the protest by stretching the truth.

 

[jæd]

Oh. You know him? Brilliant.

I didn't realise he was a hack or in pr. Must have changed jobs. Last time we spoke he was working for tfl.

Oh, he works in a different company in the same office...

 

[paolo]

Being a bunch of environmentalist types, the whole camp only had necessary lighting and was semi invisible set up on the heath.

Too right about invisible at night. On the phone to dissidant, trying to find it, I was cursing the met for not having their arc light on. Bastards never switched it on once in the time I was there!

Maybe they were trying not to waste energy.

 

[paolo]

Some PR hacks not being able to get their lunch isn't exactly "disruption".

The problem with stuntism is that its the "me, me, me" version of lobbying. Their solution it must be done because they can shout the loudest.

Depends on how you value the cause. I doubt you would question the validity of the suffragettes. And yet I'm sure, at the time, some people would have made the same criticism.

History judges these things better than the present, and in doing so makes fools out of some people.

 

[paolo]

Photees:

Climate Camp had a full water system. Conventional drainage was replaced by the use of straw bales, which were also used for "pee" toilets, to then be sent off for composting. "Poo" toilets used plastic bins, with sawdust to sprinkle after use. The long drop arrangement would be familiar to many festival goers, but the net result was in fact far less smelly.

Monday was hot hot hot. In the early evening, some people were still hiding from the sun. Others had a football game outside the camp.

Tea cup in hand, Julia Pendry, Met police Gold Command, leaves the gate after a daily liaison meeting. After the initial hostility from their on site visit - which wasn't welcomed by many campers - the atmosphere around the liaison visit seemed very welcoming. Almost to the point that it looked like each 'side' was trying to 'out nice' each other. Surreal to watch, after G20.

After a day of seminars, some very heavyweight, the early evenings lent themselves to lighter stuff. It ranged from people singing - yes it did happen - kum bye ya, right through to speed dating! ("Yeah... We had to send the men away - there were too many" I overheard, walking past some organisers).

After dark, the main tent - used for multiple seminars tracks in the day - was merged back into a single venue. Using low power LED lighting, the stage run from a solar charged battery array, bands played until the 11pm shutdown. Acts included Emmy the Great, and the Mystery Jets doing a DJ set.

 

[jæd]

History judges these things better than the present, and in doing so makes fools out of some people.

So it may, but I suspect not many of the Climate Camp will be up to jumping in front of horses...

 

[xes]

only because the nazi scum police didn't charge them with horses

 

[fogbat]

So it may, but I suspect not many of the Climate Camp will be up to jumping in front of horses...

If they did, though, they'd merit a bloody good kicking for disrupting the horses' day

 

[ajdown]

only because the nazi scum police didn't charge them with horses

I'd charge them with obstruction and criminal trespass personally...

 

[Treacle Toes]

I'd charge them with obstruction and criminal trespass personally...

With or without a 'good kicking?'

 

[TopCat]

I'd charge them with obstruction and criminal trespass personally...

But you can't...

 

[ajdown]

Well I know I can't, because I'm not the police or the RBS.

 

[TopCat]

Well I know I can't, because I'm not the police or the RBS.

So it's just more froth and indignation.

 

[david dissadent]

Britain faces blackouts.

Link

This is old old news that is repeated every year, but our nuclear fleet is coming to the end of its life, our gas reserves are running out quickly and we need alot of power generating capacity quickly. This will come from new coal power stations. Coal has the highest rating of CO2 per BTU of all the major energy sources.

The option of using less energy does not seem to have occured to anyone.

But then again this government is building new runways for more airflights. Coal wont power them so god knows where they think that energy will come from.

 

[xes]

Well I know I can't, because I'm not the police or the RBS.

good fucking job, although, to be fair, i think you'd fit right in to that fucking nazi pig scum outfit.

 

[ajdown]

good fucking job, although, to be fair, i think you'd fit right in to that fucking nazi pig scum outfit.

I wouldn't pass the fitness test so don't worry.

 

[paolo]

Link

This is old old news that is repeated every year, but our nuclear fleet is coming to the end of its life, our gas reserves are running out quickly and we need alot of power generating capacity quickly. This will come from new coal power stations. Coal has the highest rating of CO2 per BTU of all the major energy sources.

The option of using less energy does not seem to have occured to anyone.

But then again this government is building new runways for more airflights. Coal wont power them so god knows where they think that energy will come from.

The economist ran this as the cover story a few weeks ago:

How long till lights go out?

Similarly, it doesn't explore the idea of using less energy.

 

[moon23]

Link

This is old old news that is repeated every year, but our nuclear fleet is coming to the end of its life, our gas reserves are running out quickly and we need alot of power generating capacity quickly. This will come from new coal power stations. Coal has the highest rating of CO2 per BTU of all the major energy sources.

The option of using less energy does not seem to have occured to anyone.

But then again this government is building new runways for more airflights. Coal wont power them so god knows where they think that energy will come from.

If the green lobby were no opposing Nuclear as an option then we would probably have that rather than coal which would be much better.

 

[jæd]

Link

This is old old news that is repeated every year, but our nuclear fleet is coming to the end of its life, our gas reserves are running out quickly and we need alot of power generating capacity quickly. This will come from new coal power stations. Coal has the highest rating of CO2 per BTU of all the major energy sources.

The option of using less energy does not seem to have occured to anyone.

But then again this government is building new runways for more airflights. Coal wont power them so god knows where they think that energy will come from.

This is one of the problems I have with the Climate Camp lot. They're great at pointing at all the ills at the moment, but their solutions leave a lot to be desired. Singing "kum-by-yar" won't power electric cars or even our existing power requirements. They are going to wish we had built those coal powered Power Stations when we had a chance...

 

[paolo]

If the green lobby were no opposing Nuclear as an option then we would probably have that rather than coal which would be much better.

The green lobby is irrelevant on that point. We can't build nuclear in time to meet the shortfall.

If you read the Economist article, it might challenge some your prejudices. And I think it's safe to say they can't be accused of being a hippy publication.

 

[Balbi]

Just got back.

Awesome. Tar Sands, B.P, Hell Centre.....

Pics later.

 

[moon23]

The green lobby is irrelevant on that point. We can't build nuclear in time to meet the shortfall.

If you read the Economist article, it might challenge some your prejudices. And I think it's safe to say they can't be accused of being a hippy publication.

Ok, but it's not a prejudice but rather my opinon that has been formed through both hosting public meetings with academic experts on Nuclear Energy and time spent volunteering with FOE and speaking leading members of the Green movement. Maybe i'm wrong, it's not my area so basically like 90% i'm just a lay person trying to get my head around it.

I know nothing is simply when it comes to energy, but I do think Nuclear is a 'Green' as in low carbon source of natural energy that could be made use of alongside renewable.

There isn't one solution though, reducing consumption should certinaly be a component.

 

[paolo]

Ok, but it's not a prejudice but rather my opinon that has been formed through both hosting public meetings with academic experts on Nuclear Energy and time spent volunteering with FOE and speaking leading members of the Green movement. Maybe i'm wrong, it's not my area so basically like 90% i'm just a lay person trying to get my head around it.

I know nothing is simply when it comes to energy, but I do think Nuclear is a 'Green' as in low carbon source of natural energy that could be made use of alongside renewable.

There isn't one solution though, reducing consumption should certinaly be a component.

My use of 'prejudice' was presumptious - consider it withdrawn

I think you're right that there's plenty of greens against nuclear - but it's now a moot point for the short-medium term. Personally I'd also take nuclear rather than coal, or a possibly risky increased dependency on imported gas, but sadly coal is looking more and more likely.

So yep, reducing consumption is worth a go. The 1010uk.org campaign launched yesterday. It may or may not fly, but there's no harm trying.

 

[boskysquelch]

wank

 

[david dissadent]

This is one of the problems I have with the Climate Camp lot. They're great at pointing at all the ills at the moment, but their solutions leave a lot to be desired. Singing "kum-by-yar" won't power electric cars or even our existing power requirements. They are going to wish we had built those coal powered Power Stations when we had a chance...

It’s not their fault that there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s not their fault that governments have ignored the science for the past 30 years. It’s not them who failed to adequately plan for the blindingly obvious peaking of the UKs gas production and the decommissioning its ageing fleet of nuclear power stations.
Don’t like the choices, that’s just tough. We are very likely facing extraordinarily dangerous climate change. We pissed our chances of dealing with it easily away in the 80s and 90s. Trying to blame people for pointing this out is just shooting the messenger.

 

[smokedout]

still, a jolly good sing song round the campfire should sort things out what

 

[eoin_k]

I've heard some persuasive arguments that nuclear has a fairly high carbon footprint when you look at the whole process from extracting the uranium, using concrete to build numerous facilities (power stations, reprocessing plants, storage bunkers) and finally managing the waste product for centuries into the future.

I've also heard persuasive arguments that the potential to substitute to nuclear is limited by the scarcity of uranium as a resource. As supply dwindles the purity declines and more resources will be spent extracting uranium and more waste produced i.e the waste from which the uranium has to be extracted.

Which isn't to mention the nuclear industries other 'green' credentials.