Do we support Insulate Britain?

[LDC]

* Mutters something Leninist about strategy and tactics. *

...yeah, it's a core problem with this kind of thing. The missing piece - which I don't think any of us have right now - is how to bridge the gap between these actions and mass collective acts of refusal.

Compared to other stuff that's happened/happening there's stuff about climate change that makes it very difficult tying effective and 'good' (on a wider more radical level) political action to it...

It's obviously a global problem and needs global solutions, it is in part also a problem due to people's behaviour and our individual and collective refusal to change, it is largely going to require State and corporate intervention to sort out, it's possible (even likely) it could get sorted in a way that's inequitable and terrible for many people, it's very hard to directly impact carbon emissions themselves, it very easily slips into personal lifestyle change (and that's not without validity), etc.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

What I will just add, is that I'm sure Insulate Britain mean well, despite their counter-productive actions. And they are definitely not terrorists, that's just crazy talk by right wing loons.

 

[Wilf]

Loft insulation is a world level disaster?

Y'know, is it just possible I was referring to climate change as a whole as the world level disaster?

 

[Wilf]

But it's not really about delaying the commute for individuals that people that are saying is the problem is it? It's about whether pissing off some people by blocking traffic (and the accompanying 'bad press') is on balance a negative impact that's worth having to help achieve the aims of the action and the group (and wider change in society)?

And, if it is such an unfolding global catastrophe, why are they doing such lame and well behaved actions and protests? Their stated reason is to maintain 'public support' but somehow that doesn't seem to be a factor is this type of action?

It's 'be very passive and polite' but then do something that pisses off people and has no real impact in reducing carbon emissions or directly achieving the goals you want, which makes it a glorified publicity stunt, not direct action.

I'll admit, they probably fail on most criteria for a decent protest. It's just in the context of things being so bad - and the absence of better protests/movements - I'm not going to be too critical. The other thing is, whilst pissing drivers off is a genuine problem, I can't conceive of piling in on anything that looks like 'defending motorists'* because that's ultimately part of the problem.

* Realising you are not framing it like that.

 

[killer b]

Y'know, is it just possible I was referring to climate change as a whole as the world level disaster?

Saul isn't interested in a real discussion, he's just another nihilist. I wouldn't waste your time.

 

[Flavour]

The ignore function is your friend

 

[chilango]

Saul isn't interested in a real discussion, he's just another nihilist. I wouldn't waste your time.

Obligatory

 

[maomao]

I remember a bullshitting colleague years ago who was droning on about how none of the big political theories worked. He claimed to have 'tried' communism, socialism, fascism etc. and found them all to be ineffective. So just to try and outmanoeuvre him I told him I was a nihilist. He gave me a knowing look and said 'tried that, doesn't work'.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Why? What's wrong with picketing outside factories after people have arrived at work, and preventing trucks from entering or leaving? That way the workers get paid and it hits the companies.

It might annoy the truck driver though.

 

[ska invita]

What I will just add, is that I'm sure Insulate Britain mean well, despite their counter-productive actions. A

You cant prove their actions are counter-productive. If insulation (or general climate change prevention methods) move up the agenda faster than mightve otherwise then their actions are productive. There is no way of measuring that.
I would expect that their actions are productive. At the least they are adding to a culture of civil disobedience on the issue of climate change

 

[Pickman's model]

You cant prove their actions are counter-productive. If insulation (or general climate change prevention methods) move up the agenda faster than mightve otherwise then their actions are productive. There is no way of measuring that.
I would expect that their actions are productive. At the least they are adding to a culture of civil disobedience on the issue of climate change

be nice if you could offer more than your expectation that their actions are productive

 

[Carvaged]

This is by far one of the most effective pro-environment campaigns of recent years. Well done to all the wankers involved. Better than starting up a shop on Amazon and channel on YouTube selling pro-insulation merch, I tell ya!

 

[Pickman's model]

This is by far one of the most effective pro-environment campaigns of recent years. Well done to all the wankers involved. Better than starting up a shop on Amazon and channel on YouTube selling pro-insulation merch, I tell ya!

perhaps you could outline the criteria against which you mark their effectiveness

 

[killer b]

I think forcing your specific climate change tackling proposals into the evening news bulletins immediately before the country you live in hosts an international conference on climate change could prove to be very effective.

 

[platinumsage]

It's not effective if it moves things up the agenda or whatever. It's only effective if as a result: a) more homes are insulated more quickly, and b) this reduces CO2 more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think forcing your specific climate change tackling proposals into the evening news bulletins immediately before the country you live in hosts an international conference on climate change could prove to be very effective.

i wish i could share your optimism: but there's getting something on the news and there's getting something on the news in such a way that it resonates with the wider population. i don't think that these elitist and substitutionist actions have quite the traction you suggest. if you had a thousand people blocking a motorway or blocking motorways around the country then they wouldn't be so easily derided

 

[Pickman's model]

It's not effective if it moves things up the agenda or whatever. It's only effective if as a result: a) more homes are insulated more quickly, and b) this reduces CO2 more quickly than would otherwise have been the case

if their aim is moving things up the agenda then they have been successful. but things can as easily descend as ascend the agenda.

 

[maomao]

i wish i could share your optimism: but there's getting something on the news and there's getting something on the news in such a way that it resonates with the wider population. i don't think that these elitist and substitutionist actions have quite the traction you suggest. if you had a thousand people blocking a motorway or blocking motorways around the country then they wouldn't be so easily derided

We'll go and join in then. If your only criticism is that there's not enough of them. I'm sure the plan was for thousands of them to be doing it.

 

[elbows]

Loft insulation is a world level disaster?
The arrogance of some people is astounding, thinking they can put even the slightest dent in the CO2 problem by throwing money at poorly insulated houses.
There are answers to the problems we're facing but loft insulation isn't one of them. Desalination of sea water, coupled with irrigation and planting of deserts. They're the things that will save us in the long term, and oil companies, along with all other mega corps, should be forced to pay for it. Placing the onus on the individual is merely a con. It's classic smoke and mirrors bullshit to make people believe that their individual actions can somehow offset the actions of greedy capitalists... Look over there!

We need to focus on ALL the issues on every front, considering both climate change and availability and cost of fuels and peoples ability to stay warm etc.

The energy we use to heat our homes is significant. Using one particular source of numbers..... (http://www.energyenvoys.org.uk/sites/default/files/What's energy used for_0.pdf )

61% of our domestic energy use is used for space heating!!! Obviously transport and industry make up large chunks of the total energy picture too, but to ignore the energy we use in homes is just bloody stupid.

 

[killer b]

It's not effective if it moves things up the agenda or whatever. It's only effective if as a result: a) more homes are insulated more quickly, and b) this reduces CO2 more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

Your faith that the backroom boys are beavering away on a top-secret solution at some latter-day Bletchley Park and they mustn't be disturbed until they're ready is very charming, but I think it's reasonable for some people to worry that isn't happening and try to force the issue.

 

[platinumsage]

Your faith that the backroom boys are beavering away on a top-secret solution at some latter-day Bletchley Park and they mustn't be disturbed until they're ready is very charming, but I think it's reasonable for some people to worry that isn't happening and try to force the issue.

Sure, but "moving things up the agenda" isn't forcing anything if it has no effect on insulating homes or carbon emission reduction. If protests are to be judged on headlines and chit chat rather than actual change then we should probably congratulate the EDL.

 

[killer b]

If protests are to be judged on headlines and chit chat rather than actual change then we should probably congratulate the EDL.

Populist right wing politics and anti-immigrant rhetoric has disappeared totally in the last few years. The EDL totally failed.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Saul isn't interested in a real discussion, he's just another nihilist. I wouldn't waste your time.

I think realist is the word you were looking for.

 

[NoXion]

Incremental moves towards banning cars are already underway and have been for some time.

That's called a slippery slope fallacy. Just because there has been a trend towards things like traffic calming measures and pedestrianised areas, does not mean that trend will continue unabated all the way to banning private motor vehicles.

 

[chilango]

That's called a slippery slope fallacy. Just because there has been a trend towards things like traffic calming measures and pedestrianised areas, does not mean that trend will continue unabated all the way to banning private motor vehicles.

Perhaps not.

...but I'm not just talking about "traffic calming measures and pedestrianised areas," I'm talking about actual bans. Places that prohibit the entry or use of private motor vehicles.

 

[NoXion]

We need to focus on ALL the issues on every front, considering both climate change and availability and cost of fuels and peoples ability to stay warm etc.

The energy we use to heat our homes is significant. Using one particular source of numbers..... (http://www.energyenvoys.org.uk/sites/default/files/What's energy used for_0.pdf )

61% of our domestic energy use is used for space heating!!! Obviously transport and industry make up large chunks of the total energy picture too, but to ignore the energy we use in homes is just bloody stupid.

View attachment 292789

If the energy used by for home heating was derived entirely from nuclear fission and renewables, that would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions no matter what the state of home insulation is in this country.

Home insulation is of course worthwhile, but without a root-and-branch change in how the energy is generated in the first place, it's ultimately fussing around the the edges.

 

[NoXion]

Perhaps not.

...but I'm not just talking about "traffic calming measures and pedestrianised areas," I'm talking about actual bans. Places that prohibit the entry or use of private motor vehicles.

It's still fallacious to think that such things would or should necessarily lead to banning private motor vehicles across the board. Banning private cars from a particular city centre or whatever is quite a different proposition from banning them across the entire country. You know this.

 

[elbows]

If the energy used by for home heating was derived entirely from nuclear fission and renewables, that would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions no matter what the state of home insulation is in this country.

Home insulation is of course worthwhile, but without a root-and-branch change in how the energy is generated in the first place, it's ultimately fussing around the the edges.

I'm pretty sure most plans require a big chunk of the heavy lifting of climate change mitigation and energy transition to be handled on the demand side.

Perhaps this massive side of the picture is one of the key aspects that continues to elude quite a lot of peoples understanding of what the story of the century will involve, but I expect there will be moments to come that will make this aspect painfully clear to all.

 

[NoXion]

I'm pretty sure most plans require a big chunk of the heavy lifting of climate change mitigation and energy transition to be handled on the demand side.

Because the plans are being drawn up by the same idiots who think closing down nuclear plants and replacing them with Russian gas is a good idea. So I've not exactly got the greatest confidence in said plans.

 

[elbows]

The demand side of things is not 'fussing around the edges'. It is fundamental to how much needs to be done on supply side, and how that compares to what is actually possible and sustainable. And also relevant to reallocating one use of energy to a different purpose, for example when having to deal with great reductions in the amount of liquid fuel available for transport.

I dont spend long seriously engaging with people who seek to diminish half the picture. Its absurd to be that narrow and misses the point.