Just Stop Oil

[Rob Ray]

I mean obviously using money alone here is a little facetious inasmuch as "middle class" in the sphere of political rhetoric is an inherently vague and loaded term mainly cited by people who would like to use it to qualify or disqualify a given group/individual which they're trying to praise or criticise. So are self-proclaimed identities and social relationships. There's a reason why the "middle class students" of XR (citation needed) are being compared to a horny-handed son of toil eh? Even if said progeny is in a job that actually is pretty enviably secure and pays abut the same as senior teaching staff.

Question: Is a person with oily hands and the exact same spending power as a person who spends their day with kids in a classroom, requiring a degree to get the role, more or less working class? One for that BBC survey perhaps.

(If we want to go full stereotype about it, a rock n roll listening lorry driver who's bought a house with their x6 mortgage, has a modest amount of savings, loves sports and obsessively posts their opinions on Facebook comes out as "technical middle class.")

Edit: I should say by the way I have lots of criticisms of XR, up to and including the sharp elbows of some of its fulltimers. But the "indolent rich vs real working people" tropes offer no light whatsoever and only really benefit the right-wing's desire to push the subject into a deserving vs underserving protester "debate" rather than confronting issues which actually should be addressed.

 

[platinumsage]

They want to “immediately halt all future licensing and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK”.

Apparently, allowing such extraction is “genocidal”.

If these extractions are stopped it will mean importing more LPG and oil from e.g. Qatar and Nigeria, where no doubt licensing and consents will be issued to help satisfy our import demand.

Nothing that XR/IB/whatever front they use next says ever stands up scrutiny.

 

[Rob Ray]

So to summarise, you don't like a direct action group because they use hyperbole and are only aiming to stop fossil fuel extraction in the area where they live and can potentially affect government decisions, rather than in Qatar and Nigeria, where they don't live and have no say at all in the matter. I can see your masterful strategies will serve you well in carrying out erm, whatever more effective plan you might have I guess. When you implement it.

 

[rich!]

Yes, quite probably. But possibly a relatively effective attempt as there is some truth in the criticisms.

I went to an XR meeting a few years back and felt a bit out of place. One of my mates was told we weren't the type of people they were looking for. I wasn't sure if we were too crusty or too anarcho. Possibly both!

I also think that sometimes their tactics seem short-sighted and counter productive; simultaneously alienating the people they should be trying to recruit (at least as supporters of their cause) and playing straight into the hands of their opponents.

One of the great pleasures of post-XR demos on almost any theme has been that XR have trained a bunch of middle-class do-gooders that they can do something - and it's to sit in the traffic and stop the cars and annoy the police who have to then deal with a bunch of pissed-off taxi drivers and SUV owners who demand their right to drive anywhere at any time regardless.

Meanwhile, the rest of the demo gets a road blocked and the time and space to get on with the demo.

Each to their own.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

The idea that a tanker driver is going to be middle class by virtue of their salary is pretty desperate though.

Makes train drivers positively aristocratic

 

[platinumsage]

I can see your masterful strategies will serve you well in carrying out erm, whatever more effective plan you might have I guess. When you implement it.

I'm pretty sure that conducting no direct action will be more effective than what they're doing which will only increase the demand to improve fossil-fuel energy security.

 

[Rob Ray]

You're just having a good old moan using some unevidenced conjecture and have no ideas of your own, got it. What a fantastic use of a day.

 

[hitmouse]

I'm pretty sure that conducting no direct action will be more effective than what they're doing which will only increase the demand to improve fossil-fuel energy security.

So your plan to reduce fossil fuel usage is to extract and burn more fossil fuels?

 

[platinumsage]

So your plan to reduce fossil fuel usage is to extract and burn more fossil fuels?

Completely missed the point, and how does targeting domestic supply rather than demand help the situation? There are already multiple detailed plans for reductions in fossil fuel use across the economy, the sort of detail that these protests don't want to engage with. Instead they are like a spoiled child having a tantrum smearing crap over their toys saying "nah nah nah don't like it".

 

[hitmouse]

Completely missed the point, and how does targeting domestic supply rather than demand help the situation?

Oh, so you're saying that they should be demanding more insulation for homes instead? If you can't see how stopping people digging up oil and burning it helps the problem of people digging up oil and burning it, then I'm not sure I can help you.

There are already multiple detailed plans for reductions in fossil fuel use across the economy, the sort of detail that these protests don't want to engage with. Instead they are like a spoiled child having a tantrum smearing crap over their toys saying "nah nah nah don't like it".

Aye, that's right, best leave it to the experts. Oh, one more thing, could you remind me of a) what the historical record of these plans versus reality so far is - you know, how many carbon targets have been hit and how many have been missed, that sort of thing, and b) how these plans compare to the scale of change that's needed? Cos stories like this are making me feel like we've got a lot worse to come than crap being smeared over us:

Britain risks missing climate targets due to lack of policies -advisers

Britain's lack of policies to meet net zero emissions by 2050 is jeopardising its chance of meeting the target, the country's climate advisers said in a progress report on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

I think "nah nah nah don't like it" is a pretty reasonable response to that future.

 

[Pickman's model]

So your plan to reduce fossil fuel usage is to extract and burn more fossil fuels?

he's an unenviable record of pumping out hot air here anyway

 

[platinumsage]

Oh, so you're saying that they should be demanding more insulation for homes instead? If you can't see how stopping people digging up oil and burning it helps the problem of people digging up oil and burning it, then I'm not sure I can help you.

Aye, that's right, best leave it to the experts.

I‘d rather leave it to experts than road-gluing randoms thanks.

Oh, one more thing, could you remind me of a) what the historical record of these plans versus reality so far is - you know, how many carbon targets have been hit and how many have been missed, that sort of thing, and

The UK easily met the Kyoto targets for carbon reduction in both the first and second commitment periods, and all carbon budgets 1 to 3 of the EU ETS system. It has met all targets set to date. Previous plans have therefore been shown to have been reliable and effective.

b) how these plans compare to the scale of change that's needed? Cos stories like this are making me feel like we've got a lot worse to come than crap being smeared over us:

Britain risks missing climate targets due to lack of policies -advisers

Britain's lack of policies to meet net zero emissions by 2050 is jeopardising its chance of meeting the target, the country's climate advisers said in a progress report on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

I think "nah nah nah don't like it" is a pretty reasonable response to that future.

How does stopping investment in domestic production and relying more on imports help meet carbon reduction targets?

 

[Rob Ray]

But you're not "leaving it to the experts." You're leaving it to politicians.

It has met all targets set to date.

Lol.

But seriously, politicians. These people ignored or undermined concerns about climate change throughout the 20th century and happened to start doing something in the wake of a massive upsurge in interest and direct action around environmental concerns. Pressure was kept up throughout the 1990s-2000s including climate camps, road protests, anti-runway actions etc. If it had been left solely to the politicians they would have listened to the corporations which, throughout this period, were lobbying hard to dismiss the very idea of climate change itself. And even then, much of what the UK government actually did to "meet the Kyoto target" involved leveraging the nation's ongoing de-industrialisation process through Emissions Trading Schemes - even what they have been forced to do is laced with half-truths.

 

[8ball]

Surely the best way to "stop oil" is for the oil workers to come out on strike backed by a deep strike fund that these road-gluers have helped fill.

Cool, if you could sort that I’ll send some cash to your Gofundme to support replacing the workers’ wages.

 

[two sheds]

no I think there's an important point here, rather than 'Just Stop Oil', the movement should more accurately be called 'Please just reduce Oil a bit by Increasing the Percentage of Renewables and developing Battery Backups to store it over the Evening'

 

[Nigel]

Depends, are you arguing class as an identity or an economic position?

Or even as position in the means of production!

 

[8ball]

Or even as position in the means of production!

Can't believe it took 3 days for someone to say that!

 

[hitmouse]

That these protests aren't a working-class movement and the protestors have made no attempt whatsoever to connect with workers, so the protests won't be effective.

Surely the best way to "stop oil" is for the oil workers to come out on strike backed by a deep strike fund that these road-gluers have helped fill.

Missed this one before, but just to say: yeah, wouldn't it be crazy if oil workers went out on strike and XR came out in support of them?

(Relevant bit starts at about 2:30 in.)

 

[Dystopiary]

no I think there's an important point here, rather than 'Just Stop Oil', the movement should more accurately be called 'Please just reduce Oil a bit by Increasing the Percentage of Renewables and developing Battery Backups to store it over the Evening'

Getting there!

Science | AAAS

How do you bottle renewable energy for when the Sun doesn’t shine and the wind won’t blow? That’s one of the most vexing questions standing in the way of a greener electrical grid. Massive battery banks are one answer. But they’re expensive and best at storing energy for a few hours, not for days long stretches of cloudy weather or calm. Another strategy is to use surplus energy to heat a large mass of material to ultrahigh temperatures, then tap the energy as needed. This week, researchers report a major improvement in a key part of that scheme: a device for turning the stored heat back into electricity.

 

[Dom Traynor]

Some of them might be, others are not. The average salary for a tanker truck driver meanwhile is 32k-odd. Which is nearly spot-on median pay for the UK, putting them fairly solidly in the middle class income bracket.

Give yourself a ding round the ear for getting your opinions direct from the comments section of the right-wing press Micky.

Skilled workers not middle class. However back when my dad retired 11 years ago as an oil tanker driver him and his colleagues were on more like 40k so it shows how bad things are now.
However I can guarantee that if this had happened back then him and his 100% unionised mates would have sat back and cracked open the popcorn. They wouldn't have attacked the protestors or supported them, but would've enjoyed the disruption to business as usual.

 

[NoXion]

Getting there!

Science | AAAS

If only we had a decades-old, mature technology that produced a constant baseload of power without generating additional carbon, no matter the weather conditions. Maybe it could do something clever like extracting heat energy from the fission of atomic nuclei or something.

 

[Dystopiary]

If only we had a decades-old, mature technology that produced a constant baseload of power without generating additional carbon, no matter the weather conditions. Maybe it could do something clever like extracting heat energy from the fission of atomic nuclei or something.

I guess this is for another thread, but I don't support nuclear power myself.

 

[NoXion]

I guess this is for another thread, but I don't support nuclear power myself.

Sure, let's waste time getting unproven battery tech to work instead.

 

[Rob Ray]

Ignoring the arguments of whether we should or not, there's a simple logistical issue which tends to get overlooked in the whole "arg a crisis, let's go nuclear" thing - building a nuclear plant takes a long time. If you laid the first concrete tomorrow the average construction period would be 7.5 years - though this lengthens considerably if, like Britain, you're relying on foreign constructors because you don't have an indigenous industry any more (eg. Hinckley C is being farmed out to EDF). This is not the full story however, because as we know, selecting and confirming sites takes a long time (as it's technically specific) and will almost always involve a huge battle with local people who don't want it. You've got design, financing, future disposal and costs etc etc to consider.

As an example. Sizewell B was first announced as a nuclear power station in 1980. It began actually producing power in 1995. Hinckley C was announced in 2008, and is expected to start generating power in 2026. That's a 15-year and 18-year turnaround respectively. This means, based on the announcement not of specific new plants but of the intention to build some by Johnson's government this month, we are probably looking at the 2040s before we see a drop of power. If it's done properly rather than the horror scenario of a rush job done on y'know, a nuclear power plant, of course.

Which is rather late for sorting out a 2022 fuel crisis and a climate crisis which the IPCC reckons needs sorting within the decade.

 

[hitmouse]

If it's done properly rather than the horror scenario of a rush job done on y'know, a nuclear power plant, of course.

This bit is worth stressing, I think, the question of whether nuclear power could be used safely and sustainably in a future communist utopia might be an interesting one but it's not what we're faced with, the question now is do we want nuclear power plants built and operated by the current Serco/Crapita-garchy? The fact that last year saw a major dispute over firms trying to hire unskilled/untrained labourers to do electrical work at Hinkley Point C not reassuring on that front.

 

[cybershot]

Not quite the way to get the public onside.

 

[killer b]

I don't they're pursuing a strategy that involves getting the public onside tbf, so all the this won't get the public onside! chat is a bit redundant.

 

[Rob Ray]

"Be less reliant on oil" and "keep it in the ground" are both scientifically backed and generally popular concepts. What's missing is political will, and that's because big oil has exceptional leverage. Disruption is intended to counter that by making retention of the status quo less attractive.

It's not a popularity contest - though constantly pushing a topic into the news also has its own benefits (eg. while spending countless column inches saying Insulate Britain were being counterproductive guess what was being mentioned extensively every single time).

 

[BassJunkie]

I'm appalled to find it's cheaper for us as a family to fly to Edinburgh than get the train. Because I guess, jetfuel is subsidised, roads are provided as a public service, but trains must make a profit. There's all kinds of inequities. It must be almost certain that any scepticism about anthropogenic climate change (of which there is a tremendous amount) is funded by the oil companies. It's absurd to burn a finite resource that destroys our habitat just because it's "cheaper" and more convenient than other means of power.

Having said that, if Just Stop Oil want to convince me of their cause they would do better if they weren't adorned in high vis jackets (made from oil) and helmets (made from oil), megaphones (made from oil) and other products made from oil. It undermines their argument.

 

[LDC]

Having said that, if Just Stop Oil want to convince me of their cause they would do better if they weren't adorned in high vis jackets (made from oil) and helmets (made from oil), megaphones (made from oil) and other products made from oil. It undermines their argument.

That is a joke right? Or do you expect them to wear hemp shirts and use no electricity as well?