Just Stop Oil

[platinumsage]

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

Vegans don't wear leather, apparently it's important not to support the farming industry even indirectly in a minor way (despite it being a by-product that may otherwise go to waste) and it's easy to do without much personal sacrifice (lots of alternatives).

I suppose if the Just Stop Oil protesters don't actually want to stop oil than they wouldn't find the use of oil products goes against their principals.

 

[LDC]

FFS, these really are shit criticisms.

 

[platinumsage]

FFS, these really are shit criticisms.

If their argument wasn't shitty and disingenuous e.g. they acknowledged we need some oil in the medium term and that requires investment in oil infrastructure, then maybe those would be shitty criticisms.

 

[LDC]

If their argument wasn't shitty and disingenuous e.g. they acknowledged we need some oil in the medium term and that requires investment in oil infrastructure, then maybe those would be shitty criticisms.

Have you even looked at their website and their demands? No new oil exploration and extraction from what I can see. Not literally 'stop using anything made of oil now'.

No, they're shit criticisms as it's not possible to avoid using oil or oil derived products, so using that as an argument is nothing but an attempt to discredit what they're saying while pretending to be clever. If they did try and do that people would call them 'idealists' etc.

It's the same as people having a go at anyone who criticizes capitalism with 'Yeah but you drink coffee at Starbucks' or something similar. Plenty of criticisms to be made, but 'Oh look you used a megaphone that's made of oil, it undermines your argument' is disingenuous, stupid, and comes from a place of smug 'I'm so clever' egotism worthy of Piers Morgan.

 

[platinumsage]

No, they're shit criticisms as it's not possible to avoid using oil or oil derived products, so using that as an argument is nothing but an attempt to discredit what they're saying while pretending to be clever. If they did try and do that people would call them 'idealists' etc.

It's the same as people having a go at anyone who criticizes capitalism with 'Yeah but you drink coffee at Starbucks' or something similar.

It's disingenuous, stupid, and comes from a place of smug 'I'm so clever' egotism worthy of Piers Morgan.

Nope, it's far more analogous to veganism than anti-capitalism, because some oil products can be replaced, sometimes with detriment to cost and utility.

As I said, it highlights the facile nature of their demands. If it was easy to avoid all oil products, then stopping oil extraction and investment would be a reasonable goal. But it's not, so oil investment is still needed.

 

[LDC]

Nope, it's far more analogous to veganism than anti-capitalism, because some oil products can be replaced, sometimes with detriment to cost and utility.

As I said, it highlights the facile nature of their demands. If it was easy to avoid all oil products, then stopping oil extraction and investment would be a reasonable goal. But it's not, so oil investment is still needed.

Go on then, what would call your group working this issue, and what would your demands be? Or do you think the issue is not something people should be doing anything about?

From a quick look, this is their central demand...

"We demand that the government immediately halt all future licensing and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK."

I haven't seen "Stop all oil extraction right now and stop wearing or using anything made oil now" as one of their demands, but happy to be corrected.

 

[8ball]

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.

Liked for the first paragraph.

 

[BassJunkie]

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

Well, isn't that the consequence of Just Stopping Oil? Perhaps I'm taking them too literally.

 

[platinumsage]

Go on then, what would call your group working this issue, and what would your demands be? Or do you think the issue is not something people should be doing anything about?

Lots of people are doing stuff about it, although this involves actual work and doesn’t involve road-gluing so probably goes unnoticed by those taking a quick look. If I wanted to protest about this issue I’d focus solely on the setting and adherence to climate targets for carbon reduction, especially the regular reviewing of these and accountability of government in that regard. Disrupting supplies of anything would be very last on my list, just below disrupting demand because those actions are likely to be counterproductive and also affect the poorest in society the most. i.e. worse than not protesting at all. But maybe you have better ideas?

From a quick look, this is their central demand...

"We demand that the government immediately halt all future licensing and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK."

I haven't seen "Stop all oil extraction right now and stop wearing or using anything made oil now" as one of their demands, but happy to be corrected.

I don’t know how they expect us to continue to use fossil fuel products without producing or investing in fossil fuels. Presumably they want us to import them instead but apparently that’s ok because someone upthread said they can’t be expected to protest against foreign stuff.

We need gas for power and heat to support renewables until other technical solutions are developed. We need oil for plastics and other industrial uses until replacements are found. If we don’t invest in fossil fuel for such purposes we’ll end up with supply problems through decrepit infrastructure right at the choke point when we’re trying to but as yet unable to complete the transition away from them. It will make the transition harder, slower, more expensive and lead to greater carbon emissions overall. We saw something similar recently when there was a period of calm wind during which we had to start burning Russian (and Australian etc) coal for power because of a lack of investment in domestic gas production and storage, more than doubling CO2 emissions for each kWh produced, not to mention the increased deaths associated with coal use.

 

[killer b]

wow, I've not seen this meme so perfectly expressed in the wild for some time.

 

[LDC]

I don’t know how they expect us to continue to use fossil fuel products without producing or investing in fossil fuels. Presumably they want us to import them instead but apparently that’s ok because someone upthread said they can’t be expected to protest against foreign stuff.

Off the top of my (drunken) head we could keep using those already open sources of hydrocarbons but very quickly reduce usage and decarbonize the economy and our lives, and not open any new fossil fuel sources. So continue to use for the short term, but drastically and swiftly reduce our medium and long term usage, and also not start any new production or investment is all entirely consistent and possible isn't it?

 

[LDC]

Well, isn't that the consequence of Just Stopping Oil? Perhaps I'm taking them too literally.

You do know that even if tomorrow morning at 9am 'we just stopped oil' those things you mention would continue to exist and be used for many years right? Pointing out people are using them now is nothing but misplaced criticism at best, and falling into the trap of mirroring right wing climate denier criticism at worst.

 

[platinumsage]

Off the top of my (drunken) head we could keep using those already open sources of hydrocarbons but very quickly reduce usage and decarbonize the economy and our lives, and not open any new fossil fuel sources. So continue to use for the short term, but drastically and swiftly reduce our medium and long term usage, and also not start any new production or investment is all entirely consistent and possible isn't it?

The current plan to reach net zero envisages some oil and gas being needed until then, and we can’t rely on existing North Sea production for this.

Is there anything you disagree with in this North Sea Transition Deal review document? How might it be improved by gluing yourself to a road?

 

[LDC]

Is there anything you disagree with in this North Sea Transition Deal review document? How might it be improved by gluing yourself to a road?

Skimming the first bit, yes. Net Zero by 2050. That's too late, and net zero is too vague (there's been loads of criticism of that as a goal/demand). I imagine if I read further I'd find more pretty quickly.

But I think yes, the tactics like gluing yourself to a road are problematic and flawed, but we were discussing their demands (well actually their use of megaphones and wearing fluoro vest ffs) not their actions. I'm very critical of their actions, and other aspects of what they do and the way they do it.

 

[platinumsage]

Skimming the first bit, yes. Net Zero by 2050. That's too late, and net zero is too vague. I imagine if I read further I'd find more pretty quickly.

Sure, I already suggested protests should probably focus on the targets if anything.

But I think yes, the tactics like gluing yourself to a road are problematic and flawed, but we were discussing their demands (well actually their use of megaphones and wearing fluoro vest ffs) not their actions. I'm very critical of their actions, and other aspects of what they do and the way they do it.

Their demand is problematic because it attacks something that is incorporated into the current net zero 2050 strategy and is necessary to achieve it. It’s thus actively counterproductive, like they’ve only read the headlines about all of this.

 

[Rob Ray]

So you agree that Net Zero by 2050 is inadequate, but think Just Stop Oil, which hasn't signed up to Net Zero by 2050 and is in fact very critical of it in the group's official outline, should tone their demands down so the government can get on with achieving Net Zero by 2050?

 

[Dystopiary]

Richard Madeley was an absolute dick trying to be clever with a guest environmental protestor recently.
Lowri turner was awful as well.






Glenn Hustler


For anyone who might not be able to read the cartoon, the young woman says, "We need to change our way of life or we will all die."
Madeley replies, "That's incredibly disruptive to our way of life though, don't you think?"

 

[platinumsage]

So you agree that Net Zero by 2050 is inadequate, but think Just Stop Oil, which hasn't signed up to Net Zero by 2050 and is in fact very critical of it in the group's official outline, should tone their demands down so the government can get on with achieving Net Zero by 2050?

I note to "eliminate fossil fuel use within 8 years" they only mention heat/power, agriculture and transport as targets for ending fossil fuel use. Probably why they're happy with non-energy and industrial use of fossil fuels e.g. plastics, manufacturing etc. Happy to "ban all air travel" but carry on with all the other inconvenient stuff. No answer for how that carries on when the supply dries up due to lack of investment.

Just Stop Oil is just another Roger Hallam vanity project: XR -> Insulate Britain -> Just Stop Oil .... going for easier targets each time in the hope of finally scoring a point - maybe that will be when they try and ban steam trains.

 

[LDC]

So your criticism is in part they're not demanding enough, and demanding the wrong things, and their tactics are wrong, and they're a vanity project, and they don't have a clear vision of the future to replace all hydrocarbons, and that they're hypocrites, did I miss anything?

Do find it a bit funny and a bit sad that you think your criticisms are some killer points, when they read like something in the Daily Mail comments section written by a grumpy middle aged man after drinking a few too many sherries while watching Top Gear.

 

[platinumsage]

So your criticism is in part they're not demanding enough, and demanding the wrong things, and their tactics are wrong, and they're a vanity project, and they don't have a clear vision of the future to replace all hydrocarbons, and that they're hypocrites, did I miss anything?

I'm sure there's plenty more.

Do find it a bit funny and a bit sad that you think your criticisms are some killer points, when they read like something in the Daily Mail comments section written by a grumpy middle aged man after drinking a few too many sherries while watching Top Gear.

That's the thing though, they're not "killer points" because this group are on such shaky ground that anyone can poke holes in them, yes even those terribly thick Daily Mail readers. Which is why their protests are worse than doing nothing.

 

[LDC]

The thing is I suspect this criticism (not necessarily from you, but criticism of this type) would come no matter what a group taking action on this topic was taking. Look at the cartoon a few posts above, it's exactly what happens time and time again, it's so boring and predictable. So it's not that I think the criticisms are 'thick', but that they're coming from a position of not liking the topic being addressed at all. And sometimes they even kid themselves that they think it's an important issue, just that nobody addressing it is ever doing it quite right/they way they think it should be done.

 

[Rob Ray]

Any viewpoint on what to do can have holes poked in it, because it's a forced trade-off between lower standards of living now (immediate extraordinary action involving significant economic upheaval) and considerably lower standards later (trying to maintain current economic norms until they're permanently ripped up by extreme climate chaos). So either way the other side can go "you're asking the impossible" and dismiss the suggestion.

Just Oil's focus is not actually as extreme as all that tbh, the biggest outlier is no more planes which is hardly its top line. Mostly it's just pushing against additional oil extraction where it can reach decision makers, and in favour of power use reduction and renewables. Neither of those later two are seeing the government putting much effort in - hence in part its increased ongoing reliance on new extraction - so there's plenty of room for improvement and any successful pressure along those lines is potentially useful.

I agree with Lynn, your writing smacks far more strongly of "grumpy fart looks for excuse to rag on hippies" than it does of serious critique. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good rant about hippies, plus no argument here about Rodger Hallam being a damn fool. I don't think the criticism above hits the nail though.

 

[platinumsage]

2050 is an appropriate net zero deadline. It won't lead to mass genocide, Just Stop Oil's "research" is disingenuous as it bases it's dire predictions not on net zero by 2050 but on no measures being taken whatsoever.

I despair for the young people being sucked into this egotist death cult.

 

[Rob Ray]

No, it isn't. The IPCC has been very clear that we need to be rapidly reducing carbon emissions globally by 2030 and at net minus zero (ie. actively reducing risk carbon levels) by 2050. Given that we know many countries won't get even close, the most responsible course from Britain involves doing considerably better than that average.

Egotistic it may be, but Just Oil is not a death cult, in fact from the above it has a better handle on exactly how deadly the consequences are for letting the British government off at this moment than you do.

 

[platinumsage]

No, it isn't. The IPCC has been very clear that we need to be rapidly reducing carbon emissions globally by 2030 and at net minus zero (ie. Actively reducing risk carbon levels) by 2050.

Yeah they said emissions must peak by 2025, not that we should achieve net zero by 2025 as XR demand

 

[Rob Ray]

Global emissions. Meaning some countries will have to do much much better to make up for the ones which won't. It's not just some "hey do your share" one and done thing.

 

[LDC]

I despair for the young people being sucked into this egotist death cult.

Jackpot!

 

[Elpenor]

Just Stop Oil have been smashing pumps / spray painting them which is something I don’t remember them doing so far.

Just Stop Oil protesters sabotage petrol pumps on M25 motorway

Environmental activists say action is ‘significant escalation’ in campaign against fuel distribution in England

www.theguardian.com

 

[8ball]

Just Stop Oil have been smashing pumps / spray painting them which is something I don’t remember them doing so far.

Just Stop Oil protesters sabotage petrol pumps on M25 motorway

Environmental activists say action is ‘significant escalation’ in campaign against fuel distribution in England

www.theguardian.com

Can verify. Was just at the pub with my mate who is very involved with XR. He doesn’t approve.

 

[platinumsage]

Unable to maintain their campaign of disrupting infrastructure, they’ve now resorted to repeatedly targeting paintings:

Just Stop Oil protesters glue themselves to Constable’s The Hay Wain in London’s National Gallery

Climate change protesters have attached their own image of "an apocalyptic vision of the future" to the frame of John Constable's masterpiece painting The Hay Wain.

www.independent.ie