Just Stop Oil

[8ball]

They really don’t. But if they start blowing shit up how the fuck is that going to help!? Just bizarre.

The ones who really don't make the most noises about where things are likely to move, and they are in that direction.

 

[edcraw]

Their business model is based on oil being cheaper and easier than other forms of energy. Disrupting oil supplies directly, raises the cost of oil. If the cost of oil rises above a certain point, then people will seek out alternatives. There are more creative ways to disrupt supply than blowing shit up. There was one guy who went to an oil lease sale and bought every lot, too bad he didn't have any money. It completely bunged up the sale. Others have occupied the offices of oil lease sales agents.

As far as being "liked" by the public goes, the oil companies have poured a lot of money and effort into demonizing the environmental movement. I don't see that changing if the method of protest changes to more direct efforts.

I'm not advocating for blowing shit up, per se. I'm advocating for more direct action that is rationally related to oil production and sales.

What’s stopping you from taking such direct action?

 

[Rob Ray]

It's also just harder for small scale direct action to actually shut down major industrial sites related to the energy industry. Destroying a pipeline (by far the easiest form of sabotage because defending hundreds of miles of pipe is impractical) floods oil and gas into the environment. Getting out to offshore rigs and effectively picketing them requires Greenpeace-sized cashflows that grassroots orgs don't have. Big refineries tend to have serious security and not infrequently, connections to much more serious retaliatory measures than the odd angry motorist might offer.

Plus most of the actions taken by groups that do go after these targets are (largely deliberately) ignored by the press. Greenpeace did a major action of that kind earlier this year including multiple outstanding pics and the media barely gave a shit. Same with the climate camp against Ineos. Comparatively it's farily indisputable that JSO gets way more bang for its publicity buck with spectacular actions aimed at events and locations where media interest will be high.

The failure isn't really, then, in identifying the target that'll bring the most attention to the cause and potentially recruit people looking to Do Something, which very much is a strategic need. It's in not being able (willing?) to convert that to the forms of specifically economically disruptive direct action that are no doubt riskier, but also more worrisome to decision makers in Westminster and in boardrooms.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

What’s stopping you from taking such direct action?

I'm a full-time caregiver for a parent with dementia.

I do work on climate issues otherwise. I went veggie for that reason. I also have worked to have the mayor nominate people who will vote to move our power supply toward renewables. We've had some success with that.

 

[edcraw]

I'm a full-time caregiver for a parent with dementia.

I do work on climate issues otherwise. I went veggie for that reason. I also have worked to have the mayor nominate people who will vote to move our power supply toward renewables. We've had some success with that.

Bit rich to criticise others then no? Especially if you have no idea what else they’re doing or their circumstances.

Or maybe you just don’t believe it’s that serious as you claim all of JSO do?

 

[Orang Utan]

I’m not sure if people think blocking roads loses them support a full scale terrorist is going to win many over!!

It only takes for a few CEOs to be bumped off though

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Bit rich to criticise others then no? Especially if you have no idea what else they’re doing or their circumstances.

Not really. I'm a doomer. I don't think that humanity will do much to save itself. These folks still have hope. I'd think they'd be more tactical than their current approach suggests.

 

[Orang Utan]

What’s stopping you from taking such direct action?

You’re not asking me, but my answer is: cowardice

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

You’re not asking me, but my answer is: cowardice

Thanks muchly.

 

[edcraw]

Not really. I'm a doomer. I don't think that humanity will do much to save itself. These folks still have hope. I'd think they'd be more tactical than their current approach suggests.

Fair enough - more people should be honest that their lack of action stems from selfishness.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Fair enough - more people should be honest that their lack of action stems from selfishness.

So what's your excuse?

 

[edcraw]

So what's your excuse?

Selfishness

 

[Orang Utan]

Thanks muchly.

Sorry, my answer, meaning that I am a coward. Wasn’t suggesting you were at all. You sound like you’re nails!

 

[T & P]

What’s stopping you from taking such direct action?

Bit rich to criticise others then no? Especially if you have no idea what else they’re doing or their circumstances.

Or maybe you just don’t believe it’s that serious as you claim all of JSO do?

As far as I can see, almost nobody here is disagreeing with the core aims of JSO, and least of all the two posters above. You’re going to have to do better than continuously challenge anyone here who questions whether JSO’s tactics are the best approach to take direct action themselves or shut up, Or worse still, to question if they’re really serious about climate change, ffs.

It is absolutely okay to suggest there might be better ways to do something even if one hasn’t participated in previous efforts, or if one hasn’t worked out a magical solution to advance the cause better. This should go without saying, but apparently it needs saying to some.

So perhaps it’s time to stop accusing everyone here that displeases you by not displaying an unfaltering 100% loyalty to JSO as a Tory, armchair coward or not really bothered about the climate crisis? If encountering even the most minor of differing opinions causes you so much distress, perhaps try stepping away from the computer and taking a walk around the block instead of accusing others of completely unwarranted bullshit to shut them down.

 

[edcraw]

As far as I can see, almost nobody here is disagreeing with the core aims of JSO, and least of all the two posters above. You’re going to have to do better than continuously challenge anyone here who questions whether JSO’s tactics are the best approach to take direct action themselves or shut up, Or worse still, to question if they’re really serious about climate change, ffs.

It is absolutely okay to suggest there might be better ways to do something even if one hasn’t participated in previous efforts, or if one hasn’t worked out a magical solution to advance the cause better. This should go without saying, but apparently it needs saying to some.

So perhaps it’s time to stop accusing everyone here that displeases you by not displaying an unfaltering 100% loyalty to JSO as a Tory, armchair coward or not really bothered about the climate crisis? If encountering even the most minor of differing opinions causes you so much distress, perhaps try stepping away from the computer and taking a walk around the block instead of accusing others of completely unwarranted bullshit to shut them down.

Okay - they should definitely start a home grow terrorist campaign that doesn’t impact working class people in anyway at all cos that seems to be the sweet spot needed! Just as long as someone else does it.

 

[LDC]

Okay - they should definitely start a home grow terrorist campaign that doesn’t impact working class people in anyway at all cos that seems to be the sweet spot needed! Just as long as someone else does it.

Prick.

 

[edcraw]

Prick.

cheers mate

 

[teqniq]

Worth a watch:

 

[platinumsage]

He's a Russell Brand for the middle classes.

 

[edcraw]

He's a Russell Brand for the middle classes.

First time you’ve made a post with an actual good point and funny for a bonus!

Presume you mean the old Brand though rather than the completely nutty newer one - like him Monbiot has a very good points.

 

[Signal 11]

Presume you mean the old Brand though rather than the completely nutty newer one

It wasn't much of a re-brand tbf.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

As far as I can see, almost nobody here is disagreeing with the core aims of JSO, and least of all the two posters above. You’re going to have to do better than continuously challenge anyone here who questions whether JSO’s tactics are the best approach to take direct action themselves or shut up, Or worse still, to question if they’re really serious about climate change, ffs.

TBH, it never occurred to me that I'd be called selfish for giving up my life in the city and going back to my homeplace to care for someone who would otherwise go to a nursing home. Cowardly I might cop to. Its a huge risk to go against the established order, especially one run by big oil. I won't do that as long as someone else is relying on me. I guess people could see that as weak.

 

[Orang Utan]

As far as I can see, almost nobody here is disagreeing with the core aims of JSO, and least of all the two posters above. You’re going to have to do better than continuously challenge anyone here who questions whether JSO’s tactics are the best approach to take direct action themselves or shut up, Or worse still, to question if they’re really serious about climate change, ffs.

It is absolutely okay to suggest there might be better ways to do something even if one hasn’t participated in previous efforts, or if one hasn’t worked out a magical solution to advance the cause better. This should go without saying, but apparently it needs saying to some.

So perhaps it’s time to stop accusing everyone here that displeases you by not displaying an unfaltering 100% loyalty to JSO as a Tory, armchair coward or not really bothered about the climate crisis? If encountering even the most minor of differing opinions causes you so much distress, perhaps try stepping away from the computer and taking a walk around the block instead of accusing others of completely unwarranted bullshit to shut them down.

They may not be Tory armchair cowards, but they’re moaning about the fire alarm going off in a building that’s on fire, and hysterically telling this naughty bothersome alarm it’s going about warning us the wrong way, instead of sensibly putting the fire out.

 

[edcraw]

TBH, it never occurred to me that I'd be called selfish for giving up my life in the city and going back to my homeplace to care for someone who would otherwise go to a nursing home. Cowardly I might cop to. Its a huge risk to go against the established order, especially one run by big oil. I won't do that as long as someone else is relying on me. I guess people could see that as weak.

Cowardice surely comes from selfishness and selfishness can include prioritising family & friends. Selfishness isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As mentioned that’s my reason for inaction.

 

[lazythursday]

I think it's pretty unfair to expect JSO activists to start blowing up pipelines etc. But I think they should be clear to the public who their targets are, and that should be fossil companies plus those most responsible for blocking progress. So government / MPs, some financial institutions, the media, primarily, but also others potentially such as the NFU, volume housebuilders, motor industry etc depending on their actions. That list creates a whole load of potential target locations for action.

It may well be the case that such actions would generate less coverage than interrupting Wimbledon or whatever. But it would be making life uncomfortable for institutions that actually have some influence.

 

[edcraw]

I think it's pretty unfair to expect JSO activists to start blowing up pipelines etc. But I think they should be clear to the public who their targets are, and that should be fossil companies plus those most responsible for blocking progress. So government / MPs, some financial institutions, the media, primarily, but also others potentially such as the NFU, volume housebuilders, motor industry etc depending on their actions. That list creates a whole load of potential target locations for action.

It may well be the case that such actions would generate less coverage than interrupting Wimbledon or whatever. But it would be making life uncomfortable for institutions that actually have some influence.

What sort of actions though? XR do tons of pickets of oil & financial companies with no coverage.

 

[lazythursday]

What sort of actions though? XR do tons of pickets of oil & financial companies with no coverage.

Some of the property -focused actions have had coverage cos I've seen it. But is coverage the main purpose? If it is then I guess the current strategy is working at a superficial level.

 

[Rob Ray]

Coverage is important, yes, for a number of reasons. Further recruitment, impact on the national conversation, avoidance of isolation, a sense of forward movement, and casting enough light to deter the more unpleasant shenanigans security guards/corporate lawyers like to try on when no one is looking.

 

[Dystopiary]

It's also just harder for small scale direct action to actually shut down major industrial sites related to the energy industry. Destroying a pipeline (by far the easiest form of sabotage because defending hundreds of miles of pipe is impractical) floods oil and gas into the environment. Getting out to offshore rigs and effectively picketing them requires Greenpeace-sized cashflows that grassroots orgs don't have. Big refineries tend to have serious security and not infrequently, connections to much more serious retaliatory measures than the odd angry motorist might offer.

Plus most of the actions taken by groups that do go after these targets are (largely deliberately) ignored by the press. Greenpeace did a major action of that kind earlier this year including multiple outstanding pics and the media barely gave a shit. Same with the climate camp against Ineos. Comparatively it's farily indisputable that JSO gets way more bang for its publicity buck with spectacular actions aimed at events and locations where media interest will be high.

The failure isn't really, then, in identifying the target that'll bring the most attention to the cause and potentially recruit people looking to Do Something, which very much is a strategic need. It's in not being able (willing?) to convert that to the forms of specifically economically disruptive direct action that are no doubt riskier, but also more worrisome to decision makers in Westminster and in boardrooms.

I suspect JSO might start upping the ante with their actions beore long. If they do, they'll get more attention than they would have if they hadn't built up the level of publicity they now have.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

But I think they should be clear to the public who their targets are, and that should be fossil companies plus those most responsible for blocking progress. So government / MPs, some financial institutions, the media, primarily, but also others potentially such as the NFU, volume housebuilders, motor industry etc depending on their actions. That list creates a whole load of potential target locations for action.

I think ^this is one of the reasons I've had issues with JSO's approach. Their message sometimes feels like they're targeting working class people instead of the people who make the decisions. I don't know about anyone else, but I've had jobs where I would be reprimanded for fired if I was 5 minutes late. Usually, I had those jobs when I could least afford losing it.

I've come to see climate change as mainly a class issue. The change over is being hampered by upperclass people who aren't being affected as the global poor and workclass are/will be.