Just Stop Oil
- Thread starter cybershot
- Start date
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
Not specifically about JSO, however ... flooding on the M32 sees it completely closed during the rush hour. So where are the angry drivers pushing through the water? Where are the angry editorials blaming the weather for stopping ambulances? This is why anyone complaining about JSO blocking roads is 100% missing the point...
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
because people don't make the connection between floods and climate change.
and JSO slow walking and holding up traffic offers no explanatory power. Nor does, as they seem to now be doing, randomly throwing buckets of orange paint over university buildings. They just look increasingly ridiculous
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
Because people don't want to see it, not because the info isn't out there. If people actually listened to eg JSO or XR, or even just paid attention to popular science, they'd make the connection. But they'd rather keep on truckin', and laugh at the ridiculous people shouting "Look!"
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
In 50 years - if we survive - we’ll look back on JSO the way we do with the Suffragettes now…
PTK
Paul Kegan
If JSO's demands were met, it would make no difference to climate change.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
This is absurd.
In order to keep climate change to a minimum level we have to stop burning fossil fuels. The first basic step to achieving that is stopping new oil exploration. This isn't just a proposal of some idiot protestors, it's the position of the International Energy Agency (IEA) which said we had to stop all new oil and gas exploration TWO YEARS AGO in order to have a chance of globally meeting net zero by 2050.
This is basic physics. If we burn all the oil and gas we already have accessible to us we will emit too much carbon. Why on earth would it be sensible to add to that?
Last edited:
PTK
Paul Kegan
Just Stop Oil demands that the UK government does not allow any new oil and gas extraction licences. If their demand was met, existing UK oil and gas extraction projects would still continue. Oil and gas would still be extracted abroad. There would be no reduction in the rate of production and emission of greenhouse gases.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
more chemistry than physics i'd have thought
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no we won't
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
Sigh. So why does a respected international organisation like the IEA make exactly the same demand?
There are only two possible consequences of new oil and gas projects at this time:
1) They add to the global stock of extracted fossil fuels, which are burned along with the rest, and thus cause us to sail past safe temperature levels.
2) We do actually manage to cut carbon emissions through moving to new technologies and reducing demand for energy, and so these projects never actually extract the expected amount of oil/gas - they become stranded assets. A huge waste of capital that would have been better put to use aiding the transition. And all those stranded assets could have knock on effects for the stability of the financial system.
PTK
Paul Kegan
You have not refuted my point, which is that if the demands of JSO were met, it would make no difference to climate change. JSO is creating an illusion. It is suggesting that the disruption and inconvenience caused by its protests are a price worth paying to stop global climate change. Its protests will not stop climate change.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
I have absolutely refuted your point and I just conclude that you are a) incapable of following logic and b) have such a limited understanding of this topic it's really not worth engaging with you.
One doesn't have to agree with the tactics of JSO to recognise that their demand is one of the first building blocks to halting climate change, and all experts on the subject recognise this.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
Read this article Paul: No new oil, gas or coal development if world is to reach net zero by 2050, says world energy body
Note at the end of the article who commissioned and asked for this advice. It wasn't Just Stop Oil.
Note at the end of the article who commissioned and asked for this advice. It wasn't Just Stop Oil.
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
No. JSO's tactics are provoking disruption that gives a (vague) idea of what life will increasingly be like as climate change bites harder. Nearly all our media as well as the government are insisting on the (comforting) lie that because JSO's tactics are in themselves annoying and counter-productive, we should all simply dismiss them and any points they seek to make. What we actually need is to frame them properly, then more people might grasp the actual point: that JSO can be ridiculed and legislated into harmlessness / irrelevance, but climate change itself cannot.
hash tag
Books, not bombs
Amazing. Gail, just 76 years old. Protesting, exactly what you should do in retirement.
BBC News - Bristol grandma climbed M25 gantry 'in climate emergency protest'
BBC News - Bristol grandma climbed M25 gantry 'in climate emergency protest'
Bristol grandma climbed M25 gantry 'in climate emergency protest'
Retired teacher Gaie Delap, from Bristol, is one of 12 Just Stop Oil protesters appearing in court.
www.bbc.co.uk
PTK
Paul Kegan
Just Stop Oil won't stop this.
"These results suggest that mitigation of greenhouse gases now has limited power to prevent ocean warming that could lead to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
www.nature.com
"These results suggest that mitigation of greenhouse gases now has limited power to prevent ocean warming that could lead to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
Unavoidable future increase in West Antarctic ice-shelf melting over the twenty-first century
Unavoidable future increase in West Antarctic ice-shelf melting over the twenty-first century - Nature Climate Change
The authors use a regional ocean model to project ocean-driven ice-shelf melt in the Amundsen Sea. Already committed rapid ocean warming drives increased melt, regardless of emission scenario, suggesting extensive ice loss from West Antarctica.
www.nature.com
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
No it won't. But stopping a few big projects might lessen the effect very slightly. Stopping most of them might lessen the effect more. Working towards that goal is as good a use of a life as any, and considerably better than wallowing around trying to get everyone else to feel wretched and powerless. Fuck it, even if every attempt fails and the worst-case scenario ends up happening in full, having a go is still better than wallowing. At least it gets you out and about with likeminded people.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
Don't you understand Paul, that for every bit of fossil fuel burned, the problem gets worse? The temperature gets higher, the consequences become more disastrous? It's like you've left the tap on in the bath, and now it's flooding your bathroom - now is the time to do something about it and stop the flood spreading to the floor below, not say 'oh well I've already fucked the bathroom floor so I'll just leave the tap on'.Just Stop Oil won't stop this.
"These results suggest that mitigation of greenhouse gases now has limited power to prevent ocean warming that could lead to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
Unavoidable future increase in West Antarctic ice-shelf melting over the twenty-first century
Unavoidable future increase in West Antarctic ice-shelf melting over the twenty-first century - Nature Climate Change
The authors use a regional ocean model to project ocean-driven ice-shelf melt in the Amundsen Sea. Already committed rapid ocean warming drives increased melt, regardless of emission scenario, suggesting extensive ice loss from West Antarctica.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I think a recognition of the seriousness of the situation is necessary to demand the changes necessary to allow future human civilisation on this planet and tinkering round the edges advances nothing. This is not just miami under water but Bangladesh, Pacific islands, many other currently heavily populated littoral cities and a great deal of farmland - much of Lincolnshire for example. Stopping oil, campaigning for the stopping of new exploration, is no longer a sufficient demand. That's yesterday's agenda, today's needs to be far more wide reaching
PTK
Paul Kegan
JSO's demands, if met, would not even be bailing out the bath by a teaspoon.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Is it either/or? I don't see a conflict between JSO and broader projects tbh, in fact I don't see why any project aimed at tipping the balance even very slightly wouldn't be welcome. Let a million teaspoons bail, or something similar.
To put it another way, why would I castigate someone bringing in a couple of jugs of water by donkey to a parched city? Yes it needs a full fleet of trucks if everyone is to drink, but that doesn't negate the extra effort at all. In fact, if the problem is that acute I'm sort of wasting time by bothering to pay the donkey any mind one way or the other.
To put it another way, why would I castigate someone bringing in a couple of jugs of water by donkey to a parched city? Yes it needs a full fleet of trucks if everyone is to drink, but that doesn't negate the extra effort at all. In fact, if the problem is that acute I'm sort of wasting time by bothering to pay the donkey any mind one way or the other.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
One of the basic first steps is to stop new oil and gas exploration! It's a vital, essential step on the journey.
To tackle climate change means millions of different actions to reconfigure our society and economy. Not a single one of them will bail out the bath by themselves. You can make this rhetorical point against any climate action whatsoever.
PTK
Paul Kegan
JSO supporters portray its actions as though those actions in themselves will stop climate change. They will not.
JSO has no actual programme of how to alleviate climate change. Its outlook is not based on science, but simply on emotion.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Do they? They certainly suggest they can get the UK government to stop new oil (a pretty reasonable ambition given they're based in the UK and it's the most polluting new initiative the UK government is pushing), but I've not seen anything suggesting they think this is the only thing required to stop climate change.
Is a full programme necessary for a single-issue campaign? Seems like a lot of responsibility to put on a bunch of non-expert civvies tbh.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
a) Please give example of your first point.
b) I'm not particularly a fan of JSO but this is just not true. JSO has the demand to stop new oil and gas exploration which is absolutely science-based. I am pretty sure I have already posted you a link to the International Energy Agency's work on this which you have chosen to completely ignore.
hash tag
Books, not bombs
We could cut down on our use of energy for starters. How many millions of lights and computers are left on unnecessarily? Air con in offices could be switched off or even turned down a little bit.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
Absolutely, reducing energy demand is essential.
But at the same time, we have to be realistic about this and come up with actions that have real impact. Yes, 'every little helps' but it's not people failing to turn off office lights that's causing most of our energy use. It's heating leaky homes.
Aquamarine
Well-Known Member
Pic from Banksy.
Similar threads
