Just Stop Oil

[lazythursday]

PTK 's continued utter refusal to understand climate change or the actions needed to combat it across thread after thread is becoming something of an urban75 tradition

 

[littlebabyjesus]

PTK 's continued utter refusal to understand climate change or the actions needed to combat it across thread after thread is becoming something of an urban75 tradition

Throwing corn starch at the stones of Stonehenge is an action needed to combat climate change?

According to JSO, maybe. Should we all agree with them?

 

[DotCommunist]

Do people think that there will be significant, state led action on climate change if JSO were to just pick the right targets? Have these politicos and billionaires proved amenable to us having the best arguments and kind smiles? I'll probably live to see the barrier reef die and remnant orca populations confined to the poles. If the Irrawaddy delta goes saline we're looking at famine the likes of which you haven't seen since the victorians engineered them deliberately on rebellious empire subjects. I could go on. From snooker baize to stonehenge to a popstars jet- I don't care. Let em get on with it unless you fancy lining up with lord sex case walney on his crusade to protect democracy from the people, in his well remunerated seat in the unelected house.

 

[chilango]

So, for those criticizing JSO...what you personally prefer they do? ...and how would the outcome be different?

 

[tommers]

Nothing is going to sort out climate change cos we're so fucking stupid it's unreal.

Might as well try chucking orange stuff on stuff.

 

[tommers]

So, for those criticizing JSO...what you personally prefer they do? ...and how would the outcome be different?

We could write nice letters. Maybe a petition?

 

[chilango]

So, for those criticizing JSO...what you personally prefer they do? ...and how would the outcome be different?

...and I don't mean some fully fledged strategy, just a preference, and your reasons for that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do people think that there will be significant, state led action on climate change if JSO were to just pick the right targets? Have these politicos and billionaires proved amenable to us having the best arguments and kind smiles? I'll probably live to see the barrier reef die and remnant orca populations confined to the poles. If the Irrawaddy delta goes saline we're looking at famine the likes of which you haven't seen since the victorians engineered them deliberately on rebellious empire subjects. I could go on. From snooker baize to stonehenge to a popstars jet- I don't care. Let em get on with it unless you fancy lining up with lord sex case walney on his crusade to protect democracy from the people, in his well remunerated seat in the unelected house.

This is a classic false dichotomy, though. Either you support their actions or you are lining with some twat. Neither of the above thanks.

Doesn't mean I don't think climate change is a serious issue, but this kind of action achieves greater security at events, extra work for volunteers, making everyone's life that tiny bit less good. If you think it is achieves little and if anything might be counterproductive, then there's nothing in the positive column.

 

[Serge Forward]

We could write nice letters. Maybe a petition?

Or write a letter to your MP

 

[danny la rouge]

I support them.

 

[lazythursday]

Throwing corn starch at the stones of Stonehenge is an action needed to combat climate change?

According to JSO, maybe. Should we all agree with them?

that isn't what I meant - it was the following lines of the post

This is a classic false dichotomy, though. Either you support their actions or you are lining with some twat. Neither of the above thanks.

Doesn't mean I don't think climate change is a serious issue, but this kind of action achieves greater security at events, extra work for volunteers, making everyone's life that tiny bit less good. If you think it is achieves little and if anything might be counterproductive, then there's nothing in the positive column.

But that's the point. It's to be an irritant. It's to force some kind of annoyance and engagement BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE IS HAVING ANY IMPACT. And its not without some theory and historical precedent to back it up. I'm not 100% convinced its the right strategy (and even if it is, it relies on being a radical flank to a wider climate movement) but at least they're trying something.

And to be honest, your phrasing... 'Doesn't mean I don't think climate change is a serious issue' is perhaps illuminating to the whole situation. Climate change isn't a 'serious issue'. It's existential. It's the uber-issue. It's the fact that everyone shelves it as a serious issue amongst many, and never quite the priority, that is the problem.

 

[Serge Forward]

I suppose it depends on what JSO want to achieve. If it's to cause a bit of outrage, then fair enough. If it's to get in the media, then that'll do it. If it's to get some of their members jailed, then (barring the occasional jury who let's them off) job done.

If it's to make people think about the implications of their reliance on oil, then maybe/maybe not. If it's to get people talking about the destruction of the environment, then I suspect it'll be more likely to get people talking about damaging monuments or pissing off museum visitors. If it's to win a significant proportion of the population over to what they stand for, then I doubt it'll achieve this. If it's to get government and fossil fuel companies to 'do the right thing' then nope.

As someone on here said earlier (klang ?) stunt type politics only really work when there's a mass movement behind you. If the type of stunt you're pulling doesn't have a mass movement and even puts people off being part of any such mass movement, then it's entirely counter productive.

With any actions by a particular movement, you have to weigh up the consequences, cause and effect.

 

[tommers]

So, for those criticizing JSO...what you personally prefer they do? ...and how would the outcome be different?

 

[tommers]

I'm sure I've said this before but when my dad was dying of cancer I said to him "what's it like? Knowing that you're going to die within the next year?". And he said "sometimes I don't even remember".

And that sums it up for me. We know it's coming but we get distracted with stuff, we don't think about it. We don't want to think about it.

I have a suspicion that's part of the reason why JSO get such resistance, cos they remind people about things they don't want to be reminded about.

It explains why people are suddenly so pre-occupied with the poor lichen.

 

[Serge Forward]

So, for those criticizing JSO...what you personally prefer they do? ...and how would the outcome be different?

Fair point. I don't have an answer to that as I've not been involved in much environment stuff. Like I say, it's about what a particular group wants to achieve. If they are the points I mentioned in post 191, those aims that they are achieving, then fair play. That wouldn't be of interest to me though.

 

[danny la rouge]

I suppose it depends on what JSO want to achieve. If it's to cause a bit of outrage, then fair enough. If it's to get in the media, then that'll do it. If it's to get some of their members jailed, then (barring the occasional jury who let's them off) job done.

If it's to make people think about the implications of their reliance on oil, then maybe/maybe not. If it's to get people talking about the destruction of the environment, then I suspect it'll be more likely to get people talking about damaging monuments or pissing off museum visitors. If it's to win a significant proportion of the population over to what they stand for, then I doubt it'll achieve this. If it's to get government and fossil fuel companies to 'do the right thing' then nope.

As someone on here said earlier (klang ?) stunt type politics only really work when there's a mass movement behind you. If the type of stunt you're pulling doesn't have a mass movement and even puts people off being part of any such mass movement, then it's entirely counter productive.

With any actions by a particular movement, you have to weigh up the consequences, cause and effect.

Indeed. That’s always been my criticism of them: that it isn’t direct action, and that publicity stunt politics often backfires.

But they are right about something: it’s past the time for being polite. They are also manifestly doing something. Which is why I am happy to say I support them.

Putting cornflour on Stonehenge might make the liberals and the Guardian readers uncomfortable. But nothing compared to the discomfort of a burning planet.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I'm sure I've said this before but when my dad was dying of cancer I said to him "what's it like? Knowing that you're going to die within the next year?". And he said "sometimes I don't even remember".

And that sums it up for me. We know it's coming but we get distracted with stuff, we don't think about it. We don't want to think about it.

I have a suspicion that's part of the reason why JSO get such resistance, cos they remind people about things they don't want to be reminded about.

It explains why people are suddenly so pre-occupied with the poor lichen.

Think that and the feeling of vulnerability that comes with global scale issues that aren’t easy to get your head around or feel empowered to actually contribute effectively…

 

[Kid_Eternity]

So, for those criticizing JSO...what you personally prefer they do? ...and how would the outcome be different?

This is the problem with all the outrage over their tactics, there’s no proper answer to this question and those who logically are against their approach are now in a position to have to defend a very rich person and their private jet.

If we argued over the actual issue it would be much better for all of us…

 

[NoXion]

So, for those criticizing JSO...what you personally prefer they do? ...and how would the outcome be different?

The funny thing is that JSO already do things that would (at least in my opinion) seem to be more effective in putting their message across, such as the one they recently did at Stansted Airport. But then they also consistently choose to undermine such actions at the same time by doing silly stunts like the one at Stonehenge. Guess which one I found about first?

It's like the left hand of JSO doesn't have a clue what the right hand is doing. Maybe you're impressed with that, but it doesn't fill me with confidence. Are they supposed to be providing an example of how not to do it?

As for the outcome, I would suggest sticking to actions like the former would ensure they don't get overshadowed by distractions like the latter. JSO have been all too easily portrayed as a group that does daft, ineffective things that get people talking... about how ridiculous it is to think that temporarily covering monuments in orange cornflour does anything helpful to solve massive problems like climate change.

 

[Humberto]

So, for those criticizing JSO...what you personally prefer they do? ...and how would the outcome be different?

Go for the powerful instead of heritage sites?

 

[NoXion]

But that's the point. It's to be an irritant. It's to force some kind of annoyance and engagement BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE IS HAVING ANY IMPACT.

Life is full of irritants and annoyances. I suspect the stuff JSO get up to doesn't even register on the scale. Today I was far more disgruntled by one of my colleagues badgering me on Slack about a previous ticket I had worked on. Reading about JSO shooting themselves in the foot again was more a feeling of mild resignation.

at least they're trying something.

Hopefully they'll try something else before being totally discredited.

Climate change isn't a 'serious issue'. It's existential. It's the uber-issue. It's the fact that everyone shelves it as a serious issue amongst many, and never quite the priority, that is the problem.

That is belied by the actions of JSO themselves. For people concerned about what they claim as an existential uber-issue, they don't half pull their punches. Since JSO-style climate activists love to draw historical comparisons, John Brown didn't stick to chucking paint at plantation owners' houses and giving earnest lectures.

 

[chilango]

The funny thing is that JSO already do things that would (at least in my opinion) seem to be more effective in putting their message across, such as the one they recently did at Stansted Airport. But then they also consistently choose to undermine such actions at the same time by doing silly stunts like the one at Stonehenge. Guess which one I found about first?

It's like the left hand of JSO doesn't have a clue what the right hand is doing. Maybe you're impressed with that, but it doesn't fill me with confidence. Are they supposed to be providing an example of how not to do it?

As for the outcome, I would suggest sticking to actions like the former would ensure they don't get overshadowed by distractions like the latter. JSO have been all too easily portrayed as a group that does daft, ineffective things that get people talking... about how ridiculous it is to think that temporarily covering monuments in orange cornflour does anything helpful to solve massive problems like climate change.

To be fair most of that critique is just as applicable to chucking paint on private jets. If they hadn't chuck cornflower on Stonehenge do you think their critics would be sitting around nodding at the Stansted action.

Afaics the only 'decent bets' for meaningful protest action are either a) mass collective, sustained actions of refusal such as general strikes and non-payment/reappropriations and/or b) a targeted campaign of merciless terror and assassination of the so-called 1%.

Both of these routes are, to put it mildly, unlikely and far out of the capacity of any environmental group that I'm aware of.

So arguing that chucking paint on Stonehenge is not ok, chucking paint on private jets is ok is - to my mind at least - missing the point.

 

[chilango]

That is belied by the actions of JSO themselves. For people concerned about what they claim as an existential uber-issue, they don't half pull their punches. Since JSO-style climate activists love to draw historical comparisons, John Brown didn't stick to chucking paint at plantation owners' houses and giving earnest lectures.

This is, for me, the most powerful critique of JSO.

 

[NoXion]

To be fair most of that critique is just as applicable to chucking paint on private jets. If they hadn't chuck cornflower on Stonehenge do you think their critics would be sitting around nodding at the Stansted action.

Afaics the only 'decent bets' for meaningful protest action are either a) mass collective, sustained actions of refusal such as general strikes and non-payment/reappropriations and/or b) a targeted campaign of merciless terror and assassination of the so-called 1%.

Both of these routes are, to put it mildly, unlikely and far out of the capacity of any environmental group that I'm aware of.

So arguing that chucking paint on Stonehenge is not ok, chucking paint on private jets is ok is - to my mind at least - missing the point.

JSO's critics are not homogenous. Yes, there will always be the people who will dislike JSO and what they stand for no matter what, because they think climate change is fake/exaggerated or because their income depends on the continued exploitation of oil and gas. But there are good faith and bad faith criticisms to be made of JSO, indeed you have at least one yourself. I think it's a big mistake to lump all critics together as some kind of unified camp, which seems to be the knee-jerk response to criticism of JSO's actions.

It just seems obvious to me that targeting private jets is more likely to engender a sympathetic response from the general public than targeting well-loved monuments. Doing both at the same time allows the media to use one action as a distraction from the other.

This is, for me, the most powerful critique of JSO.

I also appreciate that upping the ante in such a manner is a hell of an thing to ask of anyone, so I completely understand why JSO hasn't escalated their tactics. But I don't think such escalation is the way forward in any case, not at the moment anyway. What I'm suggesting is that JSO should box a bit more clever in trying to shift the window of discussion. A flanking movement rather than escalation, as it were.

 

[redsquirrel]

Go for the powerful instead of heritage sites?

I'm not going to argue against that but there is a lot more danger - physical and legal - in doing that than taking action to something like Stonehenge.

Basically I agree with danny la rouge I'm not keen on XRs/JSOs focus on indirect action but I understand their anger and frustration and believe they are right that something needs to be done. And frankly the 'harm' they do is nothing compared to any of the main political parties. capital and the state.

 

[PTK]

If the government refused to grant new oil and gas contracts, this would have an infinitesimal effect on climate change. Just Stop Oil gives the impression that it would have a major effect. Climate change cannot be reversed. Alleviating it is possible, but to do so needs a programme that is many orders of magnitude more complex and far-reaching than the UK government simply not allowing more licences for new oil and gas fields to be developed. Has anyone proposed such a programme? If so, then is JSO doing anything to publicise this programme?

 

[NoXion]

If the government refused to grant new oil and gas contracts, this would have an infinitesimal effect on climate change. Just Stop Oil gives the impression that it would have a major effect. Climate change cannot be reversed. Alleviating it is possible, but to do so needs a programme that is many orders of magnitude more complex and far-reaching than the UK government simply not allowing more licences for new oil and gas fields to be developed. Has anyone proposed such a programme? If so, then is JSO doing anything to publicise this programme?

Even if the effect would be "infinitesimal" (I think that may be an exaggeration of how small its impact would be) on climate change itself, success would still be a big propaganda and PR win for JSO, because it would mean the achievement of one of their stated goals. I think that such an outcome would be a shot in the arm for climate activism as a whole, and might encourage people who were previously wavering to get stuck in. It would demonstrate that taking action can lead to a consequence. I think that would have a non-trivial effect.

 

[redsquirrel]

If you mean the effects of climate change are to some extent already baked in then that is true to a certain extent. But the degree of those effects is still able to be affected a 2C rise in average temperatures is better than 2.5C.

And we start combating those effects by not doing any more harm. And as NoXion points out once that battle is won a new target can be started.

 

[PTK]

<<Just as fifty years ago, when the world used international treaties to defuse the threats posed by nuclear weapons, today the world needs a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to phase out fossil fuels and to support dependent economies, workers and communities to move away from oil, gas and coal.”>> says the Press Release from Just Stop Oil on the Stonehenge stunt.

So the threat of climate change will disappear just like the threat of nuclear war disappeared in 1974? [For those too young to remember: the Cold War escalated after 1979, and new US nuclear weapons, in the form of cruise missiles, were deployed in Britain, prompting mass protests.]

It is interesting that none of posts that I have seen on here or on Twitter mention the demand for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. I conclude from this that JSO failed to get its message across.

It’s time for megalithic action!- Just Stop Oil decorate Stonehenge – Just Stop Oil

 

[newme]

Or write a letter to your MP

You say that but mine who I intensely dislike got involved after I complained about a specific wrong and I got £2k as a result, still not voting for them, its the job they were supposed to do and it was incorrect to begin with. Same for MIL who saved money as a result, she now votes for them exclusively cos they "actually did something for her". I don't agree with this viewpoint personally but she and many others do and vote accordingly. If your entire actual interraction with politics is you wrote to someone who then saved you thousands, its a huge thing and you tell your friends.