Plane Stupid shut down Stansted Airport

[cantsin]

Not quite. The target in a strike isn't the customer. Whereas the target in yesterday's protest was.

I'm not saying don't ever inconvenience people, I'm saying make sure you target the right people. Make sure you understand where responsibility lies. Make sure you have a structural understanding. And, fundamentally, make sure you have a class analysis, otherwise you are firing blind.

when you've finished sounding like a pompous Trot, can you plse explain , really simply , how Ryanair was not affected or targetted by yesterdays action ?

 

[elbows]

All this "class" nonsense is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.

Well said - I think your post is great.

 

[ajdown]

In the interests of accuracy: he has stated that he is 37.

Not that it makes a great deal of difference, I joined Scouts at 10, at 16 I became a 'young leader' (or whatever they called it, I can't remember) until I could start the leadership training, and then became an ASL, then a few years later moved to a different part of the country and joined up with another group as ASL, before becoming SL.

I managed to get my 10 year service certificate as a leader just before I ended up moving again (into London). I didn't join up with another group as there was too much going on in life at the time, and I haven't gotten back round to linking up with another group now. In all honesty, it seems the programme has changed a great deal, and there isn't much emphasis on the 'traditional skills' that I enjoyed so much, so whether I'd get as much out of it now as I did - or be able to contribute as much as I could - is debateable.

Once life settles down, if circumstances allow, I may consider giving it another shot, but at the moment it's not gonna happen.

 

[free spirit]

Yes.


And...

All this "class" nonsense is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.

I don't really see why the "working class" should be exempted from having to give up a few luxuries as part of an attempt to reduce carbon emissions. The point about climate change is that its effects will be felt soonest and hardest by the poorest people on the planet, who are unlikely to shed many tears over the idea that a "working class" Brit, living in one of the richest countries on earth with (in relative terms) decent healthcare and working conditions and housing and benefits and all the rest might have to suffer the hardship of giving up one of his overseas holidays.

It's inevitable that, if we have to make sacrifices in order to achieve carbon emissions reductions, then these will affect those with less disposable income more. But that doesn't seem like a good reason not to make those sacrifices. If the concern is that poorer Brits are going to suffer from environmental measures then it's long-standing questions of wealth redistribution that need to be addressed rather than using this as an excuse to duck out of making decisions like whether or not we should be expanding airports.

And I suspect there's a fair bit of reverse snobbery going on here as a result of these Plane Stupid people being apparently "middle class".

actually that's not necesarily true.

Obviously it's true if you only use price as a mechanism to restrict carbon use, but there are other ways of achieving the same thing that could even benefit the poor... eg. personal carbon allowances, changing billing methods for fuel so that fuel increases in price the more you use, rather than the first bit of fuel used being charged at the highest rate etc.

one thing's for sure though, with or without arguements about climate change, if current policies are maintained then the poor will suffer badly from the inevitable fuel price rises as the affects of peak oil / peak gas kick in.

burying our collective heads in the sand is not an option, this problem isn't going away.

 

[teuchter]

actually that's not necesarily true.

Obviously it's true if you only use price as a mechanism to restrict carbon use, but there are other ways of achieving the same thing that could even benefit the poor... eg. personal carbon allowances, changing billing methods for fuel so that fuel increases in price the more you use, rather than the first bit of fuel used being charged at the highest rate etc.

one thing's for sure though, with or without arguements about climate change, if current policies are maintained then the poor will suffer badly from the inevitable fuel price rises as the affects of peak oil / peak gas kick in.

burying our collective heads in the sand is not an option, this problem isn't going away.

Yes, you're right; I should have said "may" instead of "will".

Tightening up building regulations, for example, so that housing will be more energy efficient might make construction of new houses more expensive which will affect poorer people more. But then in the long run, energy efficiency will reduce heating costs which could benefit poorer people proportionally more.

Personal carbon trading is a very attractive idea but there are lots of reasons why it might not really work in practice.

 

[free spirit]

Yes, you're right; I should have said "may" instead of "will".

Tightening up building regulations, for example, so that housing will be more energy efficient might make construction of new houses more expensive which will affect poorer people more. But then in the long run, energy efficiency will reduce heating costs which could benefit poorer people proportionally more.

Personal carbon trading is a very attractive idea but there are lots of reasons why it might not really work in practice.

the main reason personal carbon trading might not work being (IMO) that it'd be run by the government, and they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery without utterly fucking it up.

if done right though, it could actually benefit the poor as they could decide whether to take a flight themselves, or sell the right to take a flight to the highest bidder, for example, meaning that the poor could benefit financially, or still go on the odd cheap flight... their choice.

 

[free spirit]

Here's a list of Plane Stupids recent protests, which should make it pretty difficult for anyone trying to argue that they are targetting the working class. This protest was just one part of a major nationwide campaign aimed at changing government policy, a campaign that has not particularly targeted working class passengers.





Plane Stupid shuts Stansted Airport


Scottish climate activists target Scottish First Minister


Plane Stupid leaves Camp for Climate Action for protest at Gatwick

22nd July 2008 - A campaigner from the climate action group, Plane Stupid, today super-glued himself to Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the State Dining Room of 10 Downing Street.
Transport conference delegates shocked by elephant in the room


Plane Stupid Scotland occupy roof of Scottish Parliament


Climate campaigners hang 'NO 3rd RUNWAY' banner from parliament


Plane Stupid Scotland: activists blockade Edinburgh airport private jets



Plane Stupid activists shut down travel agents on route of climate march


Plane Stupid disrupt Parliamentary Committee into 'Future of BAA'


Climate Campers shut down private jet airport

 

[kyser_soze]

Personal carbon trading is a very attractive idea but there are lots of reasons why it might not really work in practice.

if done right though, it could actually benefit the poor as they could decide whether to take a flight themselves, or sell the right to take a flight to the highest bidder, for example, meaning that the poor could benefit financially, or still go on the odd cheap flight... their choice.

Both arguments I've been making on this site for the last 4 years.

 

[teuchter]

There's a fairly good summary of the issues associated with carbon trading here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826521.600-carbon-trading-dirty-sexy-money.html?full=true

Carbon trading is catching on in a big way. In 2007, the value of the deals being done doubled to an estimated $60 billion - though because many credits are traded more than once, the value of credits in circulation is considerably less than this. Nonetheless between now and 2012 European companies are expected to buy about $25 billion worth of carbon credits. With this sort of money up for grabs, it is no surprise that what began as a niche market is now attracting major financial institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Barclays Capital. Climate Care has just been bought by JP Morgan.

Yet the critical question remains: does this frenetic activity actually keep greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere? There are widespread fears that it does not. One flaw in the CDM in particular is that credits are being claimed for investments that would have happened anyway, without the added stimulus of earning carbon credits. These projects should not qualify for the CDM because they do not create additional emissions reductions. In fact, they actually make matters worse by allowing companies in the rich world to exceed their limits without genuinely offsetting it elsewhere.

The danger now is that governments are seduced into believing the initial success of the carbon market allows them to avoid hard political choices on climate change. But markets are unpredictable, says Burke, and can only be part of the solution if regulated by laws such as a ban on new coal-fired power stations and guaranteed prices for renewable electricity. In other words, the politicians need to go to the casino and cut a deal with the money men.

Another danger of making a market in carbon emissions is the least discussed, but perhaps the most important: only a minority of emissions are covered by legal caps. Most industrial and transport emissions in developing countries remain outside the market. So too do most of the huge emissions caused by deforestation, draining wetlands and ploughing fields.

What that means is that market solutions to carbon emissions risk displacing the problem to activities and places where nobody is counting, and there are no penalties. Most obviously, companies facing limits at home can simply relocate their polluting processes to developing countries where there are no emissions targets. The steel and aluminium industries are already doing this. In November 2007, Ian Rodgers, director of the trade association UK Steel, warned that European carbon pricing "is not going to curb emissions. It will just move the emissions elsewhere".

Just as insidiously, it now makes market sense to cut your emissions in ways that cause much larger emissions from natural ecosystems. You can gain carbon credits for burning biofuels in Europe, even if the crops from which they are produced are grown in fields created by draining peat swamps or cutting down forests. For some hydroelectric schemes, gains are more than outweighed by the methane bubbling up from vegetation rotting in the reservoirs behind the dams.

One answer might be "full carbon accounting", in which all exchanges of greenhouse gases - both into and out of the atmosphere - would have to be included in national and corporate carbon accounts. Remote sensing may soon make this possible.

The danger for now is that carbon capitalism becomes disconnected from the reality of the planet's carbon cycle. If that happens, we face an environmental version of the Enron saga. The giant Texan energy corporation prospered through the 1990s by keeping many of its transactions "off the books". The company appeared wealthy while hiding a mountain of debt. Eventually, someone blew the whistle and the company collapsed. The same thing could happen with carbon capitalism, if big reductions in carbon emissions continue to appear on the books while increases always stay off them.

With Enron, it was the shareholders who suffered. But if the atmosphere continues to be filled with greenhouse gases and the planet's climate crashes as Enron did, no one will be spared.

 

[cantsin]

Not that it makes a great deal of difference, I joined Scouts at 10, at 16 I became a 'young leader' (or whatever they called it, I can't remember) until I could start the leadership training, and then became an ASL, then a few years later moved to a different part of the country and joined up with another group as ASL, before becoming SL.

I managed to get my 10 year service certificate as a leader just before I ended up moving again (into London). I didn't join up with another group as there was too much going on in life at the time, and I haven't gotten back round to linking up with another group now. In all honesty, it seems the programme has changed a great deal, and there isn't much emphasis on the 'traditional skills' that I enjoyed so much, so whether I'd get as much out of it now as I did - or be able to contribute as much as I could - is debateable.

Once life settles down, if circumstances allow, I may consider giving it another shot, but at the moment it's not gonna happen.

as a matter on interest, all bullshit aside, what attracted you to this forum ?

 

[danny la rouge]

well, it depends what you mean by the 'target' doesn't it.

The government may have become aware of yesterday's action but they weren't its target. And the difference between action like that and a strike is that a strike is a withdrawal of labour. The effect of that withdrawal of labour may well be to inconvenience customers, but it is the right of a worker to withdraw his or her labour. In an action like this, the inconvenience is not as a result of withdrawal of labour - there is no such relationship between the protesters and the company. And the intention of the action is to directly cause inconvenience to customers.

when you've finished sounding like a pompous Trot, can you plse explain , really simply , how Ryanair was not affected or targetted by yesterdays action ?

Do you find that name calling helps win people over to your viewpoint? The very first thing you said to me on this thread was that I was a troll. You've implied that I'm an armchair activist. And you've called me pompous and a Trot.

I have at no point suggested that Ryanair was unaffected by yesterday's actions. Nor, for the avoidance of doubt, do I suggest that Ryanair should not be targeted, nor even that disruption can always be avoided. I simply suggest that the misanthropic self-righteous middle class protesters are pursuing an anti working class agenda, deliberately targeting working class travellers. The masses cannot be allowed to fly, is their implied message.

All this "class" nonsense is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.

Class is never a red herring.

Free Spirit, you made the point that the poor of the world will shoulder the brunt of climate change. I know. I'm well aware of that. I've been on message with that for decades.

 

[cantsin]

The government may have become aware of yesterday's action but they weren't its target. And the difference between action like that and a strike is that a strike is a withdrawal of labour. The effect of that withdrawal of labour may well be to inconvenience customers, but it is the right of a worker to withdraw his or her labour. In an action like this, the inconvenience is not as a result of withdrawal of labour - there is no such relationship between the protesters and the company. And the intention of the action is to directly cause inconvenience to customers.

Do you find that name calling helps win people over to your viewpoint? The very first thing you said to me on this thread was that I was a troll. You've implied that I'm an armchair activist. And you've called me pompous and a Trot.

I have at no point suggested that Ryanair was unaffected by yesterday's actions. Nor, for the avoidance of doubt, do I suggest that Ryanair should not be targeted, nor even that disruption can always be avoided. I simply suggest that the misanthropic self-righteous middle class protesters are pursuing an anti working class agenda, deliberately targeting working class travellers. The masses cannot be allowed to fly, is their implied message.

you" simply suggest " that, but there's at least ten examples quoted above to contradict this simple suggestion !! Ie; targetted action by Plane Stupid that could in no way be construed to be "deliberately targetting w/c travellers " - your "suggestion" ( it's definitely not an argument in any meaningful way ) , is just daft

 

[teuchter]

I simply suggest that the misanthropic self-righteous middle class protesters are pursuing an anti working class agenda, deliberately targeting working class travellers. The masses cannot be allowed to fly, is their implied message.

What is your evidence for this?

And why do you call them "misanthropic"?

 

[danny la rouge]

you" simply suggest " that, but there's at least ten examples quoted above to contradict this simple suggestion !! Ie; targetted action by Plane Stupid that could in no way be construed to be "deliberately targetting w/c travellers " - your "suggestion" ( it's definitely not an argument in any meaningful way ) , is just daft

Free Spirit gave 9 examples of protests which did not deliberately disrupt working class travelers. That doesn't change the facts about yesterday's action.

 

[mauvais]

best post on this thead btw

My top tip for a universally agreeable protest is just wait around until we try and define who the working class actually are. Eventually after days of tedium someone will narrow it down to Bernard Manning, and he's dead, so you just can do what you like.

 

[danny la rouge]

What is your evidence for this?

And why do you call them "misanthropic"?

My evidence is their web site, their action, and its message.

I called them that because I don't like hippies.

 

[danny la rouge]

IT'S a lot of paperwork to get permission from each and every member of The Working Class™ before embarking on these protests.

My first post on the thread deals with this point.

 

[Bakunin]

My evidence is their web site, their action, and its message.

I called them that because I don't like hippies.

Sounds like your dislike of them is based at least as much on your personal prejudices as on what they're actually doing, which I don't think does much to help the debate, IMHO.

 

[danny la rouge]

Sounds like your dislike of them is based at least as much on your personal prejudices as on what they're actually doing, which I don't think does much to help the debate, IMHO.

It was a flippant remark.

My disagreement with them is their class-blindness.

 

[mauvais]

My first post on the thread deals with this point.

No it doesn't - it just says it disrupts some of the wrong people and you'd be annoyed if it happened to you. So would I, but I'd accept the legitimacy of their protest.

I'd be happier to be delayed by someone making a political point than bits falling off my plane, 101ml of water in my bag, or al-Voldemort and the rubbish terror sequel.

 

[danny la rouge]

No it doesn't - it just says it disrupts some of the wrong people and you'd be annoyed if it happened to you.

Here:

If the protesters could single out frequent flyers and business class, then fair play. But they can't.

 

[teuchter]

My evidence is their web site, their action, and its message.

I called them that because I don't like hippies.

Where on their website, or anywhere else, do they state that they deliberately target working class people, or that specifically working class people shouldn't be allowed to fly?

We took the decision to disrupt the airport to directly reduce the CO2 impact of Stansted, as a response to the government's consent to its expansion. We did so with heavy hearts, knowing it would disrupt passengers, because we knew the consequences of this action couldn't be worse than the consequences of inaction. If irreversible climate change kicks in, millions of lives will be destroyed.

 

[danny la rouge]

Where on their website, or anywhere else, do they state that they deliberately target working class people, or that specifically working class people shouldn't be allowed to fly?

They decided on behalf of the passengers that it was in their best interests to have their travel disrupted. They chose a budget airline with less than 20% business flights. They could have occupied BAA offices, or Ryanair offices, or something similar, but on this occasion decided to disrupt travel.

Why? What is the message?

 

[free spirit]

They decided on behalf of the passengers that it was in their best interests to have their travel disrupted. They chose a budget airline with less than 20% business flights. They could have occupied BAA offices, or Ryanair offices, or something similar, but on this occasion decided to disrupt travel.

Why? What is the message?

that a policy of airport expansion is unsustainable and should be reversed - starting by revoking the decision to approve extra runways at stansted and heathrow.

well, that and a wider message about climate change and burying our heads in the sand.

 

[teuchter]

They decided on behalf of the passengers that it was in their best interests to have their travel disrupted. They chose a budget airline with less than 20% business flights. They could have occupied BAA offices, or Ryanair offices, or something similar, but on this occasion decided to disrupt travel.

Why? What is the message?

I presume they decided that it was in the interests of the world population at large for those few passengers to have their flights disrupted.

What do you mean they chose an airline? They chose an airport. An airport which the government has recently given permission to extend despite much opposition, and despite having been elected into power on the basis that their transport policies would seek to reduce environmental impact. Their action was to draw attention to this fact, and it seems they succeeded.

 

[SpookyFrank]

if done right though, it could actually benefit the poor as they could decide whether to take a flight themselves, or sell the right to take a flight to the highest bidder, for example, meaning that the poor could benefit financially, or still go on the odd cheap flight... their choice.

The rich will never create a currency of which they don't automatically have the biggest share. Think about it, you'd be creating something that's as good as money, and that rich people need for their lifestlyes, and then sharing it out equally amongst everybod in the country. It'd be a total catastrophe for they rich if they allowed such a thing, so they won't. Simple as that I'm afraid.

 

[elbows]

I think things like personal carbon trading schemes could quickly seem irrelevant, with the consequences of severe economic decline overtaking the voluntary action against climate change stuff.

We are quickly going to end up with lots of people struggling badly, which will lead to an attitude shift. The luxuries that many of the working class in Britain have some access to will be largely eradicated without much in the way of compensation.

It wont just be the banks that government has to prop up, they are going to end up supporting business in a new and direct way, which will slightly change the balance of power and who is calling the shots.

Government will end up having to help people out in times of woe, than they do today. No doubt there will be plenty of moaning that the middle class are being helped too much, that the working class are being screwed again, etc. I hope the reality ends up being a bit different to that, that we end up with something much fairer in the end. The middle class have more to lose, they may therefore end up sacrificing more (although they can afford to more than the working class), and eventually we end up more equal as a result. But the working class will still have to sacrifice much, and so we can still expect resentment and class war rhetoric from some quarters. Personally I have no faith that class-obsessed people are going to lead us to a better future, but like everyone else they will still have to sacrifice, its a tad boring to see the same old battle being fought but maybe if strange times lead to radical change, they will get a chance to apply their sense of injustice towards designing a fairer future. Not quite sure how that will be achieved by hating hippies but you never know.

I suspect I will have reasons to get extremely upset with both working class and middle class attitudes once the real sacrifice begins, and that I may even end up feeling sorry for the government from time to time. After all, I presume they are quite aware of the future environmental and resource realities, hence the really rather large and life-changing carbon cut targets for the decades ahead. If they were relying on businesses being nice or people being sold on the idea that climate change & peak oil means lower standards of living that they would willingly accept, then the government would be doomed - its hard to sell that agenda, people in every class will think its a vendetta against them. Instead that agenda will be forced upon people of all classes, because reality will bite, and things will be ugly.

If we manage to get through transition without war or utter collapse, I wonder if we will see a much fairer and less divided humanity, or whether we'll end up with a hideous totalitarianism or feudal type setup. I cant imagine the current compromise continuing, the resources arent there to placate through consumption on such a scale in future. So the struggle for survival and for a fair & sustainable outcome is what Im interested in being a part of, and its far from clear to me whether class war and rhetoric fits into that. If it matters I suppose I am middle class, as my parents were teachers, although for all intents and purposes that I can think of, in terms of economic prospects and place in society, I am going to be sacrificing and suffering exactly the same as the working class, if that terms means anything.

 

[elbows]

Oops double post

 

[danny la rouge]

that a policy of airport expansion is unsustainable and should be reversed

That wasn't what they said yesterday. They said only that for the time the airport was closed down CO2 wasn't being used.

Their problem is that they're liberals: they have no wider analysis of the relationship between climate change and global capitalism.

 

[elbows]

The rich will never create a currency of which they don't automatically have the biggest share. Think about it, you'd be creating something that's as good as money, and that rich people need for their lifestlyes, and then sharing it out equally amongst everybod in the country. It'd be a total catastrophe for they rich if they allowed such a thing, so they won't. Simple as that I'm afraid.

Oh I dont know, these modern forms of rationing seem a bit iffy to me. Bringing in a form of rationing where the rich are openly allowed to buy more rations sounds like something the rich may support, at least if the alternative was per-head rationing not based on ability to pay.