Extinction Rebellion

[Longbower]

So , where do they want us to go with cutting emissions. And saving the earth.

Electric cars,    charged from where ?

No flying  ,except in hot air balloons .

No meat production/consumption . So empty fields , (no Animals/livestock ) just crops.

Compulsory contraception , (all religious constraints on this banned?).

Non recyclable, Plastic production banned .

There is an old saying ," We don't own this world , we just borrow it from the next generation".

Every species is designed to propagate , and as we all know , if one species over runs the others and its environment , its signs its own

extinction certificate.  As will we .

 

 

[nobbyathome]

I work in a large central London courier company the company and the drivers / riders have invested hundreds of thousand pounds going electric vehicles wherever possible but many of our guys and we have over100 can not afford them and are financed up to there eyes with the vans they  already have . London drivers are hit with congestion charge and the new ulez charge if your vehicle is not euro 6 for diesel and euro 4 for petrol  as a true example my son and his partner both paid 26 k each for new transit vans two years ago and they don’t pass the test so have to pay nearly 125 per week each to do there trade in London an absolute joke   All our drivers are self employed and stuck in protest traffic has cost them  a fortune over the last few days how can they pay there rent/ mortgage if they are stuck in traffic because lowlife soap dodgers have blocked the major roads they have cost everyone millions in lost trade they should all get arrested and fined heavily as far as I am concerned .                I do agree that everyone has a right to protest in this country but they are hurting ordinary working people do your protests legally 

[fatchap]

5 hours ago, dustydave said:

So far, non violence is their thing - i've never seen anything like it where so many people are keeping to one pattern of behaviour . Also it seems that getting arrested is part of the plan. They got about 400 people to agree to be arrested before this all started - the aim being that if 4000 get arrested then the system will start to wobble and with a warm bank holiday forecast it might just happen. It all depends on whether the police can keep arresting them quickly enough.

Not entirely true on the first day of protests they smashed up the Shell Building on the South Bank,

As someone who delivers up London this lot are really beginning to get on my pecks. And what with the tents and marquees in the roads, The old lorry that they chained themselves to (I bet that did wonders for the environment) and the boat they have bolted to the road in Oxford St its pretty safe to assume that they are going to be bringing London to its knees for quite some time. I will however say that the police are adding to the traffic by closing roads they don't have to. 

Boris should have kept his water cannons I'm sure blasting them down the road would pretty soon have them scuttling back to their 6 bedroom mansions in Surrey 

The people behind this make interesting reading, one is the daughter of a baroness and total nut job ex drug addict who now takes a drug called mugwort.  Wonder if her dealer is Permona Sprout from Hogwarts?

Another middle class organiser had a father who owned a large Haulage company in Bristol bet that sits well.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by fatchap

[JohnfromUK]

6 hours ago, Vince Green said:

To reduce CO2 and all the other problems we need to reduce the human population which has quadrupled in my lifetime.

This

[Hamster]

Compared to the catastrophes coming these protests are a romantic picnic followed by first time sex, enjoy the semi polluted world while it lasts. 

[Benthejockey]

I bet Theresa May is regretting banning water cannons. It might do a lot of them the world of good a decent wash. This sort of aggravating protest is getting more and more commonplace, its like we're France! 

[Hamster]

I forgot to say, water cannons will fix it, that or electric batons, if all else fails we can call them dirty hippies and laugh. 

[oowee]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

This

Unless you are volunteering I suggest that we start with the things that we can do. We all know that the message is correct but we do not want to hear it. For the last three years our progress has been glacial. We have even ditched the fuel tax escalator. Basic stuff should be top of the agenda.

[Benthejockey]

20 minutes ago, Hamster said:

I forgot to say, water cannons will fix it, that or electric batons, if all else fails we can call them dirty hippies and laugh. 

Well really it's the best thing for them! Aside from ******* off the majority of people trying to go about their daily work and trying up police time and resources it wont achieve anything. Normal, law abiding people don't super glue themselves to trains.

[oldypigeonpopper]

10 hours ago, peck said:

We are amongst the Worlds biggest polluters.

hello, the UK is no where near the likes of China,

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

This

hello, seems about right john, in 50 years time the moon will be covered in space junk, 

[JohnfromUK]

35 minutes ago, oowee said:

We all know that the message is correct but we do not want to hear it. For the last three years our progress has been glacial. We have even ditched the fuel tax escalator. Basic stuff should be top of the agenda.

The message is correct.  We need to use less carbon, less resources, less fuels.  The reason we use so much is that there are too many people on the planet, many of them using too much resource.  We are building vast numbers of new houses, towns, cities - which use huge amounts of carbon to build, then again to run and operate.

Switching to things like electric cars, different diets, is toying with trivia around the edges and simply a short term patch.

The real issue is that in order for the planet to be self sustaining - it needs to have less people, far more forest, trees, plants to give a long term balance of all lifeforms on the planet - which is the real long term solution.

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The message is correct.  We need to use less carbon, less resources, less fuels.  The reason we use so much is that there are too many people on the planet, many of them using too much resource.  We are building vast numbers of new houses, towns, cities - which use huge amounts of carbon to build, then again to run and operate.

Switching to things like electric cars, different diets, is toying with trivia around the edges and simply a short term patch.

The real issue is that in order for the planet to be self sustaining - it needs to have less people, far more forest, trees, plants to give a long term balance of all lifeforms on the planet - which is the real long term solution.

We can easily support the current population if we all lived within our environmental needs but we won't do that because we are naturally selfish. Evolution has taught us more is better. It's consumption that is the issue. I want my two cars, house in the country, to eat meat, have my pets and take a dozen flights a year.. We all need our excesses to be curbed by legislation and incentive. 

It's more likely that we keep going until the environment checks our progress. 

[Pistol p]

Don’t give the retards the coverage they desperately want. 

[Penelope]

9 hours ago, oowee said:

Because we export our pollution, through consumption, to China. We should be looking to reduce consumption in the UK to tackle pollution in China. It's these global issues that are best tackled by global blocks like the EU. We can ask them what our plan will be for when we leave.

Well, by what the bunch of XR'ers I saw at Piccadilly Circus on Tuesday were wearing on their feet, I would suggest they start with their own consumption, the vast majority were wearing expensive trainers made in the fast east. I made a point of looking. Hypocrites of the highest order. 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

We all need our excesses to be curbed by legislation and incentive.

And that should extend to population increase - and we should work towards a decrease long term.  Long term, however 'frugally' you make people live by your legislation - there will still be a limit to what the planet can support.  THAT is the big long term issue.

 

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

It's consumption that is the issue.

It is an issue and it is a major short term issue - but it isn't the long term issue or the underlying route cause.  We can all help reduce consumption.  I have tried to do so on a personal level - little things we can all do;

• I have given up (I hope for ever) air travel
• I have reduced my annual mileage to below 5000 (less than half waht it was before
• I have tried (against I might add considerable opposition from my local authority) to improve the insulation and reduce the energy usage of my home
• I have taken a policy of making things last - especially things like white goods - which are hugely carbon intensive being recycled
• My energy/carbon usage is something I think about. .......

But it isn't just the meter ticking round - it is the whole fact that there is a vast building programme worldwide of houses, roads, airports, power stations, steel structures - that are massively heavy on resources - all driven by demand due to population.  Making everyone live in mud huts on lentils isn't a practical solution if global population continues to grow at the rate it does now.

But I still firmly believe that reducing overall global population is the key to long term natural balance.

[oowee]

Ultimately the environment or technology will be the limiting factor. Who is to say now what is the right population density for a country. We are currently 53rd in a list of 240 countries (wiki). Population could also be restrained by longevity limits but that would no doubt prove as popular as limits on children. I am sure they will both come at some point.

If we stopped population growth now the UK requires the equivalent of four planets worth of resources to maintain our level of consumption. I think for the States is something like 12 times. Some would take the view that ever advancing technology will be the answer. For me its enforced global co-operation, technology and environmental constraint's. Like all things its easy to blame everyone else but it's us as much as anyone that is the problem. 

I have done all of the easy things, recycling, and a very energy efficient house, that I can do without effecting my life. The rest I enjoy too much and I will have to be forced to change.  

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

Who is to say now what is the right population density for a country.

It isn't about population density for a country (UK, US, Greenland, China to quote a few extreme examples) - it is about world issues - both of carbon usage - leading (probably) to global warming, resource usage globally, and carbon capture, currently best done by rain forests, jungles, peat bogs etc.

It isn't helpful looking at in on a Little Britain 'country' basis.  Britain has it's part to play, but realistically as a small country, the part we can play is also limited - though we can show a lead - and we are very good historically at technical improvements and innovations.

Similarly - we can all (in an industrialised world) play our own parts - but that needs to be done in a sensible and considered way.  The ideas put forward by these Extinction Rebellion people (getting back on topic) need to be sensible and considered.  What they are doing now is not sensible.  It is simply making people loathe their actions, cause and wholly counter-productive.

Long term - we need to reduce overall 'consumption' - part of that must come from reducing 'consumption per head' - but 'head count' must also be controlled and reduced.

[Sako7mm]

Everyone seems to leave the perceived wisdom re. CO2 unquestioned. 

Have a read of what Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, Piers, has to say on the subject.

[mick miller]

12 hours ago, Walker570 said:

Be interesting to see what the birthrate of this bunch is.  We are polluting the world with human beings first and foremost.

This. A lot of my generation elected not to bother, there's too many people already. As the late, great, Bill Hicks famously said "we need to work out this food/air deal first".

[islandgun]

Overall global fertility drop = more pensioners less babies, surely the only decent thing for those most perturbed, is to take themselves out of the equation

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

[mick miller]

Gentlemen, may I present (part of) the solution:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/

Why isn't there masses of investment into this? Don't give me the cost argument, the more investment, the larger the production facility, the lower the unit costs.

[mick miller]

11 hours ago, oowee said:

Because we export our pollution, through consumption, to China. We should be looking to reduce consumption in the UK to tackle pollution in China. It's these global issues that are best tackled by global blocks like the EU. We can ask them what our plan will be for when we leave.

Ha!! Yeah, that'll work. Have you seen the levels of domestic recycling in southern EU countries? It doesn't exist, all the trash, recyclable or otherwise goes into the same bin. If they can't be relied upon to enforce existing rules and regulations why the hell are you trusting them to deal with the bigger ones?

Edited April 18, 2019 by mick miller

[Gordon R]

The bottom line with these protests is whether they will have any effect whatsoever. They are increasing pollution whilst claiming to be solving it. Self indulgent cretins is the kindest thing I could say about them.

[Vince Green]

24 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Ha!! Yeah, that'll work. Have you seen the levels of domestic recycling in southern EU countries? It doesn't exist, all the trash, recyclable or otherwise goes into the same bin. If they can't be relied upon to enforce existing rules and regulations why the hell are you trusting them to deal with the bigger ones?

Very little of the stuff we put in our recycling bins ever really gets recycled. It an elaborate charade to create the illusion that they are doing something positive when really there is very little opportunity to commercially recycle any of it. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Vince Green

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Very little of the stuff we put in our recycling bins ever really gets recycled. It an elaborate charade to create the illusion that they are doing something positive when really there is very little opportunity to commercially recycle any of it. 

I have also never been convinced that the energy expended in recycling is actually 'economic' - both in costs and overall carbon usage - for many (mainly non metallic) materials (by which I mean that the handling, processing and re-manufacturing may use more energy than making from 'new'.)