Extinction Rebellion

[ditchman]

57 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

I see...but what’s the question that it is the answer to? I’ll make sure I never ask it.

less co2....less methane.....less cars.....less air miles...less unwanted babies....less MP's.....less David bloody Attenbourgh on every bloody night....less cwis packham...less football

winner winner chicken dinner

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I would imagine those who are serious about reducing emissions have already disposed of their cars, TVs and mobile phones. Otherwise, they might look like hypocrites.

Mental image of Grant (oowee) barefoot, wearing nothing but fox fur, walking miles across the Somerset countryside in search of quarry (food) with a home made bow and arrow.

Safe in the knowledge that he is taking the 'harder course'

[GingerCat]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

Clearly it will not work in all cases or indeed over night. If you look over the parapet then surely part of the answer is better public transport. That needs demand. Demand is hard to generate when private cars are so cheap. Put prices up on one and subsidise the other and the switch starts to take place. Same is happening with EV's. Towns and cities are more efficient in energy usage and provide economies of scale that the countryside cannot. Green belt policy that forces house building to jump into the countryside is a significant contributor to environmental damage. 

China maybe a large contributor but much of that is driven by us exporting our consumption to them. If we reduce consumption, insist on higher environmental standards (easier for the EU than the UK) then things will gradually change.

We all have a part to play but (i hate to agree with Packman) we start with the easy stuff and now we need to get onto the harder course. 

China isint just a large contributer. It's larger than all, in fact it's larger than 10 of the top 15 combined. It's so large its crazy. 

Clean energy and cleaner manufacturing of readily recyclable materials is what's needed. Not building giant cities that can't economically sustain themselves or building on all the green land for "economies" of scale. Nor is restricting car ownership when it's the pollution caused by the fuel and not the car per say that's at fault. In efforts to move everyone to mass transit in and out of their government approved tenement no doubt. No doubt to save some plastic they can have a large horn blow at 6am and we can line up in the street with out brooms and spades and March to work. 

The real problem with this is not their aims, its their demands. Demands of doing as they say as they know best or face direct action until you comply. Used to be called fascism but that's the preserve of the right wing it seems and these entitled middle class left wing enviro fascists are seeking social change to suit their purposes dressed up as saving the world. 

 

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

China isint just a large contributer. It's larger than all, in fact it's larger than 10 of the top 15 combined. It's so large its crazy. 

Clean energy and cleaner manufacturing of readily recyclable materials is what's needed. Not building giant cities that can't economically sustain themselves or building on all the green land for "economies" of scale. Nor is restricting car ownership when it's the pollution caused by the fuel and not the car per say that's at fault. In efforts to move everyone to mass transit in and out of their government approved tenement no doubt. No doubt to save some plastic they can have a large horn blow at 6am and we can line up in the street with out brooms and spades and March to work. 

The real problem with this is not their aims, its their demands. Demands of doing as they say as they know best or face direct action until you comply. Used to be called fascism but that's the preserve of the right wing it seems and these entitled middle class left wing enviro fascists are seeking social change to suit their purposes dressed up as saving the world. 

 

Spot on 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

In efforts to move everyone to mass transit in and out of their government approved tenement no doubt.

Having been out walking today, which takes me by the railway, a busy main line from Bristol to Birmingham, I was thinking about rail transport.  Whilst when the trains are full - no doubt you get a lot of passenger miles per gallon of diesel.  However, looking at the trains today around 11:00 - I doubt they were 10% occupied - so probably no more efficient than the despised car.  Plus you still need a car to get to the station (there are no buses where I live).

 

6 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

The real problem with this is not their aims, its their demands. Demands of doing as they say as they know best or face direct action until you comply. Used to be called fascism but that's the preserve of the right wing it seems and these entitled middle class left wing enviro fascists are seeking social change to suit their purposes dressed up as saving the world.

Correct:  Do as I want or I will do my best to make your normal daily life as difficult as possible (and very probably doing so whilst living on benefits paid for by you).  Lovely people.

[Newbie to this]

These criminals should all be arrested, charged, taken to court and fined huge amounts to pay for their illegal disruption. Bankrupt them or stop their benefits (depending on their circumstances) then see if they still want to protest and stop people going to work.

[Gordon R]

GingerCat - excellent post.

[Vince Green]

Its always the same though with these sort of protests, demands without solutions. Anyone can be a protestor, Jeremy Corbyn has made a career of it. Others like the feeling of power they get from causing disruption. But don't go telling us what we are doing wrong until you can do better.

47 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

These criminals should all be arrested, charged, taken to court and fined huge amounts to pay for their illegal disruption. Bankrupt them or stop their benefits (depending on their circumstances) then see if they still want to protest and stop people going to work.

Daddy will pay

[oowee]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Youre actually serious arent you ?

A car is too cheap to own, I suppose if you are of your sort of social and financial standing, then yes it is, to 90 % of the driving population, no its not.

Fuel, insurance and maintainance are a big cost to ordinary people, but its their independence, are you seriously saying that we should make it more expensive, so people drive less ?
Make cars the territory of the more well off, like owning a horse 200 years ago, I thought you were socially progressive 😄

What really economical vehicle do you drive, that protects future generations ?

Yes.

If we have cars they have to be electric, car share for longer journeys or fully paid for. Govt may ultimately choose to help those at the margins like now but the free loading has to stop and the true  cost paid. 

I drive two large diesels, I fly at least a dozen times a year, I live in the country which makes my trip to the shops a 25 mile round trip. I like millions of others will not change unless I am forced too. I could sit here and blame everyone else but we have to bite the bullet sooner or later. The sooner we do the longer the time frame to sort it. 

15 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

 But don't go telling us what we are doing wrong until you can do better.

 

Why? When we can do better together, when we know we can do better, when we just do not want to disrupt our cosy space then some one has to tell it like it is. 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, GingerCat said:

China isint just a large contributer. It's larger than all, in fact it's larger than 10 of the top 15 combined. It's so large its crazy. 

Clean energy and cleaner manufacturing of readily recyclable materials is what's needed. Not building giant cities that can't economically sustain themselves or building on all the green land for "economies" of scale. Nor is restricting car ownership when it's the pollution caused by the fuel and not the car per say that's at fault. In efforts to move everyone to mass transit in and out of their government approved tenement no doubt. No doubt to save some plastic they can have a large horn blow at 6am and we can line up in the street with out brooms and spades and March to work. 

The real problem with this is not their aims, its their demands. Demands of doing as they say as they know best or face direct action until you comply. Used to be called fascism but that's the preserve of the right wing it seems and these entitled middle class left wing enviro fascists are seeking social change to suit their purposes dressed up as saving the world. 

 

Its a big polluter making the products that we buy. All materials must be recycled yes. Concentrating the population is a simple way to reduce environmental impact. You might not like it but it works. It will not be enough on its own we somehow have to cut consumption to a quarter of what we consume now. 

Or we carry on as we are stealing the futures of our own children hoping that new technology keeps up with the pace of change and we can somehow carry on as we are. Does that sound more or less likely? 

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

I could sit here and blame everyone else but we have to bite the bullet sooner or later. The sooner we do the longer the time frame to sort it. 

So what are you waiting for? If you are lucky enough to be able to afford an electric car, why dont you have one ? Do you really need to use  use planes ?

What about getting a  push bike and trailer to go to the shops ? 

 Those small steps to being more eco friendly, could be the example others need, in this country, whilst China ,Brazil and India spew out more greenhouse gases in a week than we do in a year.
Because they cant afford not to.

Being an eco warrior takes money, and if you dont earn enough to buy £30 k s worth of clean motoring, or being able to afford a nice new solar powered eco home in the city, with nice expensive transport hubs, then you simply cant do it, without getting back to the haves and have nots scenario.
Which will lead to Gingercats work siren ...

You are saying..bluntly, if you cant do it 'clean'   then dont do it !
But youre also saying , do as I say, not as I do.

[GingerCat]

29 minutes ago, oowee said:

Its a big polluter making the products that we buy. All materials must be recycled yes. Concentrating the population is a simple way to reduce environmental impact. You might not like it but it works. It will not be enough on its own we somehow have to cut consumption to a quarter of what we consume now. 

Or we carry on as we are stealing the futures of our own children hoping that new technology keeps up with the pace of change and we can somehow carry on as we are. Does that sound more or less likely? 

Ah concentrating the population, once that's done I'm guessing the next logical step is to thin it a bit.how about we start with all those that don't agree with your position. Perhaps we can call them "interlectuals" or something catchy. 

Hmm, didn't Stalin and pol pot do this? Seems a bit familiar. after all they new better too and came about from forcing their will upon others through violence and generating civil unrest. 

[oowee]

18 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

So what are you waiting for? If you are lucky enough to be able to afford an electric car, why dont you have one ? Do you really need to use  use planes ?

What about getting a  push bike and trailer to go to the shops ? 

 Those small steps to being more eco friendly, could be the example others need, in this country, whilst China ,Brazil and India spew out more greenhouse gases in a week than we do in a year.
Because they cant afford not to.

Being an eco warrior takes money, and if you dont earn enough to buy £30 k s worth of clean motoring, or being able to afford a nice new solar powered eco home in the city, with nice expensive transport hubs, then you simply cant do it, without getting back to the haves and have nots scenario.
Which will lead to Gingercats work siren ...

You are saying..bluntly, if you cant do it 'clean'   then dont do it !
But youre also saying , do as I say, not as I do.

Yawn. I am saying we will at some point have no choice. Few of us will do it willingly thats why we need Govt / EU to help us. Exactly what the protesters are saying. 

The have's and the have not's is what we have now at our unsustainable level of consumption. We are talking about more of the same but at a level 75% below where we are. 

 

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

Ah concentrating the population, once that's done I'm guessing the next logical step is to thin it a bit.how about we start with all those that don't agree with your position. Perhaps we can call them "interlectuals" or something catchy. 

Hmm, didn't Stalin and pol pot do this? Seems a bit familiar. after all they new better too and came about from forcing their will upon others through violence and generating civil unrest. 

You have lost me there Ging.

It's hard to face up to our own complicity in the problem. What would you suggest we do to cut our consumption by 75%?

[GingerCat]

Lost you? Your the one talking about removing individuals freedoms (cars/travel and the implications that would have on employment and socalisation to name but 2) and concentrating  the population for the greater good. 

Presumably whilst the elite live in the utopia like countryside away from those that they've forced into the cities. From your earlier post about running 2 big diesels and regular air travel I assume that you won't be affected by the "concentration".

I don't disagree we need to act and act now but and It's a big but, we cannot achieve "what we demand" through acts of civil disorder and threats of "escalation" as I've seen in the press today witbout being akin to fascists and their ilke which history has proven repeatedly on the graves of hundreda of millions of dead, does not achieve anything. What will that escalation take. One can only assume violence. 

 

 

[JohnfromUK]

30 minutes ago, oowee said:

Few of us will do it willingly thats why we need Govt / EU to help us.

I cannot comprehend how if you are not prepared to do it willingly, you would like to have some one force you to do it?  I have done many things willingly (eco wise) - and would/will do more as and when they either become economic, practical, or I am allowed by the local authority - but if I have chosen not to do something, the last thing I want is to be made to do it.

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

Lost you? Your the one talking about removing individuals freedoms (cars/travel and the implications that would have on employment and socalisation to name but 2) and concentrating  the population for the greater good. 

Presumably whilst the elite live in the utopia like countryside away from those that they've forced into the cities. From your earlier post about running 2 big diesels and regular air travel I assume that you won't be affected by the "concentration".

I don't disagree we need to act and act now but and It's a big but, we cannot achieve "what we demand" through acts of civil disorder and threats of "escalation" as I've seen in the press today witbout being akin to fascists and their ilke which history has proven repeatedly on the graves of hundreda of millions of dead, does not achieve anything. What will that escalation take. One can only assume violence. 

 

 

Of course I will be effected, we all will. None of us will do what we do not want to do, without an incentive.

This Govt does not have sustainability high on it's agenda if at all. With the protest maybe it sits a little higher than it did. 

You say it does not achieve anything but look at the suffragets, Greenham common and no doubt countless other examples. These things have an impact. 

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

I cannot comprehend how if you are not prepared to do it willingly, you would like to have some one force you to do it?  I have done many things willingly (eco wise) - and would/will do more as and when they either become economic, practical, or I am allowed by the local authority - but if I have chosen not to do something, the last thing I want is to be made to do it.

Agreed but I only do what I want to do. Cutting the EV subsidy in half is not going to make us more inclined towards EV's. Scrapping the fuel escalator is not going to make us more inclined to look for economy.

Look at congestion in big cities. We know it's killing us and our children but we carry on regardless as the death is so slow we try to ignore it. 

Like most people if I can afford it and I want to do it I will. The role of Govt must be to persuade us that the green path is the right one. 

[GingerCat]

Stalin and hitler had an effect too but that does not justify way they tried to achieve their utopia either. And thats my point. I'd like to think we've moved on a little bit from the suffragets but clearly damaging property, disrupting business and jobs and threatening violence is the way forward. 

I'd love to see the reaction  if the pro brexit lobby did the same. They would all be branded right wing fascists and punished severely. Yet when the left do it using the environment to justify their means its perfectly ok. 

[JohnfromUK]

It is alleged https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6936451/Eco-warriors-plan-shut-London-Heathrow-Airport.html

that they will be trying to close Heathrow tomorrow.  Since it is the Easter getaway, I hope for the  sake of all trying to get a short break that the police take a hard line and keep the airport open.  No one wants a repeat of the chaos caused by the drone at Gatwick.

[Rewulf]

44 minutes ago, oowee said:

Yawn. I am saying we will at some point have no choice.

That isnt what you said though, you said cars were too cheap for their pollutant level, so they need to be more expensive.
EV s are already very expensive, so the 90 % of the population who are on sub £25 k earnings, wont be able t afford to drive.

 

49 minutes ago, oowee said:

Few of us will do it willingly thats why we need Govt / EU to help us.

What you mean there is FORCE us, via taxation and scaremongering , whilst the upper 10 % will just shrug it off, and enjoy the clearer roads.

 

44 minutes ago, oowee said:

It's hard to face up to our own complicity in the problem. What would you suggest we do to cut our consumption by 75%?

What problem ? The problem of rubbish generated is real, but if you are talking climate change, the 'problem' is not really evidenced properly.
And our 'complicity' is a guilt trip buzzword designed to aid that further taxation and restriction.

Our consumption fades into inconsequence when you look at China and Indias massive populations and ecological waste.
Who is going to MAKE them do anything ?
 

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

That isnt what you said though, you said cars were too cheap for their pollutant level, so they need to be more expensive.
EV s are already very expensive, so the 90 % of the population who are on sub £25 k earnings, wont be able t afford to drive.

 

What you mean there is FORCE us, via taxation and scaremongering , whilst the upper 10 % will just shrug it off, and enjoy the clearer roads.

 

What problem ? The problem of rubbish generated is real, but if you are talking climate change, the 'problem' is not really evidenced properly.
And our 'complicity' is a guilt trip buzzword designed to aid that further taxation and restriction.

Our consumption fades into inconsequence when you look at China and Indias massive populations and ecological waste.
Who is going to MAKE them do anything ?
 

Yep its a lot cooler with your head in the sand. If you are not convinced carry on as you are simple's. 

[old'un]

There are those who think that the present global warming is just a very tiny window in the earths 4.5 billion years life and the melting of Arctic ice will have very little effect on sea levels, even the scientists are unsure if the present global warming is entirely due to man, a study by NASA showed an increase of Antarctic ice of 112 billion tons a year from 1992 to 2001.

Make of it what you will but even if all the ice on earth melted the sea level would still only rise by 70 meters, it may alter life as we (humans) know it, but would it just be another tiny window into the life of this planet and how it evolves in the future with are without mankind?

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

Yep its a lot cooler with your head in the sand. If you are not convinced carry on as you are simple's. 

Well you are !

Its all right talking about it and  saying ' one day Ill HAVE to change' whats wrong with changing now ?

Talk is cheap.

[mick miller]

5 hours ago, ditchman said:

castration...........thats the answer

Wrong. War with China appears to be the solution.

[oowee]

Just now, old'un said:

There are those who think that the present global warming is just a very tiny window in the earths 4.5 billion years life and the melting of Arctic ice will have very little effect on sea levels, even the scientists are unsure if the present global warming is entirely due to man, a study by NASA showed an increase of Antarctic ice of 112 billion tons a year from 1992 to 2001.

Make of it what you will but even if all the ice on earth melted the sea level would still only rise by 70 meters, it may alter life as we (humans) know it, but would it just be another tiny window into the life of this planet and how it evolves in the future with are without mankind?

I think Trump is in that camp. 

This according to the telegraph in 2010 is the top ten list of consumption by individuals. Numbers represent the number of planets required to sustain consumption. Apparently we were 15th. I thought we were about 4 and the US were about 12 but maybe that was countries rather than individuals. 

United Arab Emirates 6

Qatar 5.9

Denmark 4.6

Belgium 4.5

United States 4.5

Estonia 4.4

Canada 3.9

Australia 3.8

Kuwait 3.5

Ireland 3.5

* Britain 2.75

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Well you are !

Its all right talking about it and  saying ' one day Ill HAVE to change' whats wrong with changing now ?

Talk is cheap.

That's what I said. We need Govt / EU to help us with the task.