| No subject on 11:27 - Nov 7 with 1968 views | NthQldITFC |
| No subject on 11:23 - Nov 7 by bluelagos |
Not many old crusties climbing gantries like that.
|
I've just watched that, and I am currently crying my eyes out in sympathy.
Please listen to the message, people, please, please listen. |  |
|  |
| No subject on 11:28 - Nov 7 with 1960 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| No subject on 10:43 - Nov 7 by GeoffSentence |
Eton is a boarding school. Limited opportunities for hampering school drop offs. |
Precisely why I specified "Picking up/dropping off the progeny days". There is a specific window for maximum disruption when they are bringing their heirloom Great Grandfather's boarders trunk containing all their things for the Term. |  | | |
| No subject on 11:33 - Nov 7 with 1935 views | NthQldITFC |
| No subject on 11:24 - Nov 7 by Pinewoodblue |
Where would you start?
Would you for example be in favour of reducing the speed limit, outside of built up areas to 40mph, and 50 on motorways and dual carriageways.
Would you be in favour of a worldwide ban on clothes manufactured from synthetic, oil based, materials.
Would you ban the transportation of food stuffs over any distance greater than 50 miles?
Would you ban air travel, or use of aircraft to transport goods? |
I would start by encouraging a national inclusive debate on exactly the sort of questions that you are asking. Questions that you have asked as a direct response to a thread, which is a direct response to the actions of JSO today.
In answer to your questions :
1. Yes, sounds like a good idea
2. Perhaps higher taxation?
3. Not realistic, but perhaps some financial mechanism to promote local food.
4. Much higher taxation on flying, some limits on flying luxury items perhaps.
All very vague, because I don't have the knowledge or expertise to provide answers other than, "We need to do far more than we are doing now, and we need to give up some of the things we think of as our rights." | |
| |
| No subject on 11:34 - Nov 7 with 1928 views | NthQldITFC |
| No subject on 11:27 - Nov 7 by itfcjoe |
I can't get my head around the fact that intelligent people seem to think these protests actually help the cause though, rather than do the total opposite |
They stimulate debate like this. | |
| |
| No subject on 11:37 - Nov 7 with 1907 views | itfcjoe |
| No subject on 11:34 - Nov 7 by NthQldITFC |
They stimulate debate like this. |
But it only seems to stimulate debate amongst those who broadly agree with it anyway - but just disagree on how best to do things as opposed to actually winning anyone over |  |
| |
| No subject on 11:39 - Nov 7 with 1896 views | BlueBadger |
| No subject on 10:15 - Nov 7 by waveneyblue |
So, you think that winding up the vast majority of the population causing widespread disruption is the way to go then?
and do you have actual facts on your statement? [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 10:22]
|
Excess deaths during the July heatwave were 10.4% higher than the five year average for the time of year.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/dea
Do you have any Actual Facts to link excess deaths to slow roads?
[Post edited 7 Nov 2022 11:40]
|  |
| |
| No subject on 11:40 - Nov 7 with 1891 views | bluelagos |
| No subject on 11:33 - Nov 7 by NthQldITFC |
I would start by encouraging a national inclusive debate on exactly the sort of questions that you are asking. Questions that you have asked as a direct response to a thread, which is a direct response to the actions of JSO today.
In answer to your questions :
1. Yes, sounds like a good idea
2. Perhaps higher taxation?
3. Not realistic, but perhaps some financial mechanism to promote local food.
4. Much higher taxation on flying, some limits on flying luxury items perhaps.
All very vague, because I don't have the knowledge or expertise to provide answers other than, "We need to do far more than we are doing now, and we need to give up some of the things we think of as our rights." |
I just think for flights it would be so easy to adopt a "progressive" tax to international flights.
Each passenger is taxed:-
First return flight in calendar year - £100 tax.
Second £1000 tax.
Third £10k tax.
Etc.
For 99% of us, that would mean we take no more than 1 flight a year which is perfectly reasonable. Cuts out lots of the weekend to Rome stuff whilst still enabling people to take an overseas holiday once a year. And it would encourage people to take longer trips rather than multiple shorter ones which is clearly better in terms of flights.
For business travelers we are at a point where most meetings can be done online no again so massive hardship imho.
We change our habits or it's more of the same... [Post edited 7 Nov 2022 11:53]
|  |
| |
| No subject on 11:47 - Nov 7 with 1853 views | waveneyblue |
By the same token, its wasn't the first heatwave we've ever had.
Blocking roads, makes it impossible for emergency services to effectively get to people in danger - fact. Surely you can understand this from your side of the argument (I appreciate how much you struggle with the two sides aspect)
Believe me, I know there are massive issues and there are aspects of climate change that are hugely concerning. But shinning up an overhead gantry and pissing off thousands of people (who are simply trying to go about their lives) is not the way to do it. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| No subject on 11:49 - Nov 7 with 1840 views | BlueBadger |
| No subject on 11:47 - Nov 7 by waveneyblue |
By the same token, its wasn't the first heatwave we've ever had.
Blocking roads, makes it impossible for emergency services to effectively get to people in danger - fact. Surely you can understand this from your side of the argument (I appreciate how much you struggle with the two sides aspect)
Believe me, I know there are massive issues and there are aspects of climate change that are hugely concerning. But shinning up an overhead gantry and pissing off thousands of people (who are simply trying to go about their lives) is not the way to do it. |
But it IS the sort of heatwave that is ever more likely in the future. | |
| |
| No subject on 11:49 - Nov 7 with 1841 views | NthQldITFC |
| No subject on 11:37 - Nov 7 by itfcjoe |
But it only seems to stimulate debate amongst those who broadly agree with it anyway - but just disagree on how best to do things as opposed to actually winning anyone over |
I can see your point, and certainly TWTD usually sees the same faces in these threads, as you say most of whom broadly agree. But I don't see how you can know that nobody is being won over by the protestors.
The eloquent and heart-wrenching tweet linked above by Louise up a gantry will surely reach out to a lot of people and we can't really know how many will change their minds, or step up their positive actions on the basis of messages like that getting through to some.
We have to do a lot more and we have to do it immediately, and the fact that the protests and the number of protestors is growing, kind of backs that up, in my opinion. | |
| |
| No subject on 11:53 - Nov 7 with 1819 views | StokieBlue |
| No subject on 11:47 - Nov 7 by waveneyblue |
By the same token, its wasn't the first heatwave we've ever had.
Blocking roads, makes it impossible for emergency services to effectively get to people in danger - fact. Surely you can understand this from your side of the argument (I appreciate how much you struggle with the two sides aspect)
Believe me, I know there are massive issues and there are aspects of climate change that are hugely concerning. But shinning up an overhead gantry and pissing off thousands of people (who are simply trying to go about their lives) is not the way to do it. |
Which aspects of climate change aren't hugely concerning?
SB |  | | |
| No subject on 11:54 - Nov 7 with 1819 views | itfcjoe |
| No subject on 11:49 - Nov 7 by NthQldITFC |
I can see your point, and certainly TWTD usually sees the same faces in these threads, as you say most of whom broadly agree. But I don't see how you can know that nobody is being won over by the protestors.
The eloquent and heart-wrenching tweet linked above by Louise up a gantry will surely reach out to a lot of people and we can't really know how many will change their minds, or step up their positive actions on the basis of messages like that getting through to some.
We have to do a lot more and we have to do it immediately, and the fact that the protests and the number of protestors is growing, kind of backs that up, in my opinion. |
I think the problem is the protests don't in anyway affect the people that need to be affected by it, it just P's off the people who need to be on their side and gives the powers that be more ability to carry on with divide and conquer and diversion tactics.
What different approach needs to be done? I don't know - but there needs to be able to work on outcomes that see them funded like these right wing think tanks and being able to get similar exposures on national media etc - they'll say that will take too long but there has to be multiple angles of attack | |
| |
| No subject on 12:07 - Nov 7 with 1779 views | BlueBadger |
| No subject on 09:55 - Nov 7 by waveneyblue |
I think he just enjoys having a pop when somebody disagrees with him.
Standard procedure sadly |
LOL. | |
| |
| No subject on 12:37 - Nov 7 with 1751 views | waveneyblue |
oh sorry, my mistake.
You are the first person to see both sides of an argument and are well balanced and reasonable with your response.
Apologies | | | |
| No subject on 12:44 - Nov 7 with 1739 views | waveneyblue |
| No subject on 11:53 - Nov 7 by StokieBlue |
Which aspects of climate change aren't hugely concerning?
SB |
The nice warm evenings in September | | | |
| No subject on 13:02 - Nov 7 with 1701 views | eireblue |
| No subject on 09:39 - Nov 7 by Guthrum |
The issue i have with JSO is rather more fundamental than blocking a few roads. It's the question: What are they proposing to replace it with?
Virtually the entirety of the world's transport networks and a very large proportion of electricity production involves the burning of hydrocarbons. Oil provides the raw materials for all plastics and many other chemicals. We can't simply stop extracting the stuff (or exploiting fresh sources of supply) in the short or even medium term.
Yes, much should have already been done in weaning ourselves off that dependence. The warnings have been sounding for 60 years. But that is in the past and nothing can now be done about the lost time.
I do believe in stopping oil - however, the "Just" part is not practical without collapsing society. |
The aim of JSO is to prevent the U.K. Government to issuing new fossil fuel licensing and production.
Not stop all oil production tomorrow. |  | | |
| No subject on 13:08 - Nov 7 with 1686 views | LeoMuff |
| No subject on 13:02 - Nov 7 by eireblue |
The aim of JSO is to prevent the U.K. Government to issuing new fossil fuel licensing and production.
Not stop all oil production tomorrow. |
I think In Liz Trusses glorious 44 days she granted over 130 new licences. |  |
| |
| No subject on 13:18 - Nov 7 with 1680 views | eireblue |
| No subject on 11:54 - Nov 7 by itfcjoe |
I think the problem is the protests don't in anyway affect the people that need to be affected by it, it just P's off the people who need to be on their side and gives the powers that be more ability to carry on with divide and conquer and diversion tactics.
What different approach needs to be done? I don't know - but there needs to be able to work on outcomes that see them funded like these right wing think tanks and being able to get similar exposures on national media etc - they'll say that will take too long but there has to be multiple angles of attack |
There are already multiple lines of attack.
There have been Green political parties and campaigning groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and of course UN and EU scientific bodies that have been around for over 20 years, and the odd member of a Royal family.
Maybe causing people some inconvenience is the next line of attack that nudges a few more people.
It isn’t as though people are going to react to inconvenience and decide to burn more fuel as a spiteful counter-reaction. So is there any downside? | | | |
| No subject on 13:38 - Nov 7 with 1646 views | NthQldITFC |
| No subject on 12:44 - Nov 7 by waveneyblue |
The nice warm evenings in September |
Have a read of this on a nice warm evening in January.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/07/why-scientists-are-using-the
'More and more scientists are now admitting publicly that they are scared by the recent climate extremes, such as the floods in Pakistan and west Africa, the droughts and heatwaves in Europe and east Africa, and the rampant ice melt at the poles.
That is not because an increase in extremes was not predicted. It was always high on the list of concerns alongside longer-term issues such as sea level rise. It is the suddenness and ferocity of recent events that is alarming researchers, combined with the ill-defined threat of tipping points, by which aspects of heating would become unstoppable.' | |
| |
| No subject on 13:46 - Nov 7 with 1642 views | Darth_Koont |
| No subject on 13:18 - Nov 7 by eireblue |
There are already multiple lines of attack.
There have been Green political parties and campaigning groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and of course UN and EU scientific bodies that have been around for over 20 years, and the odd member of a Royal family.
Maybe causing people some inconvenience is the next line of attack that nudges a few more people.
It isn’t as though people are going to react to inconvenience and decide to burn more fuel as a spiteful counter-reaction. So is there any downside? |
Indeed.
For many people, direct action/civil disobedience is always going to be “the wrong way to protest”. But it has a clear purpose on top of the other avenues that are pursued – civil disobedience and involving the law ensures it’s on the news agenda and somewhat on the political agenda. Which is critical.
And anyone who still needs to be “won over” by the seriousness of climate change and our over-use of fossil fuels is lost anyway. |  |
| |
| No subject on 14:30 - Nov 7 with 1586 views | Guthrum |
| No subject on 13:02 - Nov 7 by eireblue |
The aim of JSO is to prevent the U.K. Government to issuing new fossil fuel licensing and production.
Not stop all oil production tomorrow. |
However, we need to keep up exploration to maintain production at least level with consumption.
One of the great mysteries is how much easily extractable oil the Saudis still have. They won't allow independent assessment. If that runs out, there'll be a big hole to fill. Also, not all crude oil is suitable for every application (Venezuelan stuff is too heavy, much of that from the US very light, for example). |  |
| |
| No subject on 15:06 - Nov 7 with 1553 views | eireblue |
| No subject on 14:30 - Nov 7 by Guthrum |
However, we need to keep up exploration to maintain production at least level with consumption.
One of the great mysteries is how much easily extractable oil the Saudis still have. They won't allow independent assessment. If that runs out, there'll be a big hole to fill. Also, not all crude oil is suitable for every application (Venezuelan stuff is too heavy, much of that from the US very light, for example). |
Or, we need a line in the sand to focus people.
For instance, electric cars, trains, bicycles exist. The ability to create electricity from non-stored energy exists.
Humans are good a solving problems and making money, start talking away easy solutions, people will have to solve the problem of generating and storing enough of A and distributing it to B. | | | |
| No subject on 16:36 - Nov 7 with 1508 views | GeoffSentence |
| No subject on 11:28 - Nov 7 by ArnoldMoorhen |
Precisely why I specified "Picking up/dropping off the progeny days". There is a specific window for maximum disruption when they are bringing their heirloom Great Grandfather's boarders trunk containing all their things for the Term. |
There is a lesson to me there, to read posts before replying. |  |
| |
| No subject on 16:39 - Nov 7 with 1504 views | GeoffSentence |
| No subject on 11:47 - Nov 7 by waveneyblue |
By the same token, its wasn't the first heatwave we've ever had.
Blocking roads, makes it impossible for emergency services to effectively get to people in danger - fact. Surely you can understand this from your side of the argument (I appreciate how much you struggle with the two sides aspect)
Believe me, I know there are massive issues and there are aspects of climate change that are hugely concerning. But shinning up an overhead gantry and pissing off thousands of people (who are simply trying to go about their lives) is not the way to do it. |
The blocking roads argument is interesting, as the most persistent problem that the emergency services have with blocked roads is narrow ones blocked by cars parked on either side. | |
| |
| No subject on 17:15 - Nov 7 with 1464 views | MattinLondon |
| No subject on 10:03 - Nov 7 by NthQldITFC |
I can't get my head around the fact that intelligent people seem to be too frightened to admit to themselves what a catastrophic future is right upon us, and ANYTHING that starts to wake people up to that reality is a good thing.
Nothing else matters. |
Apparently these sort of stunts generate debate - I think that the need for debate was over approximately twenty odd years ago. If the world was a person it’ll be a fifty a day smoker clinging onto life with its relatives blindly telling the doctors that everything will be ok whilst buying him more fags.
None of those protestors truly want to be there - they are they because nothing has been truly sorted and instead it’s been delay followed by pointless compromise. Instead of highlighting the plight of the planet these protestors simply stir up a lot if hostility. It’s all rather depressing.
Debate is pointless, we need action. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
