Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, domestic terrorists?

[FoxEye]

As most campaigners suggest - drastic action is needed now to turn the tide of climate change. The huge elephant in the room is of course however the fact that in practice pretty much all of those "drastic" action measures would be deeply and personally unpalatable for the voting public en masse - which is why no Govt is going to carry them out (as no doubt we will see over the next couple of weeks).

(snip)

The reason this is an intractable problem for Western democracies is the two-facedness of much of the electorate. As well as their short attention spans and propensity to be easily distracted.

The people who say "we want climate action" have a rather large overlap with the people who enjoy an unabated materialistic lifestyle.

The people who actually would be prepared to lower their standard of living are a small % of the people who demand climate action. If any government proposed actually taking somewhat drastic action, the real priorities of the electorate would be laid bare for all to see. We want more holidays abroad, more cars, more consumption, more luxury, more this, more that, more of everything, please.

"Fixing the climate? Well, not at any cost!"

 

[V F]

Of course they're right about climate change, that's not the issues, their methods are

The disgraceful part was, they were more than happy to stop ambulances.

 

[Roar87]

The disgraceful part was, they were more than happy to stop ambulances.

I think they made the decision that ambulances being stopped was collateral damage and a price worth paying, the issue being that they actually don't have the power to make that decision and they were obstructing emergency services, at which point the Police should have forcefully removed them without delay. I blame the Police personally for being weak and pathetic.

 

[fez]

The people who say "we want climate action" have a rather large overlap with the people who enjoy an unabated materialistic lifestyle.

The problem is that there is no way to make it even slightly fair. I barely buy any new clothes, work from home, only heat the room that I work in at home, turn off all the lights when I am not in rooms, recycle as much as possible and walk wherever I can.

My carbon footprint is very low compared to a lot of people in this country. So how should the government decide what activities are taxed etc? Lets say they decide that flying is really bad and should be heavily taxed. Why should I pay the same as someone else who drives a chelsea tractor to the shops 2 minutes away, buys thousands of pounds worth of clothes they wear once and generally wastes as much of everything as they can?

What about people who have to drive to get to their jobs? Should they have to pay more on fuel duty because they are polluting a lot?

Its so hard to decide what should be discouraged, what should be punished and who should be punished for environmentally damaging behaviour. If you make the cost the punitive measure then you are just punishing the poor which isn't fair.

This is why the largest burden should fall on the producers of the emissions. Companies and countries. The only reason its being pushed onto the individual is to stop people seeing big business as the bad guys. "its not our fault we pollute a lot, don't bother to use less packaging or recyclable materials, its on you as the consumer to mitigate all these things".

 

[Moley]

I think they made the decision that ambulances being stopped was collateral damage and a price worth paying,

The key difference between these guys and other protestors we have seen in the past for other causes is, Insulate Britain DO NOT CARE about public opinion - they are trying to FORCE a change in policy from the government and getting the public onboard simply takes too long for their needs. So their tactics are sod the public, we do what we feel we need to, to get a reaction from government.

 

[FoxEye]

The problem is that there is no way to make it even slightly fair. I barely buy any new clothes, work from home, only heat the room that I work in at home, turn off all the lights when I am not in rooms, recycle as much as possible and walk wherever I can.

My carbon footprint is very low compared to a lot of people in this country. So how should the government decide what activities are taxed etc? Lets say they decide that flying is really bad and should be heavily taxed. Why should I pay the same as someone else who drives a chelsea tractor to the shops 2 minutes away, buys thousands of pounds worth of clothes they wear once and generally wastes as much of everything as they can?

What about people who have to drive to get to their jobs? Should they have to pay more on fuel duty because they are polluting a lot?

Its so hard to decide what should be discouraged, what should be punished and who should be punished for environmentally damaging behaviour. If you make the cost the punitive measure then you are just punishing the poor which isn't fair.

This is why the largest burden should fall on the producers of the emissions. Companies and countries. The only reason its being pushed onto the individual is to stop people seeing big business as the bad guys. "its not our fault we pollute a lot, don't bother to use less packaging or recyclable materials, its on you as the consumer to mitigate all these things".

Respectfully, everybody can (and does) say, "It's not my fault! Why punish me? Punish those other guys that..."

If everybody passes the buck, as they are and will continue to do so, then we all just throw up our hands at the end and say it's nobody's problem, because nobody is willing to change or make any kind of sacrifice.

I think we both know how that ends.

The simple fact is, we all need to do more. Every single one of us. Obviously, some people self-moderating would have a larger impact than others, if they were previously taking private jets to the local shops, etc.

I think it's hard to avoid hurting the poor in any way, shape or form, but the taxes would be designed to tax consumption. They more of anything you consume (inc fuel) the more you get taxed.

That does not preclude the poorest getting some kind of relief in terms of benefits or whatever.

This is all solvable, given the will to try in the first place.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Glad those muppets have got some jail time. Although they've clearly got nothing better to do.

I'm all for saving energy and and more sustainable living. But there are already grants for home insulation. What more do they want, the Government forcing individuals to spray foam all over their roofs?

I really don't think 'saving energy' is the solution. We need more efficient means of generating energy.

 

[Kelt]

Glad to see them getting some time.

Maybe, maybe it might deter others from disrupting peoples lives.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Glad to see them getting some time.

Maybe, maybe it might deter others from disrupting peoples lives.

Like it deterred women during their campaign, you mean? It will not happen. If these people want to succeed they should swamp the courts and prisons. They are pretty full at the moment so any big increase will cause real problems.

 

[Uther]

Glad those muppets have got some jail time. Although they've clearly got nothing better to do.

I'm all for saving energy and and more sustainable living. But there are already grants for home insulation. What more do they want, the Government forcing individuals to spray foam all over their roofs?

IIRC they want it for free, in other words for other people to pay for it. Personally I sorted my own out so they can **** right off.

I assume they are all either wealthy and retired or unemployed wasters if they can afford to not care about a few months in prison.

 

[fez]

Respectfully, everybody can (and does) say, "It's not my fault! Why punish me? Punish those other guys that..."

Thats not really what I am saying. My point is that you cannot decide that X is not allowed or only for the rich when people all have massively different carbon footprints and want to prioritise different things. The truth is that the wealthier you are, the larger your carbon footprint. So making specific things highly taxed for their carbon emissions would just be punishing the poor even more. "You don't have a high carbon footprint as it is but we want to penalise you when you want to go on holiday after saving all year".

We are also ultimately a small fish in a big pond. Unless the US, China and other countries really really pull their fingers out, we won't even make the smallest of dents. In the US they borderline take the **** with their carbon output. We are borderline irrelevant compared to the average US citizen who drives a car getting 10MPG, runs air con 6 months of the year and their heating for the rest and drives absolutely everywhere.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do our part but unless the big players in this game actually pull their fingers out we are ******* into the ocean and hoping the water level rises.

 

[V F]

The problem is that there is no way to make it even slightly fair. I barely buy any new clothes, work from home, only heat the room that I work in at home, turn off all the lights when I am not in rooms, recycle as much as possible and walk wherever I can.

My carbon footprint is very low compared to a lot of people in this country. So how should the government decide what activities are taxed etc? Lets say they decide that flying is really bad and should be heavily taxed. Why should I pay the same as someone else who drives a chelsea tractor to the shops 2 minutes away, buys thousands of pounds worth of clothes they wear once and generally wastes as much of everything as they can?

What about people who have to drive to get to their jobs? Should they have to pay more on fuel duty because they are polluting a lot?

Its so hard to decide what should be discouraged, what should be punished and who should be punished for environmentally damaging behaviour. If you make the cost the punitive measure then you are just punishing the poor which isn't fair.

This is why the largest burden should fall on the producers of the emissions. Companies and countries. The only reason its being pushed onto the individual is to stop people seeing big business as the bad guys. "its not our fault we pollute a lot, don't bother to use less packaging or recyclable materials, its on you as the consumer to mitigate all these things".

Which is funny. I remember a documentary seeing the Westminster Parliament building in the thermal camera. The building was empty, lights on, windows open on a cold night during winter with the heat coming out. This was maybe a good 8 - 10 years ago.

Politicians can be wasteful but we've to be strict and then hammered into it.

 

[arknor]

The rich should have to buy carbon credits from the poor


you could probably get a lot of the country off benefits and being subsidised by the rich instead

I guess the royal family must be one of the biggest carbon foot prints on the planet, why do they need tons of servants etc.

do billionaires have them? does bezos, musk or gates have hundreds of servants and live in staff?

 

[Jokester]

About insulating our lofts? Yeah...no...

Much more credible hero's in climate crisis we can put forward.

I have a dream, that a house is not judged by the colour of it's harling, but by the content of it's cavities.

 

[Angilion]

[..] Doubtless people could say the same about MLK, or the suffragettes, or Ghandi, or countless other programmes of civil disobedience. Hell, look at what people were saying at the time.

Neither MLK nor Ghandi carried out deliberate campaigns of assault, arson and planting bombs in public places with the intention of mass killing of random strangers and with constantly escalating violence. The suffragettes did do those things. How people are remembered has less to do with what they did and more to do with propaganda. Or PR, if you want to frame propaganda politely.

 

[Rroff]

Which is funny. I remember a documentary seeing the Westminster Parliament building in the thermal camera. The building was empty, lights on, windows open on a cold night during winter with the heat coming out. This was maybe a good 8 - 10 years ago.

Politicians can be wasteful but we've to be strict and then hammered into it.

It has always amused me when working for many companies where they bang on about turning off lights and heating, etc. but when the big bosses come sweeping in for a day, take over half the premises for running courses, conferences or just using it as a base for a day or two or whatever they are doing they leave and all the lighting is on, heating going full whack, etc. without a **** given - even when they are the last ones out.

 

[V F]

It has always amused me when working for many companies where they bang on about turning off lights and heating, etc. but when the big bosses come sweeping in for a day, take over half the premises for running courses, conferences or just using it as a base for a day or two or whatever they are doing they leave and all the lighting is on, heating going full whack, etc. without a **** given - even when they are the last ones out.

Or a sea of computer displays running 24/7 at the logon screen through the night. The News channels are guilty of that as well.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

I have a dream, that a house is not judged by the colour of it's harling, but by the content of it's cavities.

 

[Ahleckz]

Why is no one giving these people credit for all the hypothetical criminals they stopped heading out to commit crimes?
I mean, everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over hypothetical ambulances. Surely the other side of the same coin is that they did some good by stopping bad guys carrying out their criminal activities. Can’t mug someone if you’re stuck in your car listening to The Archers.

 

[Uther]

Why is no one giving these people credit for all the hypothetical criminals they stopped heading out to commit crimes?
I mean, everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over hypothetical ambulances. Surely the other side of the same coin is that they did some good by stopping bad guys carrying out their criminal activities. Can’t mug someone if you’re stuck in your car listening to The Archers.

They were stopping real ambulances, not hypothetical ones...