"Just stop oil"

all these idiots do is make me stop recycling and give me the urge to start burning rubber tyres in the street.

I wonder how much c02 the war in Ukraine is contributing to the climate, how many c02 do all the weapons cost that we keep giving?

why don't they go protest on the front line
 
Last edited:
You can take the moral high ground when we stop exporting all our polluting heavy industry to China. You simply can’t export your emissions and then point the finger.

They actually do more on zero emissions than most of Europe. Vast amounts of renewables are being installed each year alongside nuclear etc. sure they also burn a lot of coal but not for long.

It’s also worth noting that their emissions per capita (person) is actually lower than ours and once you factor in all the stuff we import because the emissions are counted elsewhere, it would be significantly lower.

A good example is comparing how many electric buses they have in Shenzen (one city) and then how many there in the whole of Europe.

Spoiler alert, they have 18,000 in one city (and not a single diesel bus), the whole of Europe has about 14,000.

It’s actually very difficult to buy a new ICE car/bike in china, the costs are crazy compared to electric.

I would like nothing more than we buy nothing from China ever. That would solve our export of heavy industry. Unfortunately several major industries seem hooked on the cheap exploitable labour so for UK to be competitive with the EU and the USA we too are on the treadmill.

It will all end in tears, look at Russia and read China when they think that they are strong enough and rich enough.
 
It's a pre-Covid thing, ahem, Donald Trump
The climate denialists are the only ones I can see who have mental health issues, wrapped up in their own fantasy as they are (instead of having the courage to face reality and act). Many of them love Trump too.
 
Last edited:
i just watched the interview and my take away was similar to the m25 protest tactics. Poor delivery, but the overarching message is right.
There is a climate emergency. Our government and the UN recognise that. We should be doing things to change the path we are on and awarding 130 new oil licenses is the opposite of that.
She’s also right about direct action and inconvenience has been vital in securing women’s rights and other important rights.
 
The climate denialists are the only ones I can see who have mental health issues, wrapped up in their own fantasy as they are (instead of having the courage to face reality).
stopping a motorway in the UK is sure going to solve it right? or closing some road down?


people wouldn't possibly just drive a less direct route and pump out more c02? disrupting society does them 0 favours and just turns people against them and the climate
There is a climate emergency. Our government and the UN recognise that. We should be doing things to change the path we are on and awarding 130 new oil licenses is the opposite of that.
you know oil is used for a lot more than fuel, right? and people can't just stop using it

you think the petro chemical industry is going to disappear overnight?
 
Last edited:
Not tackling it costs much more, I'm sorry but this is very defeatist. Only 0.05% of rich countries' GDP invested directly would be enough to make sure we limit ourselves to a maximum of 1.5C of global warming and avert catastrophe:


Also, you can't discount the historical emissions that caused the crisis of which the UK was a primary contributor.

I buy no tat from China via amazon, I shop locally. I cycle more than drive, what about you?
 
You had me mostly agreeing with you right up until the last part...

If you like and prefer people to "entertain scientific fact" as you put it, then perhaps you would like to entertain the fact that the we simply do not have enough arable land to even attempt to replace meat with plant burgers.
You could even entertain the fact that the vast majority of land that is used for grazing is entirely unsuitable for crops - which is the very reason why it's being used as grazing land in the first place.

Secondly, you don't actually say what emissions. Just "emissions" doesn't really cut it, this is not the 1980s, we know a great deal more about how things work than before. Are we talking CO2 here? Methane? They have vastly different levels of effect, even though they are both a contributing factor to global warming.
Can you provide some references for this as I’m sure it’s wrong.
 
stopping a motorway in the UK is sure going to solve it right? or closing some road down?


people wouldn't possibly just drive a less direct route and pump out more c02? disrupting society does them 0 favours and just turns people against them and the climate
People aren't listening and are carrying on as normal and they are desperate, they have tried many other forms of protest and people don't even know about them. I can empathise with their frustration. On the point of the disruption, well compared to the Suffragettes and the Chartists they look very tame and in hindsight you can't say the fight for the vote didn't work even though it was incredibly disruptive and in some cases violent (I am not advocating for violence). We are all glad that they succeeded and fighting the climate crisis is even more important.
 
Last edited:
you know oil is used for a lot more than fuel, right? and people can't just stop using it

you think the petro chemical industry is going to disappear overnight?

Who’s on about stopping using oil? You’re just misrepresenting their claims. They want to stop new licenses being granted, which aren’t likely to provide any oil for at least a decade. we have plenty of oil in the ground for essential industries to continue using them whilst we look at better alternatives.
 
I buy no tat from China via amazon, I shop locally. I cycle more than drive, what about you?
Individual actions by themselves will not come close to solving the problem, we need systemic change, global cooperation as well as investment and regulation from governments. I have done plenty myself but it's not relevant (the whole carbon footprint thing was a distraction invented by the fossil fuel industry and designed to focus blame on the individual instead of governments and corporations with the power to change things).

A caveat to the above is it does apply to the super rich as they use far more than most of the rest of us combined and I am in favour of using our regulatory and tax systems to limit their usage and/or invest the excess in clean energy.
 
Last edited:
Who’s on about stopping using oil? You’re just misrepresenting their claims. They want to stop new licenses being granted, which aren’t likely to provide any oil for at least a decade. we have plenty of oil in the ground for essential industries to continue using them whilst we look at better alternatives.

Perhaps they should have named it "Just stop oil licences". :)
 
you know oil is used for a lot more than fuel, right? and people can't just stop using it

you think the petro chemical industry is going to disappear overnight?

Exactly the whole cause is pretty incoherent... they want to stop domestic oil exploration/extraction but don't want to actually stop using oil... begging the question of what are they trying to achieve from that goal re: climate change?

People aren't listening and are carrying on as normal and they are desperate, they have tried many other forms of protest and people don't even know about them. I can empathise with their frustration. On the point of the disruption, well compared to the Suffragettes and the Chartists they look very tame...

But they had clear goals which attracted far greater support, this is a fringe group... most people care about the environment the "just stop oil" cause is completely incoherent.

If they wanted to stop using oil completely then they don't have support for that, as it happens they seem to want to have a situation where we're 100% reliant on imports of oil - how does that help anyone?
 
It's a pre-Covid thing, ahem, Donald Trump

Not to take the thread too off topic, but I noticed the world losing there mind about 2015/2016, I think the combination of Trump/Brexit and Boris (along with some right-wing leaders winning in Europe) scared the living crap out of the mental liberal types and thought there was some sort of attack on their values. Hence the rise of SJW's/Woke/Metoo/BLM/GamerGate/Trans/LGBTQ+ etc trying to fight a culture war that didn't exist. Sure there were these things before but mostly they were ignored, thought of as the crazy minority and most people just got on with there lives.

But the last several years they held a bullhorn to our faces and now we're utterly sick of it, I noticed the last Pride/Black history month was barely referenced and noticed. Looks like the normal everyday folk just got fed up with it all and like most passing Fads just phase out. Even media which has been woke to the point of absurdity seems to have grandully gotten better in the last 6 months. JL Christmas ad is the most unwoke seen in years and a lot of TV series are less woke than before.
 
Last edited:
You had me mostly agreeing with you right up until the last part...

If you like and prefer people to "entertain scientific fact" as you put it, then perhaps you would like to entertain the fact that the we simply do not have enough arable land to even attempt to replace meat with plant burgers.
You could even entertain the fact that the vast majority of land that is used for grazing is entirely unsuitable for crops - which is the very reason why it's being used as grazing land in the first place.

Secondly, you don't actually say what emissions. Just "emissions" doesn't really cut it, this is not the 1980s, we know a great deal more about how things work than before. Are we talking CO2 here? Methane? They have vastly different levels of effect, even though they are both a contributing factor to global warming.

Answering the topic of OP:

Yes, I am glad we agree on that - a global issue needs to be dealt with ahead of the pure obsession of profits for private investors - we need to put the planet first, not the profits of the already rich, their wealth has nothing to do with saving the planet (beyond we need to take the funds off them to pay for the conversion)

Answering our personal debate about meat:

That reasoning has been refuted many times. Your answer is a popular answer, but not an accurate one, a political point if you will.

The reality is, there is PLENTY of farmable land to feed everyone on Earth, in fact most farmable land goes to growing crops for animal feed (not grazing).....you simply grow crops for humans there, in doing so you cut the amount of required land several fold - the reason being, there is more farm animals on Earth than humans, and we humans take a lot less energy to run vs a cow - its simply scientific fact, a cow is heaver and more massive and needs more fuel to run.

So, thats that answered.

Emissions = any gas that contributes to global warming, CO2 does, methane does, animal farming is a massive contributor.......we can cut it hugely by going plant based.

Relating this debate to OP - we need electric tractors next, it could be feasible to have solar panels on all farm buildings to gather sunlight to power them - charge battery banks and then once full, charge the tractors overnight from that.

Back to feeding animals, this quote from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

"This squeeze on resources is only set to intensify. In 50 years’ time, the UN predicts there will be 10.5 billion people on the planet (the current world population is around 7 billion). To feed us all, it says, we will need to grow food more sustainably. Dr Walt Willett, professor of medicine at Harvard University, says we could eliminate the worst cases of world hunger today with about 40 million tonnes of food – yet 760 million tonnes is fed to animals on farms every year."

So, going vegan globally drops food requirements several hundred million tons worth......
 
Last edited:
Exactly the whole cause is pretty incoherent... they want to stop domestic oil exploration/extraction but don't want to actually stop using oil... begging the question of what are they trying to achieve from that goal re: climate change?



But they had clear goals which attracted far greater support, this is a fringe group... most people care about the environment the "just stop oil" cause is completely incoherent.

If they wanted to stop using oil completely then they don't have support for that, as it happens they seem to want to have a situation where we're 100% reliant on imports of oil - how does that help anyone?
They may well care but most people don't seem even to fully understand the environmental crisis or its consequences. They say they do, but their voting habits and their response to the protests belie them. We have enough oil already to last well over a decade by which time we should have almost fully transitioned to clean energy anyway, (in line with our commitments to a maximum 1.5C of global warming).
 
Last edited:
Individual actions by themselves will not come close to solving the problem, we need systemic change, global cooperation as well as investment and regulation from governments. I have done plenty myself but it's not relevant (the whole carbon footprint thing was a distraction invented by the fossil fuel industry and designed to focus blame on the individual instead of governments and corporations with the power to change things).

A caveat to the above is it does apply to the super rich as they use far more than everyone else combined and I am in favour of using our regulatory and tax systems to limit their usage and/or invest the excess in clean energy.

Individual actions if a large percentage of people do them are extremely useful. The anticipated and much trumped by the bank of england, recession, could be useful in reducing short journeys by car. Also do you really need a new toaster, TV, settee. Importantly too, who do you buy it from.

Carbon footprint is important otherwise people would be running gas guzzling cars and ramping up the heating. Except they can't because it is now too costly. A government policy side effect spread through Europe and a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

Less stuff is something everybody can do and most people have far too much stuff.
 
Individual actions if a large percentage of people do them are extremely useful. The anticipated and much trumped by the bank of england, recession, could be useful in reducing short journeys by car. Also do you really need a new toaster, TV, settee. Importantly too, who do you buy it from.

Carbon footprint is important otherwise people would be running gas guzzling cars and ramping up the heating. Except they can't because it is now too costly. A government policy side effect spread through Europe and a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

Less stuff is something everybody can do and most people have far too much stuff.
Governments need to take action to encourage that behaviour and to bring prices of new technologies down. Acting on this macro scale stops it just being about individual actions. People are welcome to take their own actions independently if they want, but it must be in addition to government and corporate action not instead of.
 
Back
Top Bottom