Greta Thunberg & Extinction Rebellion

[Anon]

3 hours ago, Nuwtfly said:

Just me that finds the act of pulling a man down to the ground and beating him senseless as a mob more abhorrent than disrupting a train service to raise awareness of climate change? 

Not me. Maybe he shouldn't have stamped on the guy trying to get him off the train if he wanted better treatment from the people he was antagonizing?

[SSD]

I wish these protesters would concentrate their efforts on finding solutions for climate change rather than disrupting people's commute to work. They're obviously passionate about the issue, so why not collaborate and try and promote ideas?

[Sexydadbod]

If everyone planted more plants, trees etc in their gardens, what impact would that have on the environment? I think that would be a better incentive. My mental health is much better when I’m surrounded by greenery too. We’ve seen cases of individual people in different countries who have gone out of there way to plants thousands upon thousands of trees. I know they take time to grow but surely something like that would be better than telling people to completely become vegan like lewis Hamilton is doing and causing hatred?

[Ghost of Clough]

15 hours ago, maxjam said:

Apparently there are 7.7bn people on the planet at the moment, predictions have it peaking around 11bn thats approx 50% more people - so we have to cut everyones carbon footprint by 25% just to stand still but as the Earth Overshoot Day is already end-July so thats not nearly enough;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

I'd like to believe that technology can pull us out of the hole we're digging ourselves into but I'd still be for some sort of population planning. 

 

13 hours ago, Highgate said:

33,3% reduction just to standstill I believe, based on your own population figures.  But I actually think that reduction would be entirely manageable if there were the political will, utilizing only the technologies we have today and not depending on future developments, which should help further.

Even if I'm right however, I'd still agree with you that a simultaneous halt in population growth and subsequent decline would be a very healthy and desirable thing for the environment.  It will be difficult for the younger generations to bear the financial cost, but it would be better in the long run.  As long as it's voluntary. 

30% ?

[SaintRam]

2 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

Would have been interesting if everyone just got on ...

 

and then the train started moving

That wouldn't be particularly interesting.

If any injury occurred, London transport would be liable - if no injury occurred, despite the protesters endangering themselves, they would be able to prosecute London Transport for endangerment, and win.

There's a reason protesters are often successful at grinding things to a halt ? 

[Sexydadbod]

2 hours ago, Norman said:

Just proves the points of many in the other thread that their protests are counter-productive. 

And I don't care what anyone says on here, if some Bamford is stopping me getting to work on time, or to a hospital appointment etc then I am dragging him off the train with little care for him.

Wouldnt hit him or kick him after, like. 

It’s only a matter of time before someone gets killed as a result of the protests

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, SillyBilly said:

They probably are, I've no doubt my views are a function of my environment and ultimately how I make money. I perhaps should declare that I have a significant vested interest in the oil industry in particular given I own a chemical manufacturing business. Most haven't got a clue just how our extensively crude derivatives are used in everyday products the West takes for granted. We buy millions of litres of crude derivatives each year; I'd be pretty surprised if you didn't have a product at home which was either fully or part produced by us given we toll for most of the major brands that sit on retailers' shelves.

I'm sure that's highly likely, I definitely have plenty of things that can't be considered environmentally friendly. It's difficult for consumers in all honesty. I guess it's the crude oil derivatives that are burned that are of the greatest concern regarding global warming, although the others no doubt require GHG release throughout their product life-cycle.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

I think for the majority of people it's a case of 'what can I do, which will benefit me?'
I don't think saying "swap meats for plants because it'll save the Earth" is the correct message to make an impact. Instead if it was "swap meats for plants because it'll save you money and it's better for your health", I think we'd see more people making the change.

So, what can I do that will save me money, time, or improve my health?

[Highgate]

20 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

30% ?

Based on a population increase from 7.7bn to 11bn, you are exactly right.

Based on the 50% increase mentioned a 33.3% reduction is correct however. ?

[ramsbottom]

23 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I think for the majority of people it's a case of 'what can I do, which will benefit me?'
I don't think saying "swap meats for plants because it'll save the Earth" is the correct message to make an impact. Instead if it was "swap meats for plants because it'll save you money and it's better for your health", I think we'd see more people making the change.

So, what can I do that will save me money, time, or improve my health?

You obviously don't do a lot of food shopping, eating your 5 a day doesn't come cheap, even at the likes of Aldi & Lidel.  More cost effective to feed a kid three rounds of chicken nuggets & chips, than it is to make them a veggie bolognese from scratch each time.  That's why many low income families are also obese, they can't afford to eat healthily.

I get your point though.  Karl from Chad is more likely to switch to a smart meter & electric car if he knows he'd save £3000 a year to spend on his vape & booze habit...

[Sexydadbod]

21 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I think for the majority of people it's a case of 'what can I do, which will benefit me?'
I don't think saying "swap meats for plants because it'll save the Earth" is the correct message to make an impact. Instead if it was "swap meats for plants because it'll save you money and it's better for your health", I think we'd see more people making the change.

So, what can I do that will save me money, time, or improve my health?

I don’t think an omnivore only or vegan only diet is healthy for humans, it’s certainly not sustainable long term. Becoming Vegan can be healthy, but it’s a lot more expensive to ensure you are getting all the required minerals and vitamins which meat, eggs and fish provide for example provide. A mixture of both, a balanced diet is the most healthy. It’s as our parents used to say growing up , eat your meat and veggies then you will be fine.
One-two meat free days a week would be enough rather than making it compulsory for everyone to be vegan like people like lewis Hamilton want, let’s be honest here if everyone was told to become vegan to save the world then we’ve  probably already screwed the planet enough by then anyway. I wouldn’t be against being told to grow my own plants and even grow my own food in my garden, our ancestors did it, why can’t we?  Much better to do that than this social media toxic world with all this instagramming (and we wonder why so many people are suffering with mental health). We are here to be one with nature

[Leeds Ram]

4 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

I think I quoted similar figures yesterday - current population growth models show 11bn people by 2099.
The predicted "earth overshoot" by then is 400% -  based on the methods we currently use to sustain/feed/house the population

80 years is a decent amount of time to work out how we change things, but the point is that it has to start NOW. And that's why XR is critical as a protest. Because our current governments are hellbent on infinite economic growth, increasing wealth inequality and letting nothing stand in the way of that.

As the proletariat we are also guilty - hellbent on consumerism and doing whatever we like to make ourselves feel good

It's a deadly embrace, and doing nothing about it is not an option if the human race is to survive

There is nothing inherently contradictory with infinite economic growth, wealth inequality and stopping climate change btw. 

[Ghost of Clough]

23 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

You obviously don't do a lot of food shopping, eating your 5 a day doesn't come cheap, even at the likes of Aldi & Lidel.  More cost effective to feed a kid three rounds of chicken nuggets & chips, than it is to make them a veggie bolognese from scratch each time.  That's why many low income families are also obese, they can't afford to eat healthily.

I think a fairer comparison would be minced meat bolognese vs mushroom bolognese. Every ingredient can remain the same except for swapping out the minced meat with mushrooms. £1.60* for 500g of 20% fat beef. Whereas you could save a modest 20p* for 500g of mushrooms.

*Morrisons (could be cheaper at places like Aldi)

You can also easily grow some fruit/veg in your garden to save even more... it's slightly more challenging to raise a cow.

Quote

I get your point though.  Karl from Chad is more likely to switch to a smart meter & electric car if he knows he'd save £3000 a year to spend on his vape & booze habit...

This is probably a better example than the one I gave ?

[Leeds Ram]

4 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

Yeah sorry - I do get where you're coming from, so don't feel like I'm fishing for a reply

It's a similar argument to the old chestnut about strike action. When people say "oh it's terribly inconvenient" - that kind of misses the point that it is meant to be. If strike action had no disruptive effect then it would be pointless.

For me I agree it's annoying and that the antics might turn some people off, but the opposite side of the coin is that if they were mild-mannered, non-disruptive and innocuous then no one would ever become aware of what they stand for.

Comes down to how individuals process the thought pattern., With strike action you have to realise the people to get mad with about the disruption are the employers who have mistreated the workers so badly that they have no choice but to do this. Same here - be more mad at the leaders who won't take action than you are at Brocolli man for being a prat

 

I'm off to the Charlton game on Saturday so I might change my mind if they block the trainline!

 

Yeah the difference is strikes win or lose on the basis of is it so inconvenient for the bosses that they'll come to the negotiating table not necessarily 'will they win public support'. If XR want to get the changes they claim are necessary they'll need to win public support which means this kind of disruption is totally counter productive. 

[Stive Pesley]

18 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

There is nothing inherently contradictory with infinite economic growth, wealth inequality and stopping climate change btw. 

I think you need to show your working there.

Bearing in mind I wasn't talking specifically about climate change, but more generally the ecosystem of the earth not being able to sustain infinite economic growth. Climate change is a by product of that

[WhiteHorseRam]

1 hour ago, SaintRam said:

That wouldn't be particularly interesting.

If any injury occurred, London transport would be liable - if no injury occurred, despite the protesters endangering themselves, they would be able to prosecute London Transport for endangerment, and win.

There's a reason protesters are often successful at grinding things to a halt ? 

Well I would have found it interesting.

Is that okay? Am I allowed?

[SaintRam]

1 minute ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

Well I would have found it interesting.

Is that okay? Am I allowed?

You don't need my permission to have a low bar ?

[WhiteHorseRam]

2 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

You don't need my permission to have a low bar ?

 

Do you work in the Moria brewing industry then?

[Leeds Ram]

15 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I think you need to show your working there.

Bearing in mind I wasn't talking specifically about climate change, but more generally the ecosystem of the earth not being able to sustain infinite economic growth. Climate change is a by product of that

You're assuming that we can't find alternative ways to power growth and consumption which is simply wrong. This type of logic never would have predicted the industrial revolution and would have assumed that feudalism would go on forever. One example is the eating of meat, given enough time lab grown meat will become affordable and our reliance upon cattle etc. will be diminished massively. The damage to the eco system from that would be pretty much nill as all the farms destroying rich soil won't be necessary to provide our meat requirements. 

[Stive Pesley]

40 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

You're assuming that we can't find alternative ways to power growth and consumption which is simply wrong. This type of logic never would have predicted the industrial revolution and would have assumed that feudalism would go on forever. One example is the eating of meat, given enough time lab grown meat will become affordable and our reliance upon cattle etc. will be diminished massively. The damage to the eco system from that would be pretty much nill as all the farms destroying rich soil won't be necessary to provide our meat requirements. 

Ah OK - then you've  slightly misunderstood. I agree - that's the point. Infinite economic growth cannot sustain 11bn people if we don't change the current way of doing things

I was trying to make the point that governments AND people both need to make changes, and XR is the start of that realisation (regardless of whether people agree with their methods)