Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Gone]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You make one good point... Climate minister, Graham Stuart: “Actually it’s good for the environment because when we burn our own gas it’s got lower emissions around its production than foreign gas … as well as supporting British jobs,” 
Is this some sort of joke?

And a poor one. Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why is it a joke, of course there is a smaller carbon footprint using gas from the UK in the UK and not importing it from abroad and using it. 

[Archied]

6 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You've just employed a whole legion of strawmen there, I'm sure you can do a lot better than that to argue your point. 

First you were saying that reports of wildlife extinctions were just mass hysteria.  Now you seem to conceding that the extinctions are real...but because we are more important it's just bad luck for all other species.  Which is it, the extinctions aren't happening...or we just shouldn't be bothered that they are happening? 

Mass hysteria comment was regards to the whole shooting match expressed by a poster and ext reb ,,just stop , no more milk loons,

actually yes I prioritise humans unlike the hypocrites who sit in they’re wonderful modern privileged lives whist telling those in the third world they can’t raise up they’re lives as we smuggies want to see wild animals roaming round 

[Stive Pesley]

37 minutes ago, Alpha said:

I don't think you need to send the message in the way that some of these do. 

Unsurprisingly it's not the only way they are sending the message - there are whole movements engaging with government and trying to force change via more conventional channels

Essentially all the poo/milk/soup stunts are just publicity to get people talking about them and raise the profile of the issues. The old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity still holds true. 

And it works - 17 pages here for a start. 

[Archied]

7 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Unsurprisingly it's not the only way they are sending the message - there are whole movements engaging with government and trying to force change via more conventional channels

Essentially all the poo/milk/soup stunts are just publicity to get people talking about them and raise the profile of the issues. The old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity still holds true. 

And it works - 17 pages here for a start. 

Works ???, how many people taking part in these 17 pages , a few people with a bit free time today 

[Alph]

Just now, Stive Pesley said:

Unsurprisingly it's not the only way they are sending the message - there are whole movements engaging with government and trying to force change via more conventional channels

Essentially all the poo/milk/soup stunts are just publicity to get people talking about them and raise the profile of the issues. The old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity still holds true. 

And it works - 17 pages here for a start. 

Hmm, 17 pages discussing the rights or wrongs of their action. Is it 17 pages of making people aware that they or such problems exist? I don't believe in the "no such thing as bad publicity". There definitely is. There's definitely harmful coverage of a person or organisation. And this is that imo. 

I'm all for their cause. And if this thread was "Extinction Rebellion activists arrested for protests outside Houses of Parliament" then I'd be on board with you. 

If it was "activists removed from Shell HQ after graffiti carnage" I could get on board. 

I do actually understand your point about bigger/smaller crimes. I was being a dick. But when it's vandalising cultural sites, heritage, pieces of history of story telling them I'm dead against it. When it's an attack on everyday folk or their way of life then I'm against it. And when the crime is borderline terrorism. 

It kinda crosses over into how to feel about the national strikes. On one hand people have the right. On the other you're hurting every day folk who aren't responsible. Apparently in Australia they didn't go on strike but let everyone use the rail for free in order to hit the major money grabbers. I don't know if that's true or not but apparently the same chap on Radio 2 was also saying it's "illegal" here. I dunno. Off topic anyway. I'm just against damage to history and making ordinary folk pay for the way the top few percent play.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Are you still not getting it?

Tut-tutting at some spilt milk, feeling sorry for the person who has to clean it up, being irritated by nauseating righteousness...

These are our problems? 

Global warming, crops failing, mass extinctions, ecological collapse, extreme weather events, mass displacement of populations 

When those are our problems (and it won't be long) - we'll long for the days when the fat old men on the football forum only had to worry about some students with blue hair 

It's you who isn't getting it. The way you deliver a message is critical in gaining support from the audience.
You aren't going to have much success marketing condoms to Catholics, but you may have better luck teaching them about safe sex. Using violence to certainly won't be the answer.

The message delivery from XR is abysmal. As is very clear from this thread, 99% of people (if not more) fundamentally disagree with how they're delivering the message, whereas a small percentage of those also don't agree with what they're perhaps trying to say. 
Their own website states "There is no definitive vision statement", so how can the majority of the public get behind that? It backs up the impression that they are just trying to grab attention for themselves. What is it the extinction of? Wildlife, humans, something else? Well further down on the 'About Us' page, they state "Creating a world that is fit for generations to come." This is ambiguous in itself. Fit in what way? It could be just as 'fit' even if thousands of species became extinct. You brought up "Holocene extinction", but that doesn't immediately seem at odds with XR's 'About Us' page.

Going back to what I said, "The way you deliver a message is critical". Asking people to reduce their carbon emissions sounds great. Who wouldn't agree with that? Well we have our very own @TexasRam who stands by his view that China need to make changes, otherwise there's no point in him making a change. I haven't kept up with this thread, so can't say what the best way to deliver a message to him would be, but something a long the lines of "use the opportunity for technical innovation, drive down energy costs, increase economical growth" will win some over without alienating others.

Covid is another example. Violent approaches to the range of issues didn't persuade anyone to 'pick a side'. Yet messages such as "stay at home to protect the NHS" and "Covid jab to save others' lives" worked.

It's not just how the message is delivered, but by who. Just like you would do the complete opposite to what a Tory MP would tell you to do, others will do the opposite to what a Labour MP would. Having a blue haired, diesel car driving, plastic using human tell you what to do isn't going to work for most people, simply due to hypocrisy. When did "Do as I say, not as I do" ever work?

[Highgate]

26 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

My issue is though

Plant based diet and less meat. The problem is bigger than that. Those soya crops will still be there, just filling human stomachs not animal ones particularly South America where deforestation to grow soya is a growth industry as is palm oil or any of the following as it's better known- 

Vegetable Oil, Vegetable Fat, Palm Kernel, Palm Kernel Oil, Palm Fruit Oil, Palmate, Palmitate, Palmolein, Glyceryl, Stearate, Stearic Acid, Elaeis Guineensis, Palmitic Acid, Palm Stearine, Palmitoyl Oxostearamide, Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-3, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Kernelate, Sodium Palm Kernelate, Sodium Lauryl Lactylate/Sulphate, Hyrated Palm Glycerides, Etyl Palmitate, Octyl Palmitate, Palmityl Alcohol.  It's basically in everything.

At what point do you look at such random actions as individual acts of wanton vandalism.  If you want to protest about something have the balls to go to the source of the issue you don't like rather than have some poor fecker moping up gallons of milk you've spilt everywhere in a shop.  What happens if some group decides that someone whose 80 and living in a 3 bedroom house shouldn't have it anymore as they're taking up too much room on their own.  Will they have s*** pushed through the letterbox on a weekly basis.  Now that the 20p tax is staying people should head of to HMRC and throw piss at people leaving work.  

I'm not concerned about protesting but it has to be in the correct context and have rationale attached to any action.  It's been referred to earlier that bringing someone round to your way of thinking isn't the issue.  In that case anything's a pointless endeavour and indicates your not putting forth an argument for your action as you don't have one, your just like creating chaos like some faux Clockwork Orange simpleton without plan or design under the pretext of having an agenda. 

I have concerns about some Extinction Rebellion protests too.  Are they really raising awareness or are they giving some people a reason to tarnish the whole green movement with the label 'troublemakers' and an excuse for them to ignore green issues altogether.  Looking at this forum I fear it might be more like the latter. I'm all for protests, just maybe if there were targeted at the actual decision makers then they would be more effective.  

You are completely right about the fact that farmed plants take habitat away from wildlife as well as farmed animals.  Palm oil is a particularly egregious offender in that regard.  Some plants grown exclusively for biodiesel (and not by-products) or trees grown in monocultures for wood chippings are also causing habitat destruction.  But still vegetables produce far more calories per hectare than beef does on average.  Apparently a hectare of potatoes produces 18 times the amount of calories that a hectare of beef cattle does.  Soya is one of the worst plants in this regard though, only producing twice the amount of calories that beef cattle do per unit area.

Good options for wildlife would be reducing the amount of beef eaten, even if that only means switching to poultry or pork.  And of course, crucially, reducing the amount of food we waste, which is around 40% (in the US at least).  Those measures alone could have a huge impact on the pressures we are putting on the last few remaining wilderness in the world....as well as meaning we could farm a little less intensively, allowing wildlife to survive more easily in agricultural areas.  

[Ghost of Clough]

40 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Why is it a joke, of course there is a smaller carbon footprint using gas from the UK in the UK and not importing it from abroad and using it. 

It might be better, but it certainly isn't "good for the environment".

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Are you still not getting it?

Tut-tutting at some spilt milk, feeling sorry for the person who has to clean it up, being irritated by nauseating righteousness...

These are our problems? 

Global warming, crops failing, mass extinctions, ecological collapse, extreme weather events, mass displacement of populations 

When those are our problems (and it won't be long) - we'll long for the days when the fat old men on the football forum only had to worry about some students with blue hair 

 

You've fallen into the classic trap of the zealot - self-righteousness with a heavy dash of condescension. I imagine most people's reaction to these stunts is one of bewilderment, not engagement with the issues. You only have to look at the public response to the rail strikes to see that the public are in general behind the strikers, largely because the issues have been clearly explained to them in a non-combative way. There really are better ways of "grabbing the public's attention" than pouring away foodstuffs. They'd have earned more respect and interest if they'd nicked all of the milk and taken it to a food-bank.

And I can't speak for others, but I'm not actually fat.

[Highgate]

37 minutes ago, Archied said:

Mass hysteria comment was regards to the whole shooting match expressed by a poster and ext reb ,,just stop , no more milk loons,

actually yes I prioritise humans unlike the hypocrites who sit in they’re wonderful modern privileged lives whist telling those in the third world they can’t raise up they’re lives as we smuggies want to see wild animals roaming round 

Prioritise to the point of letting the wildlife die because we want everything for ourselves? There is prioritizing and then there is behaving like a species of self obsessed bamfords, who believe the whole world and ecosystem should revolve entirely around them.  Humans have been emphatically the latter unfortunately.  

I think you do people in developing countries a disservice, if you believe that they too don't want to protect their wildlife, rather than make way for huge industrial farms of beef, palm oil or soya.....with the profits disappearing in the pockets of very few.  Also wildlife poaching isn't usually catering for a demand from from developing nations but from the West, China and the Far East. 

[Gone]

24 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It might be better, but it certainly isn't "good for the environment".

But we have to use gas we have not alternative currently, it’s getting better but we don’t have a alternative where we can switch off now. So using UK sourced Gas is much better to the environment than importing Gas, and if it creates UK jobs then even better so I believe his statement was pretty good and far from a “joke”

[Archied]

28 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I have concerns about some Extinction Rebellion protests too.  Are they really raising awareness or are they giving some people a reason to tarnish the whole green movement with the label 'troublemakers' and an excuse for them to ignore green issues altogether.  Looking at this forum I fear it might be more like the latter. I'm all for protests, just maybe if there were targeted at the actual decision makers then they would be more effective.  

You are completely right about the fact that farmed plants take habitat away from wildlife as well as farmed animals.  Palm oil is a particularly egregious offender in that regard.  Some plants grown exclusively for biodiesel (and not by-products) or trees grown in monocultures for wood chippings are also causing habitat destruction.  But still vegetables produce far more calories per hectare than beef does on average.  Apparently a hectare of potatoes produces 18 times the amount of calories that a hectare of beef cattle does.  Soya is one of the worst plants in this regard though, only producing twice the amount of calories that beef cattle do per unit area.

Good options for wildlife would be reducing the amount of beef eaten, even if that only means switching to poultry or pork.  And of course, crucially, reducing the amount of food we waste, which is around 40% (in the US at least).  Those measures alone could have a huge impact on the pressures we are putting on the last few remaining wilderness in the world....as well as meaning we could farm a little less intensively, allowing wildlife to survive more easily in agricultural areas.  

Now in your last paragraph you bring up waste ,,, spot on , many many years ago I used to vote for the Green Party because I can really get on board with reducing, waste , greed , take make throw away ,, now target this stuff then take a look at the kind of world we have

[Archied]

20 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Prioritise to the point of letting the wildlife die because we want everything for ourselves? There is prioritizing and then there is behaving like a species of self obsessed bamfords, who believe the whole world and ecosystem should revolve entirely around them.  Humans have been emphatically the latter unfortunately.  

I think you do people in developing countries a disservice, if you believe that they too don't want to protect their wildlife, rather than make way for huge industrial farms of beef, palm oil or soya.....with the profits disappearing in the pockets of very few.  Also wildlife poaching isn't usually catering for a demand from from developing nations but from the West, China and the Far East. 

Tell you what ,,, you do a swap with them ,, your life for they’re s , disservice my backside 

[uttoxram75]

9 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I think you do people in developing countries a disservice, if you believe that they too don't want to protect their wildlife, rather than make way for huge industrial farms of beef, palm oil or soya.....with the profits disappearing in the pockets of very few.  Also wildlife poaching isn't usually catering for a demand from from developing nations but from the West, China and the Far East. 

People in developing countries who try to stop the destruction of their lands, whether its industrial farming or mining, tend to die suddenly and violently.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

You've just employed a whole legion of strawmen there, I'm sure you can do a lot better than that to argue your point. 

First you were saying that reports of wildlife extinctions were just mass hysteria.  Now you seem to conceding that the extinctions are real...but because we are more important it's just bad luck for all other species.  Which is it, the extinctions aren't happening...or we just shouldn't be bothered that they are happening? 

Erm no ,that actually is my point people only want to talk about the cons in what they disagree with and the pros of what they want to replace it with , people don’t live the way they demand the rest of us do ,

if people want to talk properly about creating a cleaner better planet and future that is fair for ALL then I’m well up for that , the ones who jump from chosen crisis of the week to the next I tend to have no interest in , the frothing at the mouth unhinged behaviour and tunnel vision is a sad reflection on they’re state of mind and they will be on to the next all consuming cause in no time 

if any change of real value is to be achieved it has to start with the basic truths of greed , waste and unfairness not just jumping on the latest bandwagon that invariably makes the rich richer and turn out to be not much better than we had further down the line but at great cost,

[Highgate]

36 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

People in developing countries who try to stop the destruction of their lands, whether its industrial farming or mining, tend to die suddenly and violently.

Yeah an incredibly dangerous job.  Some big money interests will stop at nothing to take what they want to take it seems.  And practically none of the profits trickle down to the locals. The courage of those activists is impressive to say the least. 

For some reason situations like those always remind me of when the American company Bechtel, (after taking control of the public water system in Bolivia when it was privatized at the insistence of the World Bank), insisted that all the rainwater in Bolivia actually belonged to Bechtel and anyone attempting to gather it was stealing from them.  That, and their price hikes caused huge protests in which many people were killed but Bechtel finally backed down.  It just goes to show how far corporations will go and what they will do if they are not met with resistance.  Plundering resources for profit, and to hell with the local people or the environmental consequences seems to become second nature when shareholders have to be paid.  

[Highgate]

17 minutes ago, Archied said:

Erm no ,that actually is my point people only want to talk about the cons in what they disagree with and the pros of what they want to replace it with , people don’t live the way they demand the rest of us do ,

if people want to talk properly about creating a cleaner better planet and future that is fair for ALL then I’m well up for that , the ones who jump from chosen crisis of the week to the next I tend to have no interest in , the frothing at the mouth unhinged behaviour and tunnel vision is a sad reflection on they’re state of mind and they will be on to the next all consuming cause in no time 

if any change of real value is to be achieved it has to start with the basic truths of greed , waste and unfairness not just jumping on the latest bandwagon that invariably makes the rich richer and turn out to be not much better than we had further down the line but at great cost,

Well, I mean you clearly did strawman my point.  But that's not important really.

Ok, so you get us started.  Tell me all the pros of my point of view and the cons of your own and then I'll try to follow suit (if I can think of any pros for yours.. ?)

 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Highgate said:

Are they really raising awareness or are they giving some people a reason to tarnish the whole green movement with the label 'troublemakers' and an excuse for them to ignore green issues altogether.  Looking at this forum I fear it might be more like the latter. I'm all for protests, just maybe if there were targeted at the actual decision makers then they would be more effective.  

 

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

I'm all for their cause. And if this thread was "Extinction Rebellion activists arrested for protests outside Houses of Parliament" then I'd be on board with you.

 

As you both bring up this point, are you aware that Just Stop Oil  have been protesting on a daily basis outside Downing Street and the Houses Of Parliament for the past month? It's not all just soup throwing in art galleries

https://juststopoil.org/2022/10/12/just-stop-oil-supporters-target-downing-street-on-12th-day-of-disruption-in-london/

https://juststopoil.org/2022/10/04/just-stop-oil-supporters-block-parliament-square-on-fourth-day-of-action-to-demand-no-new-oil-and-gas/

 

[Gone]

8 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

 

 

As you both bring up this point, are you aware that Just Stop Oil  have been protesting on a daily basis outside Downing Street and the Houses Of Parliament for the past month? It's not all just soup throwing in art galleries

https://juststopoil.org/2022/10/12/just-stop-oil-supporters-target-downing-street-on-12th-day-of-disruption-in-london/

https://juststopoil.org/2022/10/04/just-stop-oil-supporters-block-parliament-square-on-fourth-day-of-action-to-demand-no-new-oil-and-gas/

 

What’s the alternative to stopping oil? If we stop to,or row morning, what’s the alternative? None of these protesters have the answer (because there isn’t one) complete waste of time 

[Gone]

16 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

What’s the alternative to stopping oil? If we stop to,or row morning, what’s the alternative? None of these protesters have the answer (because there isn’t one) complete waste of time 

Seriously @Stive Pesley dont just respond with a laughing crying face, give us the answer