Breaking: Just Stop Oil Protester Attacked by Partner of Pregnant Woman 🛑

Given that the UK only contributes 1% to CO2 production and these trouble making activists choose to disrupt here in a tolerant country where the police often refuse to engage in protests, I can only think it is a case of, ‘the devil makes work for idle hands.’ Why don’t ER protest in China or India or the USA , major producers of CO2? And, of course, that is a rhetorical question.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

M0nica

But we are producing fewer humans. Birth rates have fallen below replacement rate in many European and Asian countries. Most other countries have fallen to replacement rate only. The only area with growing populations is Africa and the Middle East.

The current rise in population is not fuelled by births but by longevity. Worldwide our generation is living much longer than previous generations.

That should even out in the next 50 years and life expectancy growth has slowed down and begun to stick. By the end of the century population will have stabilised and may already be declining.

Umm, no.

The UN prediction is that world population will increase by another 2billion in the next 30 years to over 9billion.
And go on increasing.

The estimate of the number that can live sustainable is around 3 billion.

We’re the problem. Humans.

Dinahmo

Just Stop Oil s not expecting the supply of oil to the UK to stop right now like some of you seem to believe. What they actually want is for the government not to issue any more licences for oil, gas and coal extraction.

Here's a link to a BBC report from 5 July,

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63543307

Well yes, but then what? After the current supplies run out.

Sailing ships?

What’s the practical vision of an oiled, gasless, coaless society?

How will we feed the current population when food can no longer be transported quickly and cheaply.

Just Stop Oil s not expecting the supply of oil to the UK to stop right now like some of you seem to believe. What they actually want is for the government not to issue any more licences for oil, gas and coal extraction.

Here's a link to a BBC report from 5 July,

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63543307

Lathyrus

Kind of tongue in cheek but serious.

A much reduced human population would tackle most of the problems quite simply and easily.

A three child limit would hold the population steady but it’s already way over what the planet can sustain long term.

Eventually it will reduce through brutal means. War and famine and disease. It’s a pity we can be sensible enough to do it kindly instead🤔

A three child limit would hold the population steady but it’s already way over what the planet can sustain long term.

Which, to an informed and educated individual in the western world, would seem reasonable, and certainly not draconian. Particularly as there appear to be a number of people who have already made the choice to limit the number of children they have - and some have decided not to have any.

But we are not really the problem are we? How do you convince those in under-developed nations... rural farmers for example who, because they don't have access to the latest technology, actually need larger families to maintain their livelihoods? That's apart from the cultural reasons why some have large families.

To some extent, I think you're preaching to the converted in the western world, if you see what I mean. Among the people I know there are at least 5 I can think of who've made the conscious decision to limit the size of their family. My own son told me after the birth of his second son... "that's it, Mum, two is enough for me and the planet". Because he's also concerned about climate change. Interestingly, he now lives in South Africa and has worked in the townships for an NGA. He told me that poverty affects those people living in them in such a way that it is often seen as something positive to have children. It is an emotional comfort to them - something we don't understand.

But we are producing fewer humans. Birth rates have fallen below replacement rate in many European and Asian countries. Most other countries have fallen to replacement rate only. The only area with growing populations is Africa and the Middle East.

The current rise in population is not fuelled by births but by longevity. Worldwide our generation is living much longer than previous generations.

That should even out in the next 50 years and life expectancy growth has slowed down and begun to stick. By the end of the century population will have stabilised and may already be declining.

can’t be

Kind of tongue in cheek but serious.

A much reduced human population would tackle most of the problems quite simply and easily.

A three child limit would hold the population steady but it’s already way over what the planet can sustain long term.

Eventually it will reduce through brutal means. War and famine and disease. It’s a pity we can be sensible enough to do it kindly instead🤔

Lathyrus

I didn’t say I wanted to prevent people reproducing.

I’m offering a reduction in the number of human beings on the plant as the only real long term solution. Everything else is just a delaying tactic.

Of course people won’t do it. Every body always finds a reason why the particular thing that is important to them should be exempted.

But apparently, the birth rate in the UK is already dropping. Apart from that woman, whose name escapes me, who has 22 (I think) children - aren't large families becoming a thing of the past?

Other cultures than our own are often producing large numbers of children (by comparison anyway) in countries which are already being dramatically affected by climate change.

So where do you want to start?

Of course people won’t do it. Every body always finds a reason why the particular thing that is important to them should be exempted

But this isn't just a 'thing' is it? It's an innate instinct in animals and humans. On a practical level - how the heck would you go about it? Do you tell those in the so-called 'civilised' world to seriously consider not having children, or appeal to those in the developing world to consider the planet and limit the number of children they have? To an extent, the developing countries rely on the first world countries, so how do we go about this?

Dickens

Lathyrus

My solution is Just Stop Reproducing Humans.

But not many people would go along with that😬

They probably wouldn't - because it's unrealistic.

You may not have reproduced yourself - but you (presumably) had that option, and now you want to prevent anyone else from having the same.

In plants, animals and in humans - reproduction is innate.

The solution is for humans to act - with all the information available, that should not be an impossibility in practical terms.

How you persuade people and governments to do so is another matter ( and I'm not bright enough to fathom how to do that) - but clearly, the protestors have reached a point where they are no longer a "novelty" and are not achieving their goal because they are simply antagonising people... many (most?) of whom will already be aware of the seriousness of the matter. And you cannot, simply, 'just stop oil' anyway. Their aims may be noble but their methods are self-defeating. Perhaps they need a campaign that is driven by positivity - being a public nuisance might work for the first couple of episodes of protest, but after that, it just becomes old-hat and the message is lost.

Perhaps the JSO organisers could hire a site (like Glastonbury) and create an 'event' where they can show us how we can live life without oil... I don't know quite what the answer is, as I said, I don't have the brain for this kind of thing. But I do recognise the importance of climate change. And I also know that at a time of economic distress for millions of people, making their lives even more stressful will not compel them to demand that their government get its act together (except to arrest them). You have to engage people so they feel invested in the cause, not alienate them.

I think it was tongue in cheek.
Perhaps a two child policy?

Oh, that was tried before somewhere, wasn't it?

svtoen

1. China is probably leading the world in green technology and alternatives to fossil fuels. 2. Never ever take anything the Mail prints as gospel 3. The normal protests work so well don’t they?! What can the mail and other complainers here suggest might lead to taking care of our planet?

China is also building 80 new coal fired power stations a year, so your point is? Climate change happens - its happened many times over billions of years, that we think we can do anything to stop it is sheer arrogance! We need to be looking at mitigations, not wasting huge amounts of money and making people poorer and colder for something that will never be achieved (net zero). Oh and do not get me started on the conflation of weather with climate change!

Maremia

There seems to be a strong correlation between the 'Outraged' in this thread and GNs who, on other threads, are unsympathetic to immigration. The irony is that if we don't get climate change under control, vast areas of our planet will become difficult to thrive in, and people will have no choice but to move elsewhere.

Such a good point Maremia. We have been warned about this but there are those it pays to deflect populations from considering it, sadly.

I didn’t say I wanted to prevent people reproducing.

I’m offering a reduction in the number of human beings on the plant as the only real long term solution. Everything else is just a delaying tactic.

Of course people won’t do it. Every body always finds a reason why the particular thing that is important to them should be exempted.

We seem to thrive on doom and drama

I've go to the stage where I'm weary of it all.

During the 70s we were told we were heading into a new Ice Age

80s saw us all about to go to war. CND was marching all over the place. Good job they didn't succeed. AIDS was starting to be discussed and I recall reading that every person on the planet might be infected by the year 2000.

We were also told that the Maldives would be underwater by the year 2000. I went last year. Wasn't underwater.

Ozone layer. That was going to get bigger and bigger but it didn't. I recall being told that Australia's Barrier Reef was dying and it was all pale. That's OK now.

Mad Cow disease. New variant CJD. Don't eat beef. Salmonella, don't eat eggs, thanks Edwina.

Stop the War protests. 2003. Not a bad thing to protest against but wars have not stopped.

Protests now about pay.

But we do seem to enjoy thinking that the world is about to die. And I just don't believe it is. The climate has been changing forever. Very good documentary called Earth on BBC 1. First episode called Inferno. When 90% of all species were wiped out. Havoc and destruction. 252 million years ago, I don't know what caused it but it wasn't humans.

Stephen Hawking reckoned that humans would be eventually eradicated in 10 thousand years. Who knows. But I shan't worry about it.

I am sure that humans have caused a great deal of damage. We're the worst beasts on the planet.

But I think nature is a lot stronger than all of us.

Lathyrus

My solution is Just Stop Reproducing Humans.

But not many people would go along with that😬

They probably wouldn't - because it's unrealistic.

You may not have reproduced yourself - but you (presumably) had that option, and now you want to prevent anyone else from having the same.

In plants, animals and in humans - reproduction is innate.

The solution is for humans to act - with all the information available, that should not be an impossibility in practical terms.

How you persuade people and governments to do so is another matter ( and I'm not bright enough to fathom how to do that) - but clearly, the protestors have reached a point where they are no longer a "novelty" and are not achieving their goal because they are simply antagonising people... many (most?) of whom will already be aware of the seriousness of the matter. And you cannot, simply, 'just stop oil' anyway. Their aims may be noble but their methods are self-defeating. Perhaps they need a campaign that is driven by positivity - being a public nuisance might work for the first couple of episodes of protest, but after that, it just becomes old-hat and the message is lost.

Perhaps the JSO organisers could hire a site (like Glastonbury) and create an 'event' where they can show us how we can live life without oil... I don't know quite what the answer is, as I said, I don't have the brain for this kind of thing. But I do recognise the importance of climate change. And I also know that at a time of economic distress for millions of people, making their lives even more stressful will not compel them to demand that their government get its act together (except to arrest them). You have to engage people so they feel invested in the cause, not alienate them.

Maremia
No right minded person would deny that we are in trouble.
The problem we have now,is, we have left it took late because of the head in the sand attitude.
And now the powers that be are running around like headless chickens trying to fix the roof when the walls are crumbling.
They are trying to move too quickly.
Scientists were warning us a long long time ago and, we’re coming up with ideas but it was too easy to rely on the oil producing states, and look where that has got us, not just relying on oil.

www.discover.ukri.org/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-discoveries/index.html

The traffic builds up and fuel is unnecessarily used. There must be other ways to protest which make their point without causing all sorts of havoc and distress. If you have waited for an appointment which is really important or you need to get to see a sick loved one then yes you can easily wish something violent on those who don’t care a dam about your stress.

And still nobody has come up with any suggestions as to how to manage without oil😬

Because they can’t?

So the same old “somebody “ should do “something”.

Slow marching isn’t going to create any solution, is it?
So what’s the point?

If it was a demonstration to say Stop Oil and do this instead, I could support it.

But it isn’t 🙁

There seems to be a strong correlation between the 'Outraged' in this thread and GNs who, on other threads, are unsympathetic to immigration. The irony is that if we don't get climate change under control, vast areas of our planet will become difficult to thrive in, and people will have no choice but to move elsewhere.

Lathyrus

My solution is Just Stop Reproducing Humans.

But not many people would go along with that😬

Well, when I said that, I was told the birth rate needed to increase to pay the pensions of the generations above them.

The birth rate in many countries has decreased but it is not so easy to persuade some countries and cultures that this is an answer.

Short-term pain for long-term gain.

Well, no one was hurt. The protestors had to move, and people went about their business.

Seems like a solution.👍

DiamondLily

A bus driver has found a way to move them on, without hurting them...gentle nudging with his bus:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12318861/Just-Stop-Oil-eco-zealots-blasted-angry-bystander-rails-Theyve-never-days-work-life-fed-motorists-steal-moment-overtake-slow-marchers-moved-way-ambulance.html

And gently "nudging with a bus" is legal, is it DiamondLily?

Reading that article it strikes me as a good one to use with children when discussing critical thinking. Just getting them to highlight all the trigger words and discuss why the Mail uses them.

Agree!!!

At last. People are fighting back.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12319161/Eco-zealots-kettled-Just-Stop-P-ing-counter-protesters-form-human-chain-bid-foil-slow-march.html