Just stop oil

[Chippy_Tea]

Bottom line. We need more protesters, not fewer.

We need protesters to target the people who make the rules not an audience that has spent a lot of money to travel to an annual event only to have it ruined by them.

Can anyone here tell me what difference these protests have made, i have heard them say "we are getting our cause discussed on the news" but has it made any difference on to the governments policy on oil no and its wont however many events they disrupt all that will happen is the government will bring in more laws to stop them and the people who would have stood against the law changes wont bat an eyelid because of the tactics they have used so far.

 

[user 44889]

Until China, India, America and Australia all the world's biggest polluters do their bit we are wasting our time... We produce 1% or less yet we have to be the world leader...

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Until China, India, America and Australia all the world's biggest polluters do their bit we are wasting our time... We produce 1% or less yet we have to be the world leader...

Exactly and we all know that is not going to change any time soon if ever.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Do you really think that the atmosphere and climate will remain unchanged as we continue to run our diesel engines? We may well be using then in 100 years time in order to survive on what will have become a hostile planet

As it says below diesels produce less co2 than petrol engines and direct injection is increasing the amount of particles petrol's are producing at the end of 2018, the Euro 6b standards imposed the same limits on fine particles emissions for diesel and petrol engines, time for all us petrol car drivers to stop looking down our noses at diesel car drivers .


Diesel engines emit less CO2 and greenhouse gases than petrol engines. This happens because of the particular type of fuel and the internal efficiency of the diesel engine. More specifically, the fuel used in diesel engines has a higher compression ratio than petrol and it also performs better than petrol engines.

In recent years, a system called direct injection has gradually spread over petrol engines. This system uses a pump to spray fuel into the cylinder at high pressure to reduce fuel consumption. The problem with this system, however, is that it significantly increases the number of fine particulate pollutants in petrol engines. As a result, the fine particle emission rates of petrol engines are increasing as this type of engine develops. They can, in fact, eventually catch up with the (theoretical) fine particle emission rates of diesel engines. As a matter of fact, at the end of 2018, the Euro 6b standards imposed the same limits on fine particles emissions for diesel and petrol engines.

https://youmatter.world/en/diesel-or-petrol-what-pollutes-more/

 

[Jim Brewster]

It's stuns me that they appear to have not thought it through at all....And will be the first to start bleeting when their live, world, and the economy collapses. Oil is not just for engines.

The most ironic one was when Chris Packham was talking about stopping oil while wearing a plastic coat

 

[Clarence]

As it says below diesels produce less co2 than petrol engines and direct injection is increasing the amount of particles petrol's are producing at the end of 2018, the Euro 6b standards imposed the same limits on fine particles emissions for diesel and petrol engines, time for all us petrol car drivers to stop looking down our noses at diesel car drivers .


Diesel engines emit less CO2 and greenhouse gases than petrol engines. This happens because of the particular type of fuel and the internal efficiency of the diesel engine. More specifically, the fuel used in diesel engines has a higher compression ratio than petrol and it also performs better than petrol engines.

In recent years, a system called direct injection has gradually spread over petrol engines. This system uses a pump to spray fuel into the cylinder at high pressure to reduce fuel consumption. The problem with this system, however, is that it significantly increases the number of fine particulate pollutants in petrol engines. As a result, the fine particle emission rates of petrol engines are increasing as this type of engine develops. They can, in fact, eventually catch up with the (theoretical) fine particle emission rates of diesel engines. As a matter of fact, at the end of 2018, the Euro 6b standards imposed the same limits on fine particles emissions for diesel and petrol engines.

https://youmatter.world/en/diesel-or-petrol-what-pollutes-more/

A rather pointless and misleading comparison: pointless because a 10% overall drop in CO2 emissions from internal combustion engines is not enough; misleading because in order to achieve this 10% overall, every petrol engine would need to be replaced by an efficient diesel engine. To what extent is that likely to happen? Vanishingly small to zero, we all know.
So instead of patting ourselves on the back for contributing nothing at all, why don't we just stop oil. Oil isn't the only problem though. Methane is a much more dangerous gas and a lot of that is coming from cattle, not all by any means, but a significant amount. Anybody cut down on eating meat yet? Thought not.
So I guess my question is "When are governments going to take the situation seriously?" It's not going to happen. The US' only concern is maintaining "the American Way of Life". Australia isn't really feeling the effects very much. OPEC couldn't give a toss. We Brits never take responsibility- it's someone else's fault and much of the rest of Europe hasn't really got a grip either. Well don't say you weren't warned when it's too hot to grow hops in Kent.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

A rather pointless and misleading comparison: pointless because a 10% overall drop in CO2 emissions from internal combustion engines is not enough; misleading because in order to achieve this 10% overall, every petrol engine would need to be replaced by an efficient diesel engine. To what extent is that likely to happen? Vanishingly small to zero, we all know.

You may think its pointless and you are entitled yo your opinion, i am sure members will be surprised to learn their petrol cars are as bad for the planet than the diesel they switched from as i did last time i changed cars.

Around 15 years ago when i bought my first diesel car we were lead to believe diesel engine cars were better for the planet as they did far more to the gallon and produced less CO2, at that time diesel was cheaper than petrol and road tax was £30 a big incentive to move from petrol to diesel, we are now in a situation where petrol cars are producing the same amount of particles as those dirty diesels but few petrol car buyers are aware as no one is kicking up a stink about it as they did about the diesel engine cars.

What happened to diesel?​

Cast your minds back to about a decade ago and you may remember the world’s attitude to diesel was very different to now.

In fact, it was near enough the complete opposite.

Diesel cars were regarded as the cleaner alternative to petrol, with a smaller average output of CO2 – which, you may already know, contributes to global warming – at the tailpipe.

This was reflected in lower road tax and rising popularity among car buyers.

Manufacturers responded by investing heavily in diesel technology, so in only a handful of years, diesel engines evolved into advanced, refined powerplants – a far cry from the clattery, smoke-belching diesel motors of the 20th Century.

How quickly things can change. Fast-forward to 2016, and diesel was no longer seen as a solution.

Despite consistently producing less CO2 than petrol engines, a global emissions scandal broke out when it was revealed many diesel models produced far more nitrogen oxides (NOx) than they were claimed to do.

While not classified as a greenhouse gas like CO2, NOx is harmful to human health, especially when concentrated in urban areas.

It quickly became clear that a new problem had been created by the rise of diesel.

https://www.cinch.co.uk/guides/ask-the-experts/are-petrol-cars-really-cleaner-than-diesel

 

[Clarence]

You may think its pointless but i am sure there are many petrol car drivers blissfully unaware their petrol car is as bad for the planet than the diesel alternative.

Diesel is now seen as the devils spawn yet when i bought my first 15 years ago we were lead to believe they were better for the planet as they did far more to the gallon and produced less CO2, at that time diesel was cheaper than petrol and road tax was £30 a big incentive to move from petrol to diesel, we are now in a situation where petrol cars are producing the same amount of particles as diesels but few petrol car buyers are aware hence the looking down your nose comment.



Cast your minds back to about a decade ago and you may remember the world’s attitude to diesel was very different to now.

In fact, it was near enough the complete opposite.

Diesel cars were regarded as the cleaner alternative to petrol, with a smaller average output of CO2 – which, you may already know, contributes to global warming – at the tailpipe.

This was reflected in lower road tax and rising popularity among car buyers.

Manufacturers responded by investing heavily in diesel technology, so in only a handful of years, diesel engines evolved into advanced, refined powerplants – a far cry from the clattery, smoke-belching diesel motors of the 20th Century.

How quickly things can change. Fast-forward to 2016, and diesel was no longer seen as a solution.

Despite consistently producing less CO2 than petrol engines, a global emissions scandal broke out when it was revealed many diesel models produced far more nitrogen oxides (NOx) than they were claimed to do.

While not classified as a greenhouse gas like CO2, NOx is harmful to human health, especially when concentrated in urban areas.

It quickly became clear that a new problem had been created by the rise of diesel.

https://www.cinch.co.uk/guides/ask-the-experts/are-petrol-cars-really-cleaner-than-diesel

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. I don't dispute any of that. But isn't the JSO brigade inspired by global warming and climate change? My comment was in that context.

 

[Bosch]

Considering the current heat wave in southern europe, perhaps Just Stop Oil has a point.

In reference to a previous post comparing UK emmisions to Chinas, a lot of the Chinese emmissons are form producing consumer goods for the Western economies.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Considering the current heat wave in southern europe, perhaps Just Stop Oil has a point.

I agree with what they are saying but not the methods they are using to say it.

 

[evil.soup]

Well said Clearance.

Anyone who thinks change is somehow "normal" and that "we've had ice ages before" or "been a desert" should just take a glance at this graph, and try to extrapolate forwards (not hard) and imagine what the consequences are going to be by the end of the century. Then imagine what will happen when a nuclear power like China or USA's crops fail and they can't feed themselves or run out of water... Like California.

View attachment 87932

Absolutely yes, we are accelerating the process and the time to adapt is very limited. It will be catastrophic for countries with large populations and war will certainly break out.

I guess my issue is with the suggestion and belief by many that it can be stopped, it can't, it's nature, but yes, pace of change can be brought in line, hopefully.

I am certainly not suggesting as change is inevitable we shouldn't do anything about the way we consume, I just have an issue with politicians and others using it as a stick to beat us with for their own agenda.

It's all well and good to instill charges on cars and force change to electric cars etc, but that is small fry compared to the multi billon pound consumption machine the manufacturers have created, car makers included. These people however have money and influence and it would be politically costly and reputationally ruinous to force these people to build things that last.

Just imagine mobile phones, washing machines, cars etc all built with longevity in mind, it would save billions of tons of CO2 but big wigs would need to tighten their belts for that.

I don't denounce climate change, just don't like the way it is sold/used.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

 

[Kerby]

I agree with what they are saying but not the methods they are using to say it.

Women spent decades trying to get the votes, no one took any notice until the suffragettes, a group who sacrificed their lives and threatened the lives others too action. Change doesn’t come about through peaceful protest of banner waving. I don’t advocate violence but it’s an inescapable fact that those with the power and control do not hand it over freely, it has to be taken.

 

[Kerby]

Women spent decades trying to get the votes, no one took any notice until the suffragettes, a group who sacrificed their lives and threatened the lives others too action. Change doesn’t come about through peaceful protest of banner waving. I don’t advocate violence but it’s an inescapable fact that those with the power and control do not hand it over freely, it has to be taken.

* historically, it has to be taken.

 

[Kerby]

* historically, it has to be taken.

And yes we’re not talking about votes etc and yes it’s a clumsy example. My point is that the status quo doesn’t change willingly because someone with power and money loses out.

 

[DCBC]

We need protesters to target the people who make the rules not an audience that has spent a lot of money to travel to an annual event only to have it ruined by them.

Can anyone here tell me what difference these protests have made, i have heard them say "we are getting our cause discussed on the news" but has it made any difference on to the governments policy on oil no and its wont however many events they disrupt all that will happen is the government will bring in more laws to stop them and the people who would have stood against the law changes wont bat an eyelid because of the tactics they have used so far.

It's going to take a lot of protests, and perhaps a lot more extreme versions of the protests we are already seeing, before meaningful change becomes an inevitability.

Re the point about suffragettes above - they started off with fairly low-key protests and lobbying. Yes some groups went further and destroyed property, though this arguably didn't even help their cause in the long run. Nobody can claim that their protests didn't have an effect eventually, and I don't think there is a single right thinking person today can say they weren't on the right side of history in retrospect, despite the fact that they did not start off with widespread public support and had to fight tooth and nail for recognition and change.

Just Stop Oil have only been around for a very short space of time and are fighting against probably the most powerful global interest groups which have ever existed in the history of the human race. There is almost nothing they could have done in their short lifespan to date to have achieved anything. But it's early days, any somebody has to be brave enough to take up the mantle and say enough is enough.

How would you like JSO to protest, Chippy Tea? In such a way as to ensure that there is no disruption? What would be the value of such protest be? By telling us to be civilised and to vent our frustration via the proper channels, the oil companies, via their official mouthpieces, (almost the entirety of print and digital media) will undoubtedly ensure that nothing meaningful is ever done about climate change.

If the human race doesn't look back a century from now and universally view JSO and their ilk as being morally and intellectually right, it will only be because we as a species, or at the very least as a functioning society, will no longer exist so as to care about history.

 

[Bosch]

Women spent decades trying to get the votes, no one took any notice until the suffragettes, a group who sacrificed their lives and threatened the lives others too action. Change doesn’t come about through peaceful protest of banner waving. I don’t advocate violence but it’s an inescapable fact that those with the power and control do not hand it over freely, it has to be taken.

Good point.
Anti slavery protesters employed similar techniques in the 18th century.
It's the only way to get peoples attention

 

[Chippy_Tea]

How would you like JSO to protest, Chippy Tea? In such a way as to ensure that there is no disruption? What would be the value of such protest be? By telling us to be civilised and to vent our frustration via the proper channels, the oil companies, via their official mouthpieces, (almost the entirety of print and digital media) will undoubtedly ensure that nothing meaningful is ever done about climate change.

I would like them to protest and disrupt the lives of those that make the rules where they make them not some ordinary people who have treat themselves to an evening out, there are lots of railings around parliament why dont they go there and chain themselves to them, i am sure they would get plenty of coverage by the press.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

If the human race doesn't look back a century from now and universally view JSO and their ilk as being morally and intellectually right, it will only be because we as a species, or at the very least as a functioning society, will no longer exist so as to care about history.

No one is saying what they are are protesting about is not right but do you think America, China and other countries that produce a huge amount of pollution compared to us are going to stop because JSO threw some jigsaw pieces on a tennis court or some orange powder on a snooker table?

 

[Brewnaldo]

If you can't change everything, everywhere, all in one go, then you shouldn't bother, say people who absolutely definitely agree with everything JSO stand for.