To think this is awful? (Just Stop Oil protesters throwing soup over Van Gogh painting)

[TheCatsPyjamas1]

Just read that some Just Stop Oil protesters have thrown soup over a Van Gogh painting in the National Gallery in London. AIBU to think this is unacceptable?

I fully support the message of the group (investing in environmentally responsible energy rather than fossil fuels, and helping to make society more equal for everyone), but I find their protest methods are awful and risk alienating people who would otherwise support them.

They keep on doing crazy things, and seem to be escalating their action each time they protest. I don’t really know when or how it’ll end.

Our total emissions are higher then India, and we have produced 1/3 the emissions of China despite China being 39 time larger. We had our industrial revolution earlier and we outsource much of our damaging production of things we dont really need to China. Guessing you have nothing in your house made in China?

Sorry I don’t believe what you’ve stated there.

The WHO estimate we are already seeing 250k excess deaths globally because of climate change. It's all happening now - what are you doing about it? There isn't anything that's more important then changing our and other governments' approach to fossil fuels and climate change. We've had gardens spontaneously combust in the UK this summer after record temps, crops are failing, 80% the Maldives will be lost by 2050 because of rising sea levels. 3500 species are currently critically endangered - meaning there's a 50% chance they'll be extinct in ten years. Everyone should be doing everything they can to bring about change, and supporting those who are risking prison (because the gov are making peaceful protest illegal because it's inconvenient).

Have a look at 'our world in data' and you can see the actual numbers for yourself - there's a good write up here:

eciu.net/insights/2021/why-the-uks-1-of-global-emissions-is-a-big-deal

"the UK is the fifth biggest historic emitter in the world. That’s because we started the burning of fossil fuels – we were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. That’s far from water under the bridge – all those carbon emissions are still up there in the atmosphere, and form part of the climate crisis we face today. "

Well engines idling is worse for the planet than when they’re moving. So they actually caused more harm to the environment causing traffic jams.

I feel sorry for the man who missed a funeral. The lorry drivers stuck on the M25 with little food and drink.
People going to hospital for cancer treatment.
Ambulances stuck around Kent and Essex and the surrounding areas because of grid locked traffic.
People may have died today because two idiots decided to climb a bridge.

Also if the government backed down to these groups, surely that would set a precedent? Serious question, just wondering.

We can’t change the past because of the industrial revolution. That generation is long dead. The UK is committed to net zero by 2050.
The UK is looking forward and doing what it can to be greener. You can’t just make everyone ditch fossil fuels overnight. You have to have realistic expectations.
Im not asking for ‘heroes’ to risk their lives by climbing the Dartford crossing. As for them risking prison, yes I hope they do get sentenced.

It may be in the past but is hasn't gone anywhere, that's kind of the point 🙄 We need to do more, also we're not on track to hit the 2050 target.

But I don’t understand your point about the industrial revolution, it was over a century ago! I understand those emissions are still up in the atmosphere, but what can we do about that now?
Its about looking to the future.

We can’t educate the people that were around then on climate change because they’re all dead!

We and all other industrialised nations need to reduce our emissions so much such that non-industrialised countries can catch up. It's not enough to aim to be carbon neutral in 2050, we need to do it now and we should be aiming to be carbon negative.

Wrong on so many levels.
You are still looking on electricity as carbon based. You should be asking why Liz Truss is against solar. If this government hadn't systematically ripped out almost all support for green initiatives , don't you think more of us would have domestic solar panels and be less vulnerable to the current crisis, let alone reducing emissions? It really makes me question what price this relentless 'growth' plan comes at and how much influence and power the oil industry have over policy.
Electric vehicles have been allowed to develop in entirely the wrong direction -very likely because there is more money and jobs in it by cultivating domestic plug ins.
There are already several very succesful and long-lived kinetic based electric vehicles such as the Prius - these generate energy in movement and do not require plugging in.
With plug ins, it would make much more sense to transform existing petrol stations into battery exchanges - no need to install wiiring domestically and in supermarket car parks etc. Would be as quick as filling up with fuel is at present.
Hydrogen also has the potential to be a viable car power within 10 years.
Sadly though, every new technology is being looked on by industry/governments as an opportunity rather than a solution.

Have you heard of the suffragettes and the lengths that they went to in their quest to women the vote?

Have you heard of the suffragettes and the lengths that they went to in their quest to women the vote?

Yes, and they almost certainly delayed women getting the vote by several years. Women probably would have got the vote before WWI if it hadn't been for the suffragettes (who were run by a bunch of upper class dillitantes).

The real hard slog of getting the vote were the suffragISTs (led by Millicent Fawcett), who spent decades doing boring sensible things that worked, like building alliances with lawmakers, writers and the clergy, talking to people and winning them over, and involving women in all walks of life including poor women and rural women.

The WHO estimate we are already seeing 250k excess deaths globally because of climate change

No we aren’t. Where are you getting such ridiculous figures?

They weren’t campaigning to deny people
anything though.

In this case, they want to deny us the use of fossil fuels (or as they put it, not to engage in any more oil and gas projects, which will only artificially restrict supply and make them
even more expensive …).

Yet fossil fuels have done more to improve the living standards of the ordinary person than literally anything else, and to such a degree that we now take it all for granted.

Perhaps a harsh winter or two will knock some sense into Europeans, but they’ll probably blame Putin or America or the Gulf States for their woes instead.

It doesn't matter what standard of living fossil fuels gave some people for a short period because burning them at the rate we have will leave many billions with a much much worse standard of living and maybe even no life at all.

It doesn't matter what standard of living fossil fuels gave some people for a short period because burning them at the rate we have will leave many billions with a much much worse standard of living and maybe even no life at all

I disagree. It’s the very lack of fossil fuels that makes living in developing countries so
miserable that they want to leave. Nobody really wants to live a ‘low carbon’ lifestyle that involves heavy inputs of physical (man and animal) labour. Subsistence farming shouldn’t even be a thing these days.

Developing countries in the Global South need to use the East Asian model of development to secure a higher standard of living.

Once a country goes through their own industrial revolution, deaths drop due to better infrastructure, better access to medical care, drops in child mortality rates, gains in life expectancy, oh—and climate deaths drop too.

The WHO estimate we are already seeing 250k excess deaths globally because of climate change

Doesn't sound unlikely to me, in fact rather a low number. We had tens of thousands of excess deaths due to Covid just in the UK, and we lose a similar number due to air pollution every year apparently, but this is hardly ever reported.

What I want from these organisations is a positive vision of what a low carbon world which has stopped cilmate change will look like.

Carbon emissions themselves are not directly harmful to human health.

Its different than the real pollutants released by burning coal (which I’m not crazy about, but it’s better than freezing if your country can’t or won’t support nuclear or natural gas) or car exhaust from ICE. I mean, even burning wood or dung releases toxic fumes that are harmful to human health.

I agree air pollution is a real problem (and one that’s actually really possible to solve!) but it’s separate to carbon emissions. We shouldn’t conflate the two.

From the World Health Organisation 🙄 my mistake I did read 2030 as 2020 - but it's doesn't matter, have you not seen what has just happened in Pakistan and across Europe this summer due to extreme weather events? Everyone needs to wake up!

www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

Simply there are too many people to support a western lifestyle or even an fairly mediocre lifestyle. Nobody wants to look at this elephant in the room because of reproductive rights.

And we can't go back and change the past. Our current emissions are relatively low and if the UK went to net zero tomorrow, there would be no impact on climate change at all. I'm all for people protesting and pushing for change, but aim it at the places where change will have an impact, otherwise it's wasted effort.

Aggression and now the name calling. Predictable.

I've been called a 'retard' on this thread by one of your mates (now deleted). You have no moral high ground here.

That is also wrong. Resorting to name calling and shouting posts just turns people off.