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.

I've not stated my position either way. There is science and evidence to back up either argument.

Consumption-based emissions of CO2 (I couldn't find data covering other GHGs) puts the UK at 1.5% of the global total. It's higher than I'd like of course, but it's still a small proportion. Again, this needs everyone pulling together - I don't see that happening: Americans are unlikely to change their lifestyles that drastically and the Russians are continuing their relentless assault on Ukraine. On the plus side, China's crazy zero-covid strategy might help by causing a loss of production.

We are also below the European average - expect emissions in a number of countries to increase this winter; France may have to rely more on gas if EDF go on strike, I've just this week spoken to the manager of a Bosnian coal mine who said that Germany are looking to start importing (the coal at that mine wasn't too bad in quality, but at some other local mines it was filthy brown lignite).

No there isn't.

Videos online don’t cut it unfortunately. They need clear written statements which they provide to the mainstream media and post on Twitter, Insta, etc. If their comms is shit, how do they expect anything apart from negative press.

Unfortunately thats not how MSM works, but there is stuff on twitter. Look under TalkTv day 2 or Videos online don’t cut it unfortunately. Michael mezzanine all one name with the at sign and talkTV day 2

Michael mezz

not mezzamine

If the media wasn’t interested it wouldn’t report the attention seeking stunts of these people.

the media purchase news, and then churn it out, news is about making money from advertising and not an interest in particular articles other than click bait for profit. If you go back to the 1960/1970s then journalists did there own research and you'd have had 150 journalists in the old Bailey - today you'll be lucky if there are two.

But the point is often missed that if you factor in goods we consume that are manufactured in other countries, our footprint is much more than 1%. I'm sure you recognise this but many don't

China has been diversifying into Middle Eastern and South American markets and see themselves as part of a more global middle class
than exclusively serving Western markets. This is part of the work I do btw—whether certain posters want to believe that or not, as they just want to believe I’m some sort of oil shill 😆

gcml.org/corporate-media-and-big-oil-coup/

The owner of The Sun and The times retains partial ownership of Genie Energy

It isn't just goods. It is our investments. Our banking etc. They fund fossil fuels.

🤦🏽‍♀️ There really isn’t

Yes, and they should continue to do so. After watching a 6hr banking debate with the head's of the largest banks in USA and UK.

Good grief. Why are you so persistent that it is only fossil fuels that can advance developing nations? There are umpteen technologies in existence and development that can do the vast majority of this without having to go back to medieval labour. And you are utterly incorrect that climate deaths drop after an industrial revolution. Other kinds of death may well drop, but industrial revolutions are the mainstay of climate change.

It's quite likely that at least some people defending fossil fuels (not necessarily posters on here) are paid shills for the energy industry. It's a recognised thing. There are entire PR agencies who makes this their business.

As a result, anyone reading the online debates would think the jury was out on the existence, and likely catastrophic consequences, of climate change. The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific consensus that we are heading for an unprecedented shitstorm. The only real debate among serious people is whether, if left unchecked, it will be civilisation-changing or cilvilisation-ending.

I don't see where anyone has suggested China is serving exclusively Western markets? The problem, as you well know, is that we (as well as countries in the markets you mention) now 'offshore' much of their manufacturing, and, when challenged on emissions, say 'ours are tiny - you need to look at China and India'. When of course it's us creating the problem.

This is so fundamental. It's depressing that it needs repeating.

Good grief. Why are you so persistent that it is only fossil fuels that can advance developing nations? There are umpteen technologies in existence and development that can do the vast majority of this without having to go back to medieval labour

If you are referring to nuclear power, that’s fine for electricity generation. (Hydro can be very problematic for those downstream, to be deployed with caution).

But you still need plenty of fossil fuel inputs for construction (ie infrastructure), agriculture and heavy transport. There’s really no way around it.

And you are utterly incorrect that climate deaths drop after an industrial revolution

No, look at natural disasters death tolls and you will find they have dropped precipitously. Monsoons, flooding and famine used to kill tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands for very bad disasters. Now it’s rare for those numbers to be reached despite much bigger populations.

Other kinds of death may well drop, but industrial revolutions are the mainstay of climate change

Yes, but my argument is that good infrastructure and productive economies can overcome this.

One of the most impactful actions people can take are to divest from fossil fuel investments. They need to stay in the ground and one way to achieve that is to make sure that my own bank or pension is not investing in the oil and gas industry.

we (as well as countries in the markets you mention) now 'offshore' much of their manufacturing, and, when challenged on emissions, say 'ours are tiny - you need to look at China and India'. When of course it's us creating the problem

So offshoring is a problem for you? Do you want to bring industry back to Britain and stop importing Chinese goods? (there goes your climate targets lol not that Europe is willing to do what it takes to have a thriving manufacturing sector)

Why flagellate yourselves over a trend that has only improved life in China for the average person. They would’ve remained an incredibly poor, impoverished country (as would Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea before them) without exporting their products to global markets.

Its astonishing you think this was something negative. Export-oriented development was the biggest anti-poverty action in history, basically.

{WhoDatDen · 18/10/2022 20:49}
The UK might have been 6th in a ranking of economies but it certainly isn't now and due to the antics of the Tory Government (and the secretive ERG) the UK is going to fall a very long way, because manufacturing (money creation) is knackered and largely uninvestable, and in any case much of it wouldn't help UK citizens as is being proven. Workers in the UK are likely to become the Uighurs of China when the Chinese decide to flex their muscles in the UK. the 'incident' at the Chinese Embassy in Manchester 2 days ago is only a foretaste of things to come. Much of Africa and all countries on the perimeter of the South China sea are indebted to China and even the uS economy would collapse if China called in the debts in the USA.

I'm not a big fan of nuclear for electricity - it simply leaves the world with different long-term risks. Solar has ample potential for domestic electricity - how many flat-roof buildings are there in the UK without solar? Why is it not legislated for all distribution centres to have solar roofs?

The pathetic proportion of money invested into greener fuels by the oil companies should have had a far greater impact on the development of biofuels and hydrogen by now, both of which are viable alternatives for heavy machinery and aviation.

I have investigated and interestingly you are correct that deaths from natural disasters have dropped (with a caveat):
"The number of disasters has increased by a factor of five over the 50-year period, driven by climate change, more extreme weather and improved reporting. But, thanks to improved early warnings and disaster management, the number of deaths decreased almost three-fold" (World Meteorological Organisation). The decreased deaths are not, as you imply, due to the infrastructure itself.

So now spray painting the entrance to Harrods? Total lunacy and well done to the blokes tearing up their banners and physically removing them from the roads. If the police can't do their jobs, the hard working public will.

{Solar has ample potential for domestic electricity - how many flat-roof buildings are there in the UK without solar? Why is it not legislated for all distribution centres to have solar roofs?}
Flat roofs are only 'partly good for solar use because they need to be oriented correctly but otherwise you are right that legislation and better inducements to install solar for PV and water heating could and should have been done a decade or more ago. This along with even the more simple insulation schemes would have been massively beneficial to so many. Of course a major issue is corruption where everything is monetised the government, corrupt itself, hands vast sums to lobby groups for schemes that are often bad value. So 'simple' aspects like changing planning laws and house building regulations and properly targetted assistance to get insulation/solar PV/heating installed at a time when buildings may be having other work done (to reduce disruption) is vital. the problem being the government (Tory) don't want citizenst to really benefit. Labour COULD possibly have worked harder on this but are not necessarily as focused on the more practical aspects.

I don't think many people deny climate change. The debate is around how much influence humans have over it.

I don't think many people deny climate change. The debate is around how much influence humans have over it.

it’s not all about climate change, the fact we have fuel poverty in this country is a direct consequence of the government stance on this for the last 10 years

all the things that would primarily decrease climate change would also reduce people choosing between eating and heating

it would also reduce deaths from pollution of 40000 people each year in the U.K.

There are too many protesters with mixed messages though and targeting different things. The most impactful change would be to move away from gas for domestic heating as it generates large quantities of co2 and is the biggest contributor of PM2.5 but no-one is advocating that and instead focussing on vehicles which contribute very little to greenhouse gasses or indeed PM2.5 particles.
The most impactful thing would be a proliferation of nuclear power but that brings an other host of issues for future generations to manage. Solar isn't the answer in the UK but can offset carbon based fuel use.
It would be helpful if protestors came together with a clear message and a clear way forward instead of being disparate and having different foci.

it’s not all about climate change, the fact we have fuel poverty in this country is a direct consequence of the government stance on this for the last 10 years

You have fuel poverty because you wouldn’t frack and you didn’t build those nuclear power plants like you should have 10 years ago.

So yeah, I totally agree with this statement (but in a very different way than you do)

If fuel poverty is real (and it very much is), the last thing you want to do is further restrict supply, like this lot want!