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.

Above article regarding a fatal road crash , the ambulance was delayed due to the protest.

5 people die in car crashes every day, it’s incredibly frustrating that in the main those deaths are ignored and accepted as part of life

109 deaths a day due to pollution in U.K. , barely register on peoples radar

what should people who want a liveable environment for our kids and grand kids do to push for change. It isn’t enough to lower personal carbon footprints

we are still going to have a liveable environment. Why listen to climate alarmists who only have modelling behind them? Yes, we are warming but it’s not going to be an apocalypse. We have the technology to overcome climate challenges—better infrastructure, for instance, which has led to huge drops in death tolls from monsoons in Bangladesh, for example. Through better infrastructure, better access roads, availability of generators, etc.

Huge drops in death tolls—even as the population greatly expanded. All thanks to fossil fuels!

109 deaths a day due to pollution in U.K. , barely register on peoples radar

Carbon emissions is different to air pollution.

If you wanted a campaign against urban air pollution, I would be somewhat supportive.

Plenty you could do to reduce air pollution in cities that doesn’t necessitate moving away from fossil fuels (particularly natural gas, which burns much cleaner than, say, coal). We actually have the tools to do this—we do not have the tools to move away from fossil fuels, not if we want a decent standard of living.

Adoption of 'best practice' to use the smallest amount of fuels to get the 'job' done is what is necessary. retrofitting more advanced engine management systems to the vehicles/engines that already exist would be a massive help.
the car/engine manufacturers have been making good progress over the years so a bit of a push to do work on 'refurbishing vehicles that are say 10 years or more old which could potentially have savings of 10% or more which may not sound much but combined with the fact you would not be making whole new vehicles and scrapping the older ones represents a very significant saving. my cars are 20 and 30 years old. both achieve better fuel consumption than even the latest 'people carriers'. Some 'obsess' over 4 wheel drive when in reality they are often no more 'thirsty' than your 'people carrier' (Renault Espace) sort of vehicle. car fuel consumption is related to aerodynamics and speed more than actual weight and drive system.

So carbon foot print isn’t connected to air pollution, is that what you saying

While there are correlations between carbon footprint and air pollution it is not quite as direct as it may seem. had that child lived in a house on a street at right angles to where she did, the prevailing wind may have cleared the 'pollution' better from her house. If it is near a road junction where vehicles emit more particulates as they accelerate away from the junction, that is another factor. there are of course several forms of 'carbon' and the press aren't exactly known for details and accuracy. Carbon compounds like soot are different to carbon dioxide (gas) that people use to make drinks fizzy. Of course the carbon gas can be breathed in and expelled by animals quite easily and safely. Carbon monoxide of course can't be breathed safely as it displaces oxygen in your lungs so you 'suffocate'.

Isn’t it wonderful that we have a number of geniuses here on MN who know more about the complex issue of climate change than scientists who’ve studied the subject for years 🙄

Here’s what the science says. That paper is written by experts from leading universities and organisations, a far more reliable source of information than randoms on MN spouting nonsense.

I’m saying that the problem of urban air pollution can actually be solved … without banning fossil fuels either.

Carbon emissions did not kill that girl. Carbon dioxide is not harmful to human health.

You could support better public transport infrastructure, EVs in urban areas, higher density housing, bike lanes (bike shares, etc), and so on. Believe it or not, I’m supportive of such things.

These are achievable things with today’s technology and they don’t involve massive changes to living standards. Or ‘transition’ to energy sources that cannot be relied upon and anyway are less energy dense.

ILeclercreturn That was one of 40000 deaths that happen each year, you’re talking about the angle of her home being a contributing factor

it’s never the actual cause of the pollution

Links directly to Extinction Rebellion website. Not to the IPCC reports.

What a joke 😆

without banning fossil fuels either.

what do you think causes these 40000 deaths each year? The girl was one case, but thousands are dying prematurely

You’re very much the joke here thinking you’re smarter than the experts 🤣

The IPCC report has already been linked to earlier in the thread.

Did you even read who wrote and supported the report I linked?

How about David Attenborough “If we continue on our current path we will face the collapse of everything that gives us our security”

They are all closely linked.

BerriesOnTop

not only are we killing the planet but deaths occur every day due to the actions.

governments need to ban fossil fuel not keep subsiding it and that is what the protests are also about

You have to separate poor air quality from carbon emissions. They are not the same thing.

We can actually do something about urban air pollution.

The problem is with ICEs which pumps out noxious fumes and particulate matter (pm 2.5) which has negative health effects. Using wood burners and biofuel can also spew out particulate matter, btw. Oh and carbon monoxide, which kills many people as well but as it is not the greenhouse gas warming the world, no one cares particularly.

So encouraging EVs within urban areas is a good start—and they will be charged of course with fossil fuels! It’s fine.

Carbon dioxide from car exhaust is harmless to human health, but for some strange reason is all campaigners ever focus upon 🤦‍♀️

You do understand Attenborough is a television personality, don’t you? Maybe you don’t 😆

Honestly anything to do with Extinction Rebellion is suspect. You shouldn’t have linked to those jokers.

The scientific evidence is irrefutable:

NASA

Oxford university

MET office

Stephen Hawking

The oil industry’s spin

Fyi David Attenborough studied natural sciences.

Disgusting. Police allowed that to happen as well.

The police need the power to deal with these terrorists, however they like to wrap up their actions in some sience, and the terrorists should have no comeback if their stupid stunts get them iunjured, their choice. If anyone wants to nudge an idiot off the road I'll be their alibi.

👏

While the scientific evidence may be irrefutable the 'conclusions' need proper evaluation and constructive solutions need to be found. Being an arsehole and gluing yourself to something is NOT a constructive solution. Reducing the use of fossil fuels and being more efficient is the only practical route. This means do not buy new things because you WANT them but use older but functional things until they fail. How much of the earths resources are used providing new 'trinkets' for women? Shampoos, conditioners, false nails 'facepaints', all of these use huge amounts of oils either in manufacture or transportation. 'Convenient' packaging of things rather than paring back to what is NEEDED. Supermarkets are gradually moving away from plastics in packaging which is to be commended, as well as other ideas to reduce waste.

The 'science' probably is correct but it is the 'eco zealots with their selective reading and understanding of the science who refuse to consider the global implications (inertia from consumers and cost) and are essentially shouting at the wrong people. So, this winter, turn your heating off completely for 1 day a week and open windows to clear the damp air out and simply wear an extra jumper or coat as necessary. if you are not prepared to do that then you cannot be considered 'Eco' at all. One day a week would be something like a 10% saving in fuels used for heating AND save you money. I have no heating in my house (North France) so from September to March it is a case of wearing sufficient clothes to stay warm. I assure you a trip to the bathroom when it is 4 Centigrade is a pretty swift procedure.

Amazing how some deaths seem more poignant than others, on this thread.

So encouraging EVs within urban areas is a good start—and they will be charged of course with fossil fuels! It’s fine.

Carbon dioxide from car exhaust is harmless to human health, but for some strange reason is all campaigners ever focus upon

so if burning fossil fuels in cars isn’t a health issue, why would encouraging EV be needed - keep using cars that run on fossil fuels

Electric vehicles are simply (expensively) shifting the problems with burning fossil fuels to a different place. Burning something (expending energy) is a 'Primary' activity. Storing energy (in a rechargeable battery) is a secondary source of power. The old xinc/Carbon batteries (the ones you can't recharge that you usually throw away) are Primary sources. Nickel cadmium (now banned), Lead acid (car batteries) Lithium Ion and other technologies are secondary sources and are 'simply' a method of transporting electrical power from one place to another. rechargeables (secondary) ALWAYS waste some electrical energy (as heat) and of course most are heavy and large thus representing even lower efficiency. This is basic physics/chemistry that scientists have been battling with for a couple of hundred years. Politicians like 'simple' slogans so saying 'carbon dioxide is bad' and by carefully omitting a lot of downsides with rechargeable batteries they pronounce 'Electric Vehicles to be 'good'.
Generating electricity and getting it to your house wastes around 40% of the primary 'fuel' as heat (mostly) because of various basic physics 'issues'. This is why everyone needs to have at least a minimal understanding of physics before running off to be an 'Eco Warrior'. Burning oil or gas in a 'power station' is less efficient than using it directly in an internal combustion engine when you look at how much 'work' 1 litre of oil can do in both scenarios.

This is all true about EVs but it is a bit of a trade off when it comes to urban air quality. Of course the best is convenient public transport and bike infrastructure, including bike shares. ICEs will probably always take the primary role outside of population dense areas, no reason to push it for all the reasons you list here.

EVs for heavy transport, construction, freight, etc have always been a pipe dream and not worthwhile.

I don’t look at EVs as minimising the carbon footprint (I personally don’t care about that) but as a way to control urban air quality.

burning fossil fuels in cars isn’t a health issue

Ive been very clear on this. It’s a health issue because of the particulate matter (pm 2.5) from car exhaust along with other harmful toxins like benzene and nitrogen oxides. Biofuels also have these problems btw

Carbon dioxide from car exhaust is harmless to human health but people are hyper focussed on it because of global warming.

CO2 did not kill that girl you linked to! It was all the other nasty stuff coming out of the exhaust pipe. So burning fossil fuels elsewhere to charge urban EVs is totally fine by me and more ideal than ICEs, even though there is an efficiency loss.