after 40 years of watching this nothing is going to happen and we will be over 2 c. when push comes to shove we don't have the ability to replace fossil fuels and we are trapped
The things just stop oil demand will not happen. You do give me an impression that you are someone who has not engaged with any of the literature, contrary to your beliefs or ideology.
You are apologist for angry confused activists that are sponsored by Getty oil heiress. Why in the world would oil giants want to support climate activism? (Answer: to use even more oil and throw shade on enviromental activism)
The top 10% of wealthiest world citizens produce over 40% of all carbon emissions. Why aren't you taking away their 100,000 sq ft mansions, multiple houses all over the world, 200 yard yachts, and private planes? Guess pollution is ok if it's by wealthy people who give you funding to attack poor working class people.
My experience tells me that tactics such as those used by Just Stop Oil are ineffective.and may actually have the opposite effect.They make climate activists look like overly emotional wing nuts instead of people with legitimate concerns about climate change. Climate activists need to get their own houses in order as well. For example, the cause of fighting climate change is harmed when Greta Thunberg, arguably the patron saint of the cause, comes out in support of the de-commissioning of a newly constructed wind farm in Norway.
That’s the plan if the oil companies I think. I heard somewhere recently that one of the early creators of just stop oil is the son of one of the biggest oil guy
i just want to shed some light on the tactics aspect .The tactic used are mostly nabbed from historical social movements (civil rights, suffragettes, LGBT+ movements)and they were all met with very similar responses that we are seeing against just stop oil today. Within social change theory, just stop oil now occupies a space named "The Radical Flank". I'm sure we've all heard the criticism "i agree with the message, not the tactics", people become more informed, resulting in more moderate organisations such as extinction rebellion, earth first and green peace gaining traction. This increase in sign ups has been observed since jso has been in the news. Also why does being emotionally connected to the climate crisis make someone's concerns about it illegitimate ? please emotionally connect to the climate crisis, your allowed to be upset when rich people make life-threatening decisions at the expense of yourself and your future.
@@swaggersmacswagger1712Assuming we’re talking about the same person, he wasn’t the creator, but large donor to the cause. Ironically he withdrew funding after protesters disrupted too much, if remember correctly, didn’t let emergency services through. After massive public outrage protesters changed their policy and let emergency transport through.
It’s responsible for my attention on the matter, and likely many others in a world where the leading media outlets aren’t focused on justice they serve the government
Well I think big oil is actually financing these protesters, because they actually do the opposite of what they claim: When people get stuck in traffic because of them, they are saying to themselves „I will burn extra patrol just to stick it to these dumb protesters“.
Thats not how civil resistance works. Its not trying to get public support, all movements for change were deeply demonised during their day and very unpopular, look at the suffragettes, civil rights etc etc
Whatever inconvenience these tactics pose on regular folk they're nothing compared to the horrors climate change has had on communities that don't have a strong government to save them from droughts, fires, etc. The cause is good, and as you say the tactics have people speak on something they normally wouldn't.
I've seen people claim it's a psyop funded by big oil because a daughter of an oil company donated to a fund that finances Just Stop Oil - despite her never actively having anything to do with oil business except for the money from her parents. Donating that to climate funds is based actually.
You'd be surprised just how many of these organisations the CIA, MI5 and other government agencies infoltrate and surreptitiously sponsor, for their own purposes. Often they deliberately clandestinely finance opposing factions.
The problem with their tactics is they make me want to burn tyres... And im all pro solar and wind and think its insane that the UK hasnt gone down the tidal lagoon route. Their protests are counter productive and deter people from openly supporting their goals, even if they agree with them.
I'm still surprised by how many people I've met who don't think it's real. But I am aware of the lengths the carbon fuel industry will go to secure their profits, which includes lying and deceiving people about the issue. No matter how many ways it's brought to the political and social world, the development of still more sources continues. To me, stop oil is a step I'm not about to protest. If there's fear of it causing people to dismiss the issue, I'm afraid they're already dismissing it, and the carbon fuel industry uses their behavior as an attempt to create doubt. They do that anyway. Not sure how this is going to change that. That soupgate thing was pretty good, except they didn't damage the painting. I think the artist was enough of a radical he may have approved if he thought it did some good. The message was that the wealthy are only concerned when their wealth is as stake. It was a good message. To bad the wealthy don't hold the environment as highly as that painting. It's a work of art.
The biggest problem is that they annoyed hell a lot of peoples, peoples have to work, to eat to produce for themselves and their families to survive still despite all the problems, they may understand if they pursue it the other way around, without causing problems to their own peoples.
Frankly, if I'm on my way to work and I'm held up by protesters that's clearly not my fault and any reasonable boss would understand the reason for the delay. Still gonna get paid that money, still gonna feed my family.
Consider the number of commuters in this country. What percentage of those commuters have been affected by this group? I suspect it's in the. 0.000000xxxxxx percent. You all think it's affecting us all because you're told to think that. Stop being sheeple and wake up.
@@CaptainGlack Yeah. When you are seriously sick and need to be taken to hospital, I bet you will be just as happy to be late for your appointments. Your statement is ridiculous. Protests of this nature do everybody disservice. The scientists are already fighting this battle at all levels needed. Any other form of activism of this nature has more negative effects because the sentiment is swayed away from what is actually the right thing to do.
@@CaptainGlackHow about the ambulance drivers who can’t get to their patients in time? Or the food deliveries? The nature of the jobs are not the same as you and I.
The message I got was that oil paintings are bad, and that they are opposed to oil painters such as van Gogh, who painted with oils. I think you need to check your facts about CO2. The JustStopOil people don't care about CO2, they just want people to paint with acrylics. This I think is a reasonable request, since oils dry so slowly, and are often subject to yellowing over time.
I understand the frustration, but how they act, how they speak, the worry and passion seems a bit too cultistic. In addition, their argument is not well versed and not well presented. It is like that because their means are questionable. When you get into an argument and you can only repeat a stupid one liner statistic that you memorized, when the question is asked "why are you doing it in this way?", then the problem is you cannot argue, because you know you are wrong. Do not misunderstand, I want a good future for our world, but this is just making everyone who was a general Joe, and could have been convinced, to be utterly disgusted and turning away. I live in Switzerland now, and I do believe that the way to be green is based on strong government backing, but also people policing. Alas, this is culture. You cannot force the change of a culture from one day to another. That is what conquerors done, not what "peaceful" protesters do. I am so disappointed in today's generation. Be better...
Sad to see people in such a state of frustration and helplessness that they feel the compulsion to behave like this. It's total self- deprecation and self- sabotage and from the outside looks like cult mentality.
I do wonder if they have truly exhausted all other options to voice their opinions. Ultimately the PR is as important as the product for people. Do people get convinced to follow a leader who indulges in obnoxious inconvenience? It seems to me that many annoyed civilians see these acts as a show of moral incompetence. When you can't make wise charismatic moves in engaging with your enemies how can we trust you can make any with those you lead? By all means, individuals should be allowed to protest but how is just as invaluable.
It is a Cult. Seen an interview with a jso spokes woman and the lady behaved like a crazy person. These eyes of her will give me nightmares... Seen another interview with a jso dude who said "we will do WHATEVER it takes..." - if thats not a cult I dont know what is.
What else can you do in an emergency, when everyone just goes on as normal and the news and media only talk about climate change when disruptive protests happen. Are we not all self sabotaging ourselves by not doing something about countries missing targets and on course to overshoot even 3 degrees?
@@mamela11 Then target the politicians, the media, the oil companies themselves -- I bet no one will be against protesters blocking politicians from their office alone. Targeting general public is like vigilante killing civilians to send message to the elites.
I initially thought the Van Gaugh stunt was a bad idea, but seeing the amount of discussion it has spawned has changed my mind about that. Just a few seconds of action has done a lot more than traditional lobbying ever could. But I think this can only work once or twice as the novelty is the big talking point. There is probably space for this sort of sensationalism now and again, but we need people behind the scenes to be pushing better policy too. I don't think there is a silver bullet to getting this done - I guess we need to try every avenue we have available.
I recall that during covid lock-downs, how quickly the water became clearer, how quickly the air cleared, how wildlife began to be more in evidence again. I imagine that a rotating scheduled “day off/shut down” that various nations could agree to implement might be a quarter-measure that would be helpful. Certainly wouldn’t hurt.
@___hannah. yes seriously, outside this very building are scores of homeless people, the way they are acting is actually pushing people away from their cause. They might as well help the oil industry lobby governments, they need to win over the general population and right now, they are doing the complete opposite
The ironic thing is that the folks who created this artwork were more climate friendly than the actual protesters themselves. We need to focus on what things in life we can eliminate. If the demand for excess things decreases we will have an impact. Unfortunately the world is full of people that want more stuff, bigger houses, lavish vacations, extensive wardrobes, etc...
Preach this to China and India,they are the worlds largest producers of emissions. Every country in the world can enact strict regulations on fossil fuel but India and China will continue on thus making any and all regulations a moot point.
Great point, I suppose you apply the same logic to the next election too. Your vote really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. 👍 sarcasm! (I feel like you needed this.)
In my opinion, while the message of just stop oil is a good message, their ways of protesting were stupid and ignorant. Them spraying streets and chucking food onto paintings, I could just feel sorry for the people left to clean up the mess. And their blocking roads part, while cars are bad for the environment and should be reduced on the roads, them blocking buses is criminal as it hurts the environment and people who need to get around. A protest should be respectful of the general population as it’s better publicity for the movement.
Why don't they start a political party and stand for election? If they have support then they'll get elected and they can implement any policies they want. We're meant to live in a democracy, aren't we?
in the UK, the 'first past the post' voting system means that this would be virtually impossible to succeed. in other countries that have proportional representation, you often see much greater representation of such ideas within coalition governments, for example.
I fear that all this manner of "shock activism" does is facilitating those who dismiss climate activists (and, by extension, scientists) as "loonies". Extremely counterproductive, I am afraid. This will not help "people thinking about climate change more", it will help them dismiss it. I would go so far as questioning the true motives of "just stop oil", just as i question motives of anti-nuclear activists. Fossil fuel money reaches far. I hope I am wrong.
Yes. Its counterintuitive What they're targeting are the people who have zero choices Like let's be honest here. Most of our day to day activities are so embedded with oil If you want to lessen or freed the society from usage of oil U gotta either innovate or push for policies Its slow but better approach
what are we going to use as replacement solar and wind dont always work let alone produce enough unless you want to use nuclear power as replacment. dam and thermal are also point less since uk doesnt have enough volcano or river for all its population. Coal isnt option since it more toxic then oil. this protest is pointless since stop oil has no back up plan to replace oil.
Complacency and inertia are the enemies of survival. Activism will arouse ire among some, but some have no willingness to engage with the science. If activism points out the problem and some solutions, we won't be any worse off if some are alienated.
I agree with cause but not method blah de blah , however people will resist feeling bullied and dominated particularly by people they feel are not connected to their experience of daily struggle I.e rich kids and the ‘loony left ‘ ( don’t shoot the messenger here ) the message people are receiving is. ‘I’ve weighed the cost to you of my actions and I think it’s worth it ‘, it also doesn’t help that the spokespeople come across as cultish and ignorant these demonstrators are hitting a number big psychological drivers that are causing extreme hatred towards them and nothing else . So if just stop oil etc are causing support to fall aren’t they able to reflect on this and strategise ? I see no sign of this . More likely to cause a class war and serious injury or death than thru are to achieve any success in increasing public awareness or support . Everyone just hates them for being belligerent ignorant and spoiled bullies .
For people that argue "i agree with the message but...", and think they have a better way of doing it, *go and do it, show us how its done!* as a planet, we need creative solutions and protests from the people, and every person shouting from the rooftops helps! It's too easy to criticise from an armchair, but so many people haven't put thought to how to protest in better ways, or gone and put their plans in action, so what we need is every person to show us how it should be done!
Brilliantly said. I’m getting real tired of the armchair critics (brilliantly depicted in the barber scene in this video) who are all too quick to point out the flaws of every action but never seem to have their own ideas of what we can do.
The issue I have personally is when I hear that ppl with medical emergencies have suffered consequences due to these protests. A protest a year ago which put me off this form of protest was when a lady who was suffering with a stroke was being driven to a hospital but because of the roads being blocked off with protesters she became paralysed. Her health comprises for a cause. I understand the message and support it but everytime I hear about ppl gluing themselves to the road all I can think about is what this person went though, who could be next, what if that was me. It haunts me. The message is positive but the repercussions and image of certain demonstrations have been tainted with horror and anger in my mind. I'm not saying that I have the answer for what the right way to do it is but I still know what's wrong. And I think that matters more than finding a better approach is to stop doing what's putting others at risk. Also I'm not here to argue and value your opinion and you do make a great point, I just wanted to express my concerns in a safe and friendly manner
@@elliebarnes2776 I completely understand why you'd think that, and that's certainly an issue; I know with XR they have a blue lights policy and let through any emergency vehicle, but with JSO obviously they're a bit more stoic. To respectfully counter that, I would raise that inaction, and not protesting/making headlines/getting change, it dooms future life/our lives in the future, and given the awful system we've inherited whereupon only these sorts of protests gather media attention, it seems an awful balance between immediate cost, and the cost of inaction, which may be felt for thousands of years. It's a truly awful value judgement for anybody to have to make and I completely understand why someone may take a position like you've posed. There just isn't a perfectly good way to deal with this perfectly awful situation, I think
The projection from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would increase warming by 4C. We are already to 420 ppm that puts us on a trajectory to 2C assuming a straight line curve (1st derivative). The curve is slightly logarithmic and excludes methane. There was not one scientist going in to COP15 that thought we could stay below 1.5C. The cuts we need must be much steeper than the commitments.
just a couple of quick points: firstly temperature's relationship to CO2 is indeed logarithmic. secondly, once we stop emitting concentrations of CO2 would gradually decrease as the oceans and land absorb some and equilibriate, so the concentration we stop emitting at isn't our final concentration. I know several scientists who've been considering 1.5°C for a long time, but honestly back at the time of COP15 it was less a scientific question and more a policy question. now, though, the science tells us just how incredibly steep the cuts would need to be to have a chance to stay under 1.5°C
People used to throw fake blood on people wearing fur and people stopped. But it’s really easy to buy a different coat instead of fur. The easy swap for coal, oil, gas is not there yet.
I wish they didn’t have to resort to publicity stunts like this in order to get attention, but people have been trying to get attention “the right way” for 40ish years now unsuccessfully. Every year that goes by will make the situation more extreme and so the actions will become more extreme as well.
I just think that they should be punished by law - hard. The thing about anoying is, if you want to change anything in a Democracy you have to get over 50 or even 66 Percent and to annoy the public is like losing their votes in masses. So if you want to protest - don't do it to the people - do it to a/the person that could change it (without violence).
So the current plan to extract more fossil fuels will overshoot the goal of limiting climate change to 1.5 or even 2 degrees. Try the german way and do a mass lawsuit against the government? Maybe that could work.
not a silly question at all. thankfully analyses for most countries (including the UK) shows that the tech we need is mostly there. in particular, this means renewables (for the UK this is primarily wind), in combination with nuclear fission, energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro, etc) and potentially fossil gas with carbon capture.
Explain to everyone exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, what a world without fossil fuels would be like? BTW, you won't be able to do without using fossil fuels, or materials and services provided by them, yourself.
If you have ever been to Zurich, it would be something like that. Farming and related transport via synthetic or electric fuels. Clothing via carbon farming from the atmosphere or carbon capture at concrete factories. Flying greatly reduced, but powered 100% by SAF. Train and PT is main form of distance personal transport, bicycle or walking would be local. Meat and diary intake greatly reduced, replaced with existing plant based alternatives, already super tasty. Overall people would work less, be happier and be more community minded.
@@ClimateAdami want to see coal mine,s to open up all over the uk, cos i dont belive burning coal or oil has done or is doing any damage, when ever i see anthing that burns coal i,m automaticly atracted to it, & i love the smoke & the smell of it & anything that can burn it from an open fire in a room to the largest steam engine & i can remember not that long ago when the whole country was massivly dependant on coal, infact so much dependant on it that if a guy worked in the coal mine,s during ww1& ww2 then he was automaticly exempt from getting called up to fight for his country. & as for peoples health, there is more people with health problems today that there ever was, kids having to us inhauler,s cos of asthma, which when everyone had open fires was vertutly unheard of,
But motorists are paying road tax to use the roads. Mot, Car Insurance, Ulez, Congestion Charges, Services, repairs to there vehicles. And putting fuel in there vehicles. And car parking. People have no rights to stop motorists for useing the roads that they pay for. People have been driving there vehicles for Decades. Its not going to stop People driving there vehicles. You know that. People go to work to put money into there vehicles. People pay high prices for there vehicles to drive. What for People sitting in the roads acting like there 5 years old. People need to crow up. And protest at the gas company office's, Power plants and parliament. Not blocking up roads. Or ask to speak to the ministers are involved in this matter. For a interview with them. (DONT TAKE OUT ON MOTORISTS THERE NOT THE GOVERNMENT ARE THEY).
@@peter9477 @2:00- temp is proportional to CO2? "fill up" the atmosphere? @3:00 on- series of contentious claims about the effects of increased temperature @3:20 all countries are not signed up to the PCA @3:30 keeping fossil fuels in the ground is not the only way to maintain the CO2 level - eg sequestration His "needs" are undesirable options - ie. not necessities - towards his goal of ceasing fossil fuel use etc. etc. (I really can't be bothered to comment on nearly every sentence he uttered.) TBH it's not so much his views that bothered me, so much as his presentation. Emotional rants, with opinions cast around like facts, assumptions skated over without any acknowledgement and absolutely no consideration of any other points of view but his own. Clearly he could not be failed on his emotional stance, but it would surely make a panel very sceptical. He looks like he has torn his garments and let his hair hang loose, now he should be crying, "unclean, unclean, unscientific." He would need to be much, much more convincing in his answers to the challenging questions he would surely get. But on reflection, it's not his viva I think he would have failed, because he'd never have gotten that far. Any self-respecting scientific department would never have taken him on a PhD program after a rant like that.
@@peter9477 But he's not communicating science, just an emotive rant. Yes, maybe he'd work better in a formal situation? But it scares me these days, the sort of people becoming professors! We used to admire and respect them, even when we disagreed (mostly!) But people obviously listen to him, so that says something.
@@Merlin3189 Adam is trying to reach the masses and in doing so has to grossly simplify climatology. Your protesting over this simplification is noted, but how will *you* communicate climatology to the masses?
I hear Stop Oil are consulting Solicitors with a view to sueing Directors of UK based Oil companies for damages. I wonder if the potential future Plaintiffs appreciate before the case "gets off the ground" the Defendants are very likely to apply to thje Court for an Order for SECURITY of COSTS (If they loose). This is not uncommon procedure and used often to prevent frivilious or unnecessary proceedings. If successful (it will be almost for sure) that each Plaintiff will be examined as to their means & assets and their ready availability. Thereafter, subject, to investigation, each will be required to deposit substantial liquid funds with the Court and or allow charges on their homes & assets before the case can proceed. It can be ruineous ! This action is usually very dissuasive as the Plaintiffs seriously risk not only having to pay their own substantial costs but that of the Defendants ! I hope they reflect very carefully. Of course the Plaintiffs may resort to GoFundMe, but the Court are still likely to allow the Defendants application "to concentrate their minds" and possibly to protect the Defendants & shareholders for any losses should their defense be successful
Governments should be doing what the Australian government is doing, removing all use of plastics, funding more into green energy and banning petrol cars by 2030 doing so will make oil burning pointless and push people into getting electric cars and putting solar panels on houses.
Hi Adam. What did you mean when you said “the fossil fuel infrastructure that the world already has would be enough to get the temperature above 1.5C”? At 3:45? Do you mean we don’t need to drill more?
Good! Question! this comes from this study: eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/109410/20017613/250023597/Tong_2019_Committed_emissions_from_existing_energy_infrastructure_jeopardize_1.5C_target.pdf and is about the infrastructure that burns the fossil fuels (e.g. electricity generation, transport, etc) rather than the infrastructure that digs up fossil fuels. I think this is an important stat, but since it doesn't directly relate to the demand of Just Stop Oil, I also gave the example of the unburnable carbon, which comes from here: www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8
Although just came across a study indicating that indeed no new oil and gas fields should be developed! twitter.com/drvolts/status/1582980234949046272?t=9SDIZWY3L2aQKbMjG5RHNg&s=19
@@ClimateAdam I guess it makes sense. I just wanted to know what you meant at that point, not particularly what the reasons behind your statement were. I don't doubt climate change or your statement per se.
I have to empathize with the average citizen who loses a job interview, misses a funeral, or god forbid suffers a terrible health outcome due to the protestors blocking the roads. The PR stunts at the Chelsea Flower Show or the Ashes are one thing, but if you think causing Joe Schmo to miss a job interview is going to accomplish a goal other than putting someone else in economic harm, I've got nothing else to say.
I think that there are so many people that argue "this isnt the way", and "they should target the companies/govt", but ppl like XR, JSO, etc, have literally been targeting Govt, oil terminals, think tanks, etc., and have barely any press - with a media system that seems to favour only the most controversial headlines, this is the only way to get climate into the news that isn't a huge natural disaster amplified by CC... And personally, I've been completely inspired by JSO's actions
May I recommend you read some and get yourself a little educated before demonstrating just how uninformed you are on line? Maybe begin with Sheldon Wolin’s Democracy Incorporated, then try Howard Zinn’s The Peuple’s History of thé United States. Once you have a basis from which to write intelligibly, perhaps folk will listen to you without dismissing you out of hand
+1.5C is not "ideally" -it's just the lowest that was remotely plausible. It is just an arbitrary number. Any actual scientific threshold would be set much lower.
So I have been a climate activist, Australia, since the 2019/2020 bushfires. To me this feels really untargeted, including the road blocking. We have been fighting a new gas development that if it goes ahead will run until at least 2045 and produce 1.6 billion tons of CO2. (also potentially damage aboriginal rock art in the area). We have had most success targeting Sports and Arts washing by fossil fuel companies. They are trying to be noticed for the good things they are doing so, we make sure that people know about the bad things they are doing. Today we launched our campaign for a local sports team to drop the company starting this gas field as their major sponsor. We are targeting something people a lot of attention to and for a direct connection to fossil fuel companies actions, giving them money to appear like they are a good local coropare citizen. Of course we have dedicated activists outside their HQ every Monday to remind the people working there, that they are part of the problem and they have the option of not participating in it. If they are at HQ they are professionals they can change jobs easily not like bothering a diller or something. The third prong is aimed at the CEO and the Shareholders, but usually only get the AGM and shareholder meetings to ask our pointed questions. Although if the CEO shows her face we like to be there. They are making the decisions they are the people responsible for the issue. The Fourth is suing the pants off them. Hasn't worked but we will keep doing it, to produce ongoing legal risk for the project.
definitely get that - I think it's notable that so few of the articles about the action even mention what was behind it (hence me making this vid!). that said, it seems unfocused actions get a lot more attention. does that outweigh the fact that the attention is less informed..? I have no idea!
@@ClimateAdam We did manage to get national T.V attention with this appeal to dump the sponsor but its actually part of a larger fight with sportsmen and women also pressing against Fossil fuel and a particular mining companies sponsorship at the same time.
The target is clear, necessary and urgent (as ClimateAdam outlined). The risk is that the tactic might occlude focus on the target. But that risk is only realised if, in the aftermath of public attention having been gained, climate communicators fail to seize the opportunity to communicate.
@@briantulloch7222 Hey Brian, you are pretending here that science is on your side but you know all this information due to the hard work of climate scientists who all agree it is happening and caused by humans. What is it about climate change and the action we need to take to stop it that threatens your way of life? Do you have V8 you don't give up? Do you like to go off-roading? Is it the very need for international co-operation that you find scary? maybe you are part of a fringe political movement called right Libertarianism that is shown to be nonsense in the face of shared environmental concerns.
What is your view on Nuclear power? Deaths/unit electricity lower than renewables and lifecycle emissions also lower than hydro / on shore / solar? Expensive currently for sure, but seems it could be a great way to stabalise generation in addition to renewables ( not quite sure what the volatility of these are currently? do we have capacity to store large sums of their generation for bad days? )
Initially I was worried how people react, but then I noticed the amount of attention it generated, and read some threads from prominent figures like Peter Kalmus - and I have now come to the conclusion that it is tragic this type of protest is necessary to get the importance of the phase out of fossil fuels onto news headlines. I think we can all agree a habitable planet is a prize worth some minor disruption.
Finally someone who looks at the matter from a neutral point of view and doesn’t just throw hate in all directions because of the tactics used by the activists. Thank you for this video!
Tackling climate change means using all the usual tools on the governments preferred from of 'engagement'. Lobbying, petition, participating or attending public inquiries, deputation at local council, consultations pushing for public inquiries, articles and letters to the press etc. It also means the governments less preferred from of 'engagement': protest. Protest is a legitimate form of political engagement it is just that politicians like to create a distinction between 'engagement' and 'protest'. Politicians hate protest as it holds them to account like no other form of engagement other than voting them out of office. The press is one of their key pillars of support. No government has been elected in the UK without Rupert Murdoch's support since around the 1970's. Let that sink in. The government hate it when the press reports on protests as it means they are being held to account, it is eroding and circumventing their narrative in the local paper and the national papers and news. The right wing press fails to report on fuel poverty adequatly and even less the need for mass home insulation schemes, public transport, flying, the need for a plant based diet. One years funding of fossil fuels, £8,000,000,000 would be sufficient to provide loft insulation for all the homes in the UK and leave funding left over for a lot of double glazing. Think what HS2 funding would do, £100,000,000,000 plus, or covid funding £400,000,000,000. The government can issue this money and balance the budget with the right taxes ie wealth and high income earners. Taxpayers money is being wasted on HS2, PFI, subsidies and tax breaks while they are freezing and struggling to pay their fuel bills while companies profiteer. Christmas was cancelled twice and people were not permitted to attend funerals because of covid and it is cancelled again because of the cost of living and energy crises. The government is still partying, everyone should be angry. If 10% of the population got out and blocked the roads demanding insulation, double glazing, public transport, solar panels, cavity wall insulation, higher taxes for those over £150,000 wages, pay increases for minimum wage, public sector and benefits the government would have no choice but to listen. Suggestion: block the roads on Sundays, grow the movement and threaten to hold them on weekdays once we are at a critical mass.
It changed more than1.5 degrees everywhere, every day between breakfast and lunch and it's ludicrous to postulate and increase in 50 years will do nothing. And death from natural disaster are down 90% the last 109 years the medieval warm was warmer than now, there is no climate crisis
Whether we think protests like the "soup drop" on the painting are helpful or not - many of us can use them to start conversations and frame them right. I was quite frustrated by the way many - not all - online media reported on it. I've seen mainly posts that were very click-baity, focusing on the "soup on the painting moment", not reporting on the fact that even the museum officially stated near-instantly that the painting was not damaged, and not showing the part in which the activists presented their (actually very well phrased) demands. I looked up whether the artwork had been damaged (having only recently learned that other activists had glued themselves not to a paining, but the protective cover of the painting), - shared that the museum itself said it hadn't been damaged, - pointed out that protests often are very carefully planned to only be annoying and not to effect real damage (like protesters that glue themselves on roads leave enough space for ambulance to be able to pass through in case of emergency) - looked up the full video of the protest, showing the demands of the activists, and shared it. Many of us can correct false impressions and use the attention these protests generate to start helpful conversations.
I've been waiting to hear your opinion about this event 😊. Personally, I don't think this kind of action helps people to act or think about climate change in a positive way. I believe that this strategy is not directly proportional to the reduction of fossil fuels. Anyway thanks for sharing your opinion and talking about it as always.😊
@@ClimateAdam thats such an important question to ask people who are saying "this isn't good activism" - it begs the question, what is the right way, then? Can you demonstrate it? Loved the video !
If we knew the answer to this question, activism and its results would be easier. I don't know which way is the best. I believe more in positive action such as this Chanel that with humor and acting shows reality and allows us to think about climate change.
@@gisela4120 the past tells us that the fundamental shifts we are looking for are often unfortunately only gained through more drastic actions. I don't think we can criticise one type of climate activism simply because we do not like it when we are talking about human extinction. We don't know what will work yet because nothing has - these girls completely disrupted all timelines and explicitly named the fossil fuel industry. that is a step in the right direction to me
@@ClimateAdam In my opinion the right way are the school students skipping classes to go and protest climate change. Way more large scale, more accepted by the boomers, so much more effective. Man, I really cannot wait until all boomers are out of power and the young generation is.
I think an incremental approach is the easiest, most fair and best way to reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax is just such an approach. It’s easiest because it can be levied accurately in any one location such as an oil refinery, a gas plant, or a mine mouth. This simply adds to the cost of the product at the point of use, so the “polluter” is the party that actually pays the tax. Each country thereby takes “ownership” of the pollution it creates internally. Most countries run a deficit, and the increased revenue could eliminate this as long as the money acquired is not used to increase military spending. Something like one pound per liter (or one Euro), adjusted for carbon content would be high enough to be effective, but low enough to be affordable. Additional taxes on luxury items could also be levied.
I would like a single person in the comment section to not use any products that have been generated with fossil fuel for a single day. You can all go ahead and throw away your phones, leave your homes and stop eating food :)
soooo I'm unsure what point you're making. it's clear that today's economic, energy, and manufacturing systems depend heavily on fossil fuels, and that they're next to impossible to avoid in our day to day activities. which is a problem since fossil fuels are driving climate change. and that's why we need a structural shift away from these fossil fuels.
Not all of us can make a living wearing sandals and composting our breakfast, the average person has a family to care for and a job that supports them.
The globe has warmed around 2 degrees Celsius the past century and not only did we survive despite this, but flourished thanks to advances in modern technology and fossil fuels
Reduce parking lots by 50% in citys use the new land for green spaces. So parking garages can do this reducing of parking lots land use by 50% and they can have batteries on first floor and solar or wind on top to reduce energy demand. The green spaces can help cool and reduce pollution and reduce energy needs because its cooler and less wind too.
@@marcwinkler I am curious though. What tipping point given there is no climate change that is manmade. As CO2 is necessary for all life on earth and is a cooling agent that absorbs infrared. And all the predictions made my climate scientists have been proven false with real world examples. I am curious as to what tipping point he's referring to.
@@marcwinkler Greta is diagnosed low iQ autist. Shes a mouthpiece for elitist fascists whom are trying to push this hoax agenda on humanity. Gore another one. Anyone else?
Thanks for this video Adam. I am an activist with extinction rebellion in South Australia and support just stop oil for sure. Glad to see the climate emergency continually being forced into the media.
I just want to stop by and say this if you truly want to stop oil i can help Stop using it with all your supporters Stop using anything made with or manufactured with oil . with all your big talk do it you dont need to make all of us if you will just show us that you will take action and stop using it you can make a difference, and if you live then you can expand you cult .
Well, the thing concerning the musseum stunts, is that many graphic and visual artists are on the vanguard of these issues. There is great art out there about climate change, overconsumption and so on. Steve Cuts shorts come to mind, just to name an example. Art is a powerful tool for dialogue and emotional expresión; and many people perceived it is not fair at all to lash out at it in order to get attention. Why not lash out against the church instead, or against ONGs that keep profiting from doing nothing to solve the issues whose effects they want to mitigate? I bet that would bring out great press coverage too... Being disruptive is not the same as being antagonizing or backstabbing. Something we should have learned already from PETA's treatment of women in their campaigns, and thebreasonable backlash against it. It saddens me, because it creates a false divission between arts and culture, and science and climate change activism. As an artist and an activist; most commentary i' ve gotten on the subject are sadly from climate change deniers seeking for my sympathy against the "ignorant, priviledged, poser and attention seeking youths", while many of my colleages stood there in silence, as they did not have anything positive to say, not even able to defend those action as "artistic happenings" or performances. Which effectively shifted the conversation from the issue of social fuels into the issue of the culture of viralization. Which maybe was the point; but i still think is more important and vital to take positive action than getting viral.
They are also using vandalism, you forgot that. Some French equivalent group might have partly destroyed a painting a couple of days ago, for instance. I have yet to understand their message though, because they can't go past slogans. I do get that it would be great to reduce fossil fuels, but at the same time, at least in France, they are against nuclear power and are conveniently forgetting Germany's coal power plants fiasco. I'm wondering whether they are genuinely concerned about pollution and its consequences.
Yes, enlist the help of the public by ceaselessly annoying them and obstructing their daily lives. And when the public tells you that you are annoying assholes, retaliate by attempting to destroy famous works of art - just because it's an "oil" painting.😅 This stunning display of brilliance and thoughtfulness has markedly improved the credibility of their message. There's only one problem though, how are poor people going to afford clothes without all the polymers that we derive from fossil fuels? Oil isn't just for burning, genius. Actually, one of many problems.
I feel like the point of the action was to open a space for people like ClimateAdam (and you, and me) to (a) point out that the painting was not damaged (and the activists knew it wouldn't be), which makes (many) people suddenly calm down and go 'wait, what?', and then (b) raise the question of just what should be done about climate disruption. This gives a chance for precisely this kind of content to enter the discourse and public consciousness. On the one hand, this helps to establish consensus around the goal (the scientifically-based demand of Just Stop Oil) while enabling further discussing about the various tactics that might be used to achieve it. Even if people end up rejecting the tactics of Just Stop Oil, their work will have been successful, since it may well spawn all kinds of other efforts. And if that is the case, then their tactics might, ultimately, be confirmed as (strangely) quite reasonable...
Should we engage in petty vandalism as a tactic to get people's attention, and then attempt to redirect their attention in useful ways that benefit the world? Or perhaps, would it make more sense to simply engage in mass protests in appropriate spaces, hand out pamphlets, create works of art (there are some places in cities where graffiti art is welcomed), door-to-door knocking, and other forms of direct and positive activism to get the message across? Why do you specifically have to destroy or vandalize something? Should we dump paint on your house next, record your shocked reaction, and then say - you know, its just paint! It can be cleaned off! By the way, would you like to learn about climate change? Or perhaps instead would you like someone to visit your home and ask you politely to sign a pledge, or take some action on climate change? I don't understand the motivation or the need to basically engage in mass vandalism, and in some cases much worse when people block the roads and the ability of emergency vehicles to use them which veers into outright terrorism. I don't care how spectacularly urgent your demands are. In a democracy, action is not performed by a minority on the majority. You can't simply block all the roads as a way to enforce that your demands are met. You can not destroy as many public works of art as possible until the public capitulates to your demands. There are appropriate means and channels for taking action. All that said, you have plainly forgotten about the most obvious downside of this action. That a lot of people get frustrated and irritated that they can no longer commute to work, or that the artwork they took time off to see is now at least temporarily ruined. For all we know these might be sacred religious or cultural icons that are being desecrated. People are not necessarily the most rational beings. If you anger enough of them for long enough, then they will be turned off of climate action simply out of the emotional turmoil you put them through. And frankly its not like taking action in the UK alone will avert climate change so I see that argument as being considerably persuasive. So there. Have your pick of the reason. But I just think this form of protest is not only nonsensical as a means of generating action, but it actively makes things much worse. Whatever poll Adam cited about how the public are calling for more action on climate change, I assume he is smart enough to know correlation does not imply causation. I strongly suspect people are recognizing the importance of climate change IN SPITE OF these protests, which actively do harm.
A lot of ignorant religious fanatics actually want this to happen because in their insane minds it will attract Jeezus and fulfill the crap they want to happen. Many of them are in power.
I wonder about that too. Are these events causing people to thinking differently or more positively about making changes? Or just digging in their heals more?
The actions of these activists bring the climate change debate into focus for all the wrong reasons. Instead of disrupting the movement of the entire society they should instead create or innovate technology that is more efficient and more environmental friendly. Their focus in energy and oil is like asking society to die. Rapid climate change started during the 1st Industrial Revolution. The increasing improvement of the global quality of life rapidly increased global demand. In short it increased ecnomic output which encouraged mass industrial farming to provide food for everyone. And when that is not enough we turned to oil to fuel everything. So in the end, Just Stop Oil basically wants society to turn back time and live in the Medieval Age.
As long as economics are the driving motivation within our world we'll continue to hold the almighty dollar above environmental and humanitarian concerns. That's the stark truth.
It is time to end the climate change tax grab industry (both political meddling and computer modelling, sit down and do nothing). Cut off all funding immediately and all climate paranoia will disappear and the activists will need to retrain to do something useful like become builders and plumbers.
I think the UK needs more fossil fuels to being more self efficient to then act on renewables. In doing so I believe this won't impact our CO2 levels by much. We need to be a strong economy to get through this. Covid and Russia is not helping.
Aren't we already at 1.5 degree Celsius? If we take the cooling of SO2 in account which is mainly released through fossil fules? Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Page 8 summary for policy makers.
very interesting question! sulphate aerosols definitely cool the climate, and if we stopped emitting them suddenly that would definitely cause a sudden spike in warming. but studies that have simulated a gradual phase out of aerosols do not show this effect, and much of the warming would also be counteracted by methane emissions (which would presumably be reduced in parallel). all of this is explicitly taken into account when climate scientists work out potential emissions scenarios, carbon budgets to stay within temperature limits, etc, etc.
Do not worry about emissions from businesses what we need to worry about is the emissions from rich people Private planes, huge Yachts multiple houses to heat and cool as well as build these are the people who are hurting the environment, Billionaire Bill alone travels more than 213,000 miles by plane producing 1600 tones of Green House Gases not counting his mega Yacht and multiple houses.
You do know that the more trees there are, the more they obsorb the CO2. So, why not promote the planting of 100 trees for every tree cut down? Climate "Crisis" solved, right?
I think that going after art was a poor choice however I agree with being as disruptive as possible blocking roads placing propaganda everywhere staging load noisy protesting front of government buildings exposing the hypocrisy of the government ect. My only hope is that this is enough to force the government to make concessions otherwise more drastic measures might need to be taken against oil and gas infrastructure directly. I think we are still away off from such drastic action but at this point we must consider that the government may not be willing to negotiate without at least the threat of violence. This being governments of the west not specifically the UK.
certainly consumerism adds means more emissions. it's not precisely on this topic, but here's a great vid from my pal zentouro: th-cam.com/video/iIIIYoDRHM4/w-d-xo.html
@@ClimateAdam LOL Planned obsolescence has been going on since the 1950s and people talk like it is suddenly a big deal with smartphones. Heard of Vance Packard? The Waste Makers & The Hidden Persuaders
Yes. Let's cover the land with solar arrays and surround ourselves with bird-chopping windmills. Let's stop oil, coal and gas and install batteries full of toxic metals mined by children in the third world. Let's raise the cost of energy beyond what small manufacturers and ordinary people can afford. In short, let's deliberately unleash environmental and economic havoc on our country rather than invest sensibly in strategies to adapt to climate change. A warmer climate and higher CO2 levels aren't all bad and are certainly not as catastrophic as you predict. We can adapt. But only if we behave like sensible adults, not panicked children.
Huge thanks to patrons like Tim Baxter for supporting the channel. Fancy joining Tim? Click this linky link! www.patreon.com/ClimateAdam
after 40 years of watching this nothing is going to happen and we will be over 2 c. when push comes to shove we don't have the ability to replace fossil fuels and we are trapped
The things just stop oil demand will not happen. You do give me an impression that you are someone who has not engaged with any of the literature, contrary to your beliefs or ideology.
Seriously bloke only fools think CO2 is a problem.
You are apologist for angry confused activists that are sponsored by Getty oil heiress. Why in the world would oil giants want to support climate activism? (Answer: to use even more oil and throw shade on enviromental activism)
The top 10% of wealthiest world citizens produce over 40% of all carbon emissions. Why aren't you taking away their 100,000 sq ft mansions, multiple houses all over the world, 200 yard yachts, and private planes? Guess pollution is ok if it's by wealthy people who give you funding to attack poor working class people.
My experience tells me that tactics such as those used by Just Stop Oil are ineffective.and may actually have the opposite effect.They make climate activists look like overly emotional wing nuts instead of people with legitimate concerns about climate change. Climate activists need to get their own houses in order as well. For example, the cause of fighting climate change is harmed when Greta Thunberg, arguably the patron saint of the cause, comes out in support of the de-commissioning of a newly constructed wind farm in Norway.
That’s the plan if the oil companies I think. I heard somewhere recently that one of the early creators of just stop oil is the son of one of the biggest oil guy
I don't think there is any good tactic for this. And if there is no good tactic, then any tactic is a good tactic ...
i just want to shed some light on the tactics aspect .The tactic used are mostly nabbed from historical social movements (civil rights, suffragettes, LGBT+ movements)and they were all met with very similar responses that we are seeing against just stop oil today. Within social change theory, just stop oil now occupies a space named "The Radical Flank". I'm sure we've all heard the criticism "i agree with the message, not the tactics", people become more informed, resulting in more moderate organisations such as extinction rebellion, earth first and green peace gaining traction. This increase in sign ups has been observed since jso has been in the news.
Also why does being emotionally connected to the climate crisis make someone's concerns about it illegitimate ? please emotionally connect to the climate crisis, your allowed to be upset when rich people make life-threatening decisions at the expense of yourself and your future.
@@swaggersmacswagger1712Assuming we’re talking about the same person, he wasn’t the creator, but large donor to the cause. Ironically he withdrew funding after protesters disrupted too much, if remember correctly, didn’t let emergency services through. After massive public outrage protesters changed their policy and let emergency transport through.
If you annoy the people you need then who do you have? Affect the politicians and the companies, it’s easier for them if we argue amounts your selves
is it easy to reach politician have some common sense
It’s responsible for my attention on the matter, and likely many others in a world where the leading media outlets aren’t focused on justice they serve the government
Well I think big oil is actually financing these protesters, because they actually do the opposite of what they claim: When people get stuck in traffic because of them, they are saying to themselves „I will burn extra patrol just to stick it to these dumb protesters“.
@@satyapalyadav4468 So because it’s _slightly_ difficult to do, you won’t even try? Pathetic.
Thats not how civil resistance works. Its not trying to get public support, all movements for change were deeply demonised during their day and very unpopular, look at the suffragettes, civil rights etc etc
If your protest is for the good but causes harm, you won't get sympathy.
agreed
Whatever inconvenience these tactics pose on regular folk they're nothing compared to the horrors climate change has had on communities that don't have a strong government to save them from droughts, fires, etc. The cause is good, and as you say the tactics have people speak on something they normally wouldn't.
I've seen people claim it's a psyop funded by big oil because a daughter of an oil company donated to a fund that finances Just Stop Oil - despite her never actively having anything to do with oil business except for the money from her parents. Donating that to climate funds is based actually.
Yeah I really think that is such a distraction... Which is exactly why some people are so fixated on it!
If people want to stop using oil that's fine, they need to stop eating in that case.
Still find it ironic where that money came from
You'd be surprised just how many of these organisations the CIA, MI5 and other government agencies infoltrate and surreptitiously sponsor, for their own purposes. Often they deliberately clandestinely finance opposing factions.
I think it's a psyop by big oil because the protests are outright idiotic
The problem with their tactics is they make me want to burn tyres... And im all pro solar and wind and think its insane that the UK hasnt gone down the tidal lagoon route. Their protests are counter productive and deter people from openly supporting their goals, even if they agree with them.
I'm still surprised by how many people I've met who don't think it's real. But I am aware of the lengths the carbon fuel industry will go to secure their profits, which includes lying and deceiving people about the issue. No matter how many ways it's brought to the political and social world, the development of still more sources continues. To me, stop oil is a step I'm not about to protest. If there's fear of it causing people to dismiss the issue, I'm afraid they're already dismissing it, and the carbon fuel industry uses their behavior as an attempt to create doubt. They do that anyway. Not sure how this is going to change that. That soupgate thing was pretty good, except they didn't damage the painting. I think the artist was enough of a radical he may have approved if he thought it did some good. The message was that the wealthy are only concerned when their wealth is as stake. It was a good message. To bad the wealthy don't hold the environment as highly as that painting. It's a work of art.
The biggest problem is that they annoyed hell a lot of peoples, peoples have to work, to eat to produce for themselves and their families to survive still despite all the problems, they may understand if they pursue it the other way around, without causing problems to their own peoples.
Frankly, if I'm on my way to work and I'm held up by protesters that's clearly not my fault and any reasonable boss would understand the reason for the delay. Still gonna get paid that money, still gonna feed my family.
@@CaptainGlack not every boss is the same tho
Consider the number of commuters in this country. What percentage of those commuters have been affected by this group? I suspect it's in the. 0.000000xxxxxx percent. You all think it's affecting us all because you're told to think that. Stop being sheeple and wake up.
@@CaptainGlack Yeah. When you are seriously sick and need to be taken to hospital, I bet you will be just as happy to be late for your appointments. Your statement is ridiculous. Protests of this nature do everybody disservice. The scientists are already fighting this battle at all levels needed. Any other form of activism of this nature has more negative effects because the sentiment is swayed away from what is actually the right thing to do.
@@CaptainGlackHow about the ambulance drivers who can’t get to their patients in time? Or the food deliveries? The nature of the jobs are not the same as you and I.
If oil is ‘stopped’ today, then what’s the viable alternative that we can immediately introduce?
Horses lol
there's none. it's going to take at least 50 years for the world to be ready to quit oil and gas
The message I got was that oil paintings are bad, and that they are opposed to oil painters such as van Gogh, who painted with oils. I think you need to check your facts about CO2. The JustStopOil people don't care about CO2, they just want people to paint with acrylics. This I think is a reasonable request, since oils dry so slowly, and are often subject to yellowing over time.
It's thanks to there protests that I came to this video and now I have great respect for them to tolerate such harsh reactions from public.
I understand the frustration, but how they act, how they speak, the worry and passion seems a bit too cultistic. In addition, their argument is not well versed and not well presented. It is like that because their means are questionable. When you get into an argument and you can only repeat a stupid one liner statistic that you memorized, when the question is asked "why are you doing it in this way?", then the problem is you cannot argue, because you know you are wrong.
Do not misunderstand, I want a good future for our world, but this is just making everyone who was a general Joe, and could have been convinced, to be utterly disgusted and turning away. I live in Switzerland now, and I do believe that the way to be green is based on strong government backing, but also people policing. Alas, this is culture. You cannot force the change of a culture from one day to another. That is what conquerors done, not what "peaceful" protesters do. I am so disappointed in today's generation. Be better...
Everybody stay calm, we'we just been informed the second can has hit the Van gogh
Sad to see people in such a state of frustration and helplessness that they feel the compulsion to behave like this. It's total self- deprecation and self- sabotage and from the outside looks like cult mentality.
I do wonder if they have truly exhausted all other options to voice their opinions. Ultimately the PR is as important as the product for people. Do people get convinced to follow a leader who indulges in obnoxious inconvenience? It seems to me that many annoyed civilians see these acts as a show of moral incompetence. When you can't make wise charismatic moves in engaging with your enemies how can we trust you can make any with those you lead?
By all means, individuals should be allowed to protest but how is just as invaluable.
It is a Cult. Seen an interview with a jso spokes woman and the lady behaved like a crazy person. These eyes of her will give me nightmares... Seen another interview with a jso dude who said "we will do WHATEVER it takes..." - if thats not a cult I dont know what is.
What else can you do in an emergency, when everyone just goes on as normal and the news and media only talk about climate change when disruptive protests happen. Are we not all self sabotaging ourselves by not doing something about countries missing targets and on course to overshoot even 3 degrees?
@@mamela11 Then target the politicians, the media, the oil companies themselves -- I bet no one will be against protesters blocking politicians from their office alone. Targeting general public is like vigilante killing civilians to send message to the elites.
I initially thought the Van Gaugh stunt was a bad idea, but seeing the amount of discussion it has spawned has changed my mind about that. Just a few seconds of action has done a lot more than traditional lobbying ever could. But I think this can only work once or twice as the novelty is the big talking point. There is probably space for this sort of sensationalism now and again, but we need people behind the scenes to be pushing better policy too. I don't think there is a silver bullet to getting this done - I guess we need to try every avenue we have available.
The protesters don't know what their own demands would result in. Food production is dependent on fossil fuels. We will starve without oil and gas.
We could have spent that time working on realistic solutions instead..
@@iknowyouwanttofly such as?
@@simonabunkerimplementing new policies and new trchnologies in place, it is slow but is much more effective
What about the claim that the earth warms up first and that this causes an increase in CO2?
I recall that during covid lock-downs, how quickly the water became clearer, how quickly the air cleared, how wildlife began to be more in evidence again. I imagine that a rotating scheduled “day off/shut down” that various nations could agree to implement might be a quarter-measure that would be helpful. Certainly wouldn’t hurt.
Thank you. This has helped me understand these protesters better. I feel for them.
They are incompotent and take the bareminum route of helping the planet, they are ot heroes they are babies who hold their breath in protest
And wasting soup which could have gone to someone without food. These people need to get their priorities right
Srsly?
@___hannah. yes seriously, outside this very building are scores of homeless people, the way they are acting is actually pushing people away from their cause. They might as well help the oil industry lobby governments, they need to win over the general population and right now, they are doing the complete opposite
The ironic thing is that the folks who created this artwork were more climate friendly than the actual protesters themselves.
We need to focus on what things in life we can eliminate. If the demand for excess things decreases we will have an impact. Unfortunately the world is full of people that want more stuff, bigger houses, lavish vacations, extensive wardrobes, etc...
I'm a centre-left leaning voter and support renewable energy. But I'd vote for the right-wing to stop these traffic terrorists.
Preach this to China and India,they are the worlds largest producers of emissions. Every country in the world can enact strict regulations on fossil fuel but India and China will continue on thus making any and all regulations a moot point.
Great point, I suppose you apply the same logic to the next election too. Your vote really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. 👍
sarcasm! (I feel like you needed this.)
In my opinion, while the message of just stop oil is a good message, their ways of protesting were stupid and ignorant. Them spraying streets and chucking food onto paintings, I could just feel sorry for the people left to clean up the mess.
And their blocking roads part, while cars are bad for the environment and should be reduced on the roads, them blocking buses is criminal as it hurts the environment and people who need to get around.
A protest should be respectful of the general population as it’s better publicity for the movement.
"Stop oil", yet you need it to make windmills and solar panels 🤔, which end up in landfills when they are obsolete.
Throwing soup at a painting does not make me want to question the use of fossil fuels or the idea that human activity is altering the climate.
have you seen any activism that has helped you engage in those questions in a more meaningful way?
Why don't they start a political party and stand for election? If they have support then they'll get elected and they can implement any policies they want. We're meant to live in a democracy, aren't we?
in the UK, the 'first past the post' voting system means that this would be virtually impossible to succeed. in other countries that have proportional representation, you often see much greater representation of such ideas within coalition governments, for example.
I fear that all this manner of "shock activism" does is facilitating those who dismiss climate activists (and, by extension, scientists) as "loonies". Extremely counterproductive, I am afraid. This will not help "people thinking about climate change more", it will help them dismiss it. I would go so far as questioning the true motives of "just stop oil", just as i question motives of anti-nuclear activists. Fossil fuel money reaches far.
I hope I am wrong.
Yes. Its counterintuitive
What they're targeting are the people who have zero choices
Like let's be honest here. Most of our day to day activities are so embedded with oil
If you want to lessen or freed the society from usage of oil
U gotta either innovate or push for policies
Its slow but better approach
Psychiatry is most appropriate to unpack these psychopaths.
what are we going to use as replacement solar and wind dont always work let alone produce enough unless you want to use nuclear power as replacment.
dam and thermal are also point less since uk doesnt have enough volcano or river for all its population.
Coal isnt option since it more toxic then oil. this protest is pointless since stop oil has no back up plan to replace oil.
hydro, biogas, lots of grid storage including EV batteries, grid interconnectors. That's enough. You don't need anything else.
Complacency and inertia are the enemies of survival. Activism will arouse ire among some, but some have no willingness to engage with the science. If activism points out the problem and some solutions, we won't be any worse off if some are alienated.
I agree with cause but not method blah de blah , however people will resist feeling bullied and dominated particularly by people they feel are not connected to their experience of daily struggle I.e rich kids and the ‘loony left ‘ ( don’t shoot the messenger here ) the message people are receiving is. ‘I’ve weighed the cost to you of my actions and I think it’s worth it ‘, it also doesn’t help that the spokespeople come across as cultish and ignorant these demonstrators are hitting a number big psychological drivers that are causing extreme hatred towards them and nothing else . So if just stop oil etc are causing support to fall aren’t they able to reflect on this and strategise ? I see no sign of this . More likely to cause a class war and serious injury or death than thru are to achieve any success in increasing public awareness or support . Everyone just hates them for being belligerent ignorant and spoiled bullies .
For people that argue "i agree with the message but...", and think they have a better way of doing it, *go and do it, show us how its done!* as a planet, we need creative solutions and protests from the people, and every person shouting from the rooftops helps! It's too easy to criticise from an armchair, but so many people haven't put thought to how to protest in better ways, or gone and put their plans in action, so what we need is every person to show us how it should be done!
great point! just like there's no one tech that will decarbonise the planet, there's no one way to raise our voices which will resonate with everyone!
Brilliantly said. I’m getting real tired of the armchair critics (brilliantly depicted in the barber scene in this video) who are all too quick to point out the flaws of every action but never seem to have their own ideas of what we can do.
@@WolfHeathen maybe. I bet people said similar stuff about the sit-ins which occurred during the civil rights movement in the US though
The issue I have personally is when I hear that ppl with medical emergencies have suffered consequences due to these protests. A protest a year ago which put me off this form of protest was when a lady who was suffering with a stroke was being driven to a hospital but because of the roads being blocked off with protesters she became paralysed. Her health comprises for a cause. I understand the message and support it but everytime I hear about ppl gluing themselves to the road all I can think about is what this person went though, who could be next, what if that was me. It haunts me. The message is positive but the repercussions and image of certain demonstrations have been tainted with horror and anger in my mind. I'm not saying that I have the answer for what the right way to do it is but I still know what's wrong. And I think that matters more than finding a better approach is to stop doing what's putting others at risk. Also I'm not here to argue and value your opinion and you do make a great point, I just wanted to express my concerns in a safe and friendly manner
@@elliebarnes2776 I completely understand why you'd think that, and that's certainly an issue; I know with XR they have a blue lights policy and let through any emergency vehicle, but with JSO obviously they're a bit more stoic. To respectfully counter that, I would raise that inaction, and not protesting/making headlines/getting change, it dooms future life/our lives in the future, and given the awful system we've inherited whereupon only these sorts of protests gather media attention, it seems an awful balance between immediate cost, and the cost of inaction, which may be felt for thousands of years. It's a truly awful value judgement for anybody to have to make and I completely understand why someone may take a position like you've posed. There just isn't a perfectly good way to deal with this perfectly awful situation, I think
The projection from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would increase warming by 4C. We are already to 420 ppm that puts us on a trajectory to 2C assuming a straight line curve (1st derivative). The curve is slightly logarithmic and excludes methane. There was not one scientist going in to COP15 that thought we could stay below 1.5C. The cuts we need must be much steeper than the commitments.
just a couple of quick points: firstly temperature's relationship to CO2 is indeed logarithmic. secondly, once we stop emitting concentrations of CO2 would gradually decrease as the oceans and land absorb some and equilibriate, so the concentration we stop emitting at isn't our final concentration.
I know several scientists who've been considering 1.5°C for a long time, but honestly back at the time of COP15 it was less a scientific question and more a policy question. now, though, the science tells us just how incredibly steep the cuts would need to be to have a chance to stay under 1.5°C
What do you think of Just Stop Oil's approach? And if you don't like it... what do you think would be the best approach?
People used to throw fake blood on people wearing fur and people stopped. But it’s really easy to buy a different coat instead of fur. The easy swap for coal, oil, gas is not there yet.
I wish they didn’t have to resort to publicity stunts like this in order to get attention, but people have been trying to get attention “the right way” for 40ish years now unsuccessfully. Every year that goes by will make the situation more extreme and so the actions will become more extreme as well.
It's refreshing to see people actually treating this like an emergency.
I just think that they should be punished by law - hard. The thing about anoying is, if you want to change anything in a Democracy you have to get over 50 or even 66 Percent and to annoy the public is like losing their votes in masses. So if you want to protest - don't do it to the people - do it to a/the person that could change it (without violence).
So the current plan to extract more fossil fuels will overshoot the goal of limiting climate change to 1.5 or even 2 degrees. Try the german way and do a mass lawsuit against the government? Maybe that could work.
A silly question I know, but what do we use instead?
not a silly question at all. thankfully analyses for most countries (including the UK) shows that the tech we need is mostly there. in particular, this means renewables (for the UK this is primarily wind), in combination with nuclear fission, energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro, etc) and potentially fossil gas with carbon capture.
Explain to everyone exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, what a world without fossil fuels would be like? BTW, you won't be able to do without using fossil fuels, or materials and services provided by them, yourself.
If you have ever been to Zurich, it would be something like that.
Farming and related transport via synthetic or electric fuels.
Clothing via carbon farming from the atmosphere or carbon capture at concrete factories.
Flying greatly reduced, but powered 100% by SAF.
Train and PT is main form of distance personal transport, bicycle or walking would be local.
Meat and diary intake greatly reduced, replaced with existing plant based alternatives, already super tasty.
Overall people would work less, be happier and be more community minded.
These people make me want to see emissions rise even further, just to spite them.
so you want to damage the planet and the people who live on it further to spite two teenagers? seems completely healthy and normal.
@@ClimateAdam so it's completely sane and normal to block people's way? That literally have nothing to do with what's going on?
Ok sure 🤦
@@ClimateAdami want to see coal mine,s to open up all over the uk, cos i dont belive burning coal or oil has done or is doing any damage, when ever i see anthing that burns coal i,m automaticly atracted to it, & i love the smoke & the smell of it & anything that can burn it from an open fire in a room to the largest steam engine & i can remember not that long ago when the whole country was massivly dependant on coal, infact so much dependant on it that if a guy worked in the coal mine,s during ww1& ww2 then he was automaticly exempt from getting called up to fight for his country. & as for peoples health, there is more people with health problems today that there ever was, kids having to us inhauler,s cos of asthma, which when everyone had open fires was vertutly unheard of,
Put all "Activists" in to STEM and force them to find a technological solution to all this
Surley if they are stopping traffic they are just causing more immisons anyways due to the cars that are idling 🙄🙄🙄
Greta Thunberg was saying we would be living in Water World in 2023…..
I was hoping that be a reality. Floating cities and stuff. 🤣🤣🤣 yall let me down
But motorists are paying road tax to use the roads. Mot, Car Insurance, Ulez, Congestion Charges, Services, repairs to there vehicles. And putting fuel in there vehicles. And car parking. People have no rights to stop motorists for useing the roads that they pay for. People have been driving there vehicles for Decades. Its not going to stop People driving there vehicles. You know that. People go to work to put money into there vehicles. People pay high prices for there vehicles to drive. What for People sitting in the roads acting like there 5 years old. People need to crow up. And protest at the gas company office's, Power plants and parliament. Not blocking up roads. Or ask to speak to the ministers are involved in this matter. For a interview with them. (DONT TAKE OUT ON MOTORISTS THERE NOT THE GOVERNMENT ARE THEY).
If this is typical of the calibre of PhD's in Climatology, we should have 0% trust in 97% of them. How did he ever pass his viva?
Gee, I missed the part where he discussed anything in this video that would provide you with the basis for such a judgement...
@@peter9477 @2:00- temp is proportional to CO2? "fill up" the atmosphere?
@3:00 on- series of contentious claims about the effects of increased temperature
@3:20 all countries are not signed up to the PCA
@3:30 keeping fossil fuels in the ground is not the only way to maintain the CO2 level - eg sequestration
His "needs" are undesirable options - ie. not necessities - towards his goal of ceasing fossil fuel use
etc. etc. (I really can't be bothered to comment on nearly every sentence he uttered.)
TBH it's not so much his views that bothered me, so much as his presentation. Emotional rants, with opinions cast around like facts, assumptions skated over without any acknowledgement and absolutely no consideration of any other points of view but his own. Clearly he could not be failed on his emotional stance, but it would surely make a panel very sceptical. He looks like he has torn his garments and let his hair hang loose, now he should be crying, "unclean, unclean, unscientific." He would need to be much, much more convincing in his answers to the challenging questions he would surely get. But on reflection, it's not his viva I think he would have failed, because he'd never have gotten that far. Any self-respecting scientific department would never have taken him on a PhD program after a rant like that.
@@Merlin3189 I see you're confusing writing or defending a PhD with "science communication".
@@peter9477 But he's not communicating science, just an emotive rant. Yes, maybe he'd work better in a formal situation? But it scares me these days, the sort of people becoming professors! We used to admire and respect them, even when we disagreed (mostly!) But people obviously listen to him, so that says something.
@@Merlin3189 Adam is trying to reach the masses and in doing so has to grossly simplify climatology. Your protesting over this simplification is noted, but how will *you* communicate climatology to the masses?
Just stop oil people will never do this in Dubai lol.
I can't help but think that Van Gogh would approve of the soup protest. I don't think he was a stranger to controversial actions.
I hear Stop Oil are consulting Solicitors with a view to sueing Directors of UK based Oil companies for damages. I wonder if the potential future Plaintiffs appreciate before the case "gets off the ground" the Defendants are very likely to apply to thje Court for an Order for SECURITY of COSTS (If they loose). This is not uncommon procedure and used often to prevent frivilious or unnecessary proceedings.
If successful (it will be almost for sure) that each Plaintiff will be examined as to their means & assets and their ready availability. Thereafter, subject, to investigation, each will be required to deposit substantial liquid funds with the Court and or allow charges on their homes & assets before the case can proceed. It can be ruineous !
This action is usually very dissuasive as the Plaintiffs seriously risk not only having to pay their own substantial costs but that of the Defendants ! I hope they reflect very carefully. Of course the Plaintiffs may resort to GoFundMe, but the Court are still likely to allow the Defendants application "to concentrate their minds" and possibly to protect the Defendants & shareholders for any losses should their defense be successful
Combustion is the problem; Methane is the accelerant. Just Stop Hydrocarbons.
So, what is going to happen with the anti-protest laws coming into play soon?
Governments should be doing what the Australian government is doing, removing all use of plastics, funding more into green energy and banning petrol cars by 2030 doing so will make oil burning pointless and push people into getting electric cars and putting solar panels on houses.
Hi Adam. What did you mean when you said “the fossil fuel infrastructure that the world already has would be enough to get the temperature above 1.5C”? At 3:45? Do you mean we don’t need to drill more?
Good! Question!
this comes from this study:
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/109410/20017613/250023597/Tong_2019_Committed_emissions_from_existing_energy_infrastructure_jeopardize_1.5C_target.pdf
and is about the infrastructure that burns the fossil fuels (e.g. electricity generation, transport, etc) rather than the infrastructure that digs up fossil fuels.
I think this is an important stat, but since it doesn't directly relate to the demand of Just Stop Oil, I also gave the example of the unburnable carbon, which comes from here:
www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8
Although just came across a study indicating that indeed no new oil and gas fields should be developed! twitter.com/drvolts/status/1582980234949046272?t=9SDIZWY3L2aQKbMjG5RHNg&s=19
@@ClimateAdam I guess it makes sense. I just wanted to know what you meant at that point, not particularly what the reasons behind your statement were. I don't doubt climate change or your statement per se.
If we're in a climate emergency why are flights not being cancelled and all but essential services.
I have to empathize with the average citizen who loses a job interview, misses a funeral, or god forbid suffers a terrible health outcome due to the protestors blocking the roads. The PR stunts at the Chelsea Flower Show or the Ashes are one thing, but if you think causing Joe Schmo to miss a job interview is going to accomplish a goal other than putting someone else in economic harm, I've got nothing else to say.
I think that there are so many people that argue "this isnt the way", and "they should target the companies/govt", but ppl like XR, JSO, etc, have literally been targeting Govt, oil terminals, think tanks, etc., and have barely any press - with a media system that seems to favour only the most controversial headlines, this is the only way to get climate into the news that isn't a huge natural disaster amplified by CC... And personally, I've been completely inspired by JSO's actions
May I recommend you read some and get yourself a little educated before demonstrating just how uninformed you are on line? Maybe begin with Sheldon Wolin’s Democracy Incorporated, then try Howard Zinn’s The Peuple’s History of thé United States.
Once you have a basis from which to write intelligibly, perhaps folk will listen to you without dismissing you out of hand
@@chris4973 are you able to sum it up, to save me the time? :)
+1.5C is not "ideally" -it's just the lowest that was remotely plausible.
It is just an arbitrary number. Any actual scientific threshold would be set much lower.
So I have been a climate activist, Australia, since the 2019/2020 bushfires. To me this feels really untargeted, including the road blocking. We have been fighting a new gas development that if it goes ahead will run until at least 2045 and produce 1.6 billion tons of CO2. (also potentially damage aboriginal rock art in the area). We have had most success targeting Sports and Arts washing by fossil fuel companies. They are trying to be noticed for the good things they are doing so, we make sure that people know about the bad things they are doing. Today we launched our campaign for a local sports team to drop the company starting this gas field as their major sponsor. We are targeting something people a lot of attention to and for a direct connection to fossil fuel companies actions, giving them money to appear like they are a good local coropare citizen.
Of course we have dedicated activists outside their HQ every Monday to remind the people working there, that they are part of the problem and they have the option of not participating in it. If they are at HQ they are professionals they can change jobs easily not like bothering a diller or something.
The third prong is aimed at the CEO and the Shareholders, but usually only get the AGM and shareholder meetings to ask our pointed questions. Although if the CEO shows her face we like to be there. They are making the decisions they are the people responsible for the issue.
The Fourth is suing the pants off them. Hasn't worked but we will keep doing it, to produce ongoing legal risk for the project.
definitely get that - I think it's notable that so few of the articles about the action even mention what was behind it (hence me making this vid!). that said, it seems unfocused actions get a lot more attention. does that outweigh the fact that the attention is less informed..? I have no idea!
@@ClimateAdam We did manage to get national T.V attention with this appeal to dump the sponsor but its actually part of a larger fight with sportsmen and women also pressing against Fossil fuel and a particular mining companies sponsorship at the same time.
The target is clear, necessary and urgent (as ClimateAdam outlined). The risk is that the tactic might occlude focus on the target. But that risk is only realised if, in the aftermath of public attention having been gained, climate communicators fail to seize the opportunity to communicate.
@@briantulloch7222 Hey Brian, you are pretending here that science is on your side but you know all this information due to the hard work of climate scientists who all agree it is happening and caused by humans.
What is it about climate change and the action we need to take to stop it that threatens your way of life? Do you have V8 you don't give up? Do you like to go off-roading? Is it the very need for international co-operation that you find scary? maybe you are part of a fringe political movement called right Libertarianism that is shown to be nonsense in the face of shared environmental concerns.
Bush fires caused by the ban of backburning by the greens.
Yeah, they got the attention. Now the majority hated the group regardless of their good cause, what a smart move.
Omg... i didn't know they wanted to frack! Thats something 100% should be protested against
truly missed opportunity to put a 🍑at 4:44
Miriam plz this ain't that kinda channel.
What is your view on Nuclear power? Deaths/unit electricity lower than renewables and lifecycle emissions also lower than hydro / on shore / solar? Expensive currently for sure, but seems it could be a great way to stabalise generation in addition to renewables ( not quite sure what the volatility of these are currently? do we have capacity to store large sums of their generation for bad days? )
Initially I was worried how people react, but then I noticed the amount of attention it generated, and read some threads from prominent figures like Peter Kalmus - and I have now come to the conclusion that it is tragic this type of protest is necessary to get the importance of the phase out of fossil fuels onto news headlines. I think we can all agree a habitable planet is a prize worth some minor disruption.
Finally someone who looks at the matter from a neutral point of view and doesn’t just throw hate in all directions because of the tactics used by the activists. Thank you for this video!
thanks a lot Alessia - that's lovely feedback to receive.
Tackling climate change means using all the usual tools on the governments preferred from of 'engagement'. Lobbying, petition, participating or attending public inquiries, deputation at local council, consultations pushing for public inquiries, articles and letters to the press etc.
It also means the governments less preferred from of 'engagement': protest. Protest is a legitimate form of political engagement it is just that politicians like to create a distinction between 'engagement' and 'protest'. Politicians hate protest as it holds them to account like no other form of engagement other than voting them out of office.
The press is one of their key pillars of support. No government has been elected in the UK without Rupert Murdoch's support since around the 1970's. Let that sink in. The government hate it when the press reports on protests as it means they are being held to account, it is eroding and circumventing their narrative in the local paper and the national papers and news.
The right wing press fails to report on fuel poverty adequatly and even less the need for mass home insulation schemes, public transport, flying, the need for a plant based diet.
One years funding of fossil fuels, £8,000,000,000 would be sufficient to provide loft insulation for all the homes in the UK and leave funding left over for a lot of double glazing.
Think what HS2 funding would do, £100,000,000,000 plus, or covid funding £400,000,000,000. The government can issue this money and balance the budget with the right taxes ie wealth and high income earners.
Taxpayers money is being wasted on HS2, PFI, subsidies and tax breaks while they are freezing and struggling to pay their fuel bills while companies profiteer.
Christmas was cancelled twice and people were not permitted to attend funerals because of covid and it is cancelled again because of the cost of living and energy crises.
The government is still partying, everyone should be angry.
If 10% of the population got out and blocked the roads demanding insulation, double glazing, public transport, solar panels, cavity wall insulation, higher taxes for those over £150,000 wages, pay increases for minimum wage, public sector and benefits the government would have no choice but to listen.
Suggestion: block the roads on Sundays, grow the movement and threaten to hold them on weekdays once we are at a critical mass.
It changed more than1.5 degrees everywhere, every day between breakfast and lunch and it's ludicrous to postulate and increase in 50 years will do nothing. And death from natural disaster are down 90% the last 109 years the medieval warm was warmer than now, there is no climate crisis
Whether we think protests like the "soup drop" on the painting are helpful or not - many of us can use them to start conversations and frame them right.
I was quite frustrated by the way many - not all - online media reported on it. I've seen mainly posts that were very click-baity, focusing on the "soup on the painting moment", not reporting on the fact that even the museum officially stated near-instantly that the painting was not damaged, and not showing the part in which the activists presented their (actually very well phrased) demands.
I looked up whether the artwork had been damaged (having only recently learned that other activists had glued themselves not to a paining, but the protective cover of the painting),
- shared that the museum itself said it hadn't been damaged,
- pointed out that protests often are very carefully planned to only be annoying and not to effect real damage (like protesters that glue themselves on roads leave enough space for ambulance to be able to pass through in case of emergency)
- looked up the full video of the protest, showing the demands of the activists, and shared it.
Many of us can correct false impressions and use the attention these protests generate to start helpful conversations.
Greenland will live up to it's name.
the artists name is pronounced, van goff, ( although obvs,ly not spelled that way)
I've been waiting to hear your opinion about this event 😊. Personally, I don't think this kind of action helps people to act or think about climate change in a positive way. I believe that this strategy is not directly proportional to the reduction of fossil fuels. Anyway thanks for sharing your opinion and talking about it as always.😊
thanks for your thoughts! are their protests or actions (from any group) you've seen that you've thought "that's how you do it!"?
@@ClimateAdam thats such an important question to ask people who are saying "this isn't good activism" - it begs the question, what is the right way, then? Can you demonstrate it?
Loved the video !
If we knew the answer to this question, activism and its results would be easier. I don't know which way is the best. I believe more in positive action such as this Chanel that with humor and acting shows reality and allows us to think about climate change.
@@gisela4120 the past tells us that the fundamental shifts we are looking for are often unfortunately only gained through more drastic actions. I don't think we can criticise one type of climate activism simply because we do not like it when we are talking about human extinction. We don't know what will work yet because nothing has - these girls completely disrupted all timelines and explicitly named the fossil fuel industry. that is a step in the right direction to me
@@ClimateAdam In my opinion the right way are the school students skipping classes to go and protest climate change. Way more large scale, more accepted by the boomers, so much more effective. Man, I really cannot wait until all boomers are out of power and the young generation is.
Thank you for this amazing video, I got very confused by Just Stop Oil protests and this really helped!
I think an incremental approach is the easiest, most fair and best way to reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax is just such an approach. It’s easiest because it can be levied accurately in any one location such as an oil refinery, a gas plant, or a mine mouth. This simply adds to the cost of the product at the point of use, so the “polluter” is the party that actually pays the tax. Each country thereby takes “ownership” of the pollution it creates internally. Most countries run a deficit, and the increased revenue could eliminate this as long as the money acquired is not used to increase military spending. Something like one pound per liter (or one Euro), adjusted for carbon content would be high enough to be effective, but low enough to be affordable. Additional taxes on luxury items could also be levied.
I would like a single person in the comment section to not use any products that have been generated with fossil fuel for a single day. You can all go ahead and throw away your phones, leave your homes and stop eating food :)
soooo I'm unsure what point you're making. it's clear that today's economic, energy, and manufacturing systems depend heavily on fossil fuels, and that they're next to impossible to avoid in our day to day activities. which is a problem since fossil fuels are driving climate change. and that's why we need a structural shift away from these fossil fuels.
Not all of us can make a living wearing sandals and composting our breakfast, the average person has a family to care for and a job that supports them.
The globe has warmed around 2 degrees Celsius the past century and not only did we survive despite this, but flourished thanks to advances in modern technology and fossil fuels
You seem *extremely* confused about rising global temperatures.
Reduce parking lots by 50% in citys use the new land for green spaces.
So parking garages can do this reducing of parking lots land use by 50% and they can have batteries on first floor and solar or wind on top to reduce energy demand.
The green spaces can help cool and reduce pollution and reduce energy needs because its cooler and less wind too.
We have passed the tipping point, but no one dare to face the facts. So sad.
Tipping point of what?
@@kingkezz9188 dementia
@@marcwinkler I am curious though. What tipping point given there is no climate change that is manmade. As CO2 is necessary for all life on earth and is a cooling agent that absorbs infrared. And all the predictions made my climate scientists have been proven false with real world examples. I am curious as to what tipping point he's referring to.
@@kingkezz9188 Ask him, Greta & Gore.
@@marcwinkler Greta is diagnosed low iQ autist. Shes a mouthpiece for elitist fascists whom are trying to push this hoax agenda on humanity. Gore another one. Anyone else?
What? No mention of nuclear power?
Why in the UK ,when there in Germany and other countries?can anyone tell me ?
Thanks for this video Adam. I am an activist with extinction rebellion in South Australia and support just stop oil for sure. Glad to see the climate emergency continually being forced into the media.
Why is there a climate emergency? Could you just write a few basic numbers for us please?
Just stop oil are funded by billionaires connected to oil that don’t even live in the U.K.!
By the way, how do you heat your home?
I just want to stop by and say this if you truly want to stop oil i can help Stop using it with all your supporters Stop using anything made with or manufactured with oil . with all your big talk do it you dont need to make all of us if you will just show us that you will take action and stop using it you can make a difference, and if you live then you can expand you cult .
Pouring soup on petrol pumps may become a fashion, like milkshakes.
Well, the thing concerning the musseum stunts, is that many graphic and visual artists are on the vanguard of these issues. There is great art out there about climate change, overconsumption and so on. Steve Cuts shorts come to mind, just to name an example. Art is a powerful tool for dialogue and emotional expresión; and many people perceived it is not fair at all to lash out at it in order to get attention. Why not lash out against the church instead, or against ONGs that keep profiting from doing nothing to solve the issues whose effects they want to mitigate? I bet that would bring out great press coverage too...
Being disruptive is not the same as being antagonizing or backstabbing. Something we should have learned already from PETA's treatment of women in their campaigns, and thebreasonable backlash against it. It saddens me, because it creates a false divission between arts and culture, and science and climate change activism. As an artist and an activist; most commentary i' ve gotten on the subject are sadly from climate change deniers seeking for my sympathy against the "ignorant, priviledged, poser and attention seeking youths", while many of my colleages stood there in silence, as they did not have anything positive to say, not even able to defend those action as "artistic happenings" or performances. Which effectively shifted the conversation from the issue of social fuels into the issue of the culture of viralization. Which maybe was the point; but i still think is more important and vital to take positive action than getting viral.
Thanks patrons and adam for the vid!
It makes me quite sad that people seem to care more about that painting than all the species going extinct… most don’t even make it into the news.
Because we don't care andwhat these "activists" are just finding ways to vandalizing and being a nuisance to the public.
They are also using vandalism, you forgot that. Some French equivalent group might have partly destroyed a painting a couple of days ago, for instance. I have yet to understand their message though, because they can't go past slogans. I do get that it would be great to reduce fossil fuels, but at the same time, at least in France, they are against nuclear power and are conveniently forgetting Germany's coal power plants fiasco. I'm wondering whether they are genuinely concerned about pollution and its consequences.
Yes, enlist the help of the public by ceaselessly annoying them and obstructing their daily lives. And when the public tells you that you are annoying assholes, retaliate by attempting to destroy famous works of art - just because it's an "oil" painting.😅
This stunning display of brilliance and thoughtfulness has markedly improved the credibility of their message. There's only one problem though, how are poor people going to afford clothes without all the polymers that we derive from fossil fuels? Oil isn't just for burning, genius. Actually, one of many problems.
I feel like the point of the action was to open a space for people like ClimateAdam (and you, and me) to (a) point out that the painting was not damaged (and the activists knew it wouldn't be), which makes (many) people suddenly calm down and go 'wait, what?', and then (b) raise the question of just what should be done about climate disruption. This gives a chance for precisely this kind of content to enter the discourse and public consciousness. On the one hand, this helps to establish consensus around the goal (the scientifically-based demand of Just Stop Oil) while enabling further discussing about the various tactics that might be used to achieve it. Even if people end up rejecting the tactics of Just Stop Oil, their work will have been successful, since it may well spawn all kinds of other efforts. And if that is the case, then their tactics might, ultimately, be confirmed as (strangely) quite reasonable...
Should we engage in petty vandalism as a tactic to get people's attention, and then attempt to redirect their attention in useful ways that benefit the world? Or perhaps, would it make more sense to simply engage in mass protests in appropriate spaces, hand out pamphlets, create works of art (there are some places in cities where graffiti art is welcomed), door-to-door knocking, and other forms of direct and positive activism to get the message across? Why do you specifically have to destroy or vandalize something?
Should we dump paint on your house next, record your shocked reaction, and then say - you know, its just paint! It can be cleaned off! By the way, would you like to learn about climate change? Or perhaps instead would you like someone to visit your home and ask you politely to sign a pledge, or take some action on climate change?
I don't understand the motivation or the need to basically engage in mass vandalism, and in some cases much worse when people block the roads and the ability of emergency vehicles to use them which veers into outright terrorism. I don't care how spectacularly urgent your demands are. In a democracy, action is not performed by a minority on the majority. You can't simply block all the roads as a way to enforce that your demands are met. You can not destroy as many public works of art as possible until the public capitulates to your demands. There are appropriate means and channels for taking action.
All that said, you have plainly forgotten about the most obvious downside of this action. That a lot of people get frustrated and irritated that they can no longer commute to work, or that the artwork they took time off to see is now at least temporarily ruined. For all we know these might be sacred religious or cultural icons that are being desecrated. People are not necessarily the most rational beings. If you anger enough of them for long enough, then they will be turned off of climate action simply out of the emotional turmoil you put them through. And frankly its not like taking action in the UK alone will avert climate change so I see that argument as being considerably persuasive.
So there. Have your pick of the reason. But I just think this form of protest is not only nonsensical as a means of generating action, but it actively makes things much worse. Whatever poll Adam cited about how the public are calling for more action on climate change, I assume he is smart enough to know correlation does not imply causation. I strongly suspect people are recognizing the importance of climate change IN SPITE OF these protests, which actively do harm.
Stop oil, yet you need it to make windmills and solar panels 🤔, which end up in landfills when they are obsolete.
A lot of ignorant religious fanatics actually want this to happen because in their insane minds it will attract Jeezus and fulfill the crap they want to happen. Many of them are in power.
I’m a hairdresser and it’s hot topic and has been for years / today we even covered the Amazon rainforest and discussed the vegan diet x
that's so cool - have you noticed a trend in how much it's brought up?
I wonder about that too. Are these events causing people to thinking differently or more positively about making changes? Or just digging in their heals more?
The actions of these activists bring the climate change debate into focus for all the wrong reasons.
Instead of disrupting the movement of the entire society they should instead create or innovate technology that is more efficient and more environmental friendly.
Their focus in energy and oil is like asking society to die.
Rapid climate change started during the 1st Industrial Revolution. The increasing improvement of the global quality of life rapidly increased global demand. In short it increased ecnomic output which encouraged mass industrial farming to provide food for everyone. And when that is not enough we turned to oil to fuel everything.
So in the end, Just Stop Oil basically wants society to turn back time and live in the Medieval Age.
As long as economics are the driving motivation within our world we'll continue to hold the almighty dollar above environmental and humanitarian concerns. That's the stark truth.
It is time to end the climate change tax grab industry (both political meddling and computer modelling, sit down and do nothing). Cut off all funding immediately and all climate paranoia will disappear and the activists will need to retrain to do something useful like become builders and plumbers.
I think the UK needs more fossil fuels to being more self efficient to then act on renewables. In doing so I believe this won't impact our CO2 levels by much. We need to be a strong economy to get through this. Covid and Russia is not helping.
Aren't we already at 1.5 degree Celsius? If we take the cooling of SO2 in account which is mainly released through fossil fules?
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Page 8 summary for policy makers.
very interesting question!
sulphate aerosols definitely cool the climate, and if we stopped emitting them suddenly that would definitely cause a sudden spike in warming. but studies that have simulated a gradual phase out of aerosols do not show this effect, and much of the warming would also be counteracted by methane emissions (which would presumably be reduced in parallel). all of this is explicitly taken into account when climate scientists work out potential emissions scenarios, carbon budgets to stay within temperature limits, etc, etc.
Do not worry about emissions from businesses what we need to worry about is the emissions from rich people Private planes, huge Yachts multiple houses to heat and cool as well as build these are the people who are hurting the environment, Billionaire Bill alone travels more than 213,000 miles by plane producing 1600 tones of Green House Gases not counting his mega Yacht and multiple houses.
You do know that the more trees there are, the more they obsorb the CO2. So, why not promote the planting of 100 trees for every tree cut down? Climate "Crisis" solved, right?
I think that going after art was a poor choice however I agree with being as disruptive as possible blocking roads placing propaganda everywhere staging load noisy protesting front of government buildings exposing the hypocrisy of the government ect. My only hope is that this is enough to force the government to make concessions otherwise more drastic measures might need to be taken against oil and gas infrastructure directly. I think we are still away off from such drastic action but at this point we must consider that the government may not be willing to negotiate without at least the threat of violence. This being governments of the west not specifically the UK.
but why do these people use orange colour ??
Can scientists figure out planned obsolescence? Did unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence add to CO2?
certainly consumerism adds means more emissions. it's not precisely on this topic, but here's a great vid from my pal zentouro:
th-cam.com/video/iIIIYoDRHM4/w-d-xo.html
@@ClimateAdam
LOL Planned obsolescence has been going on since the 1950s and people talk like it is suddenly a big deal with smartphones.
Heard of Vance Packard?
The Waste Makers & The Hidden Persuaders
Yes. Let's cover the land with solar arrays and surround ourselves with bird-chopping windmills. Let's stop oil, coal and gas and install batteries full of toxic metals mined by children in the third world. Let's raise the cost of energy beyond what small manufacturers and ordinary people can afford. In short, let's deliberately unleash environmental and economic havoc on our country rather than invest sensibly in strategies to adapt to climate change. A warmer climate and higher CO2 levels aren't all bad and are certainly not as catastrophic as you predict. We can adapt. But only if we behave like sensible adults, not panicked children.
I have no idea what way your going on this, but you cheered me up knowing the paintings alright.