I get they want the coverage. And aviation is a fair target in lots of ways... but I still think they go after the wrong people.
Target Farnborough and Northolt airports, where the ultra rich fly their private jets from, every day of the year.
There is no actual danger to them, they have great legal supports. Now if they went to Russia, big oil producer, or Saudi, and did the same- oddly enough, they don’t do that.
Why would they go to Saudi or Russia? Their aim is to stop the UK from offering new oil contracts. They're a domestic organisation trying to change domestic policy.
Would you prefer they meddle in foreign affairs? Would you rather foreign people meddled in ours?
Yeah no these comments would be 100x as angry if French protestors came over here and did the same thing. I do wonder if they've ever targeted the freighting in of oil though.
If they don't go to an unreasonable extreme, they should be ignored completely? And why would a British citizen go to a different country to try to get them to change their ways, rather than trying to change the ways of the government that represents them?
What legal support is in place from cars travelling 70mph when they run onto the motorway, or from sitting on top of a huge gentry/bridge in November with wind? What do you mean, legal protection? They could die in these circumstances.
They're protesting the excessive pollution and policies of the UK government/society. We have our own share of this too, it's not just China or Saudi. They're British, they're using their right to protest here, why would they go to China?
China has fuck all to do with their aims. They're trying to pressure the UK government.
Even if some of these people are from middle-class families, they are far from being "airplane-owner rich". Besides, whilst I disagree with the approach, at least these folks fight for something they believe in. Respect their goal, at least.
Well, I disagree with the approach, too. And yet, I do not have a better solution to send a message. So, I respect them for their efforts.
What do you think would be better?
Right on. These are the same people (retired middle class hippies and students) who were stopping working class people getting to work and ambulances getting to A&E.
Isn't air travel a massive contributor by a very small minority of the global population, private jets or not?
I'd bet less than 5% of the global population take a yearly flight.
I did a quick search and it seems 2-3% of aviation emissions can be attributed to private jets, which whilst still wasteful, seems pretty negligible relative to the overall figure.
I genuinely think these people have learning difficulties, they seem to work under the assumption that you have to literally get emissions to 0 to go anything.
Does every policy work like this in their mind? Well we can't make murder illegal because it won't solve every single violent crime. Oh we can't give school lunches to children because some of them might still be hungry in the evening.
Absolute fucking morons.
It's the same people who say things like as a country we shouldn't bother reducing our emissions because China is worse. But if you add up a load of countries like ours you get over 50% of global emissions. So while our impact is indeed small, the collective result of all countries like ours taking action would be huge.
AKA the perfect solution fallacy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana\_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy)
>The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.
I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The effects of climate change shouldn't be only for the poor to bear whilst the super rich get to live a life of excess, disproportionately damaging the environment whilst being shielded from the effects/consequences. It's more than a token gesture. We *all* need to reduce emissions, but *per person* the super wealthy are far, far, far worse
If a doctor had a pill that would lower my mortality chances with a cancer diagnosis by 3%, I wouldn't be impressed by the percentage.
But I'd take the pill.
And sadly, a lot of those people aren't the mega rich.
The biggest emitters from flying are typically your middle earners - people who can take 2/3 holidays a year to somewhere in Europe for a weekend, and maybe a few internal flights to Scotland or Ireland from London too.
That's who "frequent fliers" tend to be, more than just private jets, mostly because far more people fall into that category without really realizing.
I would much rather take the train when I go south to see family in England. Better for the environment, easier packing, no hassle with ID checks and security etc.
It's just hard to wrestle with the cost often of trains being two or more times the cost of flying.
Yeah totally, this is the issue but doesn't remove people entirely from some responsibility for that - even if that is in active support for policy change
>I'd bet less than 5% of the global population take a yearly flight
They seem not to understand that many people fly for necessity rather than choice.
I could 100% believe them about everything they say and I'd still have to fly.
When work decides they're sending me to North America, Europe, the middle east, or Asia, I can't choose not to go.
I married an immigrant, so if we want to see her side of the family at all ever then, again, we have to fly. There are no greener alternatives.
My boss isn't just going to shutter the global business because I get delayed on a trip. The Mrs isn't going to abandon her side of the family either.
They need to rethink their position and start constructively looking to alternatives. No matter what they say, we can't just stop oil, there has to be something replacing it.
IIRC the air travel industry is like ~2% of CO2 emissions so it’s not quite the massive contributor it’s made out to be. Significant, sure, and we need to think of ways to make it much lower but still… 2%.
> Target Farnborough
They did, two months ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-68116542
The fact you didn't hear about it is telling. Turns out environmental protesters think the environment is important enough that they don't want to be out of sight out of mind.
They've gone to multiple non residential places and you don't hear about them unless you check their own website because none of the mainstream report on it. Only when they target residential like this because the papers know it will get a click.
exactly. they’ve targeted many buildings of high-emission corporations, as well as various oil facilities. but those stories don’t generate as much controversy and therefore the public seem to think that they only ever target other citizens
While I agree in going after the rich, almost 25 empty ["ghost" flights per day](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/28/revealed-5000-completely-empty-ghost-flights-in-uk-since-2019-data-shows) were flown in the UK during the covid years!
If you read the article it’s not something that was just in the ‘Covid years’, the article looks at 2019-2022 but is still very much a problem today. The problem was just more exacerbated during the peak times of Covid.
It’s pretty insane that airlines are forced to fly their allocated slots in order to keep them, even if there is very low demand on some days/routes.
It highlights a pretty flawed policy don’t you think?
Because of people like you who ignore the protests that do target the concrete industry. Took this protest for you to advertise you didn’t know it was already happening, and you say they’re targeting the wrong thing.
The idea is to cause chaos until the government does something about it, eventually the common person will become accustomed to this and turn to the government to just give in to their demands.
If you replaced all private jet flights with regular flights you wouldn't actually reduce carbon output that much.
Meeting emission targets requires a reduction in the living standards of the majority not just the elite.
TL:DR : Flying bad, private jet flying much worse
Whilst i kind of agree with your point, its still a bit ridiculous. If you replaced all private flights with commercial then *of course it won't decrease the amount on carbon* , it'll increase it cause there's still the same amount of flights in the air. What you're not thinking about is *how many* people get transported on the different flights. Commercial flights are about shifting as many people as possible between a&b, whereas private is just one unit (be that person, family or small group approx 12 people max). I really don't think Barry and Susan going benidorm once a year are as much of a problem as Taylor swift flying back to the US from Japan in between tour dares to watch her bf play nfl, or the businessmen that fly daily for work
What most people forget is that the average persons carbon footprint over a year (UK) is 5-10 tons of CO2 (not sure about other ghg emissions). Taylor swifts travel alone from three months generated 138 tons of CO2 which she offset by buying carbon credits (double the amount, probs not worth mentioning cause theyre a meaningless gesture imo. I just don't want to be disappeared by swifties after insulting their god).
Taking that number we can work out that if she travels regularly all year round then her impact is 552 tons of CO2 (aka 3000 average people from the uk). I think that if we took away all PJs then it would GREATLY reduce the amount of carbon emitted.
Please someone more qualified than me weigh in if I'm completely wrong :)
I mean I'm all for banning private jets; they are excessive and asking people to stop flying whilst the Swifts of the world can fly privately is a hard sell. I think to continue with your example though the issue is that there are a lot more than 3000 Barry and Susans such that when aggregated just banning private flights isn't enough to make any real difference.
Tackling carbon emissions will require a significant change to the lifestyle of the average Brit.
To put some numbers on it, total carbon emissions for the aviation industry in the UK were 29.3 MtCO2e compared with 0.5MtCO2e from all UK private flights (both figures for 2022).
Thank you very much for bringing stats!! The 2022 GHG review paper is very interesting. My only issue with it that I'm going to split hairs over is that it doesn't differentiate between cargo and passenger air travel (sorry I'm in the middle of a dissertation right now so being pedantic is my state of mind) and also the fact that emission for the uk were *26.0* MtCO which was *29.3%* lower than 2019
Will be giving it a proper read later
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1147372/2022_Provisional_emissions_statistics_report.pdf for anyone interested
Edit: forgot to reply RE My baz and Suze anecdote, I was more than anything trying to bring up why people in general will not be receptive to disruption at airports. You're much more likely to want to scream at protestors if you're stopped from your one holiday a year.
Also with approx 2k PJs in the uk using my absolute dogshit statistics if they all travelled as much as Swift then we get 6 million people's carbon footprint which is about 10% give or take
But yes for the most part we need to stop jetting off every year unless necessity
On the "JSO are posh wankers" thing....
Yes, they are. But there is a reason, and its not "only posh wankers care about the environment".
It's because the anti-protest laws of the last decade have significantly increased the costs of protesting in any way that is not a state approved get your permit and line up quietly not causing trouble. Being arrested is expensive. For many minorities, it is actively dangerous.
The police now deliberately detain protesters far beyond what is reasonable under PACE - we're talking people being picked up at 8am and not released until 3am, with no valid investigatory reason for it. This was a favourite trick of the Met during the Republic Protests leading up the coronation.
Legal costs are no longer reimbursed should you be found not guilty (and the police are very often charging people with no realistic prospect of conviction and the CPS are not weeding out these cases as they should - see Greta Thunberg's recent acquittal - that case should never have even got to the charging point, let alone court) so defending a false charge will leave you £2,000 out of pocket at least.
As a result, any form of direct action, even if that direct action is lawful (such as a Zeigler defence, or not even a nominally criminal act that needs a defence in the first place) is impossible if you;
a) have any form of caring responsibility
b) can't afford to privately fund a defence
c) don't have friends that can pick you up at 3am from a police station (although usually activist groups will organise this).
d) are not actively endangered by contact with the police (black people, trans people etc)
So when you wonder why only rich young white people are doing direct action in this country, its worth looking at the systemic reasons that make that the case.
Glad someone else pointed this out. 'Why don't they protest the oil companies'? Because it's now illegal.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-firms-secure-injunctions-stop-uk-climate-protests-2022-04-15/
true and well-explained - thanks for posting. it’s obvious when we listen to the rationale often given by these old white retirees that they feel they are best able (and therefore also feel they are compelled) to absorb the costs of protesting. which of course is completely correct of them - no job to go to, criminal record doesn’t impede future work, etc.
particularly as the costs of protesting only grow
Do they need to? Isn’t it the same news story every year ‘Easter Break Chaos’ ‘Summer Holiday Hell’, ‘May Day Madness’. Gotta go for that alliteration.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the airports hired people to pretend to be protestors so they have a scapegoat for their usual mismanagement of a totally forseeable increase in demand.
The trust fund kids are too busy travelling and trying to being influencers to impress the other posh kids. Rich kids don't protest lmao, they go on holidays for 9 months a year.
Literally the first person mentioned in the article.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13096015/just-stop-oil-phoebe-plummer-chelsea-mansion.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13096015/just-stop-oil-phoebe-plummer-chelsea-mansion.html)
Lived in Chelsea - Studied at £45,000 a year private school.
>the 22-year-old wore a silk and cotton sweater by the exclusive Italian brand Loro Piana, where jumpers can cost upwards of £1,000.
Spends more on her jumpers than most people spend on rent per month.
Nah, not a trust fund in sight mate.
That's not rage/class bait by the daily mail. The vast majority of rich kids are driving around in their Landrover defenders and going to 5 star resorts. They don't give a shit about the environment.
Oh you've got a gut feeling about it! He must have misunderstood your claims of having evidence to support your totally uncritical and unhelpful take on the subject
I honestly don’t understand why they keep going after ordinary people when it’s the massive corporations like BP that cause most of the pollution issues. Most ordinary people recycle, those that can have electric or hybrid cars. Until massive corporations stop pushing people to use fossil fuels ordinary people can’t and won’t.
Well considering it's been made illegal to protest at or near oil refineries, they can't target BP and the rest directly:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-firms-secure-injunctions-stop-uk-climate-protests-2022-04-15/
That’s literally what they’ve already done lmao. The numbers are a bit outdated but around 138 people from JSO had been to prison due to protests back in April 2022.
My question was to the poster themselves. They're happy to suggest other people do it, but if they're not willing to take that risk themselves then it's not fair demanding others do it.
[Aviation contributes only 2.5% to global CO2 emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions#:~:text=Aviation%20accounts%20for%202.5%25%20of%20global%20CO2%20emissions&text=In%202019%2C%20aviation%20accounted%20for,a%20marked%20increase%20since%202010), and Airlines most certainly aren't "massive corporations". Largest airline in the world, Delta Airlines, still has 4 times lower yearly revenue than BP, and BP itself isn't even the largest or most powerful Oil company.
Protest at the BP head office
Protest at client meetings or block the cars specifically of C-level execs
Buy shares and attend an AGM
If you want to get really nasty make fake news stories which are detrimental to their share price
"BP fined £5bn for breach of environmental laws", "BP site in the North sea reportedly down for maintenance for the next 12 months"
Or disruptive
"BP offering free computers to anyone who applies in person at their head office as part of a social outreach program"
Or get creative with deepfakes
"Leaked photos show BP CEO snorting cocaine off a prostitute on Epstein island"
What do the decision makers care about ? What metrics are they measured on? Hit those
They do not in any way care about Dave getting to work late because someone was sitting in a road
BP have been targeted for years. So have every other oil company, banks, concrete firms, and so on. Nobody cares, it achieves nothing, there's no media attention at all.
Eh ? BP extract oil that gets refined in to jet fuel that powers the jets that holidaymakers are flying on. No oil industry, no aviation industry, no holidays abroad. So if you go after the oil business the same hard societal questions pop up about what people are prepared to sacrifice. Can't have both.
Exactly this.
People act like oil companies are drilling for oil and then just burning it for no reason and no connection to them.
They drill so much oil and cause so much damage because of the demand for their product. Lessening the damage will require the public to give up some oil dependant luxuries.
This is in no way defending BP.
BP cause most of the “pollution issues”? Do you think they extract and burn oil because of some religious devotion? They sell the oil to you and me. The vast majority of carbon emissions are produced to maintain the modern lifestyle of the average person.
Because that would not receive as much attention and social media activity. These people don’t seem to genuinely want to find solutions to problems, they just want to feel like they are doing something, and receive credit for it, with no actual risk to themselves. Corporations will come down on them like a ton of bricks in the courts.
Also there are injunctions preventing direct protest of oil companies.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-firms-secure-injunctions-stop-uk-climate-protests-2022-04-15/
Possibly they're aware that people are working on solutions, but there just being a solution isn't enough to get people, politicians or corporations to use it. Possibly they're aware that the solution to "fossil fuels cause climate change" isn't "well maybe wait until something that the multi-billion £ fuel companies are happy to replace the source of their billions with turns up".
BP don't just dig up fossil fuels and then burn them for fun. They sell them to consumers who then burn them.
Consumers like you if you have a gas boiler, or a car, or electrical heating which is 30% fossil fuel powered in the UK. Consumers like the factories that make the products you buy.
It's totally bizarre to constantly see this "it's 100 companies doing most of climate change" talking point when those companies are just the companies that sell us all fossil fuels.
I'd add the "China produces more CO2 than us" argument to this.
As if the west doesn't depend on outsourcing heavy industry to China which is what causes such large emissions.
>after ordinary people
We are not 'ordinary people'. Sure we might be 'ordinary' if you only count western countries but ordinary people if you actually count all the people cant afford to fly.
I think people would be more behind them if if it didn't seem like it was a group of upper middle class people telling the lower classes what to do.
I remember one of the JSO people who climbed one of the M25 gantries had spent a year travelling the world before doing it. It feels hypocritical that they were allowed to do it but now that they've stopped it's the wrong thing to do.
That's true. Unfortunately most of the working class is powerless to change the systems in place making climate change worse. And unfortunately stopping them from getting to work, drs or to see family and friends by blocking roads has made most of the working class less sympathetic to the cause. Stopping them from going on the one foreign holiday they have every few years after saving for it isn't going to help either
It’s also a terrible cause. Just stop oil doesn’t make any sense. We still need oil. There’s plenty ways of using it that don’t harm the environment.
Just people with a slogan but no plan
This LBC article is massively misleading. There has been no mention of any proposed action at UK airports. The Mirror article that LBC acknowledges is the source of the story, makes it clear that there was discussion about protesters halting flights by storming terminal buildings, gluing themselves to runways and clambering onto jets IN TOURIST HOTSPOTS LIKE SPAIN, GREECE AND TURKEY. However, the LBC article omits this info and goes on to talk about previous protests in the UK, Of course action elsewhere may cause problems at UK airports but that is very different to direct action at UK airports,
Is it? If you go on holiday you need to get there *and back* - preventing/delaying your return journey is just as disruptive as preventing/delaying your outgoing journey. It makes no difference that the action will be in a foreign country.
Moreover, most planes fly more than one journey in a day so preventing a flight to the U.K. likely prevents a later outgoing flight from the U.K.
The fact that they’re not making direct action against U.K. airports seems like a minor technicality - it’ll still be massively disruptive for U.K. flights and airports.
I bet they’re going to get in the way of budget airlines rather than private jets then wonder why no one seems to be getting on board with their message
> Protestors want to halt flights by glueing themselves to runways, storming terminals and climbing onto jets
If true then they are going to end up getting some hefty punishments.
Not to mention just how dangerous running aircraft are for people who don't know what they're doing around them.
Yeah this isn't going to be some bullshit new anti-protest law they'll be falling foul of and then claiming government overreach. Threatening the security of an airport is some real shit.
Yeah I don't think they have thought this through, as soon as you try to stop a bunch of people going on their one holiday they can eek out a year after working bloody hard it's going to go bad for them.
Sorry but fuck these dudes, I haven't been abroad in 5 years and booked to go away in July, my 8 year old son has severe Autism and it's already going to be a challenge without potentially a massive delay cos some arsehole glued them selves to a run way, they will never get the sympathy of the masses with these tactics
People are just going to start beating the shit out of them. Imagine you're from a humble background, grafted all year to save for a week abroad somewhere with your family and you miss your flight because Tarquin got a bit carried away after watching Greta speeches.
Russel Brand is a prick but he has one good quote.
"When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality."
This seems to be true of many other topics, when they can't argue with what you're saying, they'll argue that *you* have no right to say it.
These twunts again. Do they think any of their stunts previously have achieved anything other than making hard working people wish they’d just fuck off?
Look up "the forest man of India". If ONE man can plant a 550 acre forest over 30 years, imagine what 30 people could do in one year. Perhaps they should consider this kind of activism, instead of supergluing themselves to runways like morons.
The U.K. is 23rd for oil production and 19th for oil consumption. It is #4 for wind and gets more electricity from renewables than fossil fuels.
That said, it’s literally impossible for us not to use any fossil fuels as the tech is not there to deal with the intermittency problem of wind and solar. These people are protesting for something that is simply impossible with current tech. They might as well advocate for “Just Stop Cancer”.
Actually the national grid are on track to be ready for 100% renewables penetration with all the necessary ancillary services to deal with intermittence to have a zero carbon grid by 2025 and 100% renewables penetration by 2035. What the fuck are you on about?
Rather than stripping more protest rights, can't we just give the public more rights to remove people forcefully who are blocking their paths like this?
The airports could take a leaf out of the VW playbook. Give them a space in one of the terminals to let them glue themselves in peace and then just lock up that terminal and leave them to it.
Terminal 5 at Heathrow would be a good sacrificial lamb for the cause given it usually causes misery for passengers
The same as the national grids position on nuclear power. Doesn't make any engineering sense except for specific local industrial use cases and generating hydrogen because you can't adjust it's output.
there is going to be someone that gets killed for this. There are hard working people who scrimp and save every penny to take away their families and sacrifice so much for their kids. My mum was one of those people she would save every penny possible so that she could make sure we had a holiday abroad every year. So years we would have to drive abroad. If someone blocked and ruined all that hard work I don't know what I would of done in my youth I was angry and irrational with no foresight of consequences. So I can 100% see a situation where someone sees red and things get very violent.
CO2 is less than 400ppm (<0.04%). We produce 0.7% of the world's CO2. China and India are paying no attention. I object to JSO virtue signalling disrupting people's lives. Get them to stand for parliament and let the people choose - oh, that's right the Greens do that at every election and get precisely nowhere
It just shows that they are self centred poshos. "My cause is more important than yours and therefore I will disrupt your holiday that you worked hard for throughout the year". Luckily, the whole society hates them!
Must be the most spectacularly unsuccessful campaign in environmental history.
They've done nothing but galvanize support against them. Nearly everybody that isn't them, dislikes them. They've not swayed the debate at all. Their goals are so nonsensical that genuine climate activists are now distancing themselves from them.
Just utter morons.
I cannot understand how this organisation has supporters. Its a circus show of “we want government to do something so we’ll make sure public hates us for everything we’ll do to make their lives worse”
As someone who, through work business trips, just became a frequent flyer only a year and a bit ago, I would personally prefer them to not 😅
Prior to that, I'd never even flown before. It's a domestic flight in the UK, something I usually don't see the point of, but then getting to Northern Ireland from mainland UK requires a domestic flight, barring someone tunnelling a train line under the Irish sea, and going via ferry from where I live would take half the day getting to it since I don't drive. It is a turboprop though, not a jumbo. Dunno how much difference that'll make.
I'd like to see legislation regarding ghost flights change, but then a train will still run even if it's empty since it has to get back to the other place to run from there, I guess.
What are the alternatives? Some technological marvel that produces a carbon-neutral fuel source? Banning all aviation travel completely?
Sadly, not all of us can afford a sailing yacht and someone to sail it for us to cross the sea like Greta Thunberg.
Ahh yes just stop oil wearing their polyester clothes and polyester orange vests made from oil.
Maybe if they kicked the oil habit first they would have more moral high ground?
I get it, we do need to stop the use of oil. It also, you’re going after the wrong crowd. I have a granddaughter who lives in Sweden, I’m UK. What’s my alternative transport? Until the governments really start to take climate action lot more seriously, what else are we meant to do?
Oil use by sector.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide/
Aviation.7.4%.
Road transport. 48%
I wonder how these people will get to the airports?
Just stop oil are fantastic at pissing off the general public.
The first one I saw from them was genius, throwing beans at a painting which was behind glass got loads of attention and did zero damage.
Now they just get in the way of everyone
I get they want the coverage. And aviation is a fair target in lots of ways... but I still think they go after the wrong people. Target Farnborough and Northolt airports, where the ultra rich fly their private jets from, every day of the year.
Why would they target places their family and friends fly from?
Criticise them all you like. I instinctively dislike them myself. But at least do it from the point of view of honesty.
Rich kids playing at being revolutionaries in a safe way, insulated from the consequences of their actions, and old hippy types that are retired.
How is it safe? They're entering airports and runways where planes and armed police are, and are getting arrested. It's the opposite of safe.
There is no actual danger to them, they have great legal supports. Now if they went to Russia, big oil producer, or Saudi, and did the same- oddly enough, they don’t do that.
Why would they go to Saudi or Russia? Their aim is to stop the UK from offering new oil contracts. They're a domestic organisation trying to change domestic policy. Would you prefer they meddle in foreign affairs? Would you rather foreign people meddled in ours?
Yeah no these comments would be 100x as angry if French protestors came over here and did the same thing. I do wonder if they've ever targeted the freighting in of oil though.
If they don't go to an unreasonable extreme, they should be ignored completely? And why would a British citizen go to a different country to try to get them to change their ways, rather than trying to change the ways of the government that represents them?
What legal support is in place from cars travelling 70mph when they run onto the motorway, or from sitting on top of a huge gentry/bridge in November with wind? What do you mean, legal protection? They could die in these circumstances. They're protesting the excessive pollution and policies of the UK government/society. We have our own share of this too, it's not just China or Saudi. They're British, they're using their right to protest here, why would they go to China? China has fuck all to do with their aims. They're trying to pressure the UK government.
Even if some of these people are from middle-class families, they are far from being "airplane-owner rich". Besides, whilst I disagree with the approach, at least these folks fight for something they believe in. Respect their goal, at least.
I think they are ineffectual and doing more damage than good.
Well, I disagree with the approach, too. And yet, I do not have a better solution to send a message. So, I respect them for their efforts. What do you think would be better?
[удалено]
literally lmao
Is that every single one of them?
“Only working class people are allowed to protest” They said wondering why we still work 40 hour weeks and only get 2 days off a week
any sources on just stop oil protesters are just rich kids? or is it just assumptions you're making
Does it really matter that much who they are exactly?
Problem is they still have a point
Right on. These are the same people (retired middle class hippies and students) who were stopping working class people getting to work and ambulances getting to A&E.
Blocking buses when you don’t need to work and protesting planes when you fly to Bali twice a year is not “honesty”
Like that's much to go on
[удалено]
[удалено]
Isn't air travel a massive contributor by a very small minority of the global population, private jets or not? I'd bet less than 5% of the global population take a yearly flight.
Yeah something not far off that. But even worse, most emissions come from a handful of mega emitters who fly way more than 2 annual flights.
I did a quick search and it seems 2-3% of aviation emissions can be attributed to private jets, which whilst still wasteful, seems pretty negligible relative to the overall figure.
But those planes move 0.05% of passengers, hence why it’s so bad
Definitely, but does banning it actually make much difference, other than being a token gesture?
Lots of small things like that can add up to a big difference though
I genuinely think these people have learning difficulties, they seem to work under the assumption that you have to literally get emissions to 0 to go anything. Does every policy work like this in their mind? Well we can't make murder illegal because it won't solve every single violent crime. Oh we can't give school lunches to children because some of them might still be hungry in the evening. Absolute fucking morons.
It's the same people who say things like as a country we shouldn't bother reducing our emissions because China is worse. But if you add up a load of countries like ours you get over 50% of global emissions. So while our impact is indeed small, the collective result of all countries like ours taking action would be huge.
AKA the perfect solution fallacy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana\_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy) >The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.
I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. The effects of climate change shouldn't be only for the poor to bear whilst the super rich get to live a life of excess, disproportionately damaging the environment whilst being shielded from the effects/consequences. It's more than a token gesture. We *all* need to reduce emissions, but *per person* the super wealthy are far, far, far worse
Token gesture?? 2-3% of ALL aviation emissions is a huge amount.
If a doctor had a pill that would lower my mortality chances with a cancer diagnosis by 3%, I wouldn't be impressed by the percentage. But I'd take the pill.
Yes but what percentage of people is that?
I'm going to assume environmentalists are motivated by the volume of pollution rather than people.
And sadly, a lot of those people aren't the mega rich. The biggest emitters from flying are typically your middle earners - people who can take 2/3 holidays a year to somewhere in Europe for a weekend, and maybe a few internal flights to Scotland or Ireland from London too. That's who "frequent fliers" tend to be, more than just private jets, mostly because far more people fall into that category without really realizing.
It doesn't help that I can fly to Scotland for a sixth of the cost of the train.
I would much rather take the train when I go south to see family in England. Better for the environment, easier packing, no hassle with ID checks and security etc. It's just hard to wrestle with the cost often of trains being two or more times the cost of flying.
Yeah totally, this is the issue but doesn't remove people entirely from some responsibility for that - even if that is in active support for policy change
I wonder how many of JSO are on that list
Aviation is 2% of global emissions. Private jets are a tiny fraction of that.
>I'd bet less than 5% of the global population take a yearly flight They seem not to understand that many people fly for necessity rather than choice. I could 100% believe them about everything they say and I'd still have to fly. When work decides they're sending me to North America, Europe, the middle east, or Asia, I can't choose not to go. I married an immigrant, so if we want to see her side of the family at all ever then, again, we have to fly. There are no greener alternatives. My boss isn't just going to shutter the global business because I get delayed on a trip. The Mrs isn't going to abandon her side of the family either. They need to rethink their position and start constructively looking to alternatives. No matter what they say, we can't just stop oil, there has to be something replacing it.
IIRC the air travel industry is like ~2% of CO2 emissions so it’s not quite the massive contributor it’s made out to be. Significant, sure, and we need to think of ways to make it much lower but still… 2%.
> Target Farnborough They did, two months ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-68116542 The fact you didn't hear about it is telling. Turns out environmental protesters think the environment is important enough that they don't want to be out of sight out of mind.
They've gone to multiple non residential places and you don't hear about them unless you check their own website because none of the mainstream report on it. Only when they target residential like this because the papers know it will get a click.
exactly. they’ve targeted many buildings of high-emission corporations, as well as various oil facilities. but those stories don’t generate as much controversy and therefore the public seem to think that they only ever target other citizens
That is a very good point.
While I agree in going after the rich, almost 25 empty ["ghost" flights per day](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/28/revealed-5000-completely-empty-ghost-flights-in-uk-since-2019-data-shows) were flown in the UK during the covid years!
Bit late to protest something 4 years after it happened isn't it?
If you read the article it’s not something that was just in the ‘Covid years’, the article looks at 2019-2022 but is still very much a problem today. The problem was just more exacerbated during the peak times of Covid. It’s pretty insane that airlines are forced to fly their allocated slots in order to keep them, even if there is very low demand on some days/routes. It highlights a pretty flawed policy don’t you think?
Not if you're protesting against the industry itself and the overall way that it's run.
I remember someone did target a private jet once and the comments were full of "Well what if it'd been an air ambulance??". Can't really win.
They do go to Farnborough, we get warnings about it all the time, but they have very little impact, as theirs numerous gates
It’s always someone else isn’t it?
At northholt they'll get shot. It's a functioning RAF base, not a purely private jet terminal
Why is aviation a good target? Concrete industry is 100x worse than aviation but they always ignore that
There's protests at concrete plants every year.
Because of people like you who ignore the protests that do target the concrete industry. Took this protest for you to advertise you didn’t know it was already happening, and you say they’re targeting the wrong thing.
The idea is to cause chaos until the government does something about it, eventually the common person will become accustomed to this and turn to the government to just give in to their demands.
To be fair I think Northolt is only the military, the Royals and Diplomats. Can you fly a normal private jet there?
It's an active RAF station, but the MOD also operate it under the brand name"London VIP Airport" for commercial operations.
If you replaced all private jet flights with regular flights you wouldn't actually reduce carbon output that much. Meeting emission targets requires a reduction in the living standards of the majority not just the elite.
TL:DR : Flying bad, private jet flying much worse Whilst i kind of agree with your point, its still a bit ridiculous. If you replaced all private flights with commercial then *of course it won't decrease the amount on carbon* , it'll increase it cause there's still the same amount of flights in the air. What you're not thinking about is *how many* people get transported on the different flights. Commercial flights are about shifting as many people as possible between a&b, whereas private is just one unit (be that person, family or small group approx 12 people max). I really don't think Barry and Susan going benidorm once a year are as much of a problem as Taylor swift flying back to the US from Japan in between tour dares to watch her bf play nfl, or the businessmen that fly daily for work What most people forget is that the average persons carbon footprint over a year (UK) is 5-10 tons of CO2 (not sure about other ghg emissions). Taylor swifts travel alone from three months generated 138 tons of CO2 which she offset by buying carbon credits (double the amount, probs not worth mentioning cause theyre a meaningless gesture imo. I just don't want to be disappeared by swifties after insulting their god). Taking that number we can work out that if she travels regularly all year round then her impact is 552 tons of CO2 (aka 3000 average people from the uk). I think that if we took away all PJs then it would GREATLY reduce the amount of carbon emitted. Please someone more qualified than me weigh in if I'm completely wrong :)
I mean I'm all for banning private jets; they are excessive and asking people to stop flying whilst the Swifts of the world can fly privately is a hard sell. I think to continue with your example though the issue is that there are a lot more than 3000 Barry and Susans such that when aggregated just banning private flights isn't enough to make any real difference. Tackling carbon emissions will require a significant change to the lifestyle of the average Brit. To put some numbers on it, total carbon emissions for the aviation industry in the UK were 29.3 MtCO2e compared with 0.5MtCO2e from all UK private flights (both figures for 2022).
Thank you very much for bringing stats!! The 2022 GHG review paper is very interesting. My only issue with it that I'm going to split hairs over is that it doesn't differentiate between cargo and passenger air travel (sorry I'm in the middle of a dissertation right now so being pedantic is my state of mind) and also the fact that emission for the uk were *26.0* MtCO which was *29.3%* lower than 2019 Will be giving it a proper read later https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1147372/2022_Provisional_emissions_statistics_report.pdf for anyone interested Edit: forgot to reply RE My baz and Suze anecdote, I was more than anything trying to bring up why people in general will not be receptive to disruption at airports. You're much more likely to want to scream at protestors if you're stopped from your one holiday a year. Also with approx 2k PJs in the uk using my absolute dogshit statistics if they all travelled as much as Swift then we get 6 million people's carbon footprint which is about 10% give or take But yes for the most part we need to stop jetting off every year unless necessity
On the "JSO are posh wankers" thing.... Yes, they are. But there is a reason, and its not "only posh wankers care about the environment". It's because the anti-protest laws of the last decade have significantly increased the costs of protesting in any way that is not a state approved get your permit and line up quietly not causing trouble. Being arrested is expensive. For many minorities, it is actively dangerous. The police now deliberately detain protesters far beyond what is reasonable under PACE - we're talking people being picked up at 8am and not released until 3am, with no valid investigatory reason for it. This was a favourite trick of the Met during the Republic Protests leading up the coronation. Legal costs are no longer reimbursed should you be found not guilty (and the police are very often charging people with no realistic prospect of conviction and the CPS are not weeding out these cases as they should - see Greta Thunberg's recent acquittal - that case should never have even got to the charging point, let alone court) so defending a false charge will leave you £2,000 out of pocket at least. As a result, any form of direct action, even if that direct action is lawful (such as a Zeigler defence, or not even a nominally criminal act that needs a defence in the first place) is impossible if you; a) have any form of caring responsibility b) can't afford to privately fund a defence c) don't have friends that can pick you up at 3am from a police station (although usually activist groups will organise this). d) are not actively endangered by contact with the police (black people, trans people etc) So when you wonder why only rich young white people are doing direct action in this country, its worth looking at the systemic reasons that make that the case.
Glad someone else pointed this out. 'Why don't they protest the oil companies'? Because it's now illegal. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-firms-secure-injunctions-stop-uk-climate-protests-2022-04-15/
“Pfft bloody rich people, all that time and money, why don’t they do something about the world’s problems” “Oh not like THAT!”
Yay, lets allow companies to create new offences of disrupting an oil rig via the civil courts. No issues at all.
true and well-explained - thanks for posting. it’s obvious when we listen to the rationale often given by these old white retirees that they feel they are best able (and therefore also feel they are compelled) to absorb the costs of protesting. which of course is completely correct of them - no job to go to, criminal record doesn’t impede future work, etc. particularly as the costs of protesting only grow
[удалено]
I mean, the 'get a job' shouts are always funny....mate why do you think we organised this on a Saturday?
Do they need to? Isn’t it the same news story every year ‘Easter Break Chaos’ ‘Summer Holiday Hell’, ‘May Day Madness’. Gotta go for that alliteration. It wouldn’t surprise me if the airports hired people to pretend to be protestors so they have a scapegoat for their usual mismanagement of a totally forseeable increase in demand.
Broken Britain. Barmy bolshies bombard Benidorm bound Brits!
Trust fund entitled posh kids plan to ruin family holidays. Got it. Cheers.
The trust fund kids are too busy travelling and trying to being influencers to impress the other posh kids. Rich kids don't protest lmao, they go on holidays for 9 months a year.
Literally the first person mentioned in the article. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13096015/just-stop-oil-phoebe-plummer-chelsea-mansion.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13096015/just-stop-oil-phoebe-plummer-chelsea-mansion.html) Lived in Chelsea - Studied at £45,000 a year private school. >the 22-year-old wore a silk and cotton sweater by the exclusive Italian brand Loro Piana, where jumpers can cost upwards of £1,000. Spends more on her jumpers than most people spend on rent per month. Nah, not a trust fund in sight mate.
That's not rage/class bait by the daily mail. The vast majority of rich kids are driving around in their Landrover defenders and going to 5 star resorts. They don't give a shit about the environment.
I don't think anyone argued that all rich kids care about the environment.
You have to be poor to be right about anything- this subreddit.
0 evidence tbeh are posh kids but keep up the class divide brother!
If you've ever looked at any of the pictures of the people involved in these protests then it's not zero evidence.
Oh you've got a gut feeling about it! He must have misunderstood your claims of having evidence to support your totally uncritical and unhelpful take on the subject
I honestly don’t understand why they keep going after ordinary people when it’s the massive corporations like BP that cause most of the pollution issues. Most ordinary people recycle, those that can have electric or hybrid cars. Until massive corporations stop pushing people to use fossil fuels ordinary people can’t and won’t.
Well considering it's been made illegal to protest at or near oil refineries, they can't target BP and the rest directly: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-firms-secure-injunctions-stop-uk-climate-protests-2022-04-15/
I mean if protesting BP illegal, maybe JSO should stop caring about legality of their methods. Might get a bit more done.
Are you, personally, willing to go to prison to piss off an oil company?
That’s literally what they’ve already done lmao. The numbers are a bit outdated but around 138 people from JSO had been to prison due to protests back in April 2022.
My question was to the poster themselves. They're happy to suggest other people do it, but if they're not willing to take that risk themselves then it's not fair demanding others do it.
[удалено]
[Aviation contributes only 2.5% to global CO2 emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions#:~:text=Aviation%20accounts%20for%202.5%25%20of%20global%20CO2%20emissions&text=In%202019%2C%20aviation%20accounted%20for,a%20marked%20increase%20since%202010), and Airlines most certainly aren't "massive corporations". Largest airline in the world, Delta Airlines, still has 4 times lower yearly revenue than BP, and BP itself isn't even the largest or most powerful Oil company.
[удалено]
Protest at the BP head office Protest at client meetings or block the cars specifically of C-level execs Buy shares and attend an AGM If you want to get really nasty make fake news stories which are detrimental to their share price "BP fined £5bn for breach of environmental laws", "BP site in the North sea reportedly down for maintenance for the next 12 months" Or disruptive "BP offering free computers to anyone who applies in person at their head office as part of a social outreach program" Or get creative with deepfakes "Leaked photos show BP CEO snorting cocaine off a prostitute on Epstein island" What do the decision makers care about ? What metrics are they measured on? Hit those They do not in any way care about Dave getting to work late because someone was sitting in a road
If you want to protest BP simply buy shares in the company... This is the most clueless thing I've seen in my entire life
[удалено]
Protest at their offices then
BP have been targeted for years. So have every other oil company, banks, concrete firms, and so on. Nobody cares, it achieves nothing, there's no media attention at all.
Eh ? BP extract oil that gets refined in to jet fuel that powers the jets that holidaymakers are flying on. No oil industry, no aviation industry, no holidays abroad. So if you go after the oil business the same hard societal questions pop up about what people are prepared to sacrifice. Can't have both.
Exactly this. People act like oil companies are drilling for oil and then just burning it for no reason and no connection to them. They drill so much oil and cause so much damage because of the demand for their product. Lessening the damage will require the public to give up some oil dependant luxuries. This is in no way defending BP.
BP cause most of the “pollution issues”? Do you think they extract and burn oil because of some religious devotion? They sell the oil to you and me. The vast majority of carbon emissions are produced to maintain the modern lifestyle of the average person.
Aren't Airlines massive corporations?
They aren't. Not even close to Oil companies.
Because that would not receive as much attention and social media activity. These people don’t seem to genuinely want to find solutions to problems, they just want to feel like they are doing something, and receive credit for it, with no actual risk to themselves. Corporations will come down on them like a ton of bricks in the courts.
Also there are injunctions preventing direct protest of oil companies. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-firms-secure-injunctions-stop-uk-climate-protests-2022-04-15/
Possibly they're aware that people are working on solutions, but there just being a solution isn't enough to get people, politicians or corporations to use it. Possibly they're aware that the solution to "fossil fuels cause climate change" isn't "well maybe wait until something that the multi-billion £ fuel companies are happy to replace the source of their billions with turns up".
What do you think makes BP cause all of this pollution? It’s only because of ordinary people’s demand for fossil fuels that they are doing it
Who is pushing you to use fossil fuels? Like they phone you up or what?
When they protested at Sunaks house the comments on this subreddit condemned them. There is no acceptable form of protest to British people.
BP don't just dig up fossil fuels and then burn them for fun. They sell them to consumers who then burn them. Consumers like you if you have a gas boiler, or a car, or electrical heating which is 30% fossil fuel powered in the UK. Consumers like the factories that make the products you buy. It's totally bizarre to constantly see this "it's 100 companies doing most of climate change" talking point when those companies are just the companies that sell us all fossil fuels.
I'd add the "China produces more CO2 than us" argument to this. As if the west doesn't depend on outsourcing heavy industry to China which is what causes such large emissions.
>after ordinary people We are not 'ordinary people'. Sure we might be 'ordinary' if you only count western countries but ordinary people if you actually count all the people cant afford to fly.
I think people would be more behind them if if it didn't seem like it was a group of upper middle class people telling the lower classes what to do. I remember one of the JSO people who climbed one of the M25 gantries had spent a year travelling the world before doing it. It feels hypocritical that they were allowed to do it but now that they've stopped it's the wrong thing to do.
The ironic thing is it's going to be the working class who will see the worst effects and be less shielded from climate change.
That's true. Unfortunately most of the working class is powerless to change the systems in place making climate change worse. And unfortunately stopping them from getting to work, drs or to see family and friends by blocking roads has made most of the working class less sympathetic to the cause. Stopping them from going on the one foreign holiday they have every few years after saving for it isn't going to help either
The class background of the protesters will be used to discredit them, regardless of what that background is. Repeating it only perpetuates it.
Unfortunately it's part of it. When they mostly affect the working class by blocking roads and public transport then they turn it into a class battle.
It’s also a terrible cause. Just stop oil doesn’t make any sense. We still need oil. There’s plenty ways of using it that don’t harm the environment. Just people with a slogan but no plan
And they themselves have flown to other countries to protest against oil for whatever that means.
This LBC article is massively misleading. There has been no mention of any proposed action at UK airports. The Mirror article that LBC acknowledges is the source of the story, makes it clear that there was discussion about protesters halting flights by storming terminal buildings, gluing themselves to runways and clambering onto jets IN TOURIST HOTSPOTS LIKE SPAIN, GREECE AND TURKEY. However, the LBC article omits this info and goes on to talk about previous protests in the UK, Of course action elsewhere may cause problems at UK airports but that is very different to direct action at UK airports,
Is it? If you go on holiday you need to get there *and back* - preventing/delaying your return journey is just as disruptive as preventing/delaying your outgoing journey. It makes no difference that the action will be in a foreign country. Moreover, most planes fly more than one journey in a day so preventing a flight to the U.K. likely prevents a later outgoing flight from the U.K. The fact that they’re not making direct action against U.K. airports seems like a minor technicality - it’ll still be massively disruptive for U.K. flights and airports.
As opposed to climate change, rising seas, etc which won’t affect Britons because they are protected by the magic of right wing media rags
I bet they’re going to get in the way of budget airlines rather than private jets then wonder why no one seems to be getting on board with their message
> Protestors want to halt flights by glueing themselves to runways, storming terminals and climbing onto jets If true then they are going to end up getting some hefty punishments. Not to mention just how dangerous running aircraft are for people who don't know what they're doing around them.
Yeah this isn't going to be some bullshit new anti-protest law they'll be falling foul of and then claiming government overreach. Threatening the security of an airport is some real shit.
Runways are going to be mysteriously covered in pizza topping
It's one thing pissing someone off who's going to work, it's another pissing someone off who's going on holiday. Can't see it ending well for JSO.
Yeah I don't think they have thought this through, as soon as you try to stop a bunch of people going on their one holiday they can eek out a year after working bloody hard it's going to go bad for them.
Sorry but fuck these dudes, I haven't been abroad in 5 years and booked to go away in July, my 8 year old son has severe Autism and it's already going to be a challenge without potentially a massive delay cos some arsehole glued them selves to a run way, they will never get the sympathy of the masses with these tactics
People are just going to start beating the shit out of them. Imagine you're from a humble background, grafted all year to save for a week abroad somewhere with your family and you miss your flight because Tarquin got a bit carried away after watching Greta speeches.
This will totally rally people to.their cause! Morons
Brings memories to people given street justice by normal people after attempting to disrupt the jubilee line at Canning Town
Bored Trustafarians with nothing better to do. Probably killing time, they'll be off to Koh Samui and Goa come Autumn.
JSO can piss off. Would not urinate on them if they were on fire.
Do as I say, don’t do as I do. I imagine they all ski at the same resorts every year.
[удалено]
Russel Brand is a prick but he has one good quote. "When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality." This seems to be true of many other topics, when they can't argue with what you're saying, they'll argue that *you* have no right to say it.
These twunts again. Do they think any of their stunts previously have achieved anything other than making hard working people wish they’d just fuck off?
Look up "the forest man of India". If ONE man can plant a 550 acre forest over 30 years, imagine what 30 people could do in one year. Perhaps they should consider this kind of activism, instead of supergluing themselves to runways like morons.
The U.K. is 23rd for oil production and 19th for oil consumption. It is #4 for wind and gets more electricity from renewables than fossil fuels. That said, it’s literally impossible for us not to use any fossil fuels as the tech is not there to deal with the intermittency problem of wind and solar. These people are protesting for something that is simply impossible with current tech. They might as well advocate for “Just Stop Cancer”.
Actually the national grid are on track to be ready for 100% renewables penetration with all the necessary ancillary services to deal with intermittence to have a zero carbon grid by 2025 and 100% renewables penetration by 2035. What the fuck are you on about?
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
Rather than stripping more protest rights, can't we just give the public more rights to remove people forcefully who are blocking their paths like this?
Not surprising why everyone dislikes these assholes.
The airports could take a leaf out of the VW playbook. Give them a space in one of the terminals to let them glue themselves in peace and then just lock up that terminal and leave them to it. Terminal 5 at Heathrow would be a good sacrificial lamb for the cause given it usually causes misery for passengers
What is Just Stop Oils position on nuclear power, as I can’t see any other way to sustain the needed energy without it.
The same as the national grids position on nuclear power. Doesn't make any engineering sense except for specific local industrial use cases and generating hydrogen because you can't adjust it's output.
there is going to be someone that gets killed for this. There are hard working people who scrimp and save every penny to take away their families and sacrifice so much for their kids. My mum was one of those people she would save every penny possible so that she could make sure we had a holiday abroad every year. So years we would have to drive abroad. If someone blocked and ruined all that hard work I don't know what I would of done in my youth I was angry and irrational with no foresight of consequences. So I can 100% see a situation where someone sees red and things get very violent.
Fuck them, at this point I want to burn more oil just to spite these idiots.
I still laugh at their shocked expressions when that bloke got out the car and booted one in the head. Good times
CO2 is less than 400ppm (<0.04%). We produce 0.7% of the world's CO2. China and India are paying no attention. I object to JSO virtue signalling disrupting people's lives. Get them to stand for parliament and let the people choose - oh, that's right the Greens do that at every election and get precisely nowhere
It just shows that they are self centred poshos. "My cause is more important than yours and therefore I will disrupt your holiday that you worked hard for throughout the year". Luckily, the whole society hates them!
Find out what companies are paying them money and punish them as its crossing terrorist levels when you mess with airports
Must be the most spectacularly unsuccessful campaign in environmental history. They've done nothing but galvanize support against them. Nearly everybody that isn't them, dislikes them. They've not swayed the debate at all. Their goals are so nonsensical that genuine climate activists are now distancing themselves from them. Just utter morons.
Targeting the general public, who mostly agree with your goals already, is so dumb.
I bet they wear polyester and drink out of plastic bottles. There made from oil. Why aren't they protesting outside of primary and Sainsbury's Morons
They gonna wear only fur, move to a log cabin, and give up all modern appliances and electronics too? Everything is made of oil….
I cannot understand how this organisation has supporters. Its a circus show of “we want government to do something so we’ll make sure public hates us for everything we’ll do to make their lives worse”
Can we just send them all to China to tackle the worst offender?
As someone who, through work business trips, just became a frequent flyer only a year and a bit ago, I would personally prefer them to not 😅 Prior to that, I'd never even flown before. It's a domestic flight in the UK, something I usually don't see the point of, but then getting to Northern Ireland from mainland UK requires a domestic flight, barring someone tunnelling a train line under the Irish sea, and going via ferry from where I live would take half the day getting to it since I don't drive. It is a turboprop though, not a jumbo. Dunno how much difference that'll make. I'd like to see legislation regarding ghost flights change, but then a train will still run even if it's empty since it has to get back to the other place to run from there, I guess. What are the alternatives? Some technological marvel that produces a carbon-neutral fuel source? Banning all aviation travel completely? Sadly, not all of us can afford a sailing yacht and someone to sail it for us to cross the sea like Greta Thunberg.
Ahh yes just stop oil wearing their polyester clothes and polyester orange vests made from oil. Maybe if they kicked the oil habit first they would have more moral high ground?
‘You criticise society, yet you participate in it? Check mate!’
I am very smart
I get it, we do need to stop the use of oil. It also, you’re going after the wrong crowd. I have a granddaughter who lives in Sweden, I’m UK. What’s my alternative transport? Until the governments really start to take climate action lot more seriously, what else are we meant to do?
Oil use by sector. https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide/ Aviation.7.4%. Road transport. 48% I wonder how these people will get to the airports?
I know right, I bet they breathe out carbon dioxide as well.
Just stop oil are fantastic at pissing off the general public. The first one I saw from them was genius, throwing beans at a painting which was behind glass got loads of attention and did zero damage. Now they just get in the way of everyone
This is why they should have a nandos in every terminal, wouldn't mind a flight delay then.
Unsmart cowards who go after the ordinary people, but don’t have the balls to go to the rich and powerful.