Greenpeace stop a coal train with a polar bear in the Retford area

[62613]

I think that it's been said already, direct action might have some place in repressive regimes where, if you don't follow the line, you don't have a voice. There'll be a high price to be paid and, as we've seen following the Arab Spring, you might not get quite what you wanted.

 

In the past, it may have had some legitimacy in this country but not for many years now. We live in a democracy, imperfect? yes, but as good as any.

 

Today, any group in the west can get it's message out, social media, a generally receptive TV and legitimate and peaceful protest. Who, here, is unaware of the general aims of Greenpeace and the Global Warming lobby?

 

The problem is that some groups aren't happy with winning the debate. So certain are they of their moral superiority that they want to impose their will immediately.

 

 

The suffragettes?

[Horsetan]

Sorry but your last sentence is just nonsense. Equating Greenpeace with ISIS or AQ is the sort of hyperbole which is actually grossly offensive to all those affected by ISIS or AQ or any other form of terrorism. .....

I'm not entirely sure that IS, AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. want to be associated with Greenpeace either....

[Revolution Mike]

Terrorist - a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

 

Terrorism - the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.

 

I would say the driver of the coal train felt pretty intimidated by a group of activists stopping his train. A group intimidating people to achieve their goal, that fits the definition of terrorist and terrorism to me. The goals change, the methods differ, but a group of people coercing one man into doing what the group want through violence or the threat of overwhelming numbers is terrorism. Disagree all you like, but what they do is illegal, dangerous and stupid and the sooner the companies this group target grow a backbone and charge these people the better for everyone.

 

Stupid and illegal - definitely.  Hardly systematic use of violence though is it and certainly a million miles away from ISIS/AQ etc.

[Arthur]

The Suffragettes?

 

Well, firstly that was a while ago, well before ordinary people had anything like the access to the media we have today and secondly, there is some genuine debate as to whether their direct action set back the cause. Critics used their actions to 'prove' that women were unstable and not fit to vote. It was the contribution of women during the First World War which many think was the main breakthrough.

 

Even today there is some debate over exactly what Emily Davison was trying to do when killed by the Kings horse at Epsom.

[Ozexpatriate]

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, anthropogenic CO2 is a small fraction of the total, so, a) is our contribution significant, b )IS the planet warming and c) IF so, do we live with it, manage it or return to our caves.

The mean ppm of atmospheric CO₂ at the time of the industrial revolution is stated to be 280ppm. It has now topped 400ppm - an increase of 43%.

 

The answer to question ( a ) is yes

The answer to question ( b ) is yes

The answer to question ( c ) is problematic

 

The question is "how much is too much?"

 

The planet has seen high CO₂ before. In the Carboniferous (when that CO₂ was consumed by plants) the plants produced so much oxygen that we had 3' long dragonflies and anaconda sized millipedes. (Not that any of us have to worry about that in our lifetimes.) The planet will sort it out eventually.  The question is whether humans can cope.

[Arthur]

Okay Michael,

 

I dispute a), you can find all sorts of figures on the amount of anthropogenic CO2;

 

The increase you quote is the total increase since pre Industrial revolution not the anthropogenic contribution. Estimating from US Dept of Energy figures suggests the human contribution to the increase is around 28 ppm (7 %) the balance being from natural sources. You'll find other sources of data which differ.

 

More importantly the most influential green house gas is water vapour, accounting for, depending again on your source, for 35 to 75% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 accounts for 25% or less (source dependent). So man made CO2 might account for 7% of, say, 25% or 1.75% of any greenhouse effect.

 

I'm not presenting these as definitive, my point here simply being that the data, the figures, the interpretations are not consistent nor consensual.

 

I dispute b )

 

No increase in surface temperatures for 17 years despite rising CO2, no conclusive evidence of where this extra trapped energy has gone, a 'rise' below even the best case scenario predictions. IPCC admit they have no explanation. A short period yes, but maybe a question needs to be asked, 'just how well do we understand all this?'

 

As for c) I'll leave that hanging.

[Revolution Mike]

Water vapour is an important greenhouse gas but only on a short term basis IIRC so it doesn't have the same long term impact as CO2 (and other GHGs). Anyway the issue is not really about how much anthropogenic GHGs there are in comparison to the whole but the influence of an additional load on the global system.  As Ozexpatriate mentions the planet has seen high CO2 periods before and there are huge feedback mechanisms which react. The question then becomes what influence does the additional load from anthropogenic CO2 place on these systems.

 

As I've already mentioned no overall warming for the last 17 years is largely irrelevant.  Look at the longer term trend.

[Anthony_S]

I am a so called climate sceptic, yet even I and other hardened sceptics agree with statements such as 'carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activity is causing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to increase and should cause some global warming'. Statements like these are often used in the surveys used to support the idea that there is a consensus, like the ones that claim 97% of climate scientists agree as repeated ad nauseum by the likes of Greenpeace.

 

The effect of CO2 on warming is logarithmic, so a doubling of CO2 is needed for each 1oC rise. Each new CO2 molecule added has less of an effect than the last. The only real basis for alarm is that the climate models assume a positive feedback due to assumed accelerated warming caused by more water vapour as a result of the small warming by CO2. However there doesn't seem to be a rigorous scientific basis for this crucial assumption.

 

There is good evidence that the Earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today, and before that in the Roman warm period, Minoan warm period and the much warmer Holocene climate optimum. The last interglacial 120000 years ago was much warmer than this one with crocs, hippos and big cats living in the Thames valley. It is so difficult to discern an anthropogenic signal above the natural variability, and even more so to say anthropogenic effects will be catastrophic such is the level of uncertainty.

 

One day there will be textbooks written about and public enquiries into this climate madness!

 

edited to say 1000 years ago, not 100. Typo

[Arthur]

The question then becomes what influence does the additional load from anthropogenic CO2 place on these systems.

 

As I've already mentioned no overall warming for the last 17 years is largely irrelevant.  Look at the longer term trend.

On the first point I agree, and what evidence do we have on the impact of anthropogenic CO2, I've yet to see any credible data which can separate it's effect from natural green house gasses.

 

As for the current pause, though I accept it's a short time frame it is not irrelevant. The effect of man made emissions could only cover say 150 years, so to dismiss the trend in the last 10% of them is disingenuous, particularly when the anthropogenic CO2 levels are supposedly higher than ever. I am merely saying that it should start to raise some questions, Why are our predictions wrong? what is it we do not understand? And to quote yourself;

 

"The question then becomes what influence does the additional load from anthropogenic CO2 place on these systems".

[Grasslands]

The greenpeace stunt was just that, a stunt. Not of any help to either power station workers, train drivers or communicating environmental issues.

 

I am surpised by the attitudes of some on here to environmental issues and those that support them. Cave dwelling nettle eaters, indeed!

 

Particularly, i find it interesting that being a spokeperson or communicator of environmental issues is undermind by carbon footprinting, with some on this thread calling them hypocrites. That is a bit like saying you have no respect for a soldier unless he has fought in a war, or that a doctor is a hypocrite if they ever fail to save someones life. We are all humans afterall.

 

The message is about reducing your carbon footprint, not eliminating it. I think people that actively choose to live a less convenient life based on their own personal guilt for the damage caused to the world around them deserve a little more credit than they have found in this thread.

[chris p bacon]

The message is about reducing your carbon footprint, not eliminating it. I think people that actively choose to live a less convenient life based on their own personal guilt for the damage caused to the world around them deserve a little more credit than they have found in this thread.

I'm speaking from experience and I'm guessing you've not met any of them then ? if you had you would find they think they have no guilt as they are convinced everyone else has.

 

The message I have always found from them in conversation is "do as I say not as I do" They are mostly nice people but sadly completely divorced from the realities of day to day life.

[Grasslands]

I'm speaking from experience and I'm guessing you've not met any of them then ? if you had you would find they think they have no guilt as they are convinced everyone else has.

 

The message I have always found from them in conversation is "do as I say not as I do" They are mostly nice people but sadly completely divorced from the realities of day to day life.

Hi Chris. Not true. I know many people people like this. The toy trains is how I escape from these environmental matters.

 

Some (usually the more vocal ones) are as you describe, preachy and 'Do as i say, not as i do', i am not a fan of this attitude. It has an air of smugness that does not help anyone.

 

There are plenty of people that attempt to reduce their carbon footprint in a more personal fashion, only bringing it up if people ask about it.

 

For those more prominent figures, they stand on tricky ground. They have to do all that stuff like awairness raising, but they are unlikely to avoid putting a carbon foot wrong. What can be done other than admitting your 'trying'? Granted, I havent seen anyone say as such on a more public forum.

[PhilH]

The greenpeace stunt was just that, a stunt. Not of any help to either power station workers, train drivers or communicating environmental issues.

I am surpised by the attitudes of some on here to environmental issues and those that support them. Cave dwelling nettle eaters, indeed!

Particularly, i find it interesting that being a spokeperson or communicator of environmental issues is undermind by carbon footprinting, with some on this thread calling them hypocrites. That is a bit like saying you have no respect for a soldier unless he has fought in a war, or that a doctor is a hypocrite if they ever fail to save someones life. We are all humans afterall.

The message is about reducing your carbon footprint, not eliminating it. I think people that actively choose to live a less convenient life based on their own personal guilt for the damage caused to the world around them deserve a little more credit than they have found in this thread.

And I think that other opinions on how people live their lives, form attitudes and beliefs are available. Please do not call people with differing opinions to yours cave dwelling nettle eaters.

[Rivercider]

I am not a tree-hugger, and as a former railwayman do not like to see the train service deliberately disrupted for any reason.

 

On the subject of global warming although I think there are still many unknowns I am minded to think human activity has had some effect.

 

One thing that cannot be disputed though is that there are now less fossil fuel reserves left than before man started using them. 

 

A couple of years ago I remember reading an article (cant remember where) about fossil fuel consumption.

The article suggested that we had used about one third of all known fossil fuel reserves, and that the rate of consumption is increasing.

From the dawn of time until 50 years ago we had used one sixth, from the 1960s until now we had used another sixth.

 

Therefore assuming the rate of use does not decrease in another 50 years we will have consumed half of the known reserves, (By then if I am still around I will be 105).

At that rate another 150 years will see known reserves used up.

I know more reserves are likely to be found, but against that China and India, and other nations, are still expanding their economies.

 

I think global warming or not in the short to medium term we will need to get much smarter about how we (as a world) use our resources,

 

cheers 

[beast66606]

And I think that other opinions on how people live their lives, form attitudes and beliefs are available. Please do not call people with differing opinions to yours cave dwelling nettle eaters.

 

Phil - not that I necessarily agree with the guys other comments but to be fair,  his "cave dwellers" was used earlier in this thread to describe FoE people, he was using it in exasperation rather than insult.

[Dave Scott]

Phil - not that I necessarily agree with the guys other comments but to be fair,  his "cave dwellers" was used earlier in this thread to describe FoE people, he was using it in exasperation rather than insult.

This view we are all going back to the stone age if we dont sort out our energy supply is not new. When in the 80s environmentalists started using circular stickers - NUCLEAR POWER NO THANKS with a sunflower the nuclear industry responded. A series of stickers depicting a city gent with a candle on his bowler had the words STONE AGE NO THANKS. I think I have still got one somewhere.

 

Dave

yes I did work for CEGB

[Bernard Lamb]

How can you support a group that purposely ram other vessels with the intent to sink them and the potential loss of life that would ensue, on the open seas? Their actions are no different to acts of terrorism, and should be dealt with in the same manner. Support a cause by all means, but purposely putting the lives of innocent people in danger to highlight your cause is simply deplorable. Use the media, use evidence, lobby politicians, but don't endanger other human lives to further your own cause. Your cause and opinions are no more important or valid than anyone else's, especially not someone just trying to earn a wage to feed their family.

 

Mark

Did I say I support them?

I wrote that I put off Greenpeace chuggers by saying that I support them.

Not exactly the same thing.

In fact exactly the opposite.

David Barrett sums it up with a veiled reference to the people pulling the strings.

These people are not exactly my cup of tea either.

If you want to do a bit of research into the hidden backers it should not be too difficult to find out some of them.

Enough to point you in the right direction at any rate.

Name them and save you the trouble?

Not blooming likely.

Not in the light of what we know they are capable of doing.

Bernard

[Pete 75C]

Did I say I support them?

I wrote that I put off Greenpeace chuggers by saying that I support them.

Not exactly the same thing.

In fact exactly the opposite.

 

Fair point. We all know the easiest way to scatter door-knocking Jehovahs is to answer the door carrying a trident and wearing Devil horns from the joke shop...

[PhilJ W]

Fair point. We all know the easiest way to scatter door-knocking Jehovahs is to answer the door carrying a trident and wearing Devil horns from the joke shop...

At one time I let my hair and beard grow a bit long, when the Jehovah's came knocking I simply gave them a fanatical stare and said to them 'Allah is the one true god'. They nearly done themselves an injury running away.

[jjb1970]

The health and safety issues around protesters are something that cause huge headaches to industry. I worked for one of the electricity companies that became a prime target for protesters and suffered break ins on more than one occasion where they started damaging equipment. The legal advice that was sent out to plants (and I am not a solicitor therefore cannot comment on whether the legal advice was right or wrong) was that regardless of whether they were trespassing, breaking the law etc our duty of care remained and therefore in such a break in to make the plant safe until they could be safely removed. 

 

In one sense this infuriated me on the basis that if somebody starts smashing up equipment in an environment like a power station (electricity, steam, gas pulverised coal, hot water, nasty chemicals etc etc) and ends up killing themselves then it is darwinism in action but then I am also not so inhuman that I'd stand by and watch somebody kill or injure themselves even if it is as a result of their own stupidity so for all I hated the disruption I agreed with the instructions that resulted from the legal advice. A more worrying aspect of this to me was consequential failures, a protester could have quite easily damaged something that wouldn't kill themselves but cause a plant incident that could injure or kill somebody else. 

 

On the protesters, my principal objection is not so much that they do not like climate change (I'm a bit of a tree hugger myself) but the fact that from what I have seen some of these people (not all I accept) tend to object to everything and seldom seem willing to engage in real debate. I know a guy from a NGO in the Nordic area whose attitude is that if anybody gets stinking rich saving the Baltic then good luck to them as it is the environmental condition of the Baltic he is motivated by but that attitude is considered appalling by some other groups with the same aim who conflate their nominal environmental aims with all sorts of other political ideas.

[Arthur]

 

I think global warming or not in the short to medium term we will need to get much smarter about how we (as a world) use our resources,

 

cheers 

Now on that I do fully agree, my scepticism is purely about anthropogenic global warming and it's impact.

 

Sustainability is something that Is crucial and we should be building sustainable communities.

 

Firstly, a quick caveat. If I refer back to my earlier comments about 'crying wolf'. We have had many predictions over the imminent end of fossil fuels since the 1970's, all so far wrong. Just an overall observation about how the environmental movement sometimes doesn't help it's own cause.

 

Nonetheless, they will be exhausted at sometime, along with every other resource, and we need to plan for that and conserve them. No question.

[jjb1970]

The availability of oil is all about price. People want cheap oil, I remember in the mid 90's when oil was $8/barrel and much of the North Sea was considered financially non-attractive as a result of the low oil price combined with high costs of extraction. At that time developing shale oil was considered viable at a cost of $80/barrel, a price that was considered fantastical at the time yet which today (only 20 years later) would be considered an oil price collapse. Looking beyond shale oil we already know how to reform elemental carbon and hydrogen into synthesised hydrocarbons (as done by Germany and South Africa to secure oil when cut off from imports) if the demand is there and people are willing to pay the cost. In a sense I see an element of self correction, as oil prices rise it encourages more efficient use and investment in alternative energy conversion. The problem to me is not whether we will have oil or other hydro-carbon fuels but whether the use of such fuels will be acceptable.

[Dave Scott]

At one time I let my hair and beard grow a bit long, when the Jehovah's came knocking I simply gave them a fanatical stare and said to them 'Allah is the one true god'. They nearly done themselves an injury running away.

Another way to confuse them "go in peace my friend and may the lord forgive you when you see the error of your ways".

[petethemole]

When JWs at the door start talking about God I ask them which one.

[Arthur]

 

The question of moving away from fossil fuels will be driven as much by their rising costs, as by environmental concerns. Will we literally run out of oil? Extract the very last drop? No, of course not. Long before then the cost of extraction will be such that other alternatives become viable as economic pressures force us to find alternatives.

 

Now they might be artificial hydrocarbons burned cleanly, nuclear, solar, tidal or whatever. The solution(s) will probably be technical.