Why are certain people completely apathetic or opposed to the idea of tackling climate change?

[bahnause]

Is it the point of the protests to convince people?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Then why won't anybody engage with them? There's no logic to the argument that says: "I am concerned about human activity increasing CO2 levels and its impact on climate, but I won't discuss it with anybody who inconveniences me with their protests". As the Government has found, they can't kill the messenger with legislation without putting so many restrictions on everybody's lives that there will be a backlash from the general public. Engagement with the organisation (not the headbangers) will rapidly undermine the demonstrations. The Government missed the trick with the Insulate Britain group two years ago. Had there been a sensible dialogue about improving insulation, there was an estimated cost of £17bn to meet their needs, - not that much compared withy what followed. We've seen in the last year how unstable energy prices are, and this Government has spent over £12bn supporting the status quo on the poorly insulated UK housing stock. Of course not much would have been saved by whatever inulation could have been done by the time the price rose, but who knows when the next energy crisis will be?

Insulate Britain had some very shady funding arrangements if I remember rightly... they were also campaigning for something that had already been tried a few years earlier- to give one example, both my parents and older brother had improved insulation provided for their homes under a scheme arranged by the Gordon Brown administration.

One of the more annoying things about the whole discussion is that we've known about what used to be called the "greenhouse effect" for decades (I'm in my forties and remember learning about it in junior school) but it's only in the last few years that governments have really tried to address the issue. Some of the more extreme environmentalists might take the position that because of this wasted time, the changes now required will have to be more hardline... but any party campaigning on policies that will reduce people's standard of living will not be elected. Even if we've "left it too late", there's a limit to how far people will be pushed. A pledge to return to pre-industrial standards of living isn't going to win votes.

Though the current war on farmers (you know, those people who feed us) might end up reducing emissions once half of the world starves to death.

As for "not engaging" with the protest, have you seen these people? They're not there to be reasoned with, they're there to be a nuisance and shriek at people while someone posts videos of it on social media. The doomer rhetoric doesn't help either as it shows JSO to be a group of fundamentalists who are unwilling to give an inch of compromise.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Is it the point of the protests to convince people?

Generally the point of protest is to raise attention for an issue. That is quite often not the same as trying to convince people, and sometimes the disruption is very much the point. Most protests throughout history have been more disruptive than trying to convince people.

 

[bahnause]

The statement that any form climate protection lowers the standard of living is somewhat as true, as the statement that electric cars often catch fire on their own. As the example of the fire on the Fremantle Highway shows, people are jut too willing to believe such nonsense and the press is just too willing to feed such crap to us . But what will definitely affect the standard of living is uncontrolled global warming.

 

[JamesT]

The statement that any form climate protection lowers the standard of living is somewhat as true, as the statement that electric cars often catch fire on their own. As the example of the fire on the Fremantle Highway shows, people are jut too willing to believe such nonsense and the press is just too willing to feed such crap to us . But what will definitely affect the standard of living is uncontrolled global warming.

You don't need to stretch to analogy. If you're making it more expensive to heat the house, or increasing the costs of transport which feed into pretty much everything else, unless there's a compensating increase in incomes then you're lowering the standard of living.
And these things do cost more, if they were cheaper then everyone would be doing them already and we wouldn't need levies on our bills to pay for them.

 

[bahnause]

It already is cheaper:

Levelized cost of energy

And it will become cheaper every year. Investments pay off. Despite the best efforts of the Government:

Fossil fuels received £20bn more UK support than renewables since 2015
Climate change: UK government oil and gas subsidies hit £13.6bn since Paris Agreement, campaigners say
Energy crisis: Governments spent more than €900 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2022

 

[JamesT]

It already is cheaper:

Levelized cost of energy

And it will become cheaper every year. Investments pay off. Despite the best efforts of the Government:

Fossil fuels received £20bn more UK support than renewables since 2015
Climate change: UK government oil and gas subsidies hit £13.6bn since Paris Agreement, campaigners say
Energy crisis: Governments spent more than €900 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2022

It clearly isn't, or as I said, everyone would have done it already.

Your graph cherry-picks two forms of renewable energy, and even then one is still potentially more expensive than fossil fuels if prices return from their current highs. I expect it also doesn't include the costs of the backup required when the weather isn't amenable.
The current pricing mechanism encourages investment in cheaper generation sources. Despite that we're currently running at 45% of our electricity from gas as I type.
My gas bill for the last year was £440, which includes cooking, heating, hot water. How long is it going to take to pay back the investment on switching to electric or installing solid wall insulation? (Even if I could, I'm not the freeholder).

The numbers for 'fossil fuel subsidy' are frankly nonsense. They include the reduced rate of VAT on domestic fuel and heating, regardless of the source. It's also including things like the decommissioning costs of old coal plants. Or there's the tax credits for decommissioning old oil rigs. As we ban the oil companies for setting aside money for decommissioning, how else do you expect it to be paid for? Just abandon them and let them fall into the sea when we're done?
Should we have let the full impact of the energy cost rises from Ukraine hit the end user?

PS: It's considered polite on this forum to quote the person you're replying to.

 

[The Ham]

Not at all, that's a very disingenuous and uncharitable interpretation. It's not about my "lifestyle", it's about people's immediate wellbeing. If I was driving a member of my family to hospital and one of these selfish (and many of them ARE selfish in my opinion, they're more interested in being seen than being heard) protestors was blocking my way through, then I would physically drag them out of the way for the sake of my loved one, consequences be damned.

If these people want to get the majority of the public on board, they need to rethink their tactics. "Don't p*** off the general public" is Campaigning 101.

Whilst I said it about "blue light delay" it's also true for those manning similar trips to get family to hospital - the biggest cause of delay (as it would impact every single trip) are other car drivers - unless the individual limits how much they drive all the rest of the time and encourages others to do likewise they are part of the problem due others to get their family to hospital.

Insulate Britain had some very shady funding arrangements if I remember rightly... they were also campaigning for something that had already been tried a few years earlier- to give one example, both my parents and older brother had improved insulation provided for their homes under a scheme arranged by the Gordon Brown administration.

One of the more annoying things about the whole discussion is that we've known about what used to be called the "greenhouse effect" for decades (I'm in my forties and remember learning about it in junior school) but it's only in the last few years that governments have really tried to address the issue. Some of the more extreme environmentalists might take the position that because of this wasted time, the changes now required will have to be more hardline... but any party campaigning on policies that will reduce people's standard of living will not be elected. Even if we've "left it too late", there's a limit to how far people will be pushed. A pledge to return to pre-industrial standards of living isn't going to win votes.

Though the current war on farmers (you know, those people who feed us) might end up reducing emissions once half of the world starves to death.

As for "not engaging" with the protest, have you seen these people? They're not there to be reasoned with, they're there to be a nuisance and shriek at people while someone posts videos of it on social media. The doomer rhetoric doesn't help either as it shows JSO to be a group of fundamentalists who are unwilling to give an inch of compromise.

Which just highlights my point that more should have been done before now.

However one thing I would highlight, no one is suggesting that we return to pre industrial standards of living. In fact because of the technology we have (not least wind turbines) there would be a lot that we could maintain even if we reverted to pre industrial levels of carbon emissions (also bearing in mind that there would have been quite a lot of fires being used for cooking and heating).

You don't need to stretch to analogy. If you're making it more expensive to heat the house, or increasing the costs of transport which feed into pretty much everything else, unless there's a compensating increase in incomes then you're lowering the standard of living.
And these things do cost more, if they were cheaper then everyone would be doing them already and we wouldn't need levies on our bills to pay for them.

Given the way that energy is paid for it would be possible for our energy bills to be lowered due to renewables - by loads more than any extra we'd pay to cover those costs. As the government doesn't appear to be willing to change that (perhaps because it allows them to use being green as part of their culture wars) that doesn't mean that green energy isn't cheaper (by some margin) than gas (the government's own property I linked previously say gas is 9 times more expensive).

It already is cheaper:

Levelized cost of energy

And it will become cheaper every year. Investments pay off. Despite the best efforts of the Government:

Fossil fuels received £20bn more UK support than renewables since 2015
Climate change: UK government oil and gas subsidies hit £13.6bn since Paris Agreement, campaigners say
Energy crisis: Governments spent more than €900 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2022

Also the link I provided previously about how energy providers are paid the 100th percentile for energy - even if they "bid" to provide it at a fraction of that cost.

An interesting read on why every companies have been making record profits and it's down to the low cost of renewables:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/why-is-cheap-renewable-electricity-so-expensive/

Link I was talking about in my last post

 

[JamesT]

Given the way that energy is paid for it would be possible for our energy bills to be lowered due to renewables - by loads more than any extra we'd pay to cover those costs. As the government doesn't appear to be willing to change that (perhaps because it allows them to use being green as part of their culture wars) that doesn't mean that green energy isn't cheaper (by some margin) than gas (the government's own property I linked previously say gas is 9 times more expensive).


Also the link I provided previously about how energy providers are paid the 100th percentile for energy - even if they "bid" to provide it at a fraction of that cost.

Generators are only paid those values if they're involved in the spot market. Many have fixed price contracts so the vagaries of the gas price won't be affecting the cost of electricity. Or they're on "Contracts for Difference", where a proportion of the increase over the strike price is returned back to consumers through the retailers.

You could throw away the marginal price system which has worked pretty well for 30 years and meant we had some of the cheapest electricity in Europe. Shifting to an 'actual cost' system takes away some of the incentives for the renewable providers to bid low, they know they're going to undercut the gas operators and if they bid just under that price they can get their old profit margins back.

Also, in this climate emergency, aren't high energy prices a good thing? The number one priority is to reduce usage, which eye-watering prices will certainly do?

 

[Enthusiast]

The number one priority is to reduce usage, which eye-watering prices will certainly do?

But what else will they do? Or is reducing consumption all that matters?

 

[bahnause]

My gas bill for the last year was £440, which includes cooking, heating, hot water. How long is it going to take to pay back the investment on switching to electric or installing solid wall insulation? (Even if I could, I'm not the freeholder).

Between 5 -14 years. By the way: I paid nothing for heating or A/C in the last 8 years and I live in a much colder country.

Should we have let the full impact of the energy cost rises from Ukraine hit the end user?

No and you know I didn't say that. But maybe, just maybe it would be worth considering whether "cheap fossil energy" and "dependence on foreign sources" are compatible. It is cheap until it isn't. Energy does not become "cheaper" just because someone else pays for it or subsidises it. Perhaps it would also not be the stupidest idea to consider better insulation. Not insulationg in the past is having a negative impact today (on the climate and your bill). If something doesn't pay of, more of the same is not the way to go. Last but not least: Insulating a house is not lost money, the value of your property is elevated. It's not like burning the money (paying high energy bills is).

 

[dangie]

Not an Extinction Rebellion person myself, but i do know their protests ALWAYS move aside to let 'blue lights' through, and as there will be crossover personnel-wise with Just Stop Oil (again i have no links with), i assume they have the same policy.

Not sure how you can move aside when you’ve glued yourself to the road

 

[VauxhallandI]

The statement that any form climate protection lowers the standard of living is somewhat as true, as the statement that electric cars often catch fire on their own. As the example of the fire on the Fremantle Highway shows, people are jut too willing to believe such nonsense and the press is just too willing to feed such crap to us . But what will definitely affect the standard of living is uncontrolled global warming.

Yes people are far too willing to believe that it wasn’t arsonist setting off many of the fires this Summer or that they are normal things nature uses to it’s benefit.
Works both ways

 

[jon0844]

Who said it wasn't arsonists? Plenty of fires are started deliberately.

I see the usual right-wing commentators have gone down this route (so it isn't surprising to see someone repeat it here), without realising that someone could start a fire deliberately but you need the right conditions for it to spread far and wide, and with such vigour.

Or are we going to be told the arsonists sprayed entire areas with petrol or something?

 

[The Ham]

Yes people are far too willing to believe that it wasn’t arsonist setting off many of the fires this Summer or that they are normal things nature uses to it’s benefit.
Works both ways

The cause of the fires could be many (glass, abandoned BBQ, arson, more arson,C hina firing lasers at Hawaii*, etc.), however if that was the whole story then why haven't we seen hotel evacuations on the news before?

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the prolonged dry weather has meant that there's more fuel to burn than would normally be the case. With more fuel available it's going to be harder for fire fighters to control and so it's more likely to cause risk to properties.

Whilst there's a chance of somewhere to have significant fires there's been fires in Europe, Hawaii and Russia in the past month.

Smoke from forest fires engulfs city in Russia's far east

Smoke from fires raging across Russia's vast forest wilderness has engulfed the far eastern city of Yakutsk, forcing citizens to close doors and windows despite the summer heat, and to wear breathing masks. Emergencies have been declared in seven regions of Russia due to the fires, according to...

uk.news.yahoo.com

YAKUTSK, Russia (Reuters) - Smoke from fires raging across Russia's vast forest wilderness has engulfed the far eastern city of Yakutsk, forcing citizens to close doors and windows despite the summer heat, and to wear breathing masks.

Emergencies have been declared in seven regions of Russia due to the fires, according to Russia's forestry service, which collates satellite data on the fires. Around 4,000 people are involved in fighting them.

If you think that this is just Western MSM stirring up things, maybe it's worth looking at what other news organisations are saying, Al-Jazeera have this article about July being the hottest (globally) month on record:

July 2023 hottest month on record as heatwaves scorch Earth

Global average temperature for July confirmed to be highest on record of any month, Europe climate observatory says.

www.aljazeera.com

This is a link to a NDTV article (India) about the impact of extreme weather in China causing significant issues:

China Cities Brace For Floods As Heat Scorches Inland Regions

Beijing and other cities braced for severe flooding on Friday as summer storms rolled across many parts of China, while inland regions baked in intense heat, threatening to shrink the country's biggest freshwater lake.

www.ndtv.com

* Here's a reputable news source talking about China firing lasers at Hawaii:

Chinese satellite fires green laser beams over Hawaii

Incident comes amid an escalation of tensions between China and the US – after a Chinese spy balloon was spotted over Montana earlier this month and three other ‘flying objects’ were shot down this weekend

www.independent.co.uk

Astronomers have revealed that a Chinese satellite fired green laser beams over the state of Hawaii

Of course, if you look at the date it's from this year and isn't likely linked:

Conspiracy Theorists Go Viral With Claim Space Lasers Are To Blame For Hawaii Fires

A number of different verified accounts on Twitter, now officially known as X, insist space lasers are actually creating the fires in Maui—a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

www.forbes.com

If you search Twitter for information about the fires in Hawaii that have killed at least 67 people, you’re likely to find some wild conspiracy theories. In fact, a number of different verified accounts on Twitter, now officially known as X, insist space lasers are actually creating the fires in Maui—a ridiculous conspiracy theory that first gained widespread attention after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia floated the idea on Facebook in 2018.


To be clear, there’s absolutely no evidence that space lasers are to blame for the fires in Maui, which have destroyed at least 1,000 buildings and caused mass evacuations. But that hasn’t stopped many so-called verified accounts on Twitter from insisting that old photos actually depict lasers being shot from space in Hawaii.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Who said it wasn't arsonists? Plenty of fires are started deliberately.

I see the usual right-wing commentators have gone down this route (so it isn't surprising to see someone repeat it here), without realising that someone could start a fire deliberately but you need the right conditions for it to spread far and wide, and with such vigour.

Or are we going to be told the arsonists sprayed entire areas with petrol or something?

Why are you turning it in to a political thing?

Makes it sound like a petty tantrum.

It was a fact.

There are many wild fires every year And yes some years are drier than others.

It has obviously nothing to do with them being reported more.

 

[Bantamzen]

The cause of the fires could be many (glass, abandoned BBQ, arson, more arson,C hina firing lasers at Hawaii*, etc.), however if that was the whole story then why haven't we seen hotel evacuations on the news before?

For many years the moors around where I live have been blighted by many wildfires, and on investigation almost always there was evidence of human intervention. And for the most part stupid interventions such as having BBQs or dropping cigs, although there have been occasions where arson has been suspected.

Why haven't we seen evacuations before, well we have in other parts of the world but because Brits have been less involved the news here doesn't always seem as interested. Nothing captures the attention of the British media than Brits having a hard time of something. Taking Rhodes as an example many of the the most popular resorts are on the east coast of the island, where the temperatures tend to be highest. So those closer to the fires will have been evacuated, mainly because the prevailing winds were pushing the smoke in that direction. And whilst the fires got fairly close to these resorts, most where not actually under threat as the fires were mainly in the centre of the island. Although this may not have been obvious from some of the reporting that made it sound like the entire island was up in flames. The real tragedies remain largely unreported where locals have lost homes and businesses.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the prolonged dry weather has meant that there's more fuel to burn than would normally be the case. With more fuel available it's going to be harder for fire fighters to control and so it's more likely to cause risk to properties.

Whilst there's a chance of somewhere to have significant fires there's been fires in Europe, Hawaii and Russia in the past month.

Well many parts of Europe that saw the fires are known for having wildfire risk due to long periods of dry weather. In fact in the parts of Europe recently hit, fires are far more commonplace than you'd think. I know when I've been to Lindos, one of the places shown on the news due to evacuations, there is often a heightened alert of fire risk as not only is the ground dry & arid, but water is quite limited. Its one of the reasons why you'll see signs all over Rhodes asking tourists to conserve water.

Does any of this mean we can ignore the risks of our effects on the climate? No. But we also have to stop fixating on single events as some experts have taken to doing on social media, demanding that everything grind to a halt before if it doesn't we will all die in a massive firestorm. OK there may be a bit of artistic licence in their, but you only have to head over to Twitter to find them gnashing their teeth and using these events as absolute proof of dramatic & almost instant change, when they cannot be used that way. We do have have to do a lot more to reduce our impact, but rushing around panic-buying anything that looks like a solution.

What we need now are innovators, not shouters and definitely not pancikers.

Why are you turning it in to a political thing?

Makes it sound like a petty tantrum.

It was a fact.

There are many wild fires every year And yes some years are drier than others.

It has obviously nothing to do with them being reported more.

Its so much easier to blame everyone else...

 

[Falcon1200]

I paid nothing for heating or A/C in the last 8 years and I live in a much colder country.

That's amazing! How did you manage that please?

 

[bahnause]

That's amazing! How did you manage that please?

First I turned off the heating . And it helps to have a landlord who knows the difference between costs and investments. Triple glazing, insulation and a relatively large south-facing window front makes it possible to have a warm house even in winter.

 

[Falcon1200]

First I turned off the heating . And it helps to have a landlord who knows the difference between costs and investments. Triple glazing, insulation and a relatively large south-facing window front makes it possible to have a warm house even in winter.

Thanks. However living as I do in the West of Scotland, and despite having double glazing and insulation, not heating the house is not an option. Air conditioning however is not required......

 

[bahnause]

Thanks. However living as I do in the West of Scotland, and despite having double glazing and insulation, not heating the house is not an option. Air conditioning however is not required......

It's amazing what you can achieve with efficiency improvements. It's also amazing, how inefficient we actually are.

Even in the USA, where some exponents regard any kind of environmental protection as an attack on the American Dream and the installation of efficient heating systems is the equivalent of burning an American flag, a rethink is taking place.

While researching insulation and efficiency in new construction, I came across the following video of a us delegation looking around a swiss construction site. They were extremely impressed even by a standard building.

Construction site

Even many small measures can make a big difference. Despite more and more kilometers driven, the Swiss Federal Railways need less energy.

Energy efficiency

As far as I can see, people in Switzerland have not regressed to cavemen yet.

 

[AlterEgo]

"Don't p*** off the general public" is Campaigning 101.

Well, they aren't campaigning. They're protesting and intending to cause disruption.

There have been many movements for social change which have actively sought to disrupt civic life, many of them successful, and I don't think we would get much mileage out of stuff like retrospectively condemning sit-ins during the civil rights movement in the USA for being "disruptive".

JSO's problem is that the public already largely agree with them - we should move away from oil!

Is it the point of the protests to convince people?

No, and indeed this rather gets to the nub of the issue very succinctly.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well, they aren't campaigning. They're protesting and intending to cause disruption.

There have been many movements for social change which have actively sought to disrupt civic life, many of them successful, and I don't think we would get much mileage out of stuff like retrospectively condemning sit-ins during the civil rights movement in the USA for being "disruptive".

JSO's problem is that the public already largely agree with them - we should move away from oil!


No, and indeed this rather gets to the nub of the issue very succinctly.

Comparing JSO to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s is very charitable indeed. I suppose that daft young person who threw sewage over the Captain Tom memorial is Generation Z's Rosa Parks then?

If as you say the disruption caused is the objective rather than an unfortunate side-effect, then as a group and as individuals I have no respect for their opinions or actions.

You can't go out of your way to cause disruption and annoyance, and then get salty because the people whose lives you disrupted got annoyed with you.

 

[AlterEgo]

Comparing JSO to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s is very charitable indeed.

I assume because you agree with the aims and objectives of one and not the other, else, what is the difference?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I assume because you agree with the aims and objectives of one and not the other, else, what is the difference?

I agree with both in principle. The difference is that one of them could point to the problem they wanted fixing and eloquently persuade the public at large to support them, in the face of some quite severe and violent repercussions- including murder. Despite it seeming obvious to us today that people of all races in the US should be treated with respect and dignity, people like John Lewis knew that they had to make their case to the population at large in order to achieve their goals.

Just Stop Oil on the other hand, aren't interested in sitting down and talking with those who oppose them or object to their tactics. As you said yourself, they aren't campaigning. If they're not trying to convince people to their side, I'm under no obligation to listen to or support them.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree with both in principle. The difference is that one of them could point to the problem they wanted fixing and eloquently persuade the public at large to support them, in the face of some quite severe and violent repercussions- including murder. Despite it seeming obvious to us today that people of all races in the US should be treated with respect and dignity, people like John Lewis knew that they had to make their case to the population at large in order to achieve their goals.

Just Stop Oil on the other hand, aren't interested in sitting down and talking with those who oppose them or object to their tactics. As you said yourself, they aren't campaigning. If they're not trying to convince people to their side, I'm under no obligation to listen to or support them.

These eco-activists seem blissfully unware just what mixed messages they send and damage they are actually doing to the climate change debate. For example when ER jumped onto the rook of a tube train (and one got a bit of a kicking for it from what I've seen), what were they thinking? They chose one of the most efficient means of transport to disrupt, potentially driving more people literally back to their cars. Or the JSO one who when throwing orange power onto a snooker table at the Crucible, knelt down on the table, arms aloft like some two-bit local parish art society actor. And I'm going to guess they didn't live in South Yorkshire, so doubtless drove there and paid a considerable amount to gain entry.

But best of all was one of the JSO spokespersons on a recent interview with Jeremy Vine (please note I am not a fan of his, this came up as a YouTube suggested video) where a young lass was grilled by him for having years of holidays in the sun around the world posted on her social media feeds. Now there's nothing in changing your views on something, or even campaigning against things you've previously done. But to have yourself stood up as a spokesperson in front of an interviewer who you know is going to have you researched and grill you on anything they find, when you've left all your jolly-up pics for all to see... Well that's just plain daft, and shows a lack of even basic forward thinking. If these are the great hope for the future, we are screwed for sure!!