Not to mention the wind farm they've destroyed.
Protesting
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7082
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Protesting
Woodchopper wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:10 pmJust Stop Oil have sprayed paint over Murdoch’s HQ, pro-fossil fuel lobbyists and an Aston Martin Bentley showroom.
I can get behind that. I00% should do again.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nomy-studyThe top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.
[...]
It would take 26 years for a low earner to produce as much carbon dioxide as the richest do in a year, according to Autonomy’s analysis of income and greenhouse gas data from 1998 to 2018, which found that people earning £170,000 or more in 2018 in the UK were responsible for greenhouse gas emissions far greater than the 30% of people earning £21,500 or less in the same year.
So cut them down. Its an easy win. Target the first class flights, Bentleys and heated swimming pools. Get a big reduction in emissions without bothering almost all of the electorate.
Re: Protesting
In this case the "fossil fuel activists" in question were "the fossil fuel industry". Reference in that wiki article. Is that what you mean? Or is there something I'm missing?
Re: Protesting
That is what they mean. Fossil fuel companies get to vandalise the entire planet, but if one lefty blocks one road...IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:58 pmIn this case the "fossil fuel activists" in question were "the fossil fuel industry". Reference in that wiki article. Is that what you mean? Or is there something I'm missing?
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Protesting
Absolutely. And the polar opposite of blocking electric rail in one of the very poorest parts of London.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:12 pmWoodchopper wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:10 pmJust Stop Oil have sprayed paint over Murdoch’s HQ, pro-fossil fuel lobbyists and an Aston Martin Bentley showroom.
I can get behind that. I00% should do again.https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nomy-studyThe top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.
[...]
It would take 26 years for a low earner to produce as much carbon dioxide as the richest do in a year, according to Autonomy’s analysis of income and greenhouse gas data from 1998 to 2018, which found that people earning £170,000 or more in 2018 in the UK were responsible for greenhouse gas emissions far greater than the 30% of people earning £21,500 or less in the same year.
So cut them down. Its an easy win. Target the first class flights, Bentleys and heated swimming pools. Get a big reduction in emissions without bothering almost all of the electorate.
Re: Protesting
You would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:12 pmhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nomy-studyThe top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.
[...]
It would take 26 years for a low earner to produce as much carbon dioxide as the richest do in a year, according to Autonomy’s analysis of income and greenhouse gas data from 1998 to 2018, which found that people earning £170,000 or more in 2018 in the UK were responsible for greenhouse gas emissions far greater than the 30% of people earning £21,500 or less in the same year.
So cut them down. Its an easy win. Target the first class flights, Bentleys and heated swimming pools. Get a big reduction in emissions without bothering almost all of the electorate.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: Protesting
A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.Sciolus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pmYou would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
Re: Protesting
That’s a non-sequiturMillennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pmA consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.Sciolus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pmYou would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7082
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Protesting
It looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdfMillennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pmA consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.Sciolus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pmYou would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
So redistributing income from the top 10% wouldn't mean that emissions remained stable.
But that is irrelevant anyway.
My point wasn't to redistribute income but to reallocate consumption. The top 1% can keep their income, wealth and consumption, so long as they spend it on much less carbon intensive products and services. There are plenty of ways to spend money without driving a Bentley or flying first class to New York for a long weekend.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Protesting
Why does flying in a first class seat cost more carbon than flying in economy? The extra space taken up by first class which more economy passengers could fit into?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 amIt looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdfMillennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pmA consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.Sciolus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pmYou would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
So redistributing income from the top 10% wouldn't mean that emissions remained stable.
But that is irrelevant anyway.
My point wasn't to redistribute income but to reallocate consumption. The top 1% can keep their income, wealth and consumption, so long as they spend it on much less carbon intensive products and services. There are plenty of ways to spend money without driving a Bentley or flying first class to New York for a long weekend.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7082
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Protesting
Yes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
Re: Protesting
Exactly that. Reducing the fuel efficiency per passenger mile.shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:12 amWhy does flying in a first class seat cost more carbon than flying in economy? The extra space taken up by first class which more economy passengers could fit into?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 amIt looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdfMillennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pm
A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.
So redistributing income from the top 10% wouldn't mean that emissions remained stable.
But that is irrelevant anyway.
My point wasn't to redistribute income but to reallocate consumption. The top 1% can keep their income, wealth and consumption, so long as they spend it on much less carbon intensive products and services. There are plenty of ways to spend money without driving a Bentley or flying first class to New York for a long weekend.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Protesting
Making air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 amYes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: Protesting
Done right, redistributing income from the top 10% in Western countries would probably mean more money becoming available to lower classes to invest in e.g. more efficient heating systems, or more efficient cars. Right now, a lot of people can't afford to invest in efficiency improvements that would save them money in the long term, and so end up paying more and polluting more at the same time.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 amIt looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdfMillennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pmA consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.Sciolus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pmYou would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
So redistributing income from the top 10% wouldn't mean that emissions remained stable.
Where the uptake of energy efficient systems is limited by the capital available to the majority of the population, consumption could well drop as a result of redistribution. Particularly if it's done smartly, with tax take going to insulation and other housing stock efficiency subsides, public transit, electric cars and renewable subsidies, etc.
Sure, some redistribution could result in more cheap flights being taken, but there are plenty of levers available to work on those.
Re: Protesting
My Wasp Flights solution is getting traction. Going to be discussed at Sharm El Sheikh.Gfamily wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pmMaking air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 amYes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Protesting
I'm afraid the concept of making a journey needlessly unpleasant by means of a large quantity of stinging social insects is quite an old one, pioneered by a certain Dr. S. Maturin during the Napoleonic wars.lpm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:42 pmMy Wasp Flights solution is getting traction. Going to be discussed at Sharm El Sheikh.Gfamily wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pmMaking air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 am
Yes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
Re: Protesting
You don’t know how old lpm isEACLucifer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:56 pmI'm afraid the concept of making a journey needlessly unpleasant by means of a large quantity of stinging social insects is quite an old one, pioneered by a certain Dr. S. Maturin during the Napoleonic wars.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Protesting
I'd accept the odd wasp sting in exchange for not having the seat pocket in front of me pressed into my knees just below the kneecap.lpm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:42 pmMy Wasp Flights solution is getting traction. Going to be discussed at Sharm El Sheikh.Gfamily wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pmMaking air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 am
Yes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
Re: Protesting
Making row spacing adequate is obviously related, but both getting rid of first class and increasing spacing for the cattle could be possible even while increasing passenger numbers. Indeed, one helps the other.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: Protesting
That has only 12 pages. But it does have this interesting point in its summary:Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 amIt looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdfMillennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pmA consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.Sciolus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pmYou would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribut ... on_pyramid we find that the top 10% own 85% of the world's wealth, so it seems that greater inequality leads to lower emissions. If it was linear we would find that the top 10% had emissions of 85%, so it must be sub-linear. Consequently, to reduce emissions we should campaign for ever more inequality.The emissions of the top 10 percent richest people globally are 49 percent of the global total .
That makes no sense. You are saying that they can keep their consumption as long as they give it up. You seem to think that for a rich person the goal is merely to spend money rather than to get what they desire.My point wasn't to redistribute income but to reallocate consumption. The top 1% can keep their income, wealth and consumption, so long as they spend it on much less carbon intensive products and services.
If you make someone rich enough they might fly to New York every weekend, but however rich you make them they cannot do that more than 53 times a year. Redistribute a billionaire's wealth among 1000 people, and they can all fly to New York once a year.There are plenty of ways to spend money without driving a Bentley or flying first class to New York for a long weekend.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: Protesting
There is a very widely used mechanism whereby a person can spend money now to save over the long term - get a loan. Even if such loans are not commercially available, there's nothing stopping them being provided from public funds. If the money does truly get saved in the longer term, that would be a way of reducing the national debt (by charging enough interest on the loan such that the borrower and the lender share the profits).
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Protesting
The exact protest everybody says climate activists should do has happened, in case you missed it:
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/ac ... 022-11-05/AMSTERDAM, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Hundreds of environmental activists wearing white overalls stormed an area holding private jets at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport and stopped aircraft from leaving for hours by sitting in front of their wheels on Saturday.
Military police moved in and were seen taking dozens of the protesters away in buses. More than 100 activists were arrested, national broadcaster NOS reported.
The protest was part of a day of demonstrations in and around the air hub organised by Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion in the build-up to the COP27 climate talks in Egypt.
No delays to commercial flights were reported.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Protesting
Military police? WtF?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:11 amThe exact protest everybody says climate activists should do has happened, in case you missed it:
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/ac ... 022-11-05/AMSTERDAM, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Hundreds of environmental activists wearing white overalls stormed an area holding private jets at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport and stopped aircraft from leaving for hours by sitting in front of their wheels on Saturday.
Military police moved in and were seen taking dozens of the protesters away in buses. More than 100 activists were arrested, national broadcaster NOS reported.
The protest was part of a day of demonstrations in and around the air hub organised by Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion in the build-up to the COP27 climate talks in Egypt.
No delays to commercial flights were reported.
I thought the military police jurisdiction was military sites and personnel, not civilians in civilian areas. Maybe it’s different in the Netherlands and I have no real knowledge of this to start with. Don’t recall hearing about military police arresting civilians before though. Or are they military police in the sense of gendarmes vs policiers in France?
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Protesting
Yes, seems to be these guys https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marechaussee who have some civilian functions, including border control and other airport things.Grumble wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:20 amMilitary police? WtF?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:11 amThe exact protest everybody says climate activists should do has happened, in case you missed it:
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/ac ... 022-11-05/AMSTERDAM, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Hundreds of environmental activists wearing white overalls stormed an area holding private jets at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport and stopped aircraft from leaving for hours by sitting in front of their wheels on Saturday.
Military police moved in and were seen taking dozens of the protesters away in buses. More than 100 activists were arrested, national broadcaster NOS reported.
The protest was part of a day of demonstrations in and around the air hub organised by Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion in the build-up to the COP27 climate talks in Egypt.
No delays to commercial flights were reported.
I thought the military police jurisdiction was military sites and personnel, not civilians in civilian areas. Maybe it’s different in the Netherlands and I have no real knowledge of this to start with. Don’t recall hearing about military police arresting civilians before though. Or are they military police in the sense of gendarmes vs policiers in France?
I'm pretty sure they could use military police in the UK too if they called it terrorism.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Protesting
Yeah, so basically the Dutch gendarmes. I’m sure there’s a reason police forces around Europe seem to follow the pattern of civilian and paramilitary divisions, but a bit off topic for this thread.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:25 amYes, seems to be these guys https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marechaussee who have some civilian functions, including border control and other airport things.Grumble wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:20 amMilitary police? WtF?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:11 amThe exact protest everybody says climate activists should do has happened, in case you missed it:
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/ac ... 022-11-05/
I thought the military police jurisdiction was military sites and personnel, not civilians in civilian areas. Maybe it’s different in the Netherlands and I have no real knowledge of this to start with. Don’t recall hearing about military police arresting civilians before though. Or are they military police in the sense of gendarmes vs policiers in France?
I'm pretty sure they could use military police in the UK too if they called it terrorism.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three