Protesting

[Tristan]

Listened to Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell pontificating on how terrible the sentences were on The Rest Is Politics. Turns out they hadn't done even the most basic research of reading the sentencing remarks:

452615115_10162025160101393_91674020677126675_n.jpg (65.75 KiB) Viewed 1483 times

[Stranger Mouse]

Listened to Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell pontificating on how terrible the sentences were on The Rest Is Politics. Turns out they hadn't done even the most basic research of reading the sentencing remarks:

452615115_10162025160101393_91674020677126675_n.jpg

They don’t seem to have read anything at all with any detail which makes you wonder why they were commenting.

Just Stop Oil at Gatwick. I think they need to get someone else to write their statements as it makes them come across like a oarody of an environmental group that you would find in something like a Law And Order episode.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b ... k-33346618

Video here. People without seem to be able to get past them ok although I can imagine it causing problems for anyone with mobility issues.

[discovolante]

Someone at work mentioned this podcast in another context the other day. Anyway they have an episode about the Just Stop Oil protests where they interview a JSO spokesperson. Naturally it's pretty sympathetic. The spokesperson makes a few statements about the reasoning behind their methods (primarily in relation to why they're still of the view that attention needs to be drawn to the issue of climate change rather than moving onto the work needed to slow it down) but doesn't really provide evidence to support it. However it's pretty clear from one of the first questions they ask that he (and presumably JSO) is following the 'do something extreme to make the slightly less extreme stuff seem moderate' theory: https://mediastormpodcast.com/podcast/e ... episode=93

[Woodchopper]

Someone at work mentioned this podcast in another context the other day. Anyway they have an episode about the Just Stop Oil protests where they interview a JSO spokesperson. Naturally it's pretty sympathetic. The spokesperson makes a few statements about the reasoning behind their methods (primarily in relation to why they're still of the view that attention needs to be drawn to the issue of climate change rather than moving onto the work needed to slow it down) but doesn't really provide evidence to support it. However it's pretty clear from one of the first questions they ask that he (and presumably JSO) is following the 'do something extreme to make the slightly less extreme stuff seem moderate' theory: https://mediastormpodcast.com/podcast/e ... episode=93

Thanks, that was an interesting podcast.

I didn't find the answers on seeking publicity about global warming in general as opposed to demonstrating for specific solutions to be very convincing. To start with, calling for specific measures also raises the profile of the whole problem. For example, demonstrating for a per kilometer levy on air travel would also help raise awareness about the role played by air travel in causing carbon emissions. The spokesperson also segued into an example about the character in The Martian, but that scenario focused upon working out the practical steps needed ensure that the astronaut survived. So not so relevant.

I think that there is some merit in his argument that radical actions that aren't successful still help to achieve more moderate goals. There's a long history of demanding 10 and being satisfied with 5. But when many other organizations are also active it'll be very difficult to know whether Just Stop Oil actually helped or whether the moderate policy was going to happen anyway. But if that is Just Stop Oil's strategy perhaps the radicals could be a bit less angry at the moderates if the aim has always been for them to help to obtain moderate policies.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Listened to Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell pontificating on how terrible the sentences were on The Rest Is Politics. Turns out they hadn't done even the most basic research of reading the sentencing remarks:

452615115_10162025160101393_91674020677126675_n.jpg

Bit late to this, but on the podcast, which was a Q&A one they do the day after their main podcast, they were asked by a listener for their initial reactions, and they said at the time that they hadn't read much about it, and gave their initial reactions, which to me were fair enough. People are allowed to have instinctive responses to things.

After being challenged on twitter, Campbell went off and read the judgement, and fell more in line with the decisions that were reached. Can't remember if Stewart read it or not (I think he did), but he still felt the sentences were too high. I agree with him.

Either way though, I'm not really sure that they deserve much criticism for answering the question they were asked, and then adjusting after being challenged.

[discovolante]

I didn't find the answers on seeking publicity about global warming in general as opposed to demonstrating for specific solutions to be very convincing. To start with, calling for specific measures also raises the profile of the whole problem. For example, demonstrating for a per kilometer levy on air travel would also help raise awareness about the role played by air travel in causing carbon emissions. The spokesperson also segued into an example about the character in The Martian, but that scenario focused upon working out the practical steps needed ensure that the astronaut survived. So not so relevant.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but arguably if you're going to be staging large scale deliberately disruptive demonstrations calling for quite narrow and specific solutions, there are potentially quite a few unhelpful outcomes that could come from that too. For example it might be more difficult for politicians to both introduce the measure you're calling for and also distance themselves from you, so overall they might be less likely to implement what you're asking for. In terms of overall publicity/media, it wouldn't necessarily lead to people being more sympathetic if they think you're creating all that fuss over some narrow policy issue. And if they did achieve that particular goal, you'd have to then move onto the next one, and people might well just get fed up of that as well and decide you'll never actually be happy.

Also, JSO are already unpopular with the public, imagine how much more unpopular they'd be if they were telling people their holidays would need to get even more expensive!

Relatedly, I also listened to an episode of Cleaning Up fairly recently - this one: https://www.cleaningup.live/this-is-a-n ... -marshall/ with a guy who has moved into marketing in relation to climate change. From memory he argued that the most effective method is to persuade people something they care about will lose out if they don't act (e.g. their children's futures). In the context of that he claimed that - in the US at least - understanding and awareness of climate change is actually still pretty low. So from his perspective there is still merit in telling people how scary and dangerous climate change is. He claimed that adverts that did have some negative messaging were more effective than positive ones (that is a very loose paraphrase, I may not have got it exactly right). Although that being said I don't recall him explaining how they measured effectiveness e.g. did more people look at them? Did it persuade people to act? I don't really know. Connected with that there's also a question of whether trying to reach out to people who aren't already aware of climate change is going to achieve much because they may not be in the category of people who can be mobilised to take further action. So, without more info I'm a little bit sceptical, and of course you can't necessarily generalise from the US to the UK, but if he's right then there is probably still some merit in the kind of messaging JSO and co want to get out.

I think that there is some merit in his argument that radical actions that aren't successful still help to achieve more moderate goals. There's a long history of demanding 10 and being satisfied with 5. But when many other organizations are also active it'll be very difficult to know whether Just Stop Oil actually helped or whether the moderate policy was going to happen anyway.

Yes I agree it's difficult to establish causation. In the podcast they listed a lot of examples of international orgs calling for the same thing as JSO as evidence that JSO were fighting for the right thing and needed to do that to force UK politicians to implement the policies the international organisations have already been recommending. But it did seem that well, if it's such a mainstream opinion then as you say, it might have happened anyway. The recent change in government is probably a bigger factor than the JSO protests. But, none of that really proves that they didn't have an impact either.

This seems to link back a bit to my earlier post here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2761&p=160995&hilit=2017#p160995

But if that is Just Stop Oil's strategy perhaps the radicals could be a bit less angry at the moderates if the aim has always been for them to help to obtain moderate policies.

I think, in fairness to JSO, that most of the anger seems to be directed at them, rather than them towards others. I didn't really hear a lot of anger from the spokesperson in that podcast but maybe I misremembered.

Sorry some of this post is a bit hurried.

[discovolante]

Oh one other thing I meant to say but forgot. The comments in the podcast about the judge using the word 'fanatics' and implying that it may have burrowed its way into his consciousness through the media (that is not the way they actually put it in the podcast by the way, for anyone who hasn't heard it, they're more diplomatic than that) is interesting. Again when I listened to it I felt a bit sceptical that they were making that leap and still do, because there isn't really any direct evidence of it and I think they should probably have been more careful to make that clear. But it doesn't seem impossible. 'Fanatic' isn't a particularly unusual word in this context, but it is also quite a specific choice both in terms of the use of that word and the overall decision to comment on their 'fanaticism' when the extremity of their beliefs wasn't listed as one of the aggravating features in the sentencing remarks (if a distinction is drawn between the effect of the action and the motivation behind it, which it seems it should be).

[Tristan]

Listened to Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell pontificating on how terrible the sentences were on The Rest Is Politics. Turns out they hadn't done even the most basic research of reading the sentencing remarks:

452615115_10162025160101393_91674020677126675_n.jpg

Bit late to this, but on the podcast, which was a Q&A one they do the day after their main podcast, they were asked by a listener for their initial reactions, and they said at the time that they hadn't read much about it, and gave their initial reactions, which to me were fair enough. People are allowed to have instinctive responses to things.

After being challenged on twitter, Campbell went off and read the judgement, and fell more in line with the decisions that were reached. Can't remember if Stewart read it or not (I think he did), but he still felt the sentences were too high. I agree with him.

Either way though, I'm not really sure that they deserve much criticism for answering the question they were asked, and then adjusting after being challenged.

They have no time to prepare? Or can’t answer with “we don’t know enough about it to answer that”?

[El Pollo Diablo]

Listened to Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell pontificating on how terrible the sentences were on The Rest Is Politics. Turns out they hadn't done even the most basic research of reading the sentencing remarks:

452615115_10162025160101393_91674020677126675_n.jpg

Bit late to this, but on the podcast, which was a Q&A one they do the day after their main podcast, they were asked by a listener for their initial reactions, and they said at the time that they hadn't read much about it, and gave their initial reactions, which to me were fair enough. People are allowed to have instinctive responses to things.

After being challenged on twitter, Campbell went off and read the judgement, and fell more in line with the decisions that were reached. Can't remember if Stewart read it or not (I think he did), but he still felt the sentences were too high. I agree with him.

Either way though, I'm not really sure that they deserve much criticism for answering the question they were asked, and then adjusting after being challenged.

They have no time to prepare? Or can’t answer with “we don’t know enough about it to answer that”?

It's a Q&A, they answer the questions the producers give them. They have as much right to an initial, instinctive view as anyone else. And when challenged on their answers, they did more work and rethought them, which is fair enough.

[Woodchopper]

I didn't find the answers on seeking publicity about global warming in general as opposed to demonstrating for specific solutions to be very convincing. To start with, calling for specific measures also raises the profile of the whole problem. For example, demonstrating for a per kilometer levy on air travel would also help raise awareness about the role played by air travel in causing carbon emissions. The spokesperson also segued into an example about the character in The Martian, but that scenario focused upon working out the practical steps needed ensure that the astronaut survived. So not so relevant.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but arguably if you're going to be staging large scale deliberately disruptive demonstrations calling for quite narrow and specific solutions, there are potentially quite a few unhelpful outcomes that could come from that too. For example it might be more difficult for politicians to both introduce the measure you're calling for and also distance themselves from you, so overall they might be less likely to implement what you're asking for. In terms of overall publicity/media, it wouldn't necessarily lead to people being more sympathetic if they think you're creating all that fuss over some narrow policy issue. And if they did achieve that particular goal, you'd have to then move onto the next one, and people might well just get fed up of that as well and decide you'll never actually be happy.

Also, JSO are already unpopular with the public, imagine how much more unpopular they'd be if they were telling people their holidays would need to get even more expensive!

Well yes and no. I agree that it would be harder to call for specific carbon reduction measures. But IMHO that's what a radical group should be doing. It seems to me that the main reason for lack of progress is because governments are unwilling to make difficult decisions. We're great at plucking the low hanging fruit and implementing technology that'll save money and won't result in reductions in consumption. For example someone who insulates their home and installs a heat pump will stay just as warm, will employ people to install it, and they'll probably save money in the long run. Its acceptable for everyone.

What's far more difficult is reductions in consumption, especially those that will result in job losses. It seems to me that they have to happen if humanity is to keep carbon emissions under control (unless people feel that enough is boing done already to reduce emissions, in which Just Stop Oil are wrong). To continue the example, there isn't a politically easy way to enormously reduce emissions from air travel. Yes, people can use trains etc, but that wouldn't be feasible for someone who wants a week in Mallorca. Likewise, significant cuts in air travel would mean that some people would lose their jobs, as well as pilots there's all the people involved in maintaining the aircraft and keeping the airports running. Its difficult to tell a cleaner that they need to lose their job in order to meet an environmental target.

A radical and uncompromising group that doesn't care about negative publicity could call for politically unpopular things that need to happen. If Just Stop Oil were not prepared to attract negative publicity then who else will be prepared to do that?

Relatedly, I also listened to an episode of Cleaning Up fairly recently - this one: https://www.cleaningup.live/this-is-a-n ... -marshall/ with a guy who has moved into marketing in relation to climate change. From memory he argued that the most effective method is to persuade people something they care about will lose out if they don't act (e.g. their children's futures). In the context of that he claimed that - in the US at least - understanding and awareness of climate change is actually still pretty low. So from his perspective there is still merit in telling people how scary and dangerous climate change is. He claimed that adverts that did have some negative messaging were more effective than positive ones (that is a very loose paraphrase, I may not have got it exactly right). Although that being said I don't recall him explaining how they measured effectiveness e.g. did more people look at them? Did it persuade people to act? I don't really know. Connected with that there's also a question of whether trying to reach out to people who aren't already aware of climate change is going to achieve much because they may not be in the category of people who can be mobilised to take further action. So, without more info I'm a little bit sceptical, and of course you can't necessarily generalise from the US to the UK, but if he's right then there is probably still some merit in the kind of messaging JSO and co want to get out.

I think the UK is different. Just looking at a recent survey, for example there is a clear majority in favour of the net zero by 2050 target, and many more people have a negative view of oil and coal than a positive one. Can't really comment on the rest as I haven't heard the podcast.

I think that there is some merit in his argument that radical actions that aren't successful still help to achieve more moderate goals. There's a long history of demanding 10 and being satisfied with 5. But when many other organizations are also active it'll be very difficult to know whether Just Stop Oil actually helped or whether the moderate policy was going to happen anyway.

Yes I agree it's difficult to establish causation. In the podcast they listed a lot of examples of international orgs calling for the same thing as JSO as evidence that JSO were fighting for the right thing and needed to do that to force UK politicians to implement the policies the international organisations have already been recommending. But it did seem that well, if it's such a mainstream opinion then as you say, it might have happened anyway. The recent change in government is probably a bigger factor than the JSO protests. But, none of that really proves that they didn't have an impact either.

This seems to link back a bit to my earlier post here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2761&p=160995&hilit=2017#p160995

I agree that they are helping to raise the profile. It just doesn't seem like that's enough. We already have an clear majority of the electorate that agrees that something needs to be done. I doubt that JSO have had an overall negative effect. But so long as we're discussing them specifically it seems relevant to wonder whether they are doing something positive.

But if that is Just Stop Oil's strategy perhaps the radicals could be a bit less angry at the moderates if the aim has always been for them to help to obtain moderate policies.

I think, in fairness to JSO, that most of the anger seems to be directed at them, rather than them towards others. I didn't really hear a lot of anger from the spokesperson in that podcast but maybe I misremembered.

Sorry some of this post is a bit hurried.

You're correct. I wasn't clear and was thinking more about online people who like to condemn centrist dad. Fair enough if that's a sincerely held opinion, but its a bit much if the strategy is actually to support centrist dads pursue their preference for moderate incremental policies.

[bjn]

The depressing thing is that we can’t even do the easy stuff like heat pumps and insulation. Cameron trashed the green buildings codes introduced under the last labour government, deriding it as “green crap”. All because the house builders were going to lose some of their excess profits and the spreadsheet jockeys in the Treasury went into a paroxysm of pearl clutching.

[Woodchopper]

Oh one other thing I meant to say but forgot. The comments in the podcast about the judge using the word 'fanatics' and implying that it may have burrowed its way into his consciousness through the media (that is not the way they actually put it in the podcast by the way, for anyone who hasn't heard it, they're more diplomatic than that) is interesting. Again when I listened to it I felt a bit sceptical that they were making that leap and still do, because there isn't really any direct evidence of it and I think they should probably have been more careful to make that clear. But it doesn't seem impossible. 'Fanatic' isn't a particularly unusual word in this context, but it is also quite a specific choice both in terms of the use of that word and the overall decision to comment on their 'fanaticism' when the extremity of their beliefs wasn't listed as one of the aggravating features in the sentencing remarks (if a distinction is drawn between the effect of the action and the motivation behind it, which it seems it should be).

Yes, it seems possible that the judge could have been influenced by what's being written and talked about in the media. That's why there are reporting restrictions and juries aren't supposed to read press coverage etc.

It might also be possible that the use of 'fanatic' in the media could make it easier for a judge to do something he wanted to do anyway. He might feel like his opinions weren't unusual.

But as you write, we'll never know. Also possible that the judge avoids the media and never saw or heard the term being used.

[discovolante]

Well yes and no. I agree that it would be harder to call for specific carbon reduction measures. But IMHO that's what a radical group should be doing. It seems to me that the main reason for lack of progress is because governments are unwilling to make difficult decisions. We're great at plucking the low hanging fruit and implementing technology that'll save money and won't result in reductions in consumption. For example someone who insulates their home and installs a heat pump will stay just as warm, will employ people to install it, and they'll probably save money in the long run. Its acceptable for everyone.

What's far more difficult is reductions in consumption, especially those that will result in job losses. It seems to me that they have to happen if humanity is to keep carbon emissions under control (unless people feel that enough is boing done already to reduce emissions, in which Just Stop Oil are wrong). To continue the example, there isn't a politically easy way to enormously reduce emissions from air travel. Yes, people can use trains etc, but that wouldn't be feasible for someone who wants a week in Mallorca. Likewise, significant cuts in air travel would mean that some people would lose their jobs, as well as pilots there's all the people involved in maintaining the aircraft and keeping the airports running. Its difficult to tell a cleaner that they need to lose their job in order to meet an environmental target.

A radical and uncompromising group that doesn't care about negative publicity could call for politically unpopular things that need to happen. If Just Stop Oil were not prepared to attract negative publicity then who else will be prepared to do that?

I see your point, although I don't think there's a 'right' or 'wrong' answer but I still think there's a risk of scaring politicians off by making specific demands in an unpopular way.

I think the UK is different. Just looking at a recent survey, for example there is a clear majority in favour of the net zero by 2050 target, and many more people have a negative view of oil and coal than a positive one. Can't really comment on the rest as I haven't heard the podcast.

Good to know. I suppose the question then is what's effective in getting people to mobilise. It could be that people are generally in favour of climate change solutions but feel there isn't much more to be done. While we're on YouGov, probably unsurprisingly there seem to be slightly contradictory views among the public: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... ate-change - 62% thinking that pressure from the public for governments has a role to play, but only 37% think that spending on climate change is a priority. That's weighing spending on climate change against other priorities I suppose so possibly not that contradictory but it does suggest that if people are going to actively focus on something they might not choose climate change, rightly or wrongly.

I agree that they are helping to raise the profile. It just doesn't seem like that's enough. We already have an clear majority of the electorate that agrees that something needs to be done. I doubt that JSO have had an overall negative effect. But so long as we're discussing them specifically it seems relevant to wonder whether they are doing something positive.

To be honest at this stage the question is probably just as much 'why aren't other people doing as much'* rather than 'why aren't JSO doing something else'?

*yes, I know there are lots of people doing an awful lot, I know a few of them. And I know how difficult can be to get certain policy changes implemented even on a small scale. But if you doubt JSO have an overall negative effect then it seems a bit unfair to expect them to shoulder all of the blame.

You're correct. I wasn't clear and was thinking more about online people who like to condemn centrist dad. Fair enough if that's a sincerely held opinion, but its a bit much if the strategy is actually to support centrist dads pursue their preference for moderate incremental policies.

I've distanced myself from most social media a fair bit these days so I don't see that so much. It seems even more bizarre when you dip your toe in now and then (I'll have the odd scroll through twitter now and then but don't tweet). I don't really know if it's a great barometer for overall public opinion (whichever way people lean) or not. I don't think it's that surprising that people might understand JSO's strategy but also feel a bit pissed off that (in their view) the stuff JSO do has to be done to try and get 'centrist dad' to pull his finger out. Saying it out loud might be less sensible, but social media isn't really known for being sensible.

Oh one other thing I meant to say but forgot. The comments in the podcast about the judge using the word 'fanatics' and implying that it may have burrowed its way into his consciousness through the media (that is not the way they actually put it in the podcast by the way, for anyone who hasn't heard it, they're more diplomatic than that) is interesting. Again when I listened to it I felt a bit sceptical that they were making that leap and still do, because there isn't really any direct evidence of it and I think they should probably have been more careful to make that clear. But it doesn't seem impossible. 'Fanatic' isn't a particularly unusual word in this context, but it is also quite a specific choice both in terms of the use of that word and the overall decision to comment on their 'fanaticism' when the extremity of their beliefs wasn't listed as one of the aggravating features in the sentencing remarks (if a distinction is drawn between the effect of the action and the motivation behind it, which it seems it should be).

Yes, it seems possible that the judge could have been influenced by what's being written and talked about in the media. That's why there are reporting restrictions and juries aren't supposed to read press coverage etc.

It might also be possible that the use of 'fanatic' in the media could make it easier for a judge to do something he wanted to do anyway. He might feel like his opinions weren't unusual.

But as you write, we'll never know. Also possible that the judge avoids the media and never saw or heard the term being used.

To be honest, as I dug into it a bit the bit that bothered me most was that he was making these references in his sentencing remarks when from what I could gather, the validity of their opinions or otherwise were irrelevant - although I don't have the inclination* to trawl all the way through all the case law that was referenced (in that he cited a couple of cases, which in turn cited other cases etc, which you would probably need to go through to get the full context). Evidence on climate change couldn't be led so I'm not quite sure how you determine whether or not someone is a 'fanatic'. If there was convincing evidence that the entirety of the UK was going to be flooded by a tidal wave caused by melting ice cap in the next 12 months and the only way to stop it would be to end all car travel (OK quite far fetched I know), would their actions still be considered fanaticism?

*yes I know, a fancy way of saying I can't be bothered