https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67031062
Businessman Dale Vince says the group's tactics have become "counterproductive" for the green cause.
Mr Vince, a major Labour donor, said further action was "pointless" because the government had shown it would drill for oil "come what may".
God that’s depressing.
Further disruption, he added, would help "feed the Tories' culture-war narrative".
Fair point but still depressing.
Instead, he said, he would divert funding to the anti-Conservative vote.
So no longer specific to halting oil production at all then. Sigh.
From the quotes you've selected it sounds like funding just stop oil is entirely pointless into the Tories are out of power. Hence refocusing funding towards that goal?
Yeah. I had selected those quotes because they highlight what a shit situation we’re in. I get the logic; it’s just depressing that the logic is sound.
However, it remains to be seen how Labour will react to Just Stop Oil. I think they’ll be less blunt but will pretty much treat them the same way. Hopefully I’m wrong.
As depressing as it is to admit, the group need a rethink of their approach. Making art pieces their targets seemed like a good strategy at first (art is wealthy peoples' business, the art is never damaged, its guaranteed to get front page coverage) but the reaction from the general public was near wholly negative. The Tories absolutely do weaponise it, too.
I don't have the answer, but I can recognise that these forms of protest are losing their edge in this day and age. Add in that protesting is now basically illegal, I just don't see why activists should continue to pour energy into them.
Making art pieces their targets seemed like a good strategy at first (art is wealthy peoples' business, the art is never damaged, its guaranteed to get front page coverage) but the reaction from the general public was near wholly negative.
In terms of a business, sure. Art is expensive. But what got me and a lot of people like me upset is the destruction of the art that then deprives the rest of us the pleasure of enjoying it. And we're not wealthy. We just like looking at art every now and then. Or watching a play every now and then. Not as an investment vehicle, but something to enjoy once a year.
Richard Hallam the founder of XR and Just Stop Oil was interviewed on the BBC recently and his view was crystal clear. He wants to wage class war on the rich. He thinks that "rich people will kill a thousand million poor people" in an act of genocide perpetrated by the government and the media. His words. (The interview was absolutely wild check out Political Thinking podcast and have a listen if you don't believe me. He even threatened to jail the journalist interviewing him.)
Destroying shared culture as a way to stick it to the establishment puts a lot of people off his climate goals.
But the art is never damaged. The pieces on display are in protective displays designed to weather a lot worse than food or glue. Not only that, they are often just replicas of pieces rather than the originals. Your point hinges on you being (actually) deprived of something, when you are not.
This is intentional - you are (figuratively) deprived of something to highlight how others have been deprived by the actions of the fossil fuel industry.
Assuming you mean Rodger Hallam? I don't want to ascribe malice but how well can you understand him if you got his name wrong?
I may disagree with XR and JSO out of principle but pretending like Hallam's comments are a declaration of war is absurd. He clearly feels that the poor are already the victims of class warfare and sees their actions as a justified response. It's clear to me he sees people like you and I as part of the ignorant masses, oblivious to the path of destruction the fossil fuel industry has carved through the lowest stratas of society.
Assuming you mean Rodger Hallam? I don't want to ascribe malice but how well can you understand him if you got his name wrong?
If you can accept I mean no malice and it was an innocent mistake (fat fingers and half asleep) then I can forgive you for also getting his name wrong so we can cancel each other out, 😜. Roger... there's no D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hallam_%28activist%29?wprov=sfla1
Your point hinges on you being (actually) deprived of something, when you are not.
Sometimes the enjoyment is in the moment. Visiting a museum or art gallery and just quietly contemplating life whilst taking in the art. Hard to do effectively when it's daubed in orange. But let's perhaps also take the recent protest at Les Miserables. Also hard to argue that that you weren't deprived of a musical theatre performance when it has to be called off because protestors are waving flags in the performers face.
This is intentional - you are (figuratively) deprived of something to highlight how others have been deprived by the actions of the fossil fuel industry.
But, look, I get the idea. A lot of people do. And a lot of people including me agree with the end goal of improving the environment and averting climate disasters. But they don't agree in this kind of protest. It's only effective in annoying people rather than changing policy it would appear. Disrupt Parliament, disrupt the MPs surgery, disrupt every public event every MP appears at until they change policy. Depriving people from enjoying their lives isn't going to help his cause. Far better to guide, teach, encourage them to make better choices that satisfy both their aim of enjoying their free time and helping the environment.
pretending like Hallam's comments are a declaration of war is absurd.
Oh no, he actually thinks this. Have a listen to the recent Political Thinking podcast. He outright said the rich and elite are committing genocide against the poor. That's his point of view. Not mine. I brought it up because it's such a wild thing to say. He was even questioned about comparing it to genocide and did he mean it figuratively and he doesn't. He literally thinks genocide is happening.
Why do you disagree with XR and JSO by the way? Not trying to start anything just curious, most people here hang off their every word.
Oh no, he actually thinks this.
Fruitful language aside, is he wrong? Maybe his wording makes you think he literally thinks people are being lined up for gas chambers. But many of the poorest people in the world have suffered horrendously, just so humans on the other side of the world can drive a car. The environmental effects will continue to worsen until whole countries are completely displaced. It's as close to a genocide as it gets, it's just in slow-motion.
Like I said. I don't think their current strategy will work. People need to be the driving force behind the changed.
But this "disrupt MP's" tripe is just that - tripe. The needle won't move until the general public are prepared to put some skin in the game, and they won't unless they are directly inconvenienced. Because like you say, they support someone doing something. Except not themselves. Let the government (pretend to) sort it out, they say. Total apathy. And that's why you end up with groups like Just Stop Oil - they are sick of inaction and excuses.
Fruitful language aside, is he wrong? Maybe his wording makes you think he literally thinks people are being lined up for gas chambers
His intention is not wrong. And yeah you've got a point with the wording. If he wants me to take him seriously he should use words correctly and not in a hyperbolic fashion. If he means genocide then use that word (which he has). If he means that people around the world have been increasingly displaced because of man made climate disasters then say that. So yeah, you know what, it's the way he chooses to go about winning support for his ideas. I don't own a car so I'm confident I've not killed anyone on the other side of the world, but my neighbour has a car. I'm pretty sure he hasn't killed anyone recently either.
Like I said. I don't think their current strategy will work. People need to be the driving force behind the changed. The needle won't move until the general public are prepared to put some skin in the game, and they won't unless they are directly inconvenienced.
I fully agree with this. I've changed my own behaviour over the years to reduce my consumption and recycle as much as possible and encourage my friend and family to do the same. I've never owned a car and walk or cycle as much as it is possible where I live. And this was all before I had someone screaming in my ear that I was genociding the world because I don't disrupt theatre performances.
Changing attitudes had always taken time. I fully appreciate time is at a premium in this context but I don't think JSO or XR or Hallam's tactics are productive.
I don’t own a car so I’m confident I’ve not killed anyone on the other side of the world, but my neighbour has a car. I’m pretty sure he hasn’t killed anyone recently either.
But your neighbour's car consumes something for fuel, which does kill people. No, he hasn't mowed someone down. But the system for producing that fuel is exploitative, has been the motivation for wars, and pollutes the atmosphere. You can't claim to be innocent when the system exists to supply the demand.
You might not own a car, but you use electricity at least. Electricity comes from the grid that uses gasoline and coal at some percentage. Your computer and smartphone contain rare metals that are literally the product of mines owned and operated by warlords.
In short, there is no ethical way to stay like this. As time goes on more and more some people will become sick of the middle and upper class acting like they shoulder no responsibility. That's why we are seeing more direct activism.
That's not going to change with green energy though. If we live in a world with clean green energy.... we're still going to use all the other things that you listed. Smart phones are still going to need rare earth metals, coffee is still going to be drunk, people are still going to want Nutella.
I think what matters is the intent when you're talking about "claiming to be innocent" and genocide. Otherwise pretty much everything we do in life has some negative consequence that affects someone else. We might as well stop living in a world like that.
That's very much not saying that we shouldn't try to do better. Yes of course we should, as should the companies and governments that enable this. And we should be doing it quicker. I just can't agree with pointing at random people on the street and calling them complicit in genocide.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But he added that the government - which granted 100 new North Sea oil and gas licences over the summer - had "made clear that no amount of protest will sway it".
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has also sought to highlight Mr Vince's support, saying it showed "eco-zealots" from Just Stop Oil are "writing Keir Starmer's energy policy".
Labour has rejected suggestions Just Stop Oil influences its policies, and defended receiving donations from Mr Vince, saying he is a "perfectly legitimate person" to accept money from.
Labour has pledged to block all new domestic oil and gas developments, but says it will honour any licences in existence at the time of the next election, expected next year.
In a statement, Just Stop Oil told the BBC it was grateful to Mr Vince for his "amazing financial and moral support over the past year".
The group said civil resistance "really works" - and it believed Labour had "no intention of stopping" the oil and gas projects the government was "furiously rubber-stamping".
The original article contains 644 words, the summary contains 170 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!