Protestor climbs aboard train to power station

[Dai Corner]

I wonder why climate protesters don't take direct action such as not using electricity during the peak demand period; about 1700-1900 in autumn and winter? A few hundred thousand doing that would avoid the need to fire up a fossil fuel power station.

Going a step further, using the smart meter technology energy suppliers could offer tariffs where the supply was paused during these periods.

 

[chorleyjeff]

The more protests the better - its only with radical changes in our behaviour that we are going to tackle climate change.

Protest in front of the Chinese and Indian embassies. Or go to China and jump into one of their coal trains.
Little point in fussing here. I doubt the biggest polluters will notice. Protesting in our little country with no influence over the biggest CO2 producers seems pointless.

Wonder what everyone will be saying when the increasing number of extreme weather events start knocking out the power on a regular basis.

Wait and see what happens.

 

[Alanko]

Going a step further, using the smart meter technology energy suppliers could offer tariffs where the supply was paused during these periods.

A daily Earth Hour. Bring out the candles, books and reflect on your mental health and general well-being away from the digital rat race. A Domestic Digital Detox, your wellness unplugged, a re-centering of the senses. Quality 'me time' rather than 'look at me time'. Plus, you can save money!

Its all about how you sell it...

 

[chorleyjeff]

So has production but that's maybe for another topic..

The climate of The Earth has been changing since it was formed and will continue to do so, irrespective of whether somebody randomly glues themselves to a road or climbs on board a train. What was this protester's aims ? Stop the train ? , Stop the power grid? Stop the planet ? The Earth is still coming out of the last ice age, (for there has been several) and will experience another. Climates continually change and +/- 1, 5 or 500 coal powered power stations ain't going to change it. So many people like to jump on the bandwagon (and the train apparently) and the climate one is a fantastic example of people following such bandwagons. If you believe in the media's take on this (we're all doomed etc...), when did you start believing this and why ?

Indeed so. Will we be able to walk to continental Europe via Doggerland or will the Scottish raised beaches be actual beaches again ? In other words will our climate revert to where it has been.
PS I will have a walk up a 2000+ ft hill tomorrow the peak of which was once coral under the sea.

 

[spyinthesky]

No, I’ve got a father who won the *literal right to vote* by doing things like sit-down protests on the Craigavon Bridge and marching in the street. That’s one generation before me and I’m only 35.

More recently you can look at things like the Gurkha Justice Campaign for how direct action can be effective.

I do hope he wasn’t throwing missiles at me back in the 80’s although they missed.
The Gurkha campaign had widespread support from all sides and the Government made a hash of it. This campaign was orderly and followed the legal process.

 

[deltic]

Protest in front of the Chinese and Indian embassies. Or go to China and jump into one of their coal trains.
Little point in fussing here. I doubt the biggest polluters will notice. Protesting in our little country with no influence over the biggest CO2 producers seems pointless.


Wait and see what happens.

UK consumption emissions per person (that is, taking account of trade ie we import emissions from China as we buy items produced there) are 17% higher than China and over three times higher than those of India. If the whole world reduced its emissions per capita to the same level as India we will be doing exceptionally well. The UK is estimated to be responsible for nearly 5% of cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution, which is more than India's 3% while China is only 3 times higher despite having a population 20 times greater.

The idea that it is someone else's problem and we cannot do anything is misplaced.

 

[AlterEgo]

I do hope he wasn’t throwing missiles at me back in the 80’s although they missed.
The Gurkha campaign had widespread support from all sides and the Government made a hash of it. This campaign was orderly and followed the legal process.

I am sure I come across to some people as a rather conservative reactionary at times but it is genuinely true that, sometimes, protests can achieve real and material progress. My family had very few of the rights I’d take for granted, and my grandfather was a professional soldier in the British army for ten years.

 

[seagull]

When protests are the only means of taking action (as were the voting ones) then I tend to be broadly in favour of the idea when necessary.

However as has been pointed out already in this thread, much of the climate "protesting" is in fact protesting things that are well within an individual's capability of carrying out themselves, for example less use of resources, less use of electricity, less travel, more recycling and upcycling etc. Add to that the fact that I know of several people who have driven their own internal combustion engined cars to the COP26 meeting, and there is too much of a whiff of "do as I say and not as I do" to these current protests. I'm all for raising awareness of the need for better stewardship of our planet but not so keen on some of the methods being used to, basically, attention-seek.

 

[matacaster]

UK consumption emissions per person (that is, taking account of trade ie we import emissions from China as we buy items produced there) are 17% higher than China and over three times higher than those of India. If the whole world reduced its emissions per capita to the same level as India we will be doing exceptionally well. The UK is estimated to be responsible for nearly 5% of cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution, which is more than India's 3% while China is only 3 times higher despite having a population 20 times greater.

The idea that it is someone else's problem and we cannot do anything is misplaced.

Of course you might consider that the 500m+ extra people in India over last 30 or so years is irrelevant?

 

[AlbertBeale]

People ask why insulation has been chosen as the issue by some protesters, and why they choose such militant tactics. Leaving aside the fact insulating people's homes is an "easy win" in terms of having significant effects on energy consumption, at the same time as switching work to "greener jobs", and improving equality, etc etc, it also has interesting echoes for those who are aware of Gandhi's skill as a political strategist. "Traditional revolutionaries" often have vast over-arching demands, and then campaign for them in relatively small ways (small relative to the nature of their nominal demands, that is). Gandhi did rather the opposite - he'd pick one small-ish issue that typified the underlying problem but which wouldn't of itself overthrow the whole system, but he would pursue that demand to the utmost, however much danger he brought upon himself in the process.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

People ask why insulation has been chosen as the issue by some protesters, and why they choose such militant tactics. Leaving aside the fact insulating people's homes is an "easy win" in terms of having significant effects on energy consumption, at the same time as switching work to "greener jobs", and improving equality, etc etc, it also has interesting echoes for those who are aware of Gandhi's skill as a political strategist. "Traditional revolutionaries" often have vast over-arching demands, and then campaign for them in relatively small ways (small relative to the nature of their nominal demands, that is). Gandhi did rather the opposite - he'd pick one small-ish issue that typified the underlying problem but which wouldn't of itself overthrow the whole system, but he would pursue that demand to the utmost, however much danger he brought upon himself in the process.

You're being extremely generous if you're comparing the Insulate Britain clowns (and they ARE clowns) with Gandhi.
If Gandhi's protests had prevented thousands of ordinary Indian civilians from being able to get to work, or had prevented those in need of emergency medical treatment from being able to receive that treatment... and all the while refusing to accept any criticism or to answer questions from journalists, I don't think he would have been quite as successful in achieving his goal of home rule and independence.

 

[Gostav]

it also has interesting echoes for those who are aware of Gandhi's skill as a political strategist.

The reason why Gandhi was admired by the British government was that his theory fits the colonial government very well, at the time the British used to severely suppressed the revolutionaries parties in India while supported Gandhi's non-violent factions. Did the British government promote Gandhi's deeds out of compassion? No, because non-violent movements are very easy to suppress, which unlike the revolutionary parties (such as IRA) that to made heavy losses.

 

[AlbertBeale]

You're being extremely generous if you're comparing the Insulate Britain clowns (and they ARE clowns) with Gandhi.
If Gandhi's protests had prevented thousands of ordinary Indian civilians from being able to get to work, or had prevented those in need of emergency medical treatment from being able to receive that treatment... and all the while refusing to accept any criticism or to answer questions from journalists, I don't think he would have been quite as successful in achieving his goal of home rule and independence.

I was comparing aspects of their approach to an aspect of the strategy that Gandhi used - not comparing their overall campaigns. Namely the balance between (relatively small) aims and (relatively militant) tactics, as opposed to a different combination in the case of other sorts of revolutionaries. I think you'll find that many "ordinary Indian civilians" did indeed have their lives disrupted at times by Gandhi's methods. But this leads on to other matters such as the necessity seen by many theorists of nonviolent struggle (in terms of the likelihood of success) for a pre-existing acceptance of common interests by a wide section of the population, which itself is difficult to achieve in a very unequal and hierarchical society [as is the UK's]. But now we're heading even further away from the topic.

The reason why Gandhi was admired by the British government was that his theory fits the colonial government very well, at the time the British used to severely suppressed the revolutionaries parties in India while supported Gandhi's non-violent factions. Did the British government promote Gandhi's deeds out of compassion? No, because non-violent movements are very easy to suppress, which unlike the revolutionary parties (such as IRA) that to made heavy losses.

This begs so many questions about the relative successes of different modes of struggle, whether or not the colonial powers "promoted" or "admired" Gandhi, which type of revolutionary activity is ultimately most challenging to those in power, the sense in whch the IRA could be considered a "revolutionary party", etc etc. Suffice it to say that I think just about every point you make is wrong, but this isn't the place to have that debate.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Genuine question: If your protest prevents ambulances reaching hospitals, can it really be called "non-violent"? With the broad range of things described as violence in the current climate (words for example) I'd argue that it cannot.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed so. Will we be able to walk to continental Europe via Doggerland or will the Scottish raised beaches be actual beaches again ? In other words will our climate revert to where it has been.
PS I will have a walk up a 2000+ ft hill tomorrow the peak of which was once coral under the sea.

Whilst what you say it's true, and or may well be that we are just going through another period where is part of a natural change, what if it's not?

Before you answer that, I'll answer the obvious question which will be out back on me, what of it's not man-made climate change?

Then we'll have, hopefully, removed from the table the theory that the reason for the rises in temperature being linked to rising greenhouse gases.

If that's been achieved then we (as a human race) will be living with a lot less air pollution, are likely fitter (tell me there's not a link between children being driven less than 800m to school and obesity, yes there are other factors & is an over simplification), that we become less wasteful with all resources, we will likely see less wildlife being harmed by our actions and so on.

If after that it's then found that it's natural and nothing we could have done to stop it then that's fine and we'll have tried.

If however it is man-made (which may be that our 20 units added to nature's 90 units means that is more than the 100 units that the planet can cope with, and whilst we can't do anything about that 90, by limiting ours to 10 or less would limit the impact) and we do nothing then we've got no one but ourselves to blame.

Now whilst the UK's emissions are currently about the global average per person, it should be noted that there's several countries which bring that average up by quite a lot and so the global average is also too high to be content to stop at. Especially given that there's likely to be many who don't get down to carbon emissions comparable to where we currently are for quite some time. As such, and this maybe unfair but if it's what needs to happen to limit the impacts of climate change (which are far from fair as they tend to impact those who work the land more than those who live an urban lifestyle, which tends to mean it impacts the West very little and the rest of the world a lot) then it's a small price to pay.

The emissions from the UK could be reduced quite significantly if a fairly small number of people significantly changed the way they did things. For instance 70% of regional flights are made by 15% of the population, with over 25% of region flights being made between London and the Central Belt. Whilst about 1/2 of these are to make connections to international flights there's still 3 million flights which could (with limited delays when you compare city centre to city centre journey times, which what not everybody by a long way there's still quite a few for whom getting to a suitable station will still take quite a bit less time than getting to the airport) use rail instead.

Does that mean that I support people doing stops things to highlight our need to change, no. However do I understand that they are frustrated with people who are willing to put their head in the sand over climate change, to the extent that they aren't willing to consider that it could be an issue and we should at least try to ensure that it's certainly not or fault.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Genuine question: If your protest prevents ambulances reaching hospitals, can it really be called "non-violent"? With the broad range of things described as violence in the current climate (words for example) I'd argue that it cannot.

For clarity - they're not my protests. Stopping an ambulance indeed isn't very non-violent! Certainly, disagreement, and challenging someone else's ideas, even to the extent that people are offended, isn't violence; you're correct - if I understand what you're implying - that the label "violence" is used as a way to try to stop people doing things which are not actually violent.

Incidentally, in the lexicon of most pacifists and nonviolentists, sabotage or damage to property doesn't count as "violence", especially if what's being destroyed is (eg) weaponry of any sort. Violence is harming other people (and, some would say, other living beings).

There's also structural violence, in the sense of a system which, eg, causes people to be ill and perhaps die when they don't need to, because they're put in that position by a system which diverts resources from essential human needs to other things.

Drawing a line (even for a committed pacifist) can be difficult because things are interconnected. Maybe it's the "spirit" in which you do something which is part of the way of judging how violent it is or isn't. It's possible to be very firm and uncompromising, and/or destructive of an item of property, whilst having a smile on your face and presenting a friendly demeanour to those around you.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

For clarity - they're not my protests. Stopping an ambulance indeed isn't very non-violent! Certainly, disagreement, and challenging someone else's ideas, even to the extent that people are offended, isn't violence; you're correct - if I understand what you're implying - that the label "violence" is used as a way to try to stop people doing things which are not actually violent.

Incidentally, in the lexicon of most pacifists and nonviolentists, sabotage or damage to property doesn't count as "violence", especially if what's being destroyed is (eg) weaponry of any sort. Violence is harming other people (and, some would say, other living beings).

There's also structural violence, in the sense of a system which, eg, causes people to be ill and perhaps die when they don't need to, because they're put in that position by a system which diverts resources from essential human needs to other things.

Drawing a line (even for a committed pacifist) can be difficult because things are interconnected. Maybe it's the "spirit" in which you do something which is part of the way of judging how violent it is or isn't. It's possible to be very firm and uncompromising, and/or destructive of an item of property, whilst having a smile on your face and presenting a friendly demeanour to those around you.

I agree with pretty much all you've said here, and my use of "your" was not intended to address you specifically- more IB collectively. Apologies if I've come across as overly combative in this discussion, I'm not generally the sort to seek out conflict: it just annoys me when I see a cause I support in principle being harmed by bad actors such as the Insulate Britain leadership, particularly when they arrogantly refuse to respect the views of others on the same side, let alone the views of their opponents.

I'm absolutely convinced that these actions do more harm than good, and turn many reasonable people away from wanting to do their bit.
The cynic in me wonders if that's actually the real motivation behind the leadership, particularly with the low numbers of arrests and even lower numbers of prosecutions. I'm not wanting to suggest a grand conspiracy, but there's something about Insulate Britain that doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[squizzler]

I'm not generally the sort to seek out conflict: it just annoys me when I see a cause I support in principle being harmed by bad actors such as the Insulate Britain leadership, particularly when they arrogantly refuse to respect the views of others on the same side, let alone the views of their opponents.

Which is why stopping a coal train is arguably a more justifiable form of protest than blocking the street. Unlike jounrneymen and gig-work operators invariably trapped in even the most carefully managed insulate Britain protest (of course they do let the emergency services through, they are not monsters), the train driver, workers at the power station and police who attend the protest all get paid at the end of the day, whether the train gets through or not. The only victim is the shareholders of these outfits.

Protest in front of the Chinese and Indian embassies. Or go to China and jump into one of their coal trains.

Despite what the media often seem to want people to believe, there are loads of protests against environmental degradation happening in India and China, many of which are successful. Actually British are are notoriously unlikely to protest in comparison with other countries, we have a tradition of not wanting to make a fuss.

 

[Dai Corner]

Which is why stopping a coal train is arguably a more justifiable form of protest than blocking the street. The train driver, workers at the power station and police who attend the protest all get paid at the end of the day, whether the train gets through or not. The only victim is the shareholders of these outfits.

Unless Network Rail has to pay compensation to the train operator and power station owner for the delay, in which case the taxpayer would be the ultimate loser.

 

[squizzler]

Insofar as the objective for forcing change is concerned, that is even better!

 

[Dai Corner]

Insofar as the objective for forcing change is concerned, that is even better!

It could also be argued that if they were short of wood pellets they might burn more fossil fuel

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Which is why stopping a coal train is arguably a more justifiable form of protest than blocking the street.

Though it wasn't a coal train. Whilst burning biomass in the form of wood pellets isn't ideal, it's less bad than burning fossil fuels.

 

[deltic]

Though it wasn't a coal train. Whilst burning biomass in the form of wood pellets isn't ideal, it's less bad than burning fossil fuels.

Some scientists argue the contrary and that growing trees to burn rather than using waste from trees grown for lumber is worse than fossil fuels

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Some scientists argue the contrary and that growing trees to burn rather than using waste from trees grown for lumber is worse than fossil fuels

Would lumber waste produce the volumes required though?

The obvious solution for generating electricity is nuclear, which is perfectly safe if handled correctly... but the myths and exaggerations about the dangers plus what can happen if it isn't handled correctly, rather hamper it in terms of public perception.

 

[deltic]

Would lumber waste produce the volumes required though?

The obvious solution for generating electricity is nuclear, which is perfectly safe if handled correctly... but the myths and exaggerations about the dangers plus what can happen if it isn't handled correctly, rather hamper it in terms of public perception.

No

And I agree entirely - hopefully the recent announcement by Rolls Royce that they can produce small scale nuclear plants far more quickly will provide the way forward

 

[Six Bells]

Could be worse; given the intelligence displayed by most protestors of this ilk, I half expected the report to state that protestors had attempted to climb on a train at Rugeley Powerstation Junction or Ironbridge Sidings...

 

[AlbertBeale]

Despite what the media often seem to want people to believe, there are loads of protests against environmental degradation happening in India and China, many of which are successful. Actually British are are notoriously unlikely to protest in comparison with other countries, we have a tradition of not wanting to make a fuss.

Very true - my experience of involvement in campaigns and demonstrations in other countries is that they often take things more seriously than do British activists; and there's a lot going on which isn't much reported here outside the specialist mags/media which are devoted to campaigning issues. (And yes - what I once dismissed as typical British conservatism and right-wing-ness is something I eventually realised was often more to do with not wanting a fuss!)

For instance, the anti-TAV campaign in Italy (opposing the destructive high-speed new-build rail line between Turin and France) seemed to have more obvious larger-scale on-the-streets support [when I was over there a few years back] than the anti-HS2 campaign here.

Which reminds me - those here who seem to understand the ecological crisis we face, and who're supportive of campaigning on the issue, are (in my view) very much barking up the wrong trees by supporting high-tech solutions which are destructive and make things worse in the short term (and in some cases in the long term too). I think the urgency of the time-scale (as well as my vision of the better world that we need at the end of all this ... if we can save the situation) requires us not to go down routes like HS2 and nuclear power. [Not that many people have ever claimed that the proposals - now plans - for HS2 had much to do with helping the climate anyway; that's just been tacked on as an extra argument in favour even though it's nonsense.]

There are far less destructive approaches which make a positive difference in the short term - and that's what's needed. Mass home insulation is indeed one of those things.

 

[DerekC]

Very true - my experience of involvement in campaigns and demonstrations in other countries is that they often take things more seriously than do British activists; and there's a lot going on which isn't much reported here outside the specialist mags/media which are devoted to campaigning issues. (And yes - what I once dismissed as typical British conservatism and right-wing-ness is something I eventually realised was often more to do with not wanting a fuss!)

For instance, the anti-TAV campaign in Italy (opposing the destructive high-speed new-build rail line between Turin and France) seemed to have more obvious larger-scale on-the-streets support [when I was over there a few years back] than the anti-HS2 campaign here.

Which reminds me - those here who seem to understand the ecological crisis we face, and who're supportive of campaigning on the issue, are (in my view) very much barking up the wrong trees by supporting high-tech solutions which are destructive and make things worse in the short term (and in some cases in the long term too). I think the urgency of the time-scale (as well as my vision of the better world that we need at the end of all this ... if we can save the situation) requires us not to go down routes like HS2 and nuclear power. [Not that many people have ever claimed that the proposals - now plans - for HS2 had much to do with helping the climate anyway; that's just been tacked on as an extra argument in favour even though it's nonsense.]

There are far less destructive approaches which make a positive difference in the short term - and that's what's needed. Mass home insulation is indeed one of those

That's a thoughtful input, much of which I agree with - and we certainly need mass home insulation. But we need both the long term solutions which can put the world back into balance as well as the short term fixes which will slow down the rate of degradation over the next twenty years. And, although I think @61653 HTAFC makes it sound much easier than it is, there doesn't seem to be an alternative to nuclear to provide baseload generation. The danger of hi-tech is that people think (encouraged by some of Boris's pronouncements) that they can carry on exactly as now, without changing their personal life styles at all, and wait for technology to provide the solutions.

 

[The Ham]

That's a thoughtful input, much of which I agree with - and we certainly need mass home insulation. But we need both the long term solutions which can put the world back into balance as well as the short term fixes which will slow down the rate of degradation over the next twenty years. And, although I think @61653 HTAFC makes it sound much easier than it is, there doesn't seem to be an alternative to nuclear to provide baseload generation. The danger of hi-tech is that people think (encouraged by some of Boris's pronouncements) that they can carry on exactly as now, without changing their personal life styles at all, and wait for technology to provide the solutions.

Indeed, too many think "if I use offsets I can do what I like".

Offsets and carbon capture are useful, but they should be there to reduce what we can't reduce by other methods, not as a way for us to do what we want and feel good about that we've done our bit.

For example if we as a world managed to plant the number of trees (assuming that they are all extra and not just replacing ones cut down), we might get to a point where we remove up to 10% of the carbon that we currently produce.

Carbon capture is still absorbing tiny amounts, and often a fraction of the amount promised.

Yet 2019 saw us (primarily in the Global North, whilst the impacts are mostly being felt in the Global South) produce more carbon than in any previous year, 2020 saw this fall, but mainly due to significant lockdowns around the world.

We need to see 2021 with lower carbon emissions than 2019, although I suspect we won't. As otherwise seeing significant reductions by 2030 are unlikely.

Although chances are the impacts will be fairly muted for us in the UK, other than an increase in people wanting to live here as the impact on their home nations increases.

The reason it'll be muted here is that we aren't likely to see significant impacts due to our starting climate being far from tropical. In addition we are wealthy so can afford to pay to protect ourselves and big increases in food prices wouldn't result in big increases in the purchase cost at supermarkets due to other costs in the food production.

 

[Gostav]

Meanwhile, the China Railway keeps fully transporting coal to supply power plants.

No worry about climate groups, they even cannot even enter China since Covid-19

Special coal transportation trains expected to ease power crunch--China Economic Net

en.ce.cn

An average of 20 freight trains fully loaded with coal arrive in southwest China's Chongqing Municipality every day from Shaanxi and Shanxi provinces, major coal production bases, as well as Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region to help fuel coal-fired power plants in the megacity.

Due to a slew of overlapping factors such as rapid economic recovery, swift foreign trade and rising coal price, west China's economic hub of Chongqing has faced power supply pressure since the third quarter.

From January to October, Chongqing's total electricity consumption increased by 14.9 percent year on year. In October alone, coal-fired power consumption soared by more than 300 percent year on year.

According to the Chongqing economic and information committee, Chongqing's thermal power accounts for over 60 percent of its installed power capacity, while all coal needs to be diverted from outside the city.

Since the beginning of this year, Shaanxi Province has supplied 8.8 million tonnes of coal to Chongqing, an increase of 84 percent year on year. Chongqing has also stepped up the purchase of coal from Shanxi and Xinjiang, which are expected to deliver a total of 4 million tonnes of coal to Chongqing this winter and next spring. The supplemental purchase can guarantee Chongqing's power supply.

Coal trains are also gathering at Hudong Station in China's first coal transportation railway line linking the coal production city of Datong in Shanxi with Qinhuangdao Port in Hebei Province, from where coal can be transferred to the country's southern and eastern regions for power supply and heating.

Datong-Qinhuangdao Railway, deemed China's energy transport artery, is an electrified railway designed exclusively for transporting coal from the provinces of Shanxi and Shaanxi and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region to the energy ports of Qinhuangdao and Caofeidian.

China Railway Taiyuan Group Co., Ltd. has increased its daily train trips to 94 from 85, with the departure interval shortened to every 13 minutes on the railway, said Ren Xin, deputy director with the company's dispatching office, adding that the trains carry 1.3 million tonnes of coal per day.

The coal output in Shanxi is expected to exceed 1.2 billion tonnes this year and the power transmission from the province will exceed 9 million kilowatts in December. The output of coal-bed methane will reach 4.2 billion cubic meters this winter and next spring, forecast local authorities.

In the first seven days of November, Shanxi's average daily coal output reached over 3.5 million tonnes, an increase of 170,000 tonnes compared with that in October, showed data from the energy bureau of Shanxi.

As of Nov. 9, Shanxi has supplied 15.19 million tonnes of coal to 14 provinces, regions and municipalities including Shanghai, Zhejiang and Jilin.