Philosophy Now Forum

M25 protests: Police break up Insulate Britain activists for FOURTH time in a week
Barney Davis.


*****************

Insulate Britain
@InsulateLove
GET ON WITH THE JOB BORIS, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

Josh, 28, Bricklayer from Manchester is back on the road for the 4th time.
He demands #meaningfuljobs and an to #EndFuelPoverty by Insulating Britain.

#InsulateBritain #Getonwiththejob

******************

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/m ... d=msedgntp

70% of the houses in Britain are already insulted. The scheme was a Thatcher era policy.

Hansard
Home Insulation
HC Deb 08 August 1980 vol 990 cc503-4W503W

§Mr. Frank Allaun asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the public take-up of first time insulation grants in existing private houses in the last 12 months to a convenient date and for each of the two previous years.

§Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg Following are the available estimates:

HOMES INSULATION SCHEME: ENGLAND 1978–80
Financial year Number of grants paid Payments
(£ million)
1978–79* 216,000 8.3
1979–80 † 370,000 14.0
* The scheme started on 18 September 1978.

Building code regulations require insulation in all new build properties. All the low hanging fruit has been picked - and according to the UN, we are still nowhere near. That's why we need magma energy - to replace fossil fuels. We cannot mitigate our way out of this problem - we need to solve it.

...

Vitruvius wrote:

Great so, if Joris Bohnson et al, don't adopt magma energy - it's my fault for not pretending I'm the second coming? No. If rationality doesn't appeal, humankind deserves to die. It's cosmic justice. Every species that has ever existed has necessarily had to be right to reality, or be rendered extinct. We're no different, just because we are intelligent enough to be able to deceive ourselves.

Good poetry is rational.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:15 pm Vitruvius wrote:

Great so, if Joris Bohnson et al, don't adopt magma energy - it's my fault for not pretending I'm the second coming? No. If rationality doesn't appeal, humankind deserves to die. It's cosmic justice. Every species that has ever existed has necessarily had to be right to reality, or be rendered extinct. We're no different, just because we are intelligent enough to be able to deceive ourselves.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:15 pmGood poetry is rational.

I think it's in All Quiet on the Western Front - there's German soldier trying to write poetry, and he goes about this by writing a letter, and then erasing the parts that make it rationally comprehensible. Its very funny, very dry, and quite the opposite of what you say. Mind, I don't suppose the result was good poetry.

At a slight loss to understand the relevance of your comment to the subject at hand, 'less you're rhyming brickie with thickie! Josh want to insulate already insulated houses - and is willing to block the M25 to make that point. He's not willing to google 'what percentage of British homes are insulated?"

"65% of homes in Britain with a loft now have loft insulation according to the latest figures from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)."

...but he is willing to inconvenience everyone on a Monday morning - presumably, imagining this is the best way to drum up support for his 'green jobs' initiative! Maybe I should go piss on Alok Sharma's shoes - while telling him about magma energy!

The problem isn’t with the protesters blocking the M25 – it’s that more people aren’t joining them
Donnachadh McCarthy

The problem with the M25 Insulate Britain climate protests is not that they are disrupting the motorway to demand action on the climate emergency, but that there are not yet millions of people (particularly parents) out there joining them.

‘If we did what the Insulate Britain climate protectors are calling for, we would effectively save thousands of lives’

Hordes of Britons should be taking similar action after last week’s terrifying Chatham House report that revealed that even if global governments fulfilled their pledges under the Paris Climate agreement, we would still only have a 5 per cent chance of not breaching a catastrophic rise of 2C.

This was then followed by the UNFCC report on Friday, which revealed that current pledges by governments would result not in a cut – but a rise in global emissions of 16 per cent by 2030.

These reports translate into a truly global “code red” warning that could lead to more frequent famines, wildfires, flooding and droughts by 2050. This year’s global extreme weather catastrophes are a mere taster for what is to come when the current generation of kids are in their 40s.

As former government chief adviser Dr David King rightly said this week, there is simply no safe carbon budget left. We need to decarbonise the global economy as fast as humanly possible – this is a full scale alert.

Yet despite the science, the UK government appears bent on expanding coal, oil and gas fields, investing billions in new roads and airports and cutting taxes on fossil fuel and aviation passenger duties. Decades of voting, protests, lobbying and petitions have not resulted in the action required, despite repeated polls showing the public wants the government to do far more.

What we have therefore is a massive failure of democracy to act with the necessary urgency to protect Britain and the wider world from the breakdown in civilisation now threatening us, as Sir David Attenborough put it. Thus, the only effective tool left to climate protectors in a liberal democracy is mass peaceful (but disruptive) direct action, along the lines being carried out by Insulate Britain.

Their demand is for all social housing be insulated by 2025 and all the rest of our housing by 2030; following reports that 28,000 people in England and Wales died due to “excess winter deaths” last year (research compares the number of deaths that occurred in the winter period, with the non-winter periods – the study excluded deaths from Covid-19).

We can predict that 5.7 million kids and adults and pensioners live in fuel poverty in the UK, where many have to choose between heat and food in winter (2.4million households x average household size of 2.4 = 5.7) . We also know that around 15 per cent of UK domestic emissions come from home heating.

As the UK has one of the oldest and worst insulated housing stocks in Europe, our homes emit on average 2.25 tons of carbon for heating – and about a third of this heat is wasted through badly insulated walls, ceilings, windows and doors.

This has got to be got down to net zero by 2030 at the latest, but the Tory government has, since 2014, appeared hell bent on slowing down the improvement of our home insulation.

Not only have they abolished the Green Deal insulation scheme and Green Homes Scheme, but they’ve also gotten rid of free loft and wall insulation grants for homeowners who aren’t on benefits and slashed billions from social housing insulation schemes since 2014.

If we did what the Insulate Britain climate protectors are calling for, we would effectively save thousands of lives, remove millions from hunger and fuel poverty, slash heating bills for everybody, radically reduce fossil gas imports and reduce our domestic carbon emissions.

It is a win, win – and what these protesters are demanding is a no-brainer. The chancellor Rishi Sunak, in this autumn’s budget, must put in place an investment programme to not only insulate all social housing by 2025 and all housing by 2030; but to also ensure every home has a zero carbon heating source.

The protesters are our protectors – and must be listened to. We all need to act accordingly.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/t ... d=msedgntp

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:03 am The problem isn’t with the protesters blocking the M25 – it’s that more people aren’t joining them
Donnachadh McCarthy

Climate Change is all a Leftie plot to bring down civilisation.
There is no climate change, just ask your friends in the Conservatives, and Republicans.

The motorway protests are not disproportionate to the threat; climate change is real, it's here, and very serious. If we don't do something about it - civilisation will collapse. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. We are three meals from revolution, always!

Extreme weather events, repeat crop failures, huge repeat insurance claims, loss of revenues coupled with massive infrastructure costs - default on sovereign debt, mass migration, failed states, a domino effect of economic collapse transmitted through the banking system - these are things our children have to look forward to if we don't solve climate change now. Yet I'm not lying down in the road holding up traffic. Why?

Is it because I just want to loved? A little bit! But no! It's because I believe something they don't. I believe climate change can be solved through the application of the right technologies, starting with magma energy. I believe that a left wing strategy of blaming everything on the end consumer is precisely the wrong approach - and that, basing human activities on clean energy would allow us to solve climate change, while maintaining economic prosperity and political stability.

"As former government chief adviser Dr David King rightly said this week, there is simply no safe carbon budget left. We need to decarbonise the global economy as fast as humanly possible – this is a full scale alert."

Right, but decarbonise, how? The green left approach is to not produce or consume things: "have less, pay more, tax this, stop that" - is a threat to civilisation in itself. The tailback they created is their vision of the future. Theirs is not a viable strategy. Pre-emptively collapsing civilisation because civilisation is threatened with collapse is idiotic.

I'm not saying Insulate Britain responded to this perspective - as expressed here before; but I do think that the idea of green jobs, insulating houses - (70% of which are already insulated) is a fig leaf hiding the anti-capitalist political motive in terms of which the left wing environmental narrative has been framed since the 1960's; while the right wing have vacated the field and engaged in climate change denial. Denialism is almost extinct now. Climate change is real. No-one with two brain cells to rub together doubts it. The question now is - how do we address climate change? And the left wing solution is every bit as bad as the problem!

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:36 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:03 am The problem isn’t with the protesters blocking the M25 – it’s that more people aren’t joining them
Donnachadh McCarthy

Climate Change is all a Leftie plot to bring down civilisation.
There is no climate change, just ask your friends in the Conservatives, and Republicans.

Extinction Rebellion protests and demonstrations are signs of emerging mythology and creative activity that are the social-psychological underpinning of necessary cultural change that will help to actualise the technology that Vitruvius advocates.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:31 am Extinction Rebellion protests and demonstrations are signs of emerging mythology and creative activity that are the social-psychological underpinning of necessary cultural change that will help to actualise the technology that Vitruvius advocates.

The threat of communism in face of climate change is what motivates me! That's true enough, but I'd really rather they stole my ideas - and pushed for magma energy at COP 26 - that is, if they can reconcile themselves ideologically to prosperous sustainable future!

Climate change: Should green campaigners put more pressure on China to slash emissions?
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst

China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases
China will be urged at the UN next week to speed up the timetable for curbing its planet-heating carbon emissions.

It will be nudged by the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who's experiencing climate pressure himself from activists blocking motorways.

But is the UK, with its world-leading emissions targets, the right target for demonstrators?

China produces 28% of global emissions and the UK just 1%. So shouldn't they be picketing the Chinese embassy instead of the M25 motorway?

On the face of it, that seems a reasonable question. And some veteran activists would indeed support a well-judged China protest - we'll come to that later.

But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

Why so vitriolic?

Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.

The second reason touches a sore spot on the geopolitical history of climate change. For the purposes of climate negotiations, China has been regarded as a developing country because major industrialisation occurred from the mid-20th Century - after some other countries.

Picketing the Chinese embassy would ostensibly transfer blame for the current crisis on to Beijing - while easing pressure for carbon cuts in historically wealthy nations such as the UK.

Rich countries caused most warming

But it runs counter to global climate diplomacy, which acknowledges that it's rich countries with a longer history of industrialisation that have caused most of the warming so far.

What's more, much of the CO2 on China's carbon accounts is created by manufacturing stuff that Western consumers buy.

So much stronger action from Beijing is certainly essential to prevent global heating getting even worse. But to be fair, China's not quite as blameworthy as it seems.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:31 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:36 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:03 am The problem isn’t with the protesters blocking the M25 – it’s that more people aren’t joining them
Donnachadh McCarthy

Climate Change is all a Leftie plot to bring down civilisation.
There is no climate change, just ask your friends in the Conservatives, and Republicans.

Extinction Rebellion protests and demonstrations are signs of emerging mythology and creative activity that are the social-psychological underpinning of necessary cultural change that will help to actualise the technology that Vitruvius advocates.

Yet he hates them all.

XR are vitriolic because they see addressing climate change in terms of sacrifice; have less, pay more, tax this and stop that; and China's economic development started late. Asking China to curb its economic growth when individually, Chinese people use around 10% of the energy of the average American - does seem unreasonable. That said, China has a population of 1400 million people - so, as a country they are the biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Their economic success since the 1990's has been nothing short of meteoric, but without magma energy, it's not sustainable for such a large population. China is increasingly hungry for energy. It might therefore be reasoned, and hoped that were magma energy on the table at COP26, China would agree - and bring Russia with them, despite Russia's relatively low population and dependence on fossil fuel revenues. Magma energy has the advantage of giving oil revenue economies time to diversify; because it would take time to set up, but provide the energy to capture carbon for centuries hence. So we'd continue using fossil fuels for some time, and repair the damage after - when we have abundant clean energy to spend, and not have to cripple ourselves in the meantime to secure a sustainable future.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:48 pm XR are vitriolic because they see addressing climate change in terms of sacrifice; have less, pay more, tax this and stop that; and China's economic development started late. Asking China to curb its economic growth when individually, Chinese people use around 10% of the energy of the average American - does seem unreasonable. That said, China has a population of 1400 million people - so, as a country they are the biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Their economic success since the 1990's has been nothing short of meteoric, but without magma energy, it's not sustainable for such a large population. China is increasingly hungry for energy. It might therefore be reasoned, and hoped that were magma energy on the table at COP26, China would agree - and bring Russia with them, despite Russia's relatively low population and dependence on fossil fuel revenues. Magma energy has the advantage of giving oil revenue economies time to diversify; because it would take time to set up, but provide the energy to capture carbon for centuries hence. So we'd continue using fossil fuels for some time, and repair the damage after - when we have abundant clean energy to spend, and not have to cripple ourselves in the meantime to secure a sustainable future.

Is it possible to get magma energy within Chinese territory. Is it certain the rock layer is thin enough?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:56 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:31 am Extinction Rebellion protests and demonstrations are signs of emerging mythology and creative activity that are the social-psychological underpinning of necessary cultural change that will help to actualise the technology that Vitruvius advocates.

The threat of communism in face of climate change is what motivates me! That's true enough, but I'd really rather they stole my ideas - and pushed for magma energy at COP 26 - that is, if they can reconcile themselves ideologically to prosperous sustainable future!

I wonder if you are American. Many Americans seem to be unduly afraid of communism and conflate it with socialism.

Anyway, I am really surprised at you for owning a political motive for your promotion of what seems to me to be a practical and for all I know ethical solution to the clean energy problem.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:48 pm XR are vitriolic because they see addressing climate change in terms of sacrifice; have less, pay more, tax this and stop that; and China's economic development started late. Asking China to curb its economic growth when individually, Chinese people use around 10% of the energy of the average American - does seem unreasonable. That said, China has a population of 1400 million people - so, as a country they are the biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Their economic success since the 1990's has been nothing short of meteoric, but without magma energy, it's not sustainable for such a large population. China is increasingly hungry for energy. It might therefore be reasoned, and hoped that were magma energy on the table at COP26, China would agree - and bring Russia with them, despite Russia's relatively low population and dependence on fossil fuel revenues. Magma energy has the advantage of giving oil revenue economies time to diversify; because it would take time to set up, but provide the energy to capture carbon for centuries hence. So we'd continue using fossil fuels for some time, and repair the damage after - when we have abundant clean energy to spend, and not have to cripple ourselves in the meantime to secure a sustainable future.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:08 pmIs it possible to get magma energy within Chinese territory. Is it certain the rock layer is thin enough?

I suggest developing magma energy as a global good initially, with the energy used specifically for carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels. This is an image of all the volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire - and as you can see, geographically, they're everywhere.