**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
They say yes but who knows. I do find it interesting that every time they’re interviewed they claim success and the presenter points out how unpopular they are. Then they debate about how they’re not trying to be popular and that climate change concern is at an all time high. It’s almost a cliché’d TV segment now.
Yes, their actions and stunts are correlated with increased environmental concern. But that doesn’t mean they’ve caused the issue to rise in people’s priorities. But how can we really say either way. They would say it’s working despite being very unpopular themselves.
There's no "who knows" about it, they're dividing people who should broadly support the aims they claim to have and directing conversations away from oil contracts and towards their antics instead. Actively undermining the cause they pretend to represent.
I mean plenty of people definitely claimed he took attention away from the cause at that time. That's a big part of his response in the letter that he wrote from Birmingham jail. White pastors were basically saying his sit in and civil disobedience was not helping the cause and making it worse.
This is patently false. He was *so* popular that Americans across the entire nation, of all races, voted for politicians to listen to him and enact the Civil Rights Act. MLK was SO popular that 69% of Democrats and **82% of Republican** senators voted for the Civil Rights Act. [MLK had *majority* favourability in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act passed.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s)
You’re confusing peoples support for Civil Rights and their support for MLK.
MLK was seriously unpopular with the majority pretty much up until he was assassinated. He was also targeted consistently by the government and law enforcement agencies.
Not true at all.
> But by August 1966, only a third of Americans had a favorable view of the civil rights leader. More than six-in-ten (63%) viewed him unfavorably, including 44% who viewed him highly unfavorably.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s
Congress realised the necessity of Civil Rights legislation, that didn't mean they personally liked MILK.
You can't be coming in here and spouting objective answers to an objective question and be totally ignorant of the [actual research ](https://www.socialchangelab.org/post/highlights-from-social-change-lab-s-2022-research).
They don't have to be liked to be effective.
Every time they pull a stunt like Stonehenge the comments sections are filled with people talking about climate change. YOU are talking about climate change, in the specific context of whether their methods are doing it justice.
Every time JSO pulls a stunt like this, the debate is immediately framed around the issue of climate change. And they go the same way every time, too- somebody always asks why they don’t do this to CEOs and oil refineries, and someone always points out that they did, you just didnt hear about it, which gets you thinking more.
I’m not saying it’s right, in fact I think it’s bloody stupid if you don’t follow it up with proper activism, but it is **correct** in the sense that they’ve got people weighing the impact of the climate against the impact of their protests and are therefore shifting public opinion. Albeit not in their own favour, but in favour of their cause.
If you support the aim of no new oil or gas licenses and drop that support because of some harmless orange powder on some stones that have stood for around 5000 years, I find it difficult to believe you ever supported the aims.
It kind of reminds me of someone I spoke to one time, who was telling me that they were thinking it was prime time to open their own estate agents.... in mid 2008! Their logic: Houses and estate agents were in the news a lot at the time, therefore with all that publicity it simply *must* be a great time to enter the market. That they were in the news a lot because the market was seizing up due to the GFC and they therefore weren't able to sell a thing didn't even register in his mind, instead it was publicity = good times.
In fairness, they were sort of right that it was a great time for real estate if you were looking to buy and hoard it, just a pretty rubbish time if you were wanting to find a place to live.
There’s also the possibility during massive market moves like that that actually the market has been overvalued and even if it looks like you’re getting a discount you might still be buying something with low potential
Oh no they weren't looking to invest in real estate, they were looking to open up an estate agents! As in, "We'll list your home for sale for you and take a 1.5% commission on all those sales we'll totally get". At a time when house sales essentially stalled.
> Oh no they weren't looking to invest in real estate, they were looking to open up an estate agents! As in, "We'll list your home for sale for you and take a 1.5% commission on all those sales we'll totally get". At a time when house sales essentially stalled.
This reminds me of an estate agents I lived near that had a sign in the window that said "We will sell your house for 500 pounds".
Someone obviously pointed out how it could be misconstrued so they changed it to "We will sell your house at a cost to you of 500 pounds".
Most people still don't know what JSO actually want. They assume it's immediately stopping using oil, whereas it's actually fairly sensible and achievable.
Yes. These actions work in a few not-necessarily-obvious ways. Getting media attention on climate change is a win in itself - people need to be woken up from the delusion that they can carry on as normal.
When I pointed out to someone that the paint supposedly will just wash off because it's cornstarch they basically said "yeah but it still might kill the grass"
I keep seeing people claim that it's funded by "Big Oil" because Aileen Getty funds them, despite the Getty family not being involved in the oil business since 1984, and Aileen Getty spending the majority of her life working with charitable organisations and how she hates her family.
They'd get \*even more\* engagement by shitting on David Attenborough. By the standard parroted logic, that's what they should do next. Or maybe they should go and vandalize an orphanage - that would get maximum engagement.
My point is, it's all good and well saying "more attention = better", but is that really true?
I'd happily see them vandalize jets or block roads all day (providing they let emergencies through). But Stonehenge strikes me as pure attention seeking and ego from activists who just have a hard-on for their own disruptiveness. I don't believe that's about a cause - they just want to make as many people angry as possible and don't care what about.
The one I've been looking at recently is that even if you're entirely dismissive of the impact of Climate Change, there's a ... worrying correlation between GDP and energy consumption.
Specifically that ... that's pretty much all our world economy _is_ when you get right down to it. Our models of economics don't actually 'price in' the cost of _any_ raw materials, just the cost of extraction and processing.
And GDP _growth_ is a _commitment_ to continue consuming more energy every year, in perpetuity.
But we've got addicted to the absurdly cheap energy from the ground. And it's not being replaced. It's only a question of _when_ it's going to run out. And also what will be _first_ because we have this same problem with almost any materials that are being extracted from the earth.
Climate change is a related issue of course - one of the 'resources' we are depleting is our clean air.
But we've already seen just how 'difficult' things can get when a major oil producer gets militaristic and starts land grabbing large areas of farm land.
If you haven't already, go listen to Nate Hagens' Great Simplification podcast. You sound like you're ready for it.
Steve Keen and Kate Raworth being good episodes to start on your particular line of economic concern, but huge amounts of other valuable voices also.
I’m well aware of the climate crisis, what’s at risk and what Attenborough has said about it.
The problem is, regardless of what the party line is, people are *not* talking about the realities of climate change more as a result of JSO’s actions. They are not talking about the science of it. They aren’t talking about what they themselves can do to contribute. They just aren’t. They’re talking about how “climate activists are really fucking annoying.”
I think it’s collective delusion to equate more and more people getting sick of climate protesters with positive change.
Funny to see how 80% of the discourse in this comments sections is still people pissing their diapers about Stonehenge and talking about how personally upset and distraught they are about some rocks being temporarily covered with cornflour when those very same people insisted they would totally support JSO if they targeted people specifically like Taylor Swift.
Makes you almost think that these people are spineless and don’t actually support any protesting at all.
> about some rocks being temporarily covered with cornflour
They're one of the most important historical artefacts on the entire planet.
The fact that you're calling them "some rocks" shows exactly how little you give two fucks about British culture, which is thoroughly unsurprising for anyone who supports JSO.
I swear every protest ever has people commenting "yeah I agree with their issue but why can't they do it in a non-disruptive way". Protests don't work if they're non-disruptive. It's the reason Singapore has a single designated area where people can protest, it means they can just ignore the whole thing and justify arresting anyone who does anything that's actually disruptive
Yeah but damaging stone henge is fucking appalling.
People have been "engaged" and now associate climate change with batshit crazy idiots. It makes the whole thing look like a pseudoscientic cult.
"Engagement" is such dumb metric to measure this sort of thing by - especially when you're not measuring the sentiment behind that engagement.
How much of that "engagement" has been engaging with the discussion around climate change, and how much of it is people talking about a bunch of fuckwitted vandals?
If somebody can be persuaded to fight against climate change by a small group of protestors, they were never interested in fighting climate change in the first place.
They will be the same people who will tell you that its companies who should be the ones fighting climate change. But will likely be out here in force when the price of everything increases to account.
People have convinced themselves that the climate issue can be solved with 0 impact to their lives.
> People have convinced themselves that the climate issue can be solved with 0 impact to their lives.
More like the generation who have for the first time a lower standard of living than their parents, no prospect of owning a home, communities falling apart, lived through multiple once in a lifetime crises, don't actually want to voluntarily degrade their quality of life yet again.
As part of that generation, we have been delievered the ultimate shit hand: carrying on the torch of a generation who had it all handed to them on a silver platter, a silver platter that we will not be given, whilst simultaneously having to clean up after their mess.
It fucking sucks, and yet, the reality of our situation remains unchanged.
I was reading today that my generation (probably yours too) are set to inherit the biggest property portfolio in the history of the UK at some £400 billion or so.
Which ironically will make the housing market even worse and drastically increase wealth inequality.
Yay!
Scientist's have been making this point again and again, the time to fight climate change is yesterday, today is the second best option.
Saying people don't want to see their standard of life degrade is a moot point, climate change will take that option out of our hands slowly but surely. And not wanting to foot the bill for the shitshow that is today's global economic and political situation is the boomer thought process that got us here in the first place.
We are in an era that needs to re-evaluate growth at the expense of everything else. That might mean things getting rougher before they get better. And if you think that's pretty shit, you're right. But thing are getting shittier despite us as a society making no real long-term changes for the better. So how bad can things get if we don't do any of these changes?
People can be interested and still think JSO are a bunch of idiots.
That engagement is more about them being morons than the actual environment.
Hence hinder the cause
That's a nice aphorism, but it isn't actually true. Social pressure is a huge influencer on behaviour - if someone sees JSO get in the media all the time acting like self defeating idiots and they get put off participating, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have participated in fighting climate change had things been different.
Spray painting a private jet is vastly different to a national monument. The jet has a direct and disproportionate effect. Can’t imagine average Joe really being angry with JSO.
some of the responses to their protest are absolutely insane.
people going on about how they're destroying a national monument that has been around for thousands of years, and should be enjoyed for thousands to come. they've not. paint will be cleaned up, paint is not irregularly cleaned up from stonehenge it just doesn't get this attention on it because it's teenagers drawing dicks or someone throwing a tag up. if something isn't done about climate change, we won't be able to enjoy stonehenge in a couple of hundred of years - let alone thousands.
jso are not your enemy.
That’s a silly argument. Any more extreme act will always get more attention. Also controversial acts. If just stop oil purchased an oil refinery and started producing and selling oil it would get even more attention I’m sure. That doesn’t mean it makes sense to do.
It wasn't long ago that people were left free to climb on the rocks and carve their names in it.
I'm struggling to believe this is a catastrophe of the proportion it's being blown into when in the 70s you could eat a packet of wotsits and then climb on the stones.
Mate it was chalk paint. You could remove it with a sweeping brush after it drys again. My mum gave it to my sister and her kids to paint the side of the house ever summer.
The side of your house was presumably not a 5000 year old national monument with some particularly important lichen growing on it.
> Our experts have already removed the orange powder from the stones. We moved quickly due to the risk that the powder would harm the important and rare lichens growing on the stones and that if the powder came into contact with water, it would leave difficult-to-remove streaks.
From English Heritage.
And yet they DID remove it and difficult to remove doesnt mean irremovable. Do you know how much residue is already on the stones? Did you see the relativly tiny patch of paint on a couple of the MANY stones? This is less than the sticker on the kings portrain, this is less than a storm in a teacup, its nothing.
The stones are gathered in touching distance every year by thousands of people for multiple festivals where people are allowed to climb all over them and do whatever they want. There has been SO MUCH graffiti scratched, chipped, written and painted onto these things over the years. For MANY many different topics and causes.
The stones have fallen over and scraped against each other and been set right with steel braces multiple times, lifted by normal cranes and chains, moved and set back upright without records of how.
They were buried with no lichen for thousands of years.
They were dug up and moved around with picks and hachets.
They were then moved around two or three more times.
Do you care about any of this? They are stones. They are hardy as hell.
Did you know there are current plans to dig a tunnel under them and route a motorway UNDER THEM? Do you think that will do less damage than some ORANGE DUST?
Why is it THIS that matters? Who are you believing that this orange powder is the worst thing to ever happen to them, worthy of such outrage? Do you believe that? Why?
> Our experts have already removed the orange powder from the stones. We moved quickly due to the risk that the powder would harm the important and rare lichens growing on the stones and that if the powder came into contact with water, it would leave difficult-to-remove streaks.
> "And while we are relieved that there appears to be no visible damage, the very act of removing the powder can – in itself – have a harmful impact by eroding the already fragile stone and damaging the lichens.
From English Heritage.
Why? If anything, vandalising Stonehenge is more true to their cause.
It's kind of hypocritical to be outraged by Just Stop Oil defacing/damaging/destroying historical landmarks, but not be outraged by people abusing the planets resources so much that it's having a negative impact on the planet itself.
And I know that a lot of people will say both are wrong, but then why is it that the media reports on the Just Stop Oil wrongdoings, but not the wrongdoings of people abusing our planet?
People seem to think you can have a nice, sanitised, protest and that will get things done.
Those protests don't work and get nothing done. Throughout the course of human history the only protests which have worked have been those which cause public attention because of how disruptive or horrifying they have been.
Of course the truth is very simple: people don't give a flying fuck about climate change, even those who say they do, but they're happy to bitch and moan about protesters who might inconvenience them, or draw attention to their hypocrisy.
Well it's a sliding scale. On one side, PETA used to defend stealing the remains of people's loved ones. I mean that's a thing just stop oil could start doing right? Maybe digging up the remains of children who have died and holding them hostage? Would the ends justify the means?
On the flipside, off the top of my head in the last few years:
* Living wage - peaceful marches, lobbying of government and employers - now everyone over 21 must be paid the living wage
* Gurkha justice - peaceful marches and media coverage, change in the law to allow all Gurkhas to settle in the UK
* Hillsborough justice - vigils and marches over the years, led to inquests and eventually a quashing of the verdicts and a public apology from the government and the police
* Period poverty campaigns - protests and lobby led to a change in taxation of sanitary products for women and free options in schools and hospitals
* Free school means - Marcus Rashford and social media campaigns pressured the government to extend free school meals during lockdowns and holidays
* Royal Mail Horizon - sustained peaceful campaign by Alan Bates and the ITV drama have led to fast tracking of compensation talks and quashing of criminal convictions
* Brexit - UKIP campaigned peacefully for over a decade to leave the EU, culminating in the 2016 referendum
* Campaign for better broadband - advocating and lobbying for better access to the internet for all, led to the roll out of the BDUK program and subsequent funding for digital infrastructure
* Martin Lewis campaigns - huge impacts across consumer rights and finance including bank charges, PPI, predatory loans etc.
My point is that there are people making a difference every day and a lot of the work is not 'high profile', in fact I can't think of a huge amount of high profile actions that have had lasting change. But that's because real change is more boring and often takes decade(s) of sustained peaceful campaigning. Painting things orange is more immediately gratifying for the frustrated.
It is important to be mindful that the most extreme protests are often us seeing vulnerable people being exploited by an organisation that is not doing proper safeguarding.
There is a remarkable parallel in this way with other fundamentalist groups unfortuantely.
> There is a remarkable parallel in this way with other fundamentalist groups unfortuantely.
Of course there is; they are a fundamentalist group. - The core commonality of everything you have raised is that the system is not being pressured to change itself. At the end of the day all of these things are not actively harmful or require the destruction of anything fundamental to people's lifestyles.
To use the obvious comparison, the Horizon scandal protests have not brought a question over the existance of the prosecution and court systems that allowed such a great injustice to occur. They have simply said "carry on but better this time".
>in fact I can't think of a huge amount of high profile actions that have had lasting change.
Suffragettes perhaps?
Funnily enough experts actually determined no it wouldn't have washed off when it rained and this would have caused damage. It was only because it was dry it was able to be removed by air blowing without causing permanent damage.
So the only reason it didn't cause any damage was blind luck with the weather, because the JSO crowd intended it to "wash off". Because it turns out that ignorant activists don't actually know much about paint chemistry etc.
Hopefully archaeologists in thousands of years can study the residue and write long academic papers on the campaign against climate change from their tropical ski resorts or their arctic summer houses.
The druids put their oily hands on stone henge every year, I sincerely hope you've been vocal in your outrage about that too otherwise you may come off as a bit of a hypocrite.
Definitely better than stone henge. Although, honestly - we’re all going to die from global warming and no one is doing anything serious about it. So I understand why they do it and have sympathy. It’s only paint.
Honestly, we live in the greatest golden age in human history. We have no comprehension of what collapse looks like.
When hundreds of thousands to millions of people are dying from the heat, our fields become brown and barren, and tens of millions of people are turning up at our shore seeking shelter, empowering a massive crackdown on our freedoms in order to "Protect Britain", we're going to wonder why we wasted so much effort getting mad at corn starch on some rocks.
I mean… we do have some comprehension of what collapse will look like. There are researchers who study this so they can tell you what collapse will look like. Do people believe them? Do people use their information to fix the problems? Do people enforce regulations to ensure we don’t make things worse? The answers to these questions are a little more bleak.
People don’t think this is an issue they need to worry about because the effects are bearable right now. They’ll spout on about how abortion is murder and how children are blessings, but will turn their noses at policy to combat climate change to give those children a good life. People are willing to let human beings work long hours in cobalt mines in sweltering heat at the edge of death to get batteries for electric cars that people will buy to make themselves feel better about their own footprint but don’t support local environmental justice efforts or vote on policy changes.
I genuinely believe if global warming is going to kill us all we’re well past the point that we can do anything about it. It’s impossible for us to ‘just stop oil’. It’s impossible for us to change the way we live. The only way we stop this is technology advancements.
We should invest everything possible in pushing green energy, and carbon capture tech, and hope at some point our growth and innovation can reverse the damage we’ve done.
People are using the animals in and around the stones being possibly harmed as an excuse to keep going, they're endangered species as well. Find it just a scapegoat though because they're probably crying on xitter while munching on a cheeseburger.
The other problem we've got - even if 'climate change' is entirely diregarded - is just how big a problem we've got around energy usage.
We've got very used to treating oil and coal as if they're never going to run out.
UK CO2 emisions (1970- 2022):
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1970..latest&country=~GBR
UK CO2 emissions per capita (1970- 2022):
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1970..latest&country=~GBR
UK CO2 emissions (territorial and consumption):
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?time=1970..latest&country=~GBR
UK greenhouse gas emissions:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&time=1970..latest&country=~GBR
UK methane emissions:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-methane-emissions?tab=chart&time=1970..latest&country=~GBR
UK nitrous oxide:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-nitrous-oxide?tab=chart&time=1970..latest&country=~GBR
All of these reductions took place in a period where GDP was going up:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp-per-capita?country=~GBR
>“There’s a special place in hell for women who spray paint other women’s private jets.”
>
>Taylor Swift, *probably*.
The target is high profile and is personally responsible for huge amounts of ecological damage. Plus it’s incredibly brave to risk the wrath of Swift’s deranged fan base.
This makes much more sense to me than attacking artworks or monuments.
Both draw attention to the impending apocalypse, and are at least an *effort* to do something, even if it's just futile acts of vandalism. We're speedrunning a mass-extinction, and it's insane how we're all just quietly going along with it, wasting our time arguing about useless shit instead.
I think it's a normal human response. What else can we do? Most of us don't have the power to change things personally. A lot of us don't have time or want to take the risks that activism requires, especially if people have children to look after. It's hard to comprehend how terrible it's going to be.
I've just decided not to have kids so I'm not putting anyone else through what's coming and trying to enjoy my tiny corner of the planet while I'm still alive.
Article doesn't say Swift's Jet was effected, or even targeted. Just that it was there. JSO are using that fact to drum up publicity every bit as much as LBC are to generate clicks.
The tour isn't a problem. The travel arrangments of people going to a stadium concernt will always have a bigger impact. Swift however also uses the plane for non tour related travel.
Have you not seen Taylors private jet flights? She is legit a problem. She is causing a crazy amount of pollution for one person
The tour is a HUGE part of that. If I was a climate activist I'd defo target her.
Taylor Swift is the 13th highest individual for CO2 emissions, emitting 2000x a year (8,300 tons) that of the average person (4.2 tons). Some of her flights last under 10 minutes.
This [Vice article](https://www.vice.com/en/article/88x7bx/taylor-swift-private-jet-emissions-explained) intereviews an expert on Taylor's CO2 emissions. This [article](https://perspectives.harpermacleod.co.uk/post/102j0tr/is-taylor-swift-a-threat-to-net-zero) discusses how Taylor's carbon offsetting and credits don't really work, or should only be used as a last resort, and not as a means to continue polluting the earth. And [this article](https://carboncredits.com/flying-high-how-does-taylor-swifts-eras-tour-impact-the-environment/) discusses the effects her Era's tour is having on the environment.
She had the [number 1 spot](https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders) for celebrity private jet emissions in 2022, but has since [lowered herself to the 13th spot](https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/celebrities-highest-private-jet-emissions) in 2024.
Additionally I would imagine and hope they are also making a holiday of it and staying for a few days or week. Nothing wrong with wanting a holiday in the UK and seeing a concert at the same time.
Friendly usual reminder for JSO posts full of angry comments about how annoying they are. Thinking of the future when the very real and predictable consequences of our lack of action are vividly apparent. The fact that some people tried to highlight how absolutely, outrageously insane it is to do so pathetically little will seem quaint, and we likely will wonder why people didn't do more.
To me it feels more like an acceptable scapegoat. Ultrarich people flying private jets is a super indulgent behaviour that’s evocative of overconsumption and easy to hate. Actually eliminating private jets won’t do much to stop the climate change, but it's easy to rile behind.
That how protests gain momentum.
Idealy they hit a litany of gross overconsumption and then ratchet downwards.
Chealsea tractors would be a logical thing to disrupt in the medium term.
On one hand, yes, this is the right way for this type of protest
On the other, how the fuck did they get into an airport to do this?
Today is a day I wish I owned a heavy duty security fencing firm, as that's the only outcome that will happen here
Well Glastonbury festival is next week, loads of Private Jets and Helicopters going to be getting flying time. I imagine they will cause chaos there.
Or maybe they won't.
Pretty sure it was these that sat on the track at last year's British GP, about 5 minutes before the formation lap
Luckily something prevented the drivers from going round and hitting them and they were escorted off the track by some very brave marshals, definitely avoided a major incident
Last time I was at Glastonbury we’d just left the green fields area, had some veggie food for lunch and had a helicopter fly over us and land behind pyramid. Definitely felt like a pissing in the wind moment
> I'm curious how they managed to get airside, as airports even small ones are usually pretty darn secure.
Human security is expensive. So you don't need that many to overwhelm whatever is in place
Here’s your frequent reminder that if THIS is the type of protest activity you want them to be doing then comment/like/share it.
If them targeting the super rich and oil companies gets less attention than them targeting art and stone henge then don’t be shocked when they continue to target art and stone henge.
Honestly wish I had the balls these guys do. I used to get pissed but in hindsight, nothing is truly damaged it seems, most I can hate them for is making people angry over climate activists. While this will still get hate, it’s the most logical target to grow attention, just wish it was when Taylor was there cuz it’s weird their other attacks are more direct, ig a painting can’t exactly move away though.
ITT: people who claim to give a single shit about climate change whilst also vilifying JSO.
You don't care about climate change, JSO aren't terrorists, you're just an angry potato.
This here. Haven't heard of these people until they spraypainted a world heritage site. These are the actions of the tiktok "pranker", and the callous disregard for the impact of their actions makes them a whole hell of a lot like the industry they are trying to target.
I get the concept of destructive protest, but I'll be damned if it seems like Stonehenge should be the thing catching strays here.
JSO has to be a false flag operation with how much damage they're doing to their supposed cause. If their goal is actually to make a difference here the outcomes they're actually producing 9/10 times is only detrimental.
Not really fussed about discussing whether or not these guys are helping the climate crisis, maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. What is interesting though is the name they chose.
Whether or not you think it’s effective is irrelevant, because the words “Just Stop Oil” are put everywhere after their antics: online, newspapers and in people’s mouths; it becomes part of the narrative discourse for a while.
Even here, the first three words are “Just Stop Oil”. And when you guys fall for the rage bait, you’re all yelling “JUST STOP OIL” this and that.
Love ‘em or hate ‘em, it’s clever. You have to give them that.
This is the PR equivalent of the Government announcing tax cuts right after a scandal.
They know they fucked up with Stonehenge and trying to quickly regain support with some stunt that they think people will sympathise with.
JSO is very decentralised, it’s likely the Stonehenge people didn’t know about this and vice versa. The purpose being to make it harder for the police to interfere. Clearly it has been fairly successful so far.
Is it so unbelievable that there would be someone not directly involved in the protest but knowledgeable of it, who would inform their social media person once the act has been committed?
You only need to look at the difficulty the police have had in stopping JSO / InsulateUK blocking roads. The protests have effectively only stopped when they ran out of people willing to be arrested for blocking motorways.
I think this shows just how captured by the 24 hour news cycle you are. This happens hours after the Stonehenge story. So JSO have time to see the negative reaction to the Stonehenge stunt (as if they've never had that before) then plan and execute an incursion into an airport where Taylor Swift, notorious for her prolific jet use, just happens to be. Do you not think they would have planned this well ahead of time? To purposely go after *her* plane?
This is totally legit - these greedmachines for the greedy should be banned.
Targeting art/monuments. Not on. But private jets? Go right ahead, even funnier if you can ground a greedster and make them miss a meeting or whatever.
Just waiting for the outrage on the front page of Mail and Express tomorrow along with a picture of an orange Taylor Swift looking like Trumps love child!
Much more appropriate than what they have been targeting previously. They would actually have more supporters if this is what they done in the first place
They've always done stuff like this, but it doesn't get reported on so you and everyone else never hear about it. So they started doing stuff like the paintings and stonehenge, whilst still doing things like this but you hear about the other stuff, and so sometimes you also hear about this stuff off the back of it.
JSO have painted Shell HQ, [Total Energy](https://www.cityam.com/four-arrested-as-just-stop-oil-vandalise-energy-giant-totals-canary-wharf-hq-with-paint/), BP as well I think, banks which are invested in oil companies and so on, they've protested at [Rishi Sunak's house](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67573852), they've blocked [Farnborough airport](https://www.in-pictures.co.uk/image?&_bqG=11&_bqH=eJwLNo.KSnQPzUrL100JMTEsjnDPjU.vNHStdPG1MjWwMjQAYyDpGe8S7GyblliUl5RflF.anqGdl59ZnKqdDuQUqIFl4x39XGxLgOzQYNegeE8X21CQTjOvqEKj4IAAjzwTtXhH5xDb4tTEouQMAA6VJg8-&GI_ID=) (private plane airport) on many occasions, they protest at Shell and BPs AGMs.
Those things barely make the papers, let alone reddit and the earliest stuff not even the papers - I could find news reports for some of them but a lot is buried under the stonehenge reporting.
Also people here essentially saying "why dont they expose themselves to terrorism charges more often?!"
Just the smoothest brains available, ready to post at a moments notice.
Seems slightly more appropriate than a historical/national monument with zero relation to the climate. But again, what's the point?
I think criminal damage, breaking and entering and vandalism (in an airport of all places), with evidence of your crimes posted online, seems a pretty dumb thing to do for a day of making some headlines...
I know they're just spraying stuff on a plane which will probably wash off in 5 seconds, but they're breaking into an airport and messing with a plane, which I'm guessing would carry some pretty big charges. Doesn't seem worth messing up your life for.
It probably comes from desperation. Regular people are so powerless in the face of the super rich, corporations and governments. It’s probably the only way they feel like they can make a difference and ensure the planet is liveable for people like them in the future
This was not a private airfield. It was just the private aviation area of London-Stansted (STN), no. 4 in the UK. This means that anyone there is inside the security perimeter of an international airport. In reality you normally can't get so easily to the passenger area and a person walking would attract attention.
So one person can fly to millions of people or millions of people can fly to one person. Or are they suggesting that touring music should be stopped, since they can't travel by bike?
Their insurance company will probably just pay to charter another aircraft and fly that plane to them and their destination. Ironically causing way more pollution than letting the planes sit unpainted.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
That seems more appropriate than vandalising stone henge
Let's see if it gets the same level of attention
[удалено]
But did it do anything to help the cause of climate change?
They say yes but who knows. I do find it interesting that every time they’re interviewed they claim success and the presenter points out how unpopular they are. Then they debate about how they’re not trying to be popular and that climate change concern is at an all time high. It’s almost a cliché’d TV segment now. Yes, their actions and stunts are correlated with increased environmental concern. But that doesn’t mean they’ve caused the issue to rise in people’s priorities. But how can we really say either way. They would say it’s working despite being very unpopular themselves.
There's no "who knows" about it, they're dividing people who should broadly support the aims they claim to have and directing conversations away from oil contracts and towards their antics instead. Actively undermining the cause they pretend to represent.
Martin Luther King was deeply unpopular with the American public, despite many agreeing with his cause.
MLK never took the attention away from the cause
I mean plenty of people definitely claimed he took attention away from the cause at that time. That's a big part of his response in the letter that he wrote from Birmingham jail. White pastors were basically saying his sit in and civil disobedience was not helping the cause and making it worse.
He didn’t spray paint everything black to prove a point
This is patently false. He was *so* popular that Americans across the entire nation, of all races, voted for politicians to listen to him and enact the Civil Rights Act. MLK was SO popular that 69% of Democrats and **82% of Republican** senators voted for the Civil Rights Act. [MLK had *majority* favourability in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act passed.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s)
You’re confusing peoples support for Civil Rights and their support for MLK. MLK was seriously unpopular with the majority pretty much up until he was assassinated. He was also targeted consistently by the government and law enforcement agencies.
Not true at all. > But by August 1966, only a third of Americans had a favorable view of the civil rights leader. More than six-in-ten (63%) viewed him unfavorably, including 44% who viewed him highly unfavorably. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/10/how-public-attitudes-toward-martin-luther-king-jr-have-changed-since-the-1960s Congress realised the necessity of Civil Rights legislation, that didn't mean they personally liked MILK.
So popular that loads of people turned up at the Selma to Montgomery marches with weapons to help the police attack the marchers
Fyi, I'm fairly sure this was *before* the Republican party pivoted towards targeting racists in the south.
You can't be coming in here and spouting objective answers to an objective question and be totally ignorant of the [actual research ](https://www.socialchangelab.org/post/highlights-from-social-change-lab-s-2022-research). They don't have to be liked to be effective.
Every time they pull a stunt like Stonehenge the comments sections are filled with people talking about climate change. YOU are talking about climate change, in the specific context of whether their methods are doing it justice. Every time JSO pulls a stunt like this, the debate is immediately framed around the issue of climate change. And they go the same way every time, too- somebody always asks why they don’t do this to CEOs and oil refineries, and someone always points out that they did, you just didnt hear about it, which gets you thinking more. I’m not saying it’s right, in fact I think it’s bloody stupid if you don’t follow it up with proper activism, but it is **correct** in the sense that they’ve got people weighing the impact of the climate against the impact of their protests and are therefore shifting public opinion. Albeit not in their own favour, but in favour of their cause.
If you support the aim of no new oil or gas licenses and drop that support because of some harmless orange powder on some stones that have stood for around 5000 years, I find it difficult to believe you ever supported the aims.
It kind of reminds me of someone I spoke to one time, who was telling me that they were thinking it was prime time to open their own estate agents.... in mid 2008! Their logic: Houses and estate agents were in the news a lot at the time, therefore with all that publicity it simply *must* be a great time to enter the market. That they were in the news a lot because the market was seizing up due to the GFC and they therefore weren't able to sell a thing didn't even register in his mind, instead it was publicity = good times.
In fairness, they were sort of right that it was a great time for real estate if you were looking to buy and hoard it, just a pretty rubbish time if you were wanting to find a place to live. There’s also the possibility during massive market moves like that that actually the market has been overvalued and even if it looks like you’re getting a discount you might still be buying something with low potential
Oh no they weren't looking to invest in real estate, they were looking to open up an estate agents! As in, "We'll list your home for sale for you and take a 1.5% commission on all those sales we'll totally get". At a time when house sales essentially stalled.
> Oh no they weren't looking to invest in real estate, they were looking to open up an estate agents! As in, "We'll list your home for sale for you and take a 1.5% commission on all those sales we'll totally get". At a time when house sales essentially stalled. This reminds me of an estate agents I lived near that had a sign in the window that said "We will sell your house for 500 pounds". Someone obviously pointed out how it could be misconstrued so they changed it to "We will sell your house at a cost to you of 500 pounds".
"Capitalism is good because it allows everyone to be an entrepeneur" mfs when the subhumans who fail the breakfast test enter the room.
People say the same thing about doing a fun run for cancer. And the answer is the same; It's about raising awareness.
But is "raising awareness" worthwhile? Has anyone not heard of cancer at this point?
Most people still don't know what JSO actually want. They assume it's immediately stopping using oil, whereas it's actually fairly sensible and achievable.
Yes. These actions work in a few not-necessarily-obvious ways. Getting media attention on climate change is a win in itself - people need to be woken up from the delusion that they can carry on as normal.
This story is getting more coverage and attention because of the last one, so yeah, it's working
Ask Emily Wilding Davidson if throwing herself under a horse helped her cause at all, because people had the exact same reaction then
We're all talking about it
I had about 10 arguments yesterday with people saying JSO and ISIS are exactly the same.
Lool, I had one of those, too. Some guy comparing paint on rocks the same as the taliban completely destroying things. Was hilarious
Won't somebody ***please*** think of the lichen!?!!
When I pointed out to someone that the paint supposedly will just wash off because it's cornstarch they basically said "yeah but it still might kill the grass"
I keep seeing people claim that it's funded by "Big Oil" because Aileen Getty funds them, despite the Getty family not being involved in the oil business since 1984, and Aileen Getty spending the majority of her life working with charitable organisations and how she hates her family.
They'd get \*even more\* engagement by shitting on David Attenborough. By the standard parroted logic, that's what they should do next. Or maybe they should go and vandalize an orphanage - that would get maximum engagement. My point is, it's all good and well saying "more attention = better", but is that really true? I'd happily see them vandalize jets or block roads all day (providing they let emergencies through). But Stonehenge strikes me as pure attention seeking and ego from activists who just have a hard-on for their own disruptiveness. I don't believe that's about a cause - they just want to make as many people angry as possible and don't care what about.
[удалено]
The one I've been looking at recently is that even if you're entirely dismissive of the impact of Climate Change, there's a ... worrying correlation between GDP and energy consumption. Specifically that ... that's pretty much all our world economy _is_ when you get right down to it. Our models of economics don't actually 'price in' the cost of _any_ raw materials, just the cost of extraction and processing. And GDP _growth_ is a _commitment_ to continue consuming more energy every year, in perpetuity. But we've got addicted to the absurdly cheap energy from the ground. And it's not being replaced. It's only a question of _when_ it's going to run out. And also what will be _first_ because we have this same problem with almost any materials that are being extracted from the earth. Climate change is a related issue of course - one of the 'resources' we are depleting is our clean air. But we've already seen just how 'difficult' things can get when a major oil producer gets militaristic and starts land grabbing large areas of farm land.
If you haven't already, go listen to Nate Hagens' Great Simplification podcast. You sound like you're ready for it. Steve Keen and Kate Raworth being good episodes to start on your particular line of economic concern, but huge amounts of other valuable voices also.
Yeah, I have been.
I’m well aware of the climate crisis, what’s at risk and what Attenborough has said about it. The problem is, regardless of what the party line is, people are *not* talking about the realities of climate change more as a result of JSO’s actions. They are not talking about the science of it. They aren’t talking about what they themselves can do to contribute. They just aren’t. They’re talking about how “climate activists are really fucking annoying.” I think it’s collective delusion to equate more and more people getting sick of climate protesters with positive change.
Funny to see how 80% of the discourse in this comments sections is still people pissing their diapers about Stonehenge and talking about how personally upset and distraught they are about some rocks being temporarily covered with cornflour when those very same people insisted they would totally support JSO if they targeted people specifically like Taylor Swift. Makes you almost think that these people are spineless and don’t actually support any protesting at all.
That's weird, I do think it's insane and achieves fuck all to vandalise stone henge, and also that it is better that they do target private jets.
> about some rocks being temporarily covered with cornflour They're one of the most important historical artefacts on the entire planet. The fact that you're calling them "some rocks" shows exactly how little you give two fucks about British culture, which is thoroughly unsurprising for anyone who supports JSO.
I swear every protest ever has people commenting "yeah I agree with their issue but why can't they do it in a non-disruptive way". Protests don't work if they're non-disruptive. It's the reason Singapore has a single designated area where people can protest, it means they can just ignore the whole thing and justify arresting anyone who does anything that's actually disruptive
And the vast majority of comments were about how dumb it was.
Which increased visibility, as the algorithm doesn't really care about such comments.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It also alienated people from their cause.
Dude, have you ever met Swifties? They are brutal.
Yeah but damaging stone henge is fucking appalling. People have been "engaged" and now associate climate change with batshit crazy idiots. It makes the whole thing look like a pseudoscientic cult.
No shit. Next time they should murder someone, maybe drown them in orange paint, that will get them even more attention.
Negative attention isn't good.
[удалено]
Yes, the wrong kind of engagement. Engagement =\= good
"Engagement" is such dumb metric to measure this sort of thing by - especially when you're not measuring the sentiment behind that engagement. How much of that "engagement" has been engaging with the discussion around climate change, and how much of it is people talking about a bunch of fuckwitted vandals?
Problems is. The levels of attention they bring tend to harden the public against them and their cause. More a hindrances than a help.
If somebody can be persuaded to fight against climate change by a small group of protestors, they were never interested in fighting climate change in the first place.
They will be the same people who will tell you that its companies who should be the ones fighting climate change. But will likely be out here in force when the price of everything increases to account. People have convinced themselves that the climate issue can be solved with 0 impact to their lives.
> People have convinced themselves that the climate issue can be solved with 0 impact to their lives. More like the generation who have for the first time a lower standard of living than their parents, no prospect of owning a home, communities falling apart, lived through multiple once in a lifetime crises, don't actually want to voluntarily degrade their quality of life yet again.
As part of that generation, we have been delievered the ultimate shit hand: carrying on the torch of a generation who had it all handed to them on a silver platter, a silver platter that we will not be given, whilst simultaneously having to clean up after their mess. It fucking sucks, and yet, the reality of our situation remains unchanged.
I was reading today that my generation (probably yours too) are set to inherit the biggest property portfolio in the history of the UK at some £400 billion or so. Which ironically will make the housing market even worse and drastically increase wealth inequality. Yay!
Scientist's have been making this point again and again, the time to fight climate change is yesterday, today is the second best option. Saying people don't want to see their standard of life degrade is a moot point, climate change will take that option out of our hands slowly but surely. And not wanting to foot the bill for the shitshow that is today's global economic and political situation is the boomer thought process that got us here in the first place. We are in an era that needs to re-evaluate growth at the expense of everything else. That might mean things getting rougher before they get better. And if you think that's pretty shit, you're right. But thing are getting shittier despite us as a society making no real long-term changes for the better. So how bad can things get if we don't do any of these changes?
People can be interested and still think JSO are a bunch of idiots. That engagement is more about them being morons than the actual environment. Hence hinder the cause
So if everyone being put off by these stunts is a lost cause, who is the target audience exactly? What is the goal?
Ok cool, but isn't the goal to get more people to fight against climate change?
That's a nice aphorism, but it isn't actually true. Social pressure is a huge influencer on behaviour - if someone sees JSO get in the media all the time acting like self defeating idiots and they get put off participating, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have participated in fighting climate change had things been different.
Spray painting a private jet is vastly different to a national monument. The jet has a direct and disproportionate effect. Can’t imagine average Joe really being angry with JSO.
some of the responses to their protest are absolutely insane. people going on about how they're destroying a national monument that has been around for thousands of years, and should be enjoyed for thousands to come. they've not. paint will be cleaned up, paint is not irregularly cleaned up from stonehenge it just doesn't get this attention on it because it's teenagers drawing dicks or someone throwing a tag up. if something isn't done about climate change, we won't be able to enjoy stonehenge in a couple of hundred of years - let alone thousands. jso are not your enemy.
It probably won't, on account of people agreeing that this is a reasonable target. No need for 500+ posts calling them wankers if you agree with them.
The phrase "no such thing as bad publicity" isn't actually true.
That’s a silly argument. Any more extreme act will always get more attention. Also controversial acts. If just stop oil purchased an oil refinery and started producing and selling oil it would get even more attention I’m sure. That doesn’t mean it makes sense to do.
Everyone knows who they are and what they are about. More attention for their group won’t help climate change.
It would have got it if they had targeted Taylor Swift's private jet.
It’s everywhere in the news already. They get the same level of attention.
Washable paint that will disappear with the British weather caused more of uproar than the state of this country
It would have done serious damage if it had rained, actually. They removed it with air blowers.
It wasn't long ago that people were left free to climb on the rocks and carve their names in it. I'm struggling to believe this is a catastrophe of the proportion it's being blown into when in the 70s you could eat a packet of wotsits and then climb on the stones.
That was damaging it and there is a reason that was stopped.
Or when they found out they can charge £25 a pop to see it.
Mate it was chalk paint. You could remove it with a sweeping brush after it drys again. My mum gave it to my sister and her kids to paint the side of the house ever summer.
The side of your house was presumably not a 5000 year old national monument with some particularly important lichen growing on it. > Our experts have already removed the orange powder from the stones. We moved quickly due to the risk that the powder would harm the important and rare lichens growing on the stones and that if the powder came into contact with water, it would leave difficult-to-remove streaks. From English Heritage.
And yet they DID remove it and difficult to remove doesnt mean irremovable. Do you know how much residue is already on the stones? Did you see the relativly tiny patch of paint on a couple of the MANY stones? This is less than the sticker on the kings portrain, this is less than a storm in a teacup, its nothing. The stones are gathered in touching distance every year by thousands of people for multiple festivals where people are allowed to climb all over them and do whatever they want. There has been SO MUCH graffiti scratched, chipped, written and painted onto these things over the years. For MANY many different topics and causes. The stones have fallen over and scraped against each other and been set right with steel braces multiple times, lifted by normal cranes and chains, moved and set back upright without records of how. They were buried with no lichen for thousands of years. They were dug up and moved around with picks and hachets. They were then moved around two or three more times. Do you care about any of this? They are stones. They are hardy as hell. Did you know there are current plans to dig a tunnel under them and route a motorway UNDER THEM? Do you think that will do less damage than some ORANGE DUST? Why is it THIS that matters? Who are you believing that this orange powder is the worst thing to ever happen to them, worthy of such outrage? Do you believe that? Why?
How would it have done serious damage? it was cornflour based.
> Our experts have already removed the orange powder from the stones. We moved quickly due to the risk that the powder would harm the important and rare lichens growing on the stones and that if the powder came into contact with water, it would leave difficult-to-remove streaks. > "And while we are relieved that there appears to be no visible damage, the very act of removing the powder can – in itself – have a harmful impact by eroding the already fragile stone and damaging the lichens. From English Heritage.
Why? If anything, vandalising Stonehenge is more true to their cause. It's kind of hypocritical to be outraged by Just Stop Oil defacing/damaging/destroying historical landmarks, but not be outraged by people abusing the planets resources so much that it's having a negative impact on the planet itself. And I know that a lot of people will say both are wrong, but then why is it that the media reports on the Just Stop Oil wrongdoings, but not the wrongdoings of people abusing our planet?
People seem to think you can have a nice, sanitised, protest and that will get things done. Those protests don't work and get nothing done. Throughout the course of human history the only protests which have worked have been those which cause public attention because of how disruptive or horrifying they have been. Of course the truth is very simple: people don't give a flying fuck about climate change, even those who say they do, but they're happy to bitch and moan about protesters who might inconvenience them, or draw attention to their hypocrisy.
Well it's a sliding scale. On one side, PETA used to defend stealing the remains of people's loved ones. I mean that's a thing just stop oil could start doing right? Maybe digging up the remains of children who have died and holding them hostage? Would the ends justify the means? On the flipside, off the top of my head in the last few years: * Living wage - peaceful marches, lobbying of government and employers - now everyone over 21 must be paid the living wage * Gurkha justice - peaceful marches and media coverage, change in the law to allow all Gurkhas to settle in the UK * Hillsborough justice - vigils and marches over the years, led to inquests and eventually a quashing of the verdicts and a public apology from the government and the police * Period poverty campaigns - protests and lobby led to a change in taxation of sanitary products for women and free options in schools and hospitals * Free school means - Marcus Rashford and social media campaigns pressured the government to extend free school meals during lockdowns and holidays * Royal Mail Horizon - sustained peaceful campaign by Alan Bates and the ITV drama have led to fast tracking of compensation talks and quashing of criminal convictions * Brexit - UKIP campaigned peacefully for over a decade to leave the EU, culminating in the 2016 referendum * Campaign for better broadband - advocating and lobbying for better access to the internet for all, led to the roll out of the BDUK program and subsequent funding for digital infrastructure * Martin Lewis campaigns - huge impacts across consumer rights and finance including bank charges, PPI, predatory loans etc. My point is that there are people making a difference every day and a lot of the work is not 'high profile', in fact I can't think of a huge amount of high profile actions that have had lasting change. But that's because real change is more boring and often takes decade(s) of sustained peaceful campaigning. Painting things orange is more immediately gratifying for the frustrated. It is important to be mindful that the most extreme protests are often us seeing vulnerable people being exploited by an organisation that is not doing proper safeguarding. There is a remarkable parallel in this way with other fundamentalist groups unfortuantely.
> There is a remarkable parallel in this way with other fundamentalist groups unfortuantely. Of course there is; they are a fundamentalist group. - The core commonality of everything you have raised is that the system is not being pressured to change itself. At the end of the day all of these things are not actively harmful or require the destruction of anything fundamental to people's lifestyles. To use the obvious comparison, the Horizon scandal protests have not brought a question over the existance of the prosecution and court systems that allowed such a great injustice to occur. They have simply said "carry on but better this time". >in fact I can't think of a huge amount of high profile actions that have had lasting change. Suffragettes perhaps?
Stonehenge wasn't vandalised, it'll all wash off next time it rains.
Funnily enough experts actually determined no it wouldn't have washed off when it rained and this would have caused damage. It was only because it was dry it was able to be removed by air blowing without causing permanent damage. So the only reason it didn't cause any damage was blind luck with the weather, because the JSO crowd intended it to "wash off". Because it turns out that ignorant activists don't actually know much about paint chemistry etc.
Hopefully archaeologists in thousands of years can study the residue and write long academic papers on the campaign against climate change from their tropical ski resorts or their arctic summer houses.
damn you're making me pro-climate change
There will be people there literally today, walking all around it and touching the stones bud. Cornflour is not going to damage it...
It was an act of vandalism. It does not matter if it will just wash off, it was an attempt to deface a 5000 year old historical monument.
The druids put their oily hands on stone henge every year, I sincerely hope you've been vocal in your outrage about that too otherwise you may come off as a bit of a hypocrite.
My first thought was "well, I am pretty sure those are more responsible to global warming than the druids"
Definitely better than stone henge. Although, honestly - we’re all going to die from global warming and no one is doing anything serious about it. So I understand why they do it and have sympathy. It’s only paint.
Honestly, we live in the greatest golden age in human history. We have no comprehension of what collapse looks like. When hundreds of thousands to millions of people are dying from the heat, our fields become brown and barren, and tens of millions of people are turning up at our shore seeking shelter, empowering a massive crackdown on our freedoms in order to "Protect Britain", we're going to wonder why we wasted so much effort getting mad at corn starch on some rocks.
We looking at a Mad Max future, joking/not joking
Guess I better stock up on silver spray paint
More like Children of Men
I mean… we do have some comprehension of what collapse will look like. There are researchers who study this so they can tell you what collapse will look like. Do people believe them? Do people use their information to fix the problems? Do people enforce regulations to ensure we don’t make things worse? The answers to these questions are a little more bleak. People don’t think this is an issue they need to worry about because the effects are bearable right now. They’ll spout on about how abortion is murder and how children are blessings, but will turn their noses at policy to combat climate change to give those children a good life. People are willing to let human beings work long hours in cobalt mines in sweltering heat at the edge of death to get batteries for electric cars that people will buy to make themselves feel better about their own footprint but don’t support local environmental justice efforts or vote on policy changes.
I genuinely believe if global warming is going to kill us all we’re well past the point that we can do anything about it. It’s impossible for us to ‘just stop oil’. It’s impossible for us to change the way we live. The only way we stop this is technology advancements. We should invest everything possible in pushing green energy, and carbon capture tech, and hope at some point our growth and innovation can reverse the damage we’ve done.
It's barely paint. It's some dyed cornflour. It's just sticking because it's dry and will get washed off next time it rains.
Funnily enough that rain also causes much more damage to Stonehenge than the cornflour mixture ever could.
Rain that is likely to get more acidic with climate change.
People are using the animals in and around the stones being possibly harmed as an excuse to keep going, they're endangered species as well. Find it just a scapegoat though because they're probably crying on xitter while munching on a cheeseburger.
The irony that there is a polluting busy road nearby too.
It's not even fucking paint. It was CORN FLOUR. My god. It was removed immediately by fucking blowing on it. It did no damage whatsoever.
The other problem we've got - even if 'climate change' is entirely diregarded - is just how big a problem we've got around energy usage. We've got very used to treating oil and coal as if they're never going to run out.
UK CO2 emisions (1970- 2022): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1970..latest&country=~GBR UK CO2 emissions per capita (1970- 2022): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1970..latest&country=~GBR UK CO2 emissions (territorial and consumption): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?time=1970..latest&country=~GBR UK greenhouse gas emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&time=1970..latest&country=~GBR UK methane emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-methane-emissions?tab=chart&time=1970..latest&country=~GBR UK nitrous oxide: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-nitrous-oxide?tab=chart&time=1970..latest&country=~GBR All of these reductions took place in a period where GDP was going up: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp-per-capita?country=~GBR
>“There’s a special place in hell for women who spray paint other women’s private jets.” > >Taylor Swift, *probably*. The target is high profile and is personally responsible for huge amounts of ecological damage. Plus it’s incredibly brave to risk the wrath of Swift’s deranged fan base. This makes much more sense to me than attacking artworks or monuments.
Both draw attention to the impending apocalypse, and are at least an *effort* to do something, even if it's just futile acts of vandalism. We're speedrunning a mass-extinction, and it's insane how we're all just quietly going along with it, wasting our time arguing about useless shit instead.
Yeah but mate, what is a woman?
I truly hope that we finally answer this question before we're reduced to looking for grubs under rocks.
What is a man? I think Dracula answered that.
I think it's a normal human response. What else can we do? Most of us don't have the power to change things personally. A lot of us don't have time or want to take the risks that activism requires, especially if people have children to look after. It's hard to comprehend how terrible it's going to be. I've just decided not to have kids so I'm not putting anyone else through what's coming and trying to enjoy my tiny corner of the planet while I'm still alive.
Article doesn't say Swift's Jet was effected, or even targeted. Just that it was there. JSO are using that fact to drum up publicity every bit as much as LBC are to generate clicks.
That makes sense though, private jets are the most decedant use of oil.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's an interesting question: would you rather fight a group of enraged druids or a group of enraged Swifties?
Good. The carbon footprint of Taylor Swift and her tours etc is probably pretty considerable.
The tour isn't a problem. The travel arrangments of people going to a stadium concernt will always have a bigger impact. Swift however also uses the plane for non tour related travel.
Have you not seen Taylors private jet flights? She is legit a problem. She is causing a crazy amount of pollution for one person The tour is a HUGE part of that. If I was a climate activist I'd defo target her.
To quote her lyrics, "It's me. Hi! I'm the problem it's me."
Taylor Swift is the 13th highest individual for CO2 emissions, emitting 2000x a year (8,300 tons) that of the average person (4.2 tons). Some of her flights last under 10 minutes.
where can i get those figuress?
This [Vice article](https://www.vice.com/en/article/88x7bx/taylor-swift-private-jet-emissions-explained) intereviews an expert on Taylor's CO2 emissions. This [article](https://perspectives.harpermacleod.co.uk/post/102j0tr/is-taylor-swift-a-threat-to-net-zero) discusses how Taylor's carbon offsetting and credits don't really work, or should only be used as a last resort, and not as a means to continue polluting the earth. And [this article](https://carboncredits.com/flying-high-how-does-taylor-swifts-eras-tour-impact-the-environment/) discusses the effects her Era's tour is having on the environment. She had the [number 1 spot](https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders) for celebrity private jet emissions in 2022, but has since [lowered herself to the 13th spot](https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/celebrities-highest-private-jet-emissions) in 2024.
People flying from Australia to see her perform in the U.K. surely have a huge impact.
Can't really blame the tour for that, it's their individual choice to fly that far
Additionally I would imagine and hope they are also making a holiday of it and staying for a few days or week. Nothing wrong with wanting a holiday in the UK and seeing a concert at the same time.
Now think about how much worse it would have been if she hadn't toured Australia.
Friendly usual reminder for JSO posts full of angry comments about how annoying they are. Thinking of the future when the very real and predictable consequences of our lack of action are vividly apparent. The fact that some people tried to highlight how absolutely, outrageously insane it is to do so pathetically little will seem quaint, and we likely will wonder why people didn't do more.
Most coments here are cautiously supportive. Going after private jets makes perfect sense.
To me it feels more like an acceptable scapegoat. Ultrarich people flying private jets is a super indulgent behaviour that’s evocative of overconsumption and easy to hate. Actually eliminating private jets won’t do much to stop the climate change, but it's easy to rile behind.
That how protests gain momentum. Idealy they hit a litany of gross overconsumption and then ratchet downwards. Chealsea tractors would be a logical thing to disrupt in the medium term.
Going after private jets actually makes sense though...
On one hand, yes, this is the right way for this type of protest On the other, how the fuck did they get into an airport to do this? Today is a day I wish I owned a heavy duty security fencing firm, as that's the only outcome that will happen here
Fencing is passive. With time and effort it can always be bypassed. Battery powered tools are getting quite good.
I've just seen the vid, small grinder, small fence I just hope they have done their abrasive wheel training
Breaking into an airport runway is really really incredibly stupid. Like, prison time stupid.
They used a battery powered angle grinder.
Well Glastonbury festival is next week, loads of Private Jets and Helicopters going to be getting flying time. I imagine they will cause chaos there. Or maybe they won't.
Wimbledon, too. And the Grand Prix. Lots of private jetting happens around this time of year. Food for thought.
Pretty sure it was these that sat on the track at last year's British GP, about 5 minutes before the formation lap Luckily something prevented the drivers from going round and hitting them and they were escorted off the track by some very brave marshals, definitely avoided a major incident
Last time I was at Glastonbury we’d just left the green fields area, had some veggie food for lunch and had a helicopter fly over us and land behind pyramid. Definitely felt like a pissing in the wind moment
yes the commoners must downgrade their way of the elites may continue enriching themselves
I'm curious how they managed to get airside, as airports even small ones are usually pretty darn secure.
[The ol bike thief special ](https://x.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1803656272777998529)- hand held battery angle grinder.
They recorded themselves breaking serious law? Gee, polite of them
Painted themselves orange and blended in with the midsummer sunrise! Maybe it was Druids again!
> I'm curious how they managed to get airside, as airports even small ones are usually pretty darn secure. Human security is expensive. So you don't need that many to overwhelm whatever is in place
They cut through an airport perimeter fence. 🚓
Here’s your frequent reminder that if THIS is the type of protest activity you want them to be doing then comment/like/share it. If them targeting the super rich and oil companies gets less attention than them targeting art and stone henge then don’t be shocked when they continue to target art and stone henge.
I don’t really understand why this isn’t what they normally do
it kinda is, they've done more "logical' targeted protests in the past and it just doesn't garner any attention at all.
They targeted Sunak's house once. This subreddit thought it was horrific.
a reddit sub isn't one specific organism
well yeah going after politicans at home is not going to go down well in a coutry where two MPs have been murdered in recent years.
They have done. They regularly do. People ignore it.
Honestly wish I had the balls these guys do. I used to get pissed but in hindsight, nothing is truly damaged it seems, most I can hate them for is making people angry over climate activists. While this will still get hate, it’s the most logical target to grow attention, just wish it was when Taylor was there cuz it’s weird their other attacks are more direct, ig a painting can’t exactly move away though.
ITT: people who claim to give a single shit about climate change whilst also vilifying JSO. You don't care about climate change, JSO aren't terrorists, you're just an angry potato.
I care deeply about climate change, have voted green previous elections. I was also deeply outraged about their vandalism of Stonehenge.
This here. Haven't heard of these people until they spraypainted a world heritage site. These are the actions of the tiktok "pranker", and the callous disregard for the impact of their actions makes them a whole hell of a lot like the industry they are trying to target. I get the concept of destructive protest, but I'll be damned if it seems like Stonehenge should be the thing catching strays here.
JSO has to be a false flag operation with how much damage they're doing to their supposed cause. If their goal is actually to make a difference here the outcomes they're actually producing 9/10 times is only detrimental.
Not really fussed about discussing whether or not these guys are helping the climate crisis, maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. What is interesting though is the name they chose. Whether or not you think it’s effective is irrelevant, because the words “Just Stop Oil” are put everywhere after their antics: online, newspapers and in people’s mouths; it becomes part of the narrative discourse for a while. Even here, the first three words are “Just Stop Oil”. And when you guys fall for the rage bait, you’re all yelling “JUST STOP OIL” this and that. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, it’s clever. You have to give them that.
[Taylor Swift's Two Private Jets in 2023: Where Did They Go?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt9RtClIxRE)
This is the PR equivalent of the Government announcing tax cuts right after a scandal. They know they fucked up with Stonehenge and trying to quickly regain support with some stunt that they think people will sympathise with.
JSO is very decentralised, it’s likely the Stonehenge people didn’t know about this and vice versa. The purpose being to make it harder for the police to interfere. Clearly it has been fairly successful so far.
So decentralized they have an official brand twitter account which somehow knew the exact kind of paint they used on Stonehenge?
Is it so unbelievable that there would be someone not directly involved in the protest but knowledgeable of it, who would inform their social media person once the act has been committed? You only need to look at the difficulty the police have had in stopping JSO / InsulateUK blocking roads. The protests have effectively only stopped when they ran out of people willing to be arrested for blocking motorways.
I think this shows just how captured by the 24 hour news cycle you are. This happens hours after the Stonehenge story. So JSO have time to see the negative reaction to the Stonehenge stunt (as if they've never had that before) then plan and execute an incursion into an airport where Taylor Swift, notorious for her prolific jet use, just happens to be. Do you not think they would have planned this well ahead of time? To purposely go after *her* plane?
OK this one actually makes some sense, maybe they aren't totally stupid.
There was a video made tracking her 2 private jets and how much they are used; it was bloody ridiculous and beyond unnecessary
This is totally legit - these greedmachines for the greedy should be banned. Targeting art/monuments. Not on. But private jets? Go right ahead, even funnier if you can ground a greedster and make them miss a meeting or whatever.
Just waiting for the outrage on the front page of Mail and Express tomorrow along with a picture of an orange Taylor Swift looking like Trumps love child!
Much more appropriate than what they have been targeting previously. They would actually have more supporters if this is what they done in the first place
Oh my god, I don’t believe it, I’m actually on their side on this instance. This can’t be happening?????
Finally Just Stop Oil seem to be actually directing their protests in an appropriate direction. Why did it take them so long?
They've always done stuff like this, but it doesn't get reported on so you and everyone else never hear about it. So they started doing stuff like the paintings and stonehenge, whilst still doing things like this but you hear about the other stuff, and so sometimes you also hear about this stuff off the back of it. JSO have painted Shell HQ, [Total Energy](https://www.cityam.com/four-arrested-as-just-stop-oil-vandalise-energy-giant-totals-canary-wharf-hq-with-paint/), BP as well I think, banks which are invested in oil companies and so on, they've protested at [Rishi Sunak's house](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67573852), they've blocked [Farnborough airport](https://www.in-pictures.co.uk/image?&_bqG=11&_bqH=eJwLNo.KSnQPzUrL100JMTEsjnDPjU.vNHStdPG1MjWwMjQAYyDpGe8S7GyblliUl5RflF.anqGdl59ZnKqdDuQUqIFl4x39XGxLgOzQYNegeE8X21CQTjOvqEKj4IAAjzwTtXhH5xDb4tTEouQMAA6VJg8-&GI_ID=) (private plane airport) on many occasions, they protest at Shell and BPs AGMs. Those things barely make the papers, let alone reddit and the earliest stuff not even the papers - I could find news reports for some of them but a lot is buried under the stonehenge reporting.
Also people here essentially saying "why dont they expose themselves to terrorism charges more often?!" Just the smoothest brains available, ready to post at a moments notice.
This makes more sense than Stonehenge and is the type of thing that should be targeted.
Something we can all get behind. Wonder if this type of planes tyres can be punctured
Seems slightly more appropriate than a historical/national monument with zero relation to the climate. But again, what's the point? I think criminal damage, breaking and entering and vandalism (in an airport of all places), with evidence of your crimes posted online, seems a pretty dumb thing to do for a day of making some headlines... I know they're just spraying stuff on a plane which will probably wash off in 5 seconds, but they're breaking into an airport and messing with a plane, which I'm guessing would carry some pretty big charges. Doesn't seem worth messing up your life for.
It probably comes from desperation. Regular people are so powerless in the face of the super rich, corporations and governments. It’s probably the only way they feel like they can make a difference and ensure the planet is liveable for people like them in the future
Aye, this seems more like it. This I can get beyond, piss off the rich and powerful and I’ll sing your praises any change I get!
This was not a private airfield. It was just the private aviation area of London-Stansted (STN), no. 4 in the UK. This means that anyone there is inside the security perimeter of an international airport. In reality you normally can't get so easily to the passenger area and a person walking would attract attention.
Was it Taylor’s? Or some private jets used for useful things?
So one person can fly to millions of people or millions of people can fly to one person. Or are they suggesting that touring music should be stopped, since they can't travel by bike?
How do these oil protesters get to these places? Do they walk? Bicycle?
Their insurance company will probably just pay to charter another aircraft and fly that plane to them and their destination. Ironically causing way more pollution than letting the planes sit unpainted.