M25 Eco Protests

fact is violence or the threat of it has solved numerous issues and could sort out this M25 caper

My old dictionary defines violence as the "unlawful exercise of force", and so by that definition I am against violence.

Lawful use of force however, is the correct way to deal with certain criminals, sometimes as the first resort but mostly when all other options have failed. We used to have a Police Force, it's now a police service. The clue is in the name; they've stopped using force. God knows what use the police are nowadays.
 
Sponsored Links
fact is violence or the threat of it has caused numerous issues.
 
Yes, other mitigations. Quantified.
The folk I know in council houses have pretty good houses and are comfortable financially.
Insulation is still top of the list. It saves money overall as well as saving on emissions. Other than dropping beef from your diet it's the cheapest and best way to reduce emissions.

Should we be banning beef instead?
 
Insulation is still top of the list. It saves money overall as well as saving on emissions. Other than dropping beef from your diet it's the cheapest and best way to reduce emissions.

Should we be banning beef instead?

What list?
Evidence please.

Costs and benefits please for a solid-walled house?
 
Sponsored Links
What list?
Evidence please.

Costs and benefits please for a solid-walled house?
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/advice/solid-wall-insulation/

https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/top-tips-to-reduce-your-carbon-emissions/

Start there. This stuff has been studied to death. There's loads of information on which measures will make the most difference and cost the least.

But the idea we should only worry about the biggest source of emissions is flawed. We need to reduce all sources of emissions. More effort on the biggest sources but some effort for all of them.
 
Are you being serious, "Sign a Gov Petition" ? you may as well tie your concerns to a balloon and let it go.

If you want anyone to take notice, block a road, or a petrol pump, the great british public only sit up and take any notice when they can't drive fast.

we're a country full of petrol headed morons.
The UK, like any country, has its fair share of driving morons. However a country 'full' of them? No, not in my opinion.

What we 'are' is a country that has embraced the car since the late 50's / early 60's? So our infrastructure and town/city planning has developed around this. Granted that's changing now.

However, public transport still has a LONG way to go to be a reasonable alternative for the masses. The possible exception being larger towns and cities and those who live in our near the centre.
 
However, public transport still has a LONG way to go to be a reasonable alternative for the masses.
The main problem with that in the UK is the cost to use...

Public transport having been mainly privatised has put profit before people as usual!

Amazing how so many EU countries do it so much better :rolleyes:
 
Insulation is still top of the list. It saves money overall as well as saving on emissions. Other than dropping beef from your diet it's the cheapest and best way to reduce emissions.

Should we be banning beef instead?
This assumes we can make a difference as individuals, which is a problematic idea.

The lockdowns we saw worldwide resulted in huge reductions in car & plane use. The economy took a hit and we only saw a 7% drop in greenhouse gas emissions from all of those quiet roads.

Now imagine the UK went ahead and insulated far more than it currently is. What would happen? Well, we would save a bit on gas (good), but many would just have warmer homes. Those that did save gas, would save that money, and likely spend it elsewhere, resulting in a benefit for the economy. This can actually cause more emissions, espeically if people are buying stuff (likely made in Asisa) or jettig off on holidays. Even if they put the money in the bank, the bank would invest it elsewhere, which again is good for economic growth.

This is Jevons Paradox at work, and why focussing on efficiency is wrong headed. Yes, this can be countered by carbon taxes, but what really makes a difference is:

Greening the economy. Measure the economy not by GDP, but by a doughnut chart to measure our standard of living against the impact on the planet. This is a real challenge, and we don't have all the answers yet of how to do this fully (see the book Doughnut Economics).
Also, we need to focus on the big emitters, as they are responsible for the bulk of emissions. So fossil fuel companies, steel and concrete production, and glass.
Steel: Invest in alternative to coke for virgin steel (current contender in hydrogen)

Concrete: Some way to go yet:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/221654/best-ways-carbon-emissions-from-cement/

Food: Low meat diet is better than a vegetarian one. We may end up with vertical farming, but we're a long way from it in the UK. But also remember we still fly in things like asparagas, and grow things in carbon emitting greenhouse when it would be better to import from Spain. We also need to learn to put more carbon into the soil, as part of the food chain.
Electricity: Renewables and nuclear in high abundance. We need to reprocess nuclear fuel, and close down more coal plants worldwide.
Air travel: We have to go biomass for this. Short haul maybe able to go electric though.

Insulation is something people can feel they are making a difference, and may even improve some people's lives, but will make little difference to climate change generally.

Sorry, all very broad strokes for brevity. Went off on one there.
 
Last edited:
Insulate Brittan is pointing out we shouldn't be doing it as individual

As individual we CAN reduce the amount of power/energy we use. "We" have taken a step by reducing the amount of energy used for lighting,

Maybe "we" could reduce a bit more by living a cooler life, or maybe we cannot bring ourselves to give up the comfortable life style that our parents and grandparents could not have.
 
As individual we CAN reduce the amount of power/energy we use. "We" have taken a step by reducing the amount of energy used for lighting,
And we should insulate and install low energy lights. I have because it makes sense financially, and because I care about this sort of thing and most of all because I own my own home and can afford to.

For people in social housing or private twnants they don't own the house and can't put insulation in (maybe on the lighting). We should be doing it for social housing as standard and mandating that it is done by landlords.
 
Perhaps the activists of Insulate Britain should considered being polite door to door canvassers knocking on doors and informing residents about the need to reduce energy consumption. Not much publicity in that approach but more likely to be effective in raising pressure on the government.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top