[seahorse]

Can somone post a link to Blair's comments so that we can read them? Thanks

[untothislast]

Can somone post a link to Blair's comments so that we can read them? Thanks

http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 343928.ece

[backstop]

Backstop, don't worry - I never actually formed the impression you were part of some sort of Tony Blair cheer-squad. Perish the thought.

It just seems to me, that these guys are more than well aware of the seriousness of our predicament, yet choose to play around with talks of 'conferences' and 'targets' and 'resolutions' without ever taking the actual actions required at this stage. And I don't think they ever will.

Here are a few ideas of my own, for starters:

I want to see unnecessary (we can all decide the definition) flights banned. From tomorrow.

I want to see requirements for new-build housing, incorporating the latest energy saving/insulation measures, enshrined in law.

I want to see SUVs parked outside supermarkets, where the owner has driven 5km for a litre of semi-skimmed milk, attacked by vigilante gangs armed with shoulder launched grenades. etc etc.

Blair and his like, are just messing about. A far as they're concerned, even if the planet grinds to a halt through inaction, absolutely nothing must stand in the way of prolonging every last opportunity for business to make money.

Untothislast -

While I'd agree with you that Blair et al are extremely well informed of PO+GW, to what extent they're corrupt,
as opposed to having been seduced into the passtime of verbal game-playing, as opposed to mounting a coherent strategic diplomacy -
seems to me an undecideable question.

That UK spending on "renewables" is only now reaching parity with rural bus services does point strongly to a systemic corruption.
In this case the most likely origin is the potent influence of the nuclear lobby, that has seen any option with large-scale potential
(such as Forest Energy or Offshore Wave) as being a terminal threat to its prospects.

With regard to the 'passtime' option above, I'd suggest that a core aim of those maintaining the status quo is to wear down resistance by eroding faith in the possibility of collective action - i.e. the propagation of apathy.

I hope (and expect) we can agree that without diplomacy achieving binding global commitments there will be no powerdown, as no nation will have the requisite confidence of others' intention to restructure supply and proactively diminish consumption.

With regard to your desiderata above, my views are:

1/. Agreed

2/. Agreed

3/, A rubber-headed camping mallet plus suitable spuds, when used to seal the vehicle's emissions pipe, are cheaper, safer, quieter & more accurate than RPGs, quicker than tyre-deflation, and are often sold by supermarkets !

A friend once unintentionally blew the cylinder head off a Bristol gangster's Mercedes by this method. Had to leave town . . . .

Given that such an action is not yet legal (for all there are now clear and officially accredited grounds of self-defence)
no doubt you wouldn't be recommending it to others on this site.

regards,

Backstop

[untothislast]

3/, A rubber-headed camping mallet plus suitable spuds, when used to seal the vehicle's emissions pipe, are cheaper, safer, quieter & more accurate than RPGs, quicker than tyre-deflation, and are often sold by supermarkets !

A friend once unintentionally blew the cylinder head off a Bristol gangster's Mercedes by this method. Had to leave town . . . .

Given that such an action is not yet legal (for all there are now clear and officially accredited grounds of self-defence)
no doubt you wouldn't be recommending it to others on this site.

I certainly wouldn't. Why, that would be irresponsible. The same goes for anyone who thinks it's funny to use one of those cheap aerosol expanding-foam sealants (available from all good hardware stores) straight up the exhaust.

[backstop]

Untothislast -

In terms of 7 Years to Save the Planet, there's a further point about direct action that is maybe worth considering.

While there is an honourable history of people taking direct non-violent action to resist oppressive regimes
(for any who to whom its news "saboteur" comes from the French mill-workers who dropped their sabots (wooden clogs) into the machines)
such action usually has to be on a substantial scale and defended in court as a 'cause celbre'
if it's going to be more than gesture politics that just polarizes opinion on the issue in question.

Also, it is very clear that if I'd had any such criminal record then I'd not have been given accreditation to the UN.FCCC back in '95, nor have been privy to diverse meetings since then.

In this sense keeping a clean sheet is really vital for those who want to contribute seriously to the real global politics of ending fossil carbon dependence.

regards,

Backstop

[untothislast]

In this sense keeping a clean sheet is really vital for those who want to contribute seriously to the real global politics of ending fossil carbon dependence.

regards,

Backstop

In any struggle, there comes a point when, without direct action, the cause is lost. It all depends on whether you feel the stakes are high enough to risk blotting your copybook with the powers that be - while acknowledging that by staying within the rules of the game (which of course you're subject to, but had no part in setting) you risk letting the current process continue towards disaster.

I had a quick look at the news section before I came to the discussion boards this morning. I see that researchers have stated we've already passed the 'tipping point' now on climate change. In which case, the madmen have brought us all to the brink of ruin, and the only sane response can therefore be to cast restraint aside in our personal and colective response. Funny, how one subset of the global community can get so fired up over a few blasphemous cartoons, yet we remain so relaxed over the imminent destruction of our ecosystem.

Neither the suffragettes nor the anti-hunt sabs ever worried about courting popular opinion to validate their points of view - in both instances they relied upon the central core of common sense and the appeal to natural justice within their arguments to carry the day. Eventually, both causes gained full legal representation on the statute books.

Someone once said something along the lines of: 'there is no greater sacrifice than to lay down your life for your country' - although probably in pursuit of some crappy trumped-up war. How much greater should we be compelled then, to take direct action on behalf of the entire planet itself?

The debate remains polite and detached for the moment. But there is certainly scope for much non-violent direct action - if only to bring the debate slap-bang into the daily headlines, to give it some momentum.
You don't have to be a cut-price Nostradamus to foresee hugely violent times ahead of us, if events are allowed to take their current course. The 'real global politics' will only be changed by effective protest, stimulating the groundswell of public opinion which ultimately forces politicians towards policy change.

Without pressure, characteristically - they do nothing.

Therefore, I feel at this point, worrying about losing our 'good name' and respectability, is the least of our problems. Go grab a potato.

[untothislast]

Here's something for all the family.

1. Buy a sheet of stickers.

2. Write: 'I'm Killing The Planet' on each one.

3. Next time you pass an SUV - slap one on the back window (it won't damage the vehicle - no vandalism=no legal action)

4. Consider that, by demonising these people and making them societal pariahs, you're helping to bruise the egotistical narcissism which informed their purchase in the first place. Maybe then, they'll grow up.

[legit]

3/, A rubber-headed camping mallet plus suitable spuds, when used to seal the vehicle's emissions pipe, are cheaper, safer, quieter & more accurate than RPGs, quicker than tyre-deflation, and are often sold by supermarkets !

A friend once unintentionally blew the cylinder head off a Bristol gangster's Mercedes by this method. Had to leave town . . . .

Given that such an action is not yet legal (for all there are now clear and officially accredited grounds of self-defence)
no doubt you wouldn't be recommending it to others on this site.

I certainly wouldn't. Why, that would be irresponsible. The same goes for anyone who thinks it's funny to use one of those cheap aerosol expanding-foam sealants (available from all good hardware stores) straight up the exhaust.

It seems a perfectly valid tactic against SUV's to me

[untothislast]

Somehow, the shoulder-launched rocket still seems more appealing.

[Wildwell]

Or sign

http://www.flightpledge.org.uk/

Let the airlines know you mean business and at least get them into some sort of carbon trading. This is a fuel tax free industry right now and the fastest growing source of CO2.

[untothislast]

Or sign

http://www.flightpledge.org.uk/

Let the airlines know you mean business and at least get them into some sort of carbon trading. This is a fuel tax free industry right now and the fastest growing source of CO2.

I swore I'd never sign another petition after my 6 years with CND - but it might well help somewhere down the line, so I've signed up.

[backstop]

UTL -

I like the idea of "non-destructive direct communication" in the form of SUV stickers -
particularly on the rear door below the window so the driver can diplay them to other drivers unawares.

But I gthink I'd personalize the text along the lines of -

. .I'M DOING MY BEST -
. . . .TO POISON
YOUR CHILDRENS' PLANET

I don't belittle the role direct action has played in focussing moral outrage onto pressing issues, but, give the co-option of the major NGOs over GW,
I'd observe that there is a great shortage of people campaigning in the politics of Climate Destabilization,
and it is there that the real advances are negotiated and codified in law.

In an earlier post I referred to the value of direct action on a scale such that its perpetrators' defence in court becomes a cause celebre,
and there's an example of this that's worth passing on.

One night n the early '70s, a very brave young man took a large stilson wrench and drove to the foot of a huge mast outside Boston,
where he undid the bolts holding its guy wires, and watched it topple into ruins.

It was a weather-monitoring mast erected by a nuclear power company as a statutory part of their application to put in a station alongside Boston.

He put the stilson back in the car and drove to the nearest police station, where he handed in a full signed confession of what he'd done.

When the case came to court, the Clamshell Alliance heard of his legal grounds of self defence, and swung in as much expertize as they could raise.

The local press, having been vitriolic about his "vandalism," on hearing the evidence began to question the wisdom of the nuclear project,
and then to recognize the individual's outstanding courage in facing a 25-year sentence for his beliefs.

The nuclear power company began to realize that they were quite likely to lose,
and then to recognize that if they did the precedent set could be immensly damaging to other projects.

So they had their lawyers go through the charge against him with a toothcomb and sure enough they found a technical flaw,
so the case, and the project, were halted.

No fresh charges were laid against him.

His cold-blooded courage was to my mind exemplary, and his tactics impeccable.


regards,

Backstop

[rogerhb]

Any explanation about the magic of 7 years? Any articles describing this?

Wasn't a dream about cows?

[Dukat_Reloaded]

Hey backstop, I really like http://www.stopsuvs.org/

Alot have already probably seen the site but I havn't seen it mentioned here.

My favorite quote from the consumer vs commercial section of the site is

Face it, you're an average consumer. You may wish you were not - you may wish your life was more interesting and you needed to haul things back and forth over rough terrain on a regular basis. The automotive advertising industry knows about your fantasies and they are capitalizing on you. You are getting ripped off on your own fantasy.

I tried alot of persuading my younger bother in law not to buy an SUV, he's reason is that it's part of the lifestyle, and enjoying the great outdoors. Probably alittle bit of penis envy thrown in as well, but I assume this is the reason most people buy a SUV, to look like they are adventurous or they are very busy hauling crap around. Basicly they are neither of the two, but they want to convince themselves that they are special. My opinion is if you want a SUV, why don't you buy a semi trailer truck and drive that around, because trucks arn't advertised to consumers, although I would find it highly humerous to see truck makers advertising trucks to consumers, and begin seeing average people ungrading from SUV's to Large semi trailers and driving them to and from the mall and work. When that happens, I believe it will be the end of the car culture, as the infastructure would not beable to cope.

[untothislast]

SUVs are only a symptom of a wider malaise of course, but still a useful point of reference when it comes to raising awareness of issues of wastefulness.

People buy them for the same reason they might buy a Rolex; they want an ostentatious display of their wealth for all to see. In the specific case of SUVs, it's the need to cocoon insecurity and psychological fragility, within something which gives an impression of dominance and strength.

When I see an SUV driver, I don't see a world-beating whirlwind of dynamism - I see an essentially sad person, who wants respect and admiration, from people thet'll never meet, through ownership of an expensive toy. Out of the vehicle, they feel incomplete and vulnerable.

So, SUV drivers really do care what you think about them. Except, they delusionally think their vehicles excite only thoughts of envy - which helps make them feel more powerful. Once you demonise the bastards, and make them actually feel ashamed to be seen in one - by making them a laughing stock, if possible - they'll sold off in droves.

(Fade out . . . to tune of 'Canyonero')

[Mesuge]

Sorry to trash the SUV direct action party here, although I think it's a good tactics mostly in urban areas but..

I'd rather encourage you to invest energy in debunking the "war on terror" lies which are irreversably crippling both US and EU core democratic structure right now..

Because in the post PO world you are asking for immediate detention in concentration camp just for posting anti pollution stickers on someones SUV, matey..

[untothislast]

I don't think anyone here views any aspect of PO in isolation, and certainly not its importance as the reason for the present occupation of Iraq - or the fact that the 'war on terror' has largely been conducted in parts of the world with key strategic value for oil production. Quite a coincidence there.

One of the best ways to help educate people about the real reasons why their rights as citizens are being progressively stripped away, is to inform them about the real situation with global oil. I think campaigns against SUVs are a good way to bring them towards the same logical conclusions obliquely.

[sch_peakoiler]

I really feel like buying an SUV to ride it before TSHTF just to make it in time before PO, you know. Despite all the attacks those cars are comfortable and nice Alas, not sustainable.

[untothislast]

I really feel like buying an SUV to ride it before TSHTF just to make it in time before PO, you know. Despite all the attacks those cars are comfortable and nice Alas, not sustainable.

And they'll be a lot cheaper some time very soon!

[sch_peakoiler]

I really feel like buying an SUV to ride it before TSHTF just to make it in time before PO, you know. Despite all the attacks those cars are comfortable and nice Alas, not sustainable.

And they'll be a lot cheaper some time very soon!

Yep, true. But anyway, I have missed this SUV lifestyle already, I never lived like that:) On one hand I have little to loose, on the other hand it should have been fun to live that american WOL