Climate protests slash activists

[SilverHood]

So, another meeting of bigwigs, and we have the usual protests against globalisation, climate change, poverty, bankers, Benitez, etc etc.

I'm wondering though, what these people think they'll achieve? There's a big furor over how the Danish police pretty much shut the demonstration marches down before they even got started... Berlingske have a good picture of the arrested here.

Politiet forsvarer masseanholdelse - Klima

4 hours of sitting bound on the floor in freezing cold conditions. Not exactly humane. The justification for shutting the demo's down is that every time the Police let them go ahead, they smash the city to bits and the local residents end up footing the bill. This pattern is seen wherever there's a GXX meeting, so not just in Copenhagen

Are they justified in their complaints against the police, or should they just have stayed at home instead?

 

[dysfunction]

Its fine to demonstrate but if a city keeps getting destroyed in the process then I have no problems making the buggers sit on an ice cold street...

 

[Tom]

Good. Stupid hippies. Make them see what it'll be like if all the power stations were shut down - fucking freezing.

 

[Scouse]

/steers clears of thread, but not before throwing a quick "nazi" in

 

[Chilly]

Protesting is a total waste of time. If you cant afford to lobby you might as well go home. If a million people in the streets can't effect change, then why would anyone think a group of a few hundred could?

Oh and shell just won an iraqi oil contract.....fucking lol. DIDNT SEE THE WESTERNERS TAKING OVER THE OIL COMING!

 

[rynnor]

Its a tricky one but personally I'm not sure that recent demos like this and the G20 are real protests that should be protected by law.

These tend to be too wide ranging with a multitude of different views being put forth in a confused fashion - a real protest should have one cause shared by the protestors.

Mass protests by a bunch of people with a thousand different viewpoints are completely pointless imo.

 

[Scouse]

Its a tricky one but personally I'm not sure that recent demos like this and the G20 are real protests that should be protected by law.

These tend to be too wide ranging with a multitude of different views being put forth in a confused fashion - a real protest should have one cause shared by the protestors.

Lol!

So, they don't like something (which they can all agree on) and are asking our lords and masters for a different way out.

But because they can't provide said way out, their protest is somehow illegitamate?

It's not like globalisation is a complex process that has a multitude of facets that people could be angry with?

 

[taB]

Personally I think the fox hunting ban is having an adverse affect on the climate as the ra people who used to ponce about on their ponies are now chugging around in 4x4s all day.

Repeal the hunting ban - save the world.

I can provide as many statistics as any other **** to back this claim.

 

[rynnor]

Lol!

So, they don't like something (which they can all agree on) and are asking our lords and masters for a different way out.

But because they can't provide said way out, their protest is somehow illegitamate?

You quote me yet come accross like you never read it because I said nothing of this sort

If theres no coherent message is it a protest - thats my point.

You can have thousands at a rave or open air party - if they take a few banners is it suddenly a protest?

 

[Scouse]

Your point was that a "legitimate" protest should have only one point shared by the protestors.

My point was that they do share a common interest but for a multitude of different reasons - and that's all fine

 

[Raven]

They all flew there on Daddy's Amex, they should at least be allowed to protest about <insert cause> without being stepped on by "the man"

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Protesting is a total waste of time.

Only in countries where there is no great cultural history of protesting.

For example, England has virtually no history of protesting in comparison with other nations, and have never suffered real human rights abuses (I'm sorry but being made to sit on a cold floor is not a violation of human rights, abuse or anything of the sort.) for those that have protest. Compare that with democratic states with a history of the sort, and protesting can speak a very powerful message. Over here protesting isn't really welcomed a lot of the time, due to the total fuckwits that like to kick off and smash shit for no good reason.

America is a bit different, since from day 1 they've had it ingrained into them that they can say whatever the fuck they want in whatever manner, protesting is welcomed in America, but is then duly ignored.

In South Korea protests are a big thing and can assert very heavy influence on the powers that be. This is largely down to their history of protesting (they've been doing it for a long time), the disgusting treatment of protesters under military dictatorships (see the Gwangju massacre for one of South Korea's most influencial events since the Korean war), and their (relatively) recent turn to capitalist democracy. I'm sure you all heard of the enormous protests they held in regards to... their country's policy regarding the importing of cow meat that was a little while back.

Protesting is a valuable tool, but only in cultures that (either begrudgingly or not) welcome it. In a lot of Westernised countries, it is indeed a total waste of time.

 

[noblok]

I went, I got arrested. I did nothing wrong and neither did anyone else around me. We were marching peacefully when we got cut off by the police. We thought that was odd, but assumed they'd let us go after an hour or so of annoying us, so we just sat there (or stood). Sure, some slogans were shouted (such as "this is what democracy looks like"), but we remained completely peaceful and caused no trouble. The police still thought it necessary to handcuff us and have us sit on the street for 5 hours though. Now I have lost feeling in a part of my thumb because a nerve was cut off by the handcuffs for 5-6 hours. (Apparently it'll return in about a month, though, so I don't mind too much.) Lots of people also pissed themselves because they had one toilet for 400 people and made is sit in such positions that it was near impossible not to exert pressure on the bladder of the person sitting behind you. One guy fainted two times before the police bothered to call an ambulance.

On the topic of protesting making a difference: one protest probably doesn't, but several repeated protests all over the world, combined with other means of voicing one's opinion in the public domain (media, by voting) probably does something. I also think that protesting is part of what democracy is. It's a way to voice your opinion in the political domain as a citizen. Democracy asks for more involvement than simply going to vote once every couple of years.


(And just for Raven: I travelled the 1000 km by train and paid for it myself.)

 

[nath]

I went, I got arrested. I did nothing wrong and neither did anyone else around me. We were marching peacefully when we got cut off by the police. We thought that was odd, but assumed they'd let us go after an hour or so of annoying us, so we just sat there (or stood). Sure, some slogans were shouted (such as "this is what democracy looks like"), but we remained completely peaceful and caused no trouble. The police still thought it necessary to handcuff us and have us sit on the street for 5 hours though. Now I have lost feeling in a part of my thumb because a nerve was cut off by the handcuffs for 5-6 hours. (Apparently it'll return in about a month, though, so I don't mind too much.) Lots of people also pissed themselves because they had one toilet for 400 people and made is sit in such positions that it was near impossible not to exert pressure on the bladder of the person sitting behind you. One guy fainted two times before the police bothered to call an ambulance.

Are you planning on making a complaint? Not sure what good it'd do, but perhaps worth a try?

 

[noblok]

Yeah, I've sent a complaint. As will around 600 others, apparently. I don't expect it'll do much, but at least they'll have to pay postage to send a letter to my address in Belgium . (Cue "ZOMG! You're polluting the environment by having them send you a letter. You're such a hypocrite!" troll-replies.)

I've also read that apparently there was violence at the back of the march, but those morons were nowhere around us. I agree that the idiots who use demonstrations as an excuse to trash a city should get arrested. They fuck things up for a lot of people (the ones whose property is trashed and the innocent people who get arrested because they can't behave.) May a thousand stones smash their faces (you know, to show them violence is wrong and all).

On a lighter note: when six hours of detention had passed the following conversation took place:
Detained: "What are we being charged with?"
Officer: "You're not being charged with anything."
Detained: "Then why are we being arrested?"
Officer: "Because it's possible by Danish law."
<whole bus erupts in laughter>

 

[Raven]

To be honest I am a little confused as to what they want here. Are they not getting what they want? A nice big debate about it all? Maybe some agreements on climate change...why would they be trying to disrupt the talks? Obviously it suits to protest at G8 or whatever but to protest and attempt to disrupt at the biggest forum on climate change we have had, where some serious agreements.

Realistically nothing can be done over night, we can't just decide as of tomorrow we are not going to burn any more fossil fuels. I though talks like this is what they (the protesters) want? Seems a bit daft to try and ruin them...

 

[noblok]

The protesters were not trying to ruin the debate, though. I don't know where you got that idea from. We simply organised a peaceful march through the streets of Copenhagen (and more, of course, but nothing which disrupted the debates at the Bela Center). What we tried to do was to stress how important the topic is and to exert political pressure for a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement.

The most important points:
- 40% reduction of greenhouse gasses by 2020 (compared to 1990) to keep the temperature rise under 1,5°C.
- Industrial countries to take their historical responsibility by taking the lead in reducing emissions and freeing up money for mitigation, adaptation and technology transfer to developing countries.

 

[Raven]

I was commenting on the protesters attempting to get into the talks at the Bella Centre.

 

[Wonk]

I don't mind if the police arrests more than neccesary. I've had my city destroyed too many times now - and guess who's paying for it in the end?

I wish they could hold their meetings on a submarine. I got home at 2 A.M. because some asshats decided to throw molotows at the police 2 days ago - and what do I hear when I get home and turn on the telly? "we're innoncent, we didn't do anything wrong."

 

[noblok]

I was commenting on the protesters attempting to get into the talks at the Bella Centre.

Ah, I see. I've just read that news now. Yeah, it's a bit of a disruptive action and probably not the best idea. Thing is: there are plenty of different actions organised by different groups, so you can't tar all protesters with the same brush. Generally the more peaceful demonstrations are far more popular than disruptive ones.

(For comparison: the peaceful march on Saturday had between 30,000 and 100,000 participants, the civil disobedience action a day later only a few hundred. Today 200 people treid to break in the Bella Center, 2000-3000 marched peacefully through Copenhagen.)


To Wonk: The problem is that the idiots who do stuff like that are often too well prepared to get arrested and instead innocent people get arrested. Point in case: out of the 1000 people arrested on Saturday, 3 people got charged with something.
Now, I didn't mind my arrest too much, but I can imagine the people who pissed themselves or were taken to the hospital were quite annoyed. Also: considering they mostly arrested innocent, easy-going people who never resisted there was no need whatsoever to handcuff us and have us sit on the cold ground for 5 hours. This probably annoyed people more than the fact we didn't get to complete the march. These detentions should be "as brief as lenient as possible" according to the list of my rights I got (after being released): that was definately not the case.

 

[Tom]

If climate change is such a threat, why didn't you protesters save a lot of energy and co2 emissions, and hold your marches locally?

Why travel all that way, on cars, buses, trains, aircraft, etc?

Or did you all go for a big jolly?

 

[noblok]

If climate change is such a threat, why didn't you protesters save a lot of energy and co2 emissions, and hold your marches locally?

Why travel all that way, on cars, buses, trains, aircraft, etc?

To show that we're prepared to go through a lot of trouble, as a sign that we really care. That being said: there were also plenty of local initiatives: two weeks ago I went to a march in my home country (by bike) and on 12/12 there were vigils for a real deal all over the world. There also was a delegation from Belgium who travelled all the way by go-cart, but I'll admit they were the exception. Only very few travelled by aircraft though, from my experience, most used trains or buses.

And don't you worry about my ecological impact: I mostly use my bike, perhaps once every couple of months I use public transport. I'm a vegetarian. I rarely turn the heating on (16°C is fine), eat ecological food, etc.

I will admit that although my main motivation to go was to make a political statement, it was also a fun experience. You'll never hear me say that people shouldn't have fun, though. Sure, go ahead, but don't go overboard on unsustainable activities. I don't want us to go back to the stone ages. I just want people to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle.

 

[Tom]

You're prepared to go to a lot of trouble to contribute toward the very thing you fear.

I'm not at all worried about your ecological impact; I couldn't give a hoot about climate change. My point is that with these protests you have a lot of mostly young people who are hypocrites. They want not to save the planet, but to force everyone else to subscribe to their bullshit. They can stfu as far as I'm concerned. I bet most don't even have a job.

 

[DaGaffer]

Assuming you buy into this whole Denmark shindig, then its pretty obvious that you can't have China and India claiming to be "developing nations" and expect the west to have more severe cuts than them and engage in technology transfer to help improve their emissions;

*First, they're too damn big; all the West's efforts are for nothing if these two countries aren't included from the start.
*Second, if they're not included, western companies will simply offshore their increasingly expensive European/US operations to China/India (as if they weren't doing that already) and just move the problem elsewhere. China and India are of course well aware of this.
*Third, if we give China in particular the technology transfer, they'll just rip it off and sell it back to us anyway.

You can't have a emissions reduction programme that gives a third of the world a free pass.

 

[Raven]

That's a big problem I have with it. Regardless of whether or not we have as bigger impact as we are lead to believe (the subject has been done to death) It seems that we are being forced down the road of higher taxation, forced guilt and generally making most things as inconvenient as possible, due to the rest of the world being irresponsible.
I am all for a cleaner environment, protecting the rain forests, clean rivers and seas, better air quality and whatnot, what I have a problem with is blanket punishment. Why should I have to be punished for China churning out crap into the atmosphere?

 

[noblok]

To Tom:

I want people to adopt sustainable lifestyles. I myself have a sustainable lifestyle. How's that hypocritical? I'm not saying people should never travel, I'm saying more sustainable ways of travelling should be encouraged (not forced) and less sustainable ways discouraged (not forbidden). You can't honestly say I'd have to go live in the woods in order to protest against global warming without being a hypocrite, because I don't propose living in the woods as an alternative. That's like saying it's hypocritical to demand the state to spend more on development projects without spending every last cent of your own money on development projects.


To DaGaffer:

You have a point there. It is indeed essential that we get China and India to sign a binding agreement if not to cut their emissions, then at least to severely limit the growth. It would be stupid to have all companies simply emigrate to there and keep producing the same amount of greenhouse gasses. We want an agreement which will result in a 40% reduction worldwide, how this is achieved is another, very complicated, matter.

That's also why part of the demands is that developing countries - and I'm not sure if I'd even include China and India in this group for the reasons you mentioned - do not make the same mistakes the industrial countries made and go for a coal-heavy industry. The industrialized countries have the duty to help them with this, though and they should take the lead in cutting emissions because of their historical responsibility.


To Raven:

Yeah, a big problem at the moment is the stress on blanket punishments and the lack of positive incentives. Schwarzenegger (Florida) is the exception to this, but in general all these green taxes etc. appear more as easy excuses to fill gaps in the budget. (Although in Belgium at least, we also have things like subsidies for solar panels, housing insulation, travelling to work by bike etc.)

Thing is, though: our quality of life is significantly higher than the quality of life of the average Chinese citizen. By halting their development you're punishing them as well. That being said: I do agree that their should be limits to how they develop, but to me it makes sense that the greatest efforts should come from the industrialized countries.

 

[Tom]

To Tom:

I want people to adopt sustainable lifestyles. I myself have a sustainable lifestyle. How's that hypocritical? I'm not saying people should never travel, I'm saying more sustainable ways of travelling should be encouraged (not forced) and less sustainable ways discouraged (not forbidden). You can't honestly say I'd have to go live in the woods in order to protest against global warming without being a hypocrite, because I don't propose living in the woods as an alternative. That's like saying it's hypocritical to demand the state to spend more on development projects without spending every last cent of your own money on development projects.

Sustainable lifestyle. Except its sustainable only by your definition. People in poor countries have a sustainable lifestyle, but they don't live in a warm house, with a powerful computer and water and electricity on tap. They farm their own food, walk a mile or two for some water, and cook with a fire, in their house. I wonder if they want everyone else to live as they do? Or do they want the things you take for granted? Do they, for instance, want food prices to return to normal, to what they were before biofuels reared their ugly head? If you think things are bad now, how much worse do you think they'd be if 4 billion people were suddenly given access to the lifestyle you enjoy?

Your idea of a sustainable lifestyle is based on a fervour almost religious in its following. Just about all the electronics in your house will come from China, the country you denegrate so severely. Just about all the people in those protests will potter off home, to nice warm houses full of lots of nice things they take for granted, all paid for by the capitalist system they hate.

That's the problem with the modern breed of eco-warriers - they're happy to accept change, but only to the point where it starts interfering with their lives. I wonder how many people who are fond of, for instance, windfarms, would be happy if they had to rely solely upon windfarms for their electricity.

 

[noblok]

Sustainable lifestyle. Except its sustainable only by your definition. [...] If you think things are bad now, how much worse do you think they'd be if 4 billion people were suddenly given access to the lifestyle you enjoy?

It's not sustainable only by my definition, it's sustainable according to the ecological footprint method. So things would be fine if everyone else's lifestyle was as sustainable as well, because my ecological footprint is below 2 ha (sustainable ecological footprint is 2,1 ha, the average footprint worldwide at the moment is 2,7). Obviously I'm not against improving conditions for the African farmers, I never said anything of the sort in my posts, quite the contrary. I am also very much aware of the problems with biofuels. I'm far from a fan of them, because of the reason you mentioned.

Your idea of a sustainable lifestyle is based on a fervour almost religious in its following. Just about all the electronics in your house will come from China, the country you denegrate so severely.

It's not impossible to have a sustainable lifestyle and have a computer at the same time. Once again: a sustainable lifestyle doesn't mean we have to go back to the stone ages. I also don't denigrate China severely. In my previous posts I have defended their right to develop and said that in my opinion they can't be expected to make the same effort as fully industrialised countries.

That's the problem with the modern breed of eco-warriers - they're happy to accept change, but only to the point where it starts interfering with their lives.

I am happy to accept change even when it affects my lifestyle. I'm currently typing slower than I could, because my fingers are slightly frozen, but I refuse to turn the heating on. I live in a room of 8m² to limit my impact even when I heat. I do curse when I have to travel 40 km by bike through the cold rain, but I get on with it because it's for a good cause. I stopped eating meat, while I absolutely love the taste of it (seriously, if I could and it wasn't so ecologically devastating I would only eat meat).

I can't speak for every single individual attending the protests, there probably are some people who fit into the category you describe, but I most certainly do not.

 

[SilverHood]

I don't think there's anything wrong with carbon trading per se, but it needs to be done properly. All emission today is recorded, and is used as the baseline total CO2 emission allowed. Each country gets a quota based on their land size.

Every year, you cut the total allowed by several percentage points. Supply dwindles, forcing western countries to either pay to reduce their carbon emission, or buy emission rights from other countries.
All emissions are traded on global transparent exchanges, and the percentage decrease in total available carbon credit gets bigger the more carbon credits are traded. The more people buy their way out, the shorter the supply.

The goal obviously being to reduce carbon emissions by making reducing emissions cheaper than buying the credits, while at the same time not handicapping developing countries.

But that would be too easy.

 

[Wonk]

To Wonk: The problem is that the idiots who do stuff like that are often too well prepared to get arrested and instead innocent people get arrested. Point in case: out of the 1000 people arrested on Saturday, 3 people got charged with something.
Now, I didn't mind my arrest too much, but I can imagine the people who pissed themselves or were taken to the hospital were quite annoyed. Also: considering they mostly arrested innocent, easy-going people who never resisted there was no need whatsoever to handcuff us and have us sit on the cold ground for 5 hours. This probably annoyed people more than the fact we didn't get to complete the march. These detentions should be "as brief as lenient as possible" according to the list of my rights I got (after being released): that was definately not the case.

I agree with the majority of your points. Many of those who got arrested were probably innoncent and they got treated badly. I would be pissed if it happened to me as well. As it stands now though, the demostration finished peacefully after many of the brick-throwing twats got handcuffed. I'd rather have it that way, than getting my city destroyed again in all honestly.

And yes, I know it's double standard, but I've seen how things have been going before.