BMX bike tops list of retro “toys”; Poll: Strava app ditches Bluetooth and ANT+ support – but are you bothered? Sunweb U23 rider Edo Maas left paralysed after Piccolo Lombardia crash; Police seek thug who pushed cyclist into hedge + more on the live blog

srchar wrote:

 Disrupting the train services on which people commute might well impact "business", but the targeting is indiscriminate.

At least the BBC reported on it, they've ignored it on a daily basis so far. You know what they say about publicity...

visionset wrote:

srchar wrote:

 Disrupting the train services on which people commute might well impact "business", but the targeting is indiscriminate.

 

At least the BBC reported on it, they've ignored it on a daily basis so far. You know what they say about publicity...

Targeting mass public transport makes driving a more reliable option. Pretty stupid own goal worthy of a Donald Trump award for genius strategy.

What next, setting fire to the bike sheds? At least that would get a story on Road.cc and you know what they say about publicity...

srchar wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Their aim is to cause disruption to get the government to act, so although disrupting the tube may be considered unfair in terms of penalising the commuters, it's also an effective way to hit businesses and get more publicity.

It's entirely the wrong type of publicity though. The government is elected by the people. It's a fallacy that you can change the government's attitude in isolation; you'll always need to bring a large number of voters along with you. Disrupting the train services on which people commute might well impact "business", but the targeting is indiscriminate.

I'd expect to get dragged off the top of a commuter train regardless of the subject of my protest, frankly.

The history of protest movements has always involved antagonising people, so time will tell as to whether disrupting the tube is effective or not.

I have some issues with your "The government is elected by the people" statement - I'd say that big businesses, media companies and FarceBook lies have a significant part to play too. (Don't even mention our current buffoon in "charge").

hawkinspeter wrote:

srchar wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Their aim is to cause disruption to get the government to act, so although disrupting the tube may be considered unfair in terms of penalising the commuters, it's also an effective way to hit businesses and get more publicity.

It's entirely the wrong type of publicity though. The government is elected by the people. It's a fallacy that you can change the government's attitude in isolation; you'll always need to bring a large number of voters along with you. Disrupting the train services on which people commute might well impact "business", but the targeting is indiscriminate.

I'd expect to get dragged off the top of a commuter train regardless of the subject of my protest, frankly.

The history of protest movements has always involved antagonising people, so time will tell as to whether disrupting the tube is effective or not.

I have some issues with your "The government is elected by the people" statement - I'd say that big businesses, media companies and FarceBook lies have a significant part to play too. (Don't even mention our current buffoon in "charge").

Took the words out of my mouth.  Big business, corporations, mega-donors have a massive effect.  As the old saying goes "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it."

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

srchar wrote:

Of course not - while the average car journey within London is responsible for the release of 138g CO2/passenger/mile (excluding emissions during the car's production), the average Tube journey results in the generation of just 48g CO2/passenger/mile, making the Tube one of the most carbon efficient forms of transport.

Not quite as good as a bicycle at 25g CO2/mile, but nowhere near as bad as a car.

Even if, like me, you're not of the opinion that billions of humans will die over the next several decades due to CO2 emissions, it's difficult to think of a form of transport with a smaller local environmental impact than the tube - half of it is underground and the trains are all electrified.

I think the mask has truly slipped for Extinction Rebellion now. They don't really care about the environment they just want to cause disruption. I can't think of a form of mass transit that is less polluting than the tube. With more modern trains and an increasingly low carbon electricity supply it will only get cleaner as well.

However, XR's protest is not really aimed at getting individuals to become "greener", it's about how government is ignoring/delaying the issues. One of their aims is to get government to actually speak the truth about climate issues (e.g. what is our government doing about toxic air in cities?).

Their aim is to cause disruption to get the government to act, so although disrupting the tube may be considered unfair in terms of penalising the commuters, it's also an effective way to hit businesses and get more publicity.

I think part of the issue with governments is that they are trying to "blame" consumers for the global climate issues whereas big business is far more to "blame" and yet their shenanigans are allowed to continue (e.g. fracking).

Given that consumers ARE to blame, I'm not sure what the problem is.

Htc wrote:

Given that consumers ARE to blame, I'm not sure what the problem is.

That's debatable: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, XR's protest is not really aimed at getting individuals to become "greener", it's about how government is ignoring/delaying the issues. One of their aims is to get government to actually speak the truth about climate issues (e.g. what is our government doing about toxic air in cities?).

Their aim is to cause disruption to get the government to act, so although disrupting the tube may be considered unfair in terms of penalising the commuters, it's also an effective way to hit businesses and get more publicity.

I think part of the issue with governments is that they are trying to "blame" consumers for the global climate issues whereas big business is far more to "blame" and yet their shenanigans are allowed to continue (e.g. fracking).

The idea that individuals aren't responsible for pollution is infantalising nonsense.

If you are an adult then you are responsible for your actions and the consequences of those actions.

Big business doesn't pollute for the sake of it, they pollute to meet consumer demand.

Remove the demand and you remove the pollution.

Getting publicity by disrupting people going about their lives in an environmentally friendly way is entirely counterproductive.

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, XR's protest is not really aimed at getting individuals to become "greener", it's about how government is ignoring/delaying the issues. One of their aims is to get government to actually speak the truth about climate issues (e.g. what is our government doing about toxic air in cities?).

Their aim is to cause disruption to get the government to act, so although disrupting the tube may be considered unfair in terms of penalising the commuters, it's also an effective way to hit businesses and get more publicity.

I think part of the issue with governments is that they are trying to "blame" consumers for the global climate issues whereas big business is far more to "blame" and yet their shenanigans are allowed to continue (e.g. fracking).

The idea that individuals aren't responsible for pollution is infantalising nonsense. If you are an adult then you are responsible for your actions and the consequences of those actions. Big business doesn't pollute for the sake of it, they pollute to meet consumer demand. Remove the demand and you remove the pollution. Getting publicity by disrupting people going about their lives in an environmentally friendly way is entirely counterproductive.

Ultimately, yes individuals are responsible for what they do.

However, in terms of impact and effecting change, it makes far more sense to be targetting the biggest polluters.

I daresay the idea of disrupting the London Underground is to have a much larger effect on the financial businesses in London. Yes, the staff may be travelling in an environmentally favourable fashion, but the net effect of London companies seems to involve destroying habitats to benefit certain, already rich people (*cough* BP Deepwater Horizon *cough*).

Personally, I'd rather they left public transport alone, but I can see why they would target it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, XR's protest is not really aimed at getting individuals to become "greener", it's about how government is ignoring/delaying the issues. One of their aims is to get government to actually speak the truth about climate issues (e.g. what is our government doing about toxic air in cities?).

Their aim is to cause disruption to get the government to act, so although disrupting the tube may be considered unfair in terms of penalising the commuters, it's also an effective way to hit businesses and get more publicity.

I think part of the issue with governments is that they are trying to "blame" consumers for the global climate issues whereas big business is far more to "blame" and yet their shenanigans are allowed to continue (e.g. fracking).

The idea that individuals aren't responsible for pollution is infantalising nonsense. If you are an adult then you are responsible for your actions and the consequences of those actions. Big business doesn't pollute for the sake of it, they pollute to meet consumer demand. Remove the demand and you remove the pollution. Getting publicity by disrupting people going about their lives in an environmentally friendly way is entirely counterproductive.

Ultimately, yes individuals are responsible for what they do.

However, in terms of impact and effecting change, it makes far more sense to be targetting the biggest polluters.

I daresay the idea of disrupting the London Underground is to have a much larger effect on the financial businesses in London. Yes, the staff may be travelling in an environmentally favourable fashion, but the net effect of London companies seems to involve destroying habitats to benefit certain, already rich people (*cough* BP Deepwater Horizon *cough*).

Personally, I'd rather they left public transport alone, but I can see why they would target it.

The biggest polluters are only there because of consumers...

Htc wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Ultimately, yes individuals are responsible for what they do.

However, in terms of impact and effecting change, it makes far more sense to be targetting the biggest polluters.

I daresay the idea of disrupting the London Underground is to have a much larger effect on the financial businesses in London. Yes, the staff may be travelling in an environmentally favourable fashion, but the net effect of London companies seems to involve destroying habitats to benefit certain, already rich people (*cough* BP Deepwater Horizon *cough*).

Personally, I'd rather they left public transport alone, but I can see why they would target it.

The biggest polluters are only there because of consumers...

I'd prefer to point the finger at the major stock-holders and the big financial funds that choose how and where to put other people's money.

When big companies have a huge catastrophe that destroys habitats, invariably the companies aren't penalised sufficiently to cover the damage done. I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with back-room deals done to ensure that political parties get their large donations.

But yeah, consumers.

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, XR's protest is not really aimed at getting individuals to become "greener", it's about how government is ignoring/delaying the issues. One of their aims is to get government to actually speak the truth about climate issues (e.g. what is our government doing about toxic air in cities?).

Their aim is to cause disruption to get the government to act, so although disrupting the tube may be considered unfair in terms of penalising the commuters, it's also an effective way to hit businesses and get more publicity.

I think part of the issue with governments is that they are trying to "blame" consumers for the global climate issues whereas big business is far more to "blame" and yet their shenanigans are allowed to continue (e.g. fracking).

The idea that individuals aren't responsible for pollution is infantalising nonsense. If you are an adult then you are responsible for your actions and the consequences of those actions. Big business doesn't pollute for the sake of it, they pollute to meet consumer demand. Remove the demand and you remove the pollution. Getting publicity by disrupting people going about their lives in an environmentally friendly way is entirely counterproductive.

Big business is motivated by profit.  Consumer demand is a fallacy as consumers don't generate innovation, they consume it despite what producers would like us to believe.  I agree that every consumer has a responsibility but choice is a luxury afforded to a few, not the majority.  This may be through economic forces, access to information and so many day to day pressures.  This suits big business and allows them to continue to peddle innovations that increase profit.  The idea that life may be a little easier sells products.  

Perhaps education is where XR should be focussing their resources?  Preventing people from commuting by tube, even if it is to the jobs they probably hate, is likely to be a big mistake.

srchar wrote:

Of course not - while the average car journey within London is responsible for the release of 138g CO2/passenger/mile (excluding emissions during the car's production), the average Tube journey results in the generation of just 48g CO2/passenger/mile, making the Tube one of the most carbon efficient forms of transport.

Not quite as good as a bicycle at 25g CO2/mile, but nowhere near as bad as a car.

I'm sure those figures are wrong.

Footprint seems to include the diet of rider, but not that of a driver.  Heart rate correlates to energy expenditure, but I'm pretty sure my HR ridng is less than most of the tinnies RHR. 

And I think the 138g is just wrong and doesn't explain multi occupancy.  I mean a 2 tonne car with 1 occupant (typical) is just 6 times more CO2 than a cyclist? Just don't believe that. All things considered it's gotta be more like 50 - 100 times.  

Then on the diet front, sporty folk usually eat healthier/greener too.  Obv another thing entirely, but still. Just awesome aren't we!

visionset wrote:

I'm sure those figures are wrong.

Footprint seems to include the diet of rider, but not that of a driver.  Heart rate correlates to energy expenditure, but I'm pretty sure my HR ridng is less than most of the tinnies RHR. 

And I think the 138g is just wrong and doesn't explain multi occupancy.  I mean a 2 tonne car with 1 occupant (typical) is just 6 times more CO2 than a cyclist? Just don't believe that. All things considered it's gotta be more like 50 - 100 times.  

Then on the diet front, sporty folk usually eat healthier/greener too.  Obv another thing entirely, but still. Just awesome aren't we!

The figures for Tube and car journeys came from TfL, the figure for the bike came from the ECF.  I didn't bother to cross-check them as they broadly proved my point, but I agree the car seems to be unrealistically efficient, but you can probably expect that, given that it will be an aggregate of the emissions tests that are widely gamed by car manufacturers.  Emissions generated by production of the vehicle and associated infrastructure aren't included either.

visionset wrote:

srchar wrote:

Of course not - while the average car journey within London is responsible for the release of 138g CO2/passenger/mile (excluding emissions during the car's production), the average Tube journey results in the generation of just 48g CO2/passenger/mile, making the Tube one of the most carbon efficient forms of transport.

Not quite as good as a bicycle at 25g CO2/mile, but nowhere near as bad as a car.

 

I'm sure those figures are wrong.

Footprint seems to include the diet of rider, but not that of a driver.  Heart rate correlates to energy expenditure, but I'm pretty sure my HR ridng is less than most of the tinnies RHR. 

And I think the 138g is just wrong and doesn't explain multi occupancy.  I mean a 2 tonne car with 1 occupant (typical) is just 6 times more CO2 than a cyclist? Just don't believe that. All things considered it's gotta be more like 50 - 100 times.  

Then on the diet front, sporty folk usually eat healthier/greener too.  Obv another thing entirely, but still. Just awesome aren't we!

Might be Co2.
Heaving on the strokes of a cycle. Sitting plus share of machine emissions. Trees love that stuff.

Didn't read about carbon monoxide though. That'd be high with engine vehicles.