Climate Scientist explains Just Stop Oil 

after 40 years of watching this nothing is going to happen and we will be over 2 c. when push comes to shove we don't have the ability to replace fossil fuels and we are trapped

The things just stop oil demand will not happen. You do give me an impression that you are someone who has not engaged with any of the literature, contrary to your beliefs or ideology.

Seriously bloke only fools think CO2 is a problem.

You are apologist for angry confused activists that are sponsored by Getty oil heiress. Why in the world would oil giants want to support climate activism? (Answer: to use even more oil and throw shade on enviromental activism)

The top 10% of wealthiest world citizens produce over 40% of all carbon emissions. Why aren't you taking away their 100,000 sq ft mansions, multiple houses all over the world, 200 yard yachts, and private planes? Guess pollution is ok if it's by wealthy people who give you funding to attack poor working class people.

That’s the plan if the oil companies I think. I heard somewhere recently that one of the early creators of just stop oil is the son of one of the biggest oil guy

I don't think there is any good tactic for this. And if there is no good tactic, then any tactic is a good tactic ...

i just want to shed some light on the tactics aspect .The tactic used are mostly nabbed from historical social movements (civil rights, suffragettes, LGBT+ movements)and they were all met with very similar responses that we are seeing against just stop oil today. Within social change theory, just stop oil now occupies a space named "The Radical Flank". I'm sure we've all heard the criticism "i agree with the message, not the tactics", people become more informed, resulting in more moderate organisations such as extinction rebellion, earth first and green peace gaining traction. This increase in sign ups has been observed since jso has been in the news. Also why does being emotionally connected to the climate crisis make someone's concerns about it illegitimate ? please emotionally connect to the climate crisis, your allowed to be upset when rich people make life-threatening decisions at the expense of yourself and your future.

is it easy to reach politician have some common sense

It’s responsible for my attention on the matter, and likely many others in a world where the leading media outlets aren’t focused on justice they serve the government

Well I think big oil is actually financing these protesters, because they actually do the opposite of what they claim: When people get stuck in traffic because of them, they are saying to themselves „I will burn extra patrol just to stick it to these dumb protesters“.

@@satyapalyadav4468 So because it’s _slightly_ difficult to do, you won’t even try? Pathetic.

History agrees with their approach and predicted your asinine response.

Yeah I really think that is such a distraction... Which is exactly why some people are so fixated on it!

If people want to stop using oil that's fine, they need to stop eating in that case.

Still find it ironic where that money came from

You'd be surprised just how many of these organisations the CIA, MI5 and other government agencies infoltrate and surreptitiously sponsor, for their own purposes. Often they deliberately clandestinely finance opposing factions.

I think it's a psyop by big oil because the protests are outright idiotic

agreed

Frankly, if I'm on my way to work and I'm held up by protesters that's clearly not my fault and any reasonable boss would understand the reason for the delay. Still gonna get paid that money, still gonna feed my family.

@@CaptainGlack not every boss is the same tho

Consider the number of commuters in this country. What percentage of those commuters have been affected by this group? I suspect it's in the. 0.000000xxxxxx percent. You all think it's affecting us all because you're told to think that. Stop being sheeple and wake up.

@@CaptainGlack Yeah. When you are seriously sick and need to be taken to hospital, I bet you will be just as happy to be late for your appointments. Your statement is ridiculous. Protests of this nature do everybody disservice. The scientists are already fighting this battle at all levels needed. Any other form of activism of this nature has more negative effects because the sentiment is swayed away from what is actually the right thing to do.

@@CaptainGlackHow about the ambulance drivers who can’t get to their patients in time? Or the food deliveries? The nature of the jobs are not the same as you and I.

have you seen any activism that has helped you engage in those questions in a more meaningful way?

Yes. Its counterintuitive What they're targeting are the people who have zero choices Like let's be honest here. Most of our day to day activities are so embedded with oil If you want to lessen or freed the society from usage of oil U gotta either innovate or push for policies Its slow but better approach

The protesters don't know what their own demands would result in. Food production is dependent on fossil fuels. We will starve without oil and gas.

We could have spent that time working on realistic solutions instead..

​@@iknowyouwanttofly such as?

I do wonder if they have truly exhausted all other options to voice their opinions. Ultimately the PR is as important as the product for people. Do people get convinced to follow a leader who indulges in obnoxious inconvenience? It seems to me that many annoyed civilians see these acts as a show of moral incompetence. When you can't make wise charismatic moves in engaging with your enemies how can we trust you can make any with those you lead? By all means, individuals should be allowed to protest but how is just as invaluable.

It is a Cult. Seen an interview with a jso spokes woman and the lady behaved like a crazy person. These eyes of her will give me nightmares... Seen another interview with a jso dude who said "we will do WHATEVER it takes..." - if thats not a cult I dont know what is.

What else can you do in an emergency, when everyone just goes on as normal and the news and media only talk about climate change when disruptive protests happen. Are we not all self sabotaging ourselves by not doing something about countries missing targets and on course to overshoot even 3 degrees?

​@@mamela11 Then target the politicians, the media, the oil companies themselves -- I bet no one will be against protesters blocking politicians from their office alone. Targeting general public is like vigilante killing civilians to send message to the elites.

You seem *extremely* confused about rising global temperatures.

Srsly?

@___hannah. yes seriously, outside this very building are scores of homeless people, the way they are acting is actually pushing people away from their cause. They might as well help the oil industry lobby governments, they need to win over the general population and right now, they are doing the complete opposite

soooo I'm unsure what point you're making. it's clear that today's economic, energy, and manufacturing systems depend heavily on fossil fuels, and that they're next to impossible to avoid in our day to day activities. which is a problem since fossil fuels are driving climate change. and that's why we need a structural shift away from these fossil fuels.

not a silly question at all. thankfully analyses for most countries (including the UK) shows that the tech we need is mostly there. in particular, this means renewables (for the UK this is primarily wind), in combination with nuclear fission, energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro, etc) and potentially fossil gas with carbon capture.

Tipping point of what?

@@kingkezz9188 dementia

@@marcwinkler I am curious though. What tipping point given there is no climate change that is manmade. As CO2 is necessary for all life on earth and is a cooling agent that absorbs infrared. And all the predictions made my climate scientists have been proven false with real world examples. I am curious as to what tipping point he's referring to.

@@kingkezz9188 Ask him, Greta & Gore.

@@marcwinkler Greta is diagnosed low iQ autist. Shes a mouthpiece for elitist fascists whom are trying to push this hoax agenda on humanity. Gore another one. Anyone else?

They are incompotent and take the bareminum route of helping the planet, they are ot heroes they are babies who hold their breath in protest

Good! Question! this comes from this study: eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/109410/20017613/250023597/Tong_2019_Committed_emissions_from_existing_energy_infrastructure_jeopardize_1.5C_target.pdf and is about the infrastructure that burns the fossil fuels (e.g. electricity generation, transport, etc) rather than the infrastructure that digs up fossil fuels. I think this is an important stat, but since it doesn't directly relate to the demand of Just Stop Oil, I also gave the example of the unburnable carbon, which comes from here: www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8

Although just came across a study indicating that indeed no new oil and gas fields should be developed! twitter.com/drvolts/status/1582980234949046272?t=9SDIZWY3L2aQKbMjG5RHNg&s=19

@@ClimateAdam I guess it makes sense. I just wanted to know what you meant at that point, not particularly what the reasons behind your statement were. I don't doubt climate change or your statement per se.

just a couple of quick points: firstly temperature's relationship to CO2 is indeed logarithmic. secondly, once we stop emitting concentrations of CO2 would gradually decrease as the oceans and land absorb some and equilibriate, so the concentration we stop emitting at isn't our final concentration. I know several scientists who've been considering 1.5°C for a long time, but honestly back at the time of COP15 it was less a scientific question and more a policy question. now, though, the science tells us just how incredibly steep the cuts would need to be to have a chance to stay under 1.5°C

in the UK, the 'first past the post' voting system means that this would be virtually impossible to succeed. in other countries that have proportional representation, you often see much greater representation of such ideas within coalition governments, for example.

yay - welcome to the channel, Charlotte!

oh gosh I've not actually seen it, as I read from multiple reliable sources that it's a treasure trove of misleading info..!

Seems like a good reason to make a debunking video about it 🤔

thanks so much! honestly, comments like this make it so worthwhile!

Why is there a climate emergency? Could you just write a few basic numbers for us please?

If you have ever been to Zurich, it would be something like that. Farming and related transport via synthetic or electric fuels. Clothing via carbon farming from the atmosphere or carbon capture at concrete factories. Flying greatly reduced, but powered 100% by SAF. Train and PT is main form of distance personal transport, bicycle or walking would be local. Meat and diary intake greatly reduced, replaced with existing plant based alternatives, already super tasty. Overall people would work less, be happier and be more community minded.

thanks a lot Alessia - that's lovely feedback to receive.

thanks for your thoughts! are their protests or actions (from any group) you've seen that you've thought "that's how you do it!"?

@@ClimateAdam thats such an important question to ask people who are saying "this isn't good activism" - it begs the question, what is the right way, then? Can you demonstrate it? Loved the video !

If we knew the answer to this question, activism and its results would be easier. I don't know which way is the best. I believe more in positive action such as this Chanel that with humor and acting shows reality and allows us to think about climate change.

@@gisela4120 the past tells us that the fundamental shifts we are looking for are often unfortunately only gained through more drastic actions. I don't think we can criticise one type of climate activism simply because we do not like it when we are talking about human extinction. We don't know what will work yet because nothing has - these girls completely disrupted all timelines and explicitly named the fossil fuel industry. that is a step in the right direction to me

@@ClimateAdam In my opinion the right way are the school students skipping classes to go and protest climate change. Way more large scale, more accepted by the boomers, so much more effective. Man, I really cannot wait until all boomers are out of power and the young generation is.

definitely get that - I think it's notable that so few of the articles about the action even mention what was behind it (hence me making this vid!). that said, it seems unfocused actions get a lot more attention. does that outweigh the fact that the attention is less informed..? I have no idea!

@@ClimateAdam We did manage to get national T.V attention with this appeal to dump the sponsor but its actually part of a larger fight with sportsmen and women also pressing against Fossil fuel and a particular mining companies sponsorship at the same time.

The target is clear, necessary and urgent (as ClimateAdam outlined). The risk is that the tactic might occlude focus on the target. But that risk is only realised if, in the aftermath of public attention having been gained, climate communicators fail to seize the opportunity to communicate.

@@briantulloch7222 Hey Brian, you are pretending here that science is on your side but you know all this information due to the hard work of climate scientists who all agree it is happening and caused by humans. What is it about climate change and the action we need to take to stop it that threatens your way of life? Do you have V8 you don't give up? Do you like to go off-roading? Is it the very need for international co-operation that you find scary? maybe you are part of a fringe political movement called right Libertarianism that is shown to be nonsense in the face of shared environmental concerns.

Bush fires caused by the ban of backburning by the greens.

so you want to damage the planet and the people who live on it further to spite two teenagers? seems completely healthy and normal.

​​@@ClimateAdam so it's completely sane and normal to block people's way? That literally have nothing to do with what's going on? Ok sure 🤦

​@@ClimateAdami want to see coal mine,s to open up all over the uk, cos i dont belive burning coal or oil has done or is doing any damage, when ever i see anthing that burns coal i,m automaticly atracted to it, & i love the smoke & the smell of it & anything that can burn it from an open fire in a room to the largest steam engine & i can remember not that long ago when the whole country was massivly dependant on coal, infact so much dependant on it that if a guy worked in the coal mine,s during ww1& ww2 then he was automaticly exempt from getting called up to fight for his country. & as for peoples health, there is more people with health problems today that there ever was, kids having to us inhauler,s cos of asthma, which when everyone had open fires was vertutly unheard of,

that's so cool - have you noticed a trend in how much it's brought up?

I wonder about that too. Are these events causing people to thinking differently or more positively about making changes? Or just digging in their heals more?

May I recommend you read some and get yourself a little educated before demonstrating just how uninformed you are on line? Maybe begin with Sheldon Wolin’s Democracy Incorporated, then try Howard Zinn’s The Peuple’s History of thé United States. Once you have a basis from which to write intelligibly, perhaps folk will listen to you without dismissing you out of hand

@@chris4973 are you able to sum it up, to save me the time? :)

Miriam plz this ain't that kinda channel.

Should we engage in petty vandalism as a tactic to get people's attention, and then attempt to redirect their attention in useful ways that benefit the world? Or perhaps, would it make more sense to simply engage in mass protests in appropriate spaces, hand out pamphlets, create works of art (there are some places in cities where graffiti art is welcomed), door-to-door knocking, and other forms of direct and positive activism to get the message across? Why do you specifically have to destroy or vandalize something? Should we dump paint on your house next, record your shocked reaction, and then say - you know, its just paint! It can be cleaned off! By the way, would you like to learn about climate change? Or perhaps instead would you like someone to visit your home and ask you politely to sign a pledge, or take some action on climate change? I don't understand the motivation or the need to basically engage in mass vandalism, and in some cases much worse when people block the roads and the ability of emergency vehicles to use them which veers into outright terrorism. I don't care how spectacularly urgent your demands are. In a democracy, action is not performed by a minority on the majority. You can't simply block all the roads as a way to enforce that your demands are met. You can not destroy as many public works of art as possible until the public capitulates to your demands. There are appropriate means and channels for taking action. All that said, you have plainly forgotten about the most obvious downside of this action. That a lot of people get frustrated and irritated that they can no longer commute to work, or that the artwork they took time off to see is now at least temporarily ruined. For all we know these might be sacred religious or cultural icons that are being desecrated. People are not necessarily the most rational beings. If you anger enough of them for long enough, then they will be turned off of climate action simply out of the emotional turmoil you put them through. And frankly its not like taking action in the UK alone will avert climate change so I see that argument as being considerably persuasive. So there. Have your pick of the reason. But I just think this form of protest is not only nonsensical as a means of generating action, but it actively makes things much worse. Whatever poll Adam cited about how the public are calling for more action on climate change, I assume he is smart enough to know correlation does not imply causation. I strongly suspect people are recognizing the importance of climate change IN SPITE OF these protests, which actively do harm.

Stop oil, yet you need it to make windmills and solar panels 🤔, which end up in landfills when they are obsolete.

That would likely mean a country like the US, where I live. Since this country is so much larger than the UK, we have a highway system that is considerably more extensive as well. Prior to the 1950’s, we travelled across the country by train, but locally by traditional means. The rise of the highway system, auto industry, obesity, and credit card debt are inextricably linked. We are a stressed and impatient population. And armed. I don’t think it would go well. I don’t think that “Just Stop Oil” protests would be well-tolerated here at all. And our police are armed like paramilitary units, another firery ingredient to add to the cocktail.

@@axiomaddict I was thinking more of like… Oil countries in the Middle East 🤔, but you have a point

great point! just like there's no one tech that will decarbonise the planet, there's no one way to raise our voices which will resonate with everyone!

Brilliantly said. I’m getting real tired of the armchair critics (brilliantly depicted in the barber scene in this video) who are all too quick to point out the flaws of every action but never seem to have their own ideas of what we can do.

@@WolfHeathen maybe. I bet people said similar stuff about the sit-ins which occurred during the civil rights movement in the US though

The issue I have personally is when I hear that ppl with medical emergencies have suffered consequences due to these protests. A protest a year ago which put me off this form of protest was when a lady who was suffering with a stroke was being driven to a hospital but because of the roads being blocked off with protesters she became paralysed. Her health comprises for a cause. I understand the message and support it but everytime I hear about ppl gluing themselves to the road all I can think about is what this person went though, who could be next, what if that was me. It haunts me. The message is positive but the repercussions and image of certain demonstrations have been tainted with horror and anger in my mind. I'm not saying that I have the answer for what the right way to do it is but I still know what's wrong. And I think that matters more than finding a better approach is to stop doing what's putting others at risk. Also I'm not here to argue and value your opinion and you do make a great point, I just wanted to express my concerns in a safe and friendly manner

@@elliebarnes2776 I completely understand why you'd think that, and that's certainly an issue; I know with XR they have a blue lights policy and let through any emergency vehicle, but with JSO obviously they're a bit more stoic. To respectfully counter that, I would raise that inaction, and not protesting/making headlines/getting change, it dooms future life/our lives in the future, and given the awful system we've inherited whereupon only these sorts of protests gather media attention, it seems an awful balance between immediate cost, and the cost of inaction, which may be felt for thousands of years. It's a truly awful value judgement for anybody to have to make and I completely understand why someone may take a position like you've posed. There just isn't a perfectly good way to deal with this perfectly awful situation, I think

thanks Brian! 💅

People used to throw fake blood on people wearing fur and people stopped. But it’s really easy to buy a different coat instead of fur. The easy swap for coal, oil, gas is not there yet.

I wish they didn’t have to resort to publicity stunts like this in order to get attention, but people have been trying to get attention “the right way” for 40ish years now unsuccessfully. Every year that goes by will make the situation more extreme and so the actions will become more extreme as well.

It's refreshing to see people actually treating this like an emergency.

I just think that they should be punished by law - hard. The thing about anoying is, if you want to change anything in a Democracy you have to get over 50 or even 66 Percent and to annoy the public is like losing their votes in masses. So if you want to protest - don't do it to the people - do it to a/the person that could change it (without violence).

So the current plan to extract more fossil fuels will overshoot the goal of limiting climate change to 1.5 or even 2 degrees. Try the german way and do a mass lawsuit against the government? Maybe that could work.

very interesting question! sulphate aerosols definitely cool the climate, and if we stopped emitting them suddenly that would definitely cause a sudden spike in warming. but studies that have simulated a gradual phase out of aerosols do not show this effect, and much of the warming would also be counteracted by methane emissions (which would presumably be reduced in parallel). all of this is explicitly taken into account when climate scientists work out potential emissions scenarios, carbon budgets to stay within temperature limits, etc, etc.

Mind. Blown.

certainly consumerism adds means more emissions. it's not precisely on this topic, but here's a great vid from my pal zentouro: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iIIIYoDRHM4.html

@@ClimateAdam LOL Planned obsolescence has been going on since the 1950s and people talk like it is suddenly a big deal with smartphones. Heard of Vance Packard? The Waste Makers & The Hidden Persuaders

Rights are never given. They are always taken and always by force. They also come with responsibilities. If people don't fight to keep them, they will always be taken away, usually by force. No particular protest group is responsible when they are. If they are taken away, they can be taken back, but not without a fight. It is the responsibility of all citizens who wish to claim rights to fight for them when they are threatened. That fight should be brought to those taking the rights away, not to those being blamed by those removing the rights. Only citizens willing to fight for a right have any legitimate claim on it.

I feel like scientists participating in activism is good, in that it may lend more credibility than might otherwise be afforded. A bunch of high-schoolers or college kids could be dismissed as not knowing what they're talking about or exaggerating, but scientists chaining themselves to the doors of legislature (or whatever) might be a good way to get through to the average person that we actually need to get our society changed. :)

Extinction Rebellion have a faction known as scientist rebellion (I'm pretty sure, definitely heard the term repeatedly here in South Australia) for this very reason. It helps to add to the credibility of the protests and move thinking away from the protesters being ignorant, or hippies or what have you.

I think climate science should become more familiar to common people. I would love to see some kind of serie of their work. A document.

very interesting question! subbed :)

I agree with people not realizing the long-term consequences of climate change. I've got relatives who were pretty much just laughing about climate change at a recent gathering, because we've been hearing about this for forty years, so it's obviously not something to be concerned with. :|

@@AileTheAlien Your relatives will not be convinced by such "shock tactics".

Most brain washed people in history

if you're referring to 3:59 - that's a cooling tower from a coal plant. power plants that use steam to turn turbines generally have cooling towers. they're not exclusive to nuclear plants.