The F1 thread

[Raid]

I think it's more a general discussion of why we trusted the three fighting for 2nd more than we would have trusted Verstappen, but I do think his defences against Schumacher were at best rude and at worst illegal.

Incidentally, this is what drivers would have had to contend with at one of the fastest points on the circuit on lap 1 had it not been for Zhou's accident:



Just imagine it's Charles drafting Max for an overtake, Max is concentrating on his mirrors, Charles pulls out of the slipstream and... christ, I can't even bare to describe it.

[Drarok]

Just had to go find a news article on this to even find out what had happened, who they were, etc.

What a stupid fucking stunt. Who do they think they're going to win over with these brain-dead tactics? "Hey look, if we get squished by an F1 car, that'll definitely stop oil production immediately! Let's go, team!"

[Raid]

I've seen people likening it to Emily Davison throwing herself under the king's horse, but given how those people are clearly watching for the cars approaching intently (there's video of them linked in that tweet), I don't think they were expecting to be killed. I've also seen arguments that peaceful protest isn't working, and I largely see that point, but I'm not sure why anyone would think violent or deadly protest will work either. This isn't an issue of awareness, it's an issue of shareholders being uncaring and CEOs that can't be arrested.

[Wrathbone]

Even the name Just Stop Oil highlights how monumentally dumb their approach is. "Just" stop oil! Don't worry about the sweeping global implications, like how anyone would get anywhere, how emergency services would respond to calls, how international shipping would grind to a halt, how the global economy would collapse and plunge the world into irrevocable chaos. Just stop it!

[Raid]

They don't want to simply stop using oil, they're demanding that no new oil sites are authorised.

I think the fact that I've now visited their website to look up what their actual demands are means that their protest has worked. Getting arrested during a red flag perhaps wasn't as spectacular as five people being bisected by a front wing, or an innocent sportsman veering off into barriers at 200mph in order to avoid bisecting five people with their front wing, but they've managed to get their message out. It makes me feel just a little dirty. I agree with their aims, not their methods, but appreciate that less noticeable methods aren't working.

Urgh, ambivalence.

[Wrathbone]

I agree with their aims, not their methods, but appreciate that less noticeable methods aren't working.

Their methods, noticeable or not, are futile so long as they make demands instead of inspiring change. There's a snowball's chance in hell of the oil companies giving a damn what they demand so long as they can keep selling oil for a huge profit. The only way change will come in that arena is when clean energy becomes more profitable than oil, and there are two things needed to drive that: better technology and widespread uptake. So my suggestion to the protesters would be to get a job in clean energy tech or to help people and businesses transition to clean energy in a way that is easy and financially beneficial. Then they may see that throwing a few carrots around works far better than ceaselessly thwacking a gigantic conglomerate with a tiny stick.

[Raid]

Protests like this aren't about convincing oil companies to change, it's about forcing them to change through government regulation. The only way to get the government to do anything is to risk their re-election. The only way to do that is to convince enough people that it's worth affecting their voting. Or at least I guess that's the theory that groups like this operate under.

Oil execs aren't going to change a damned thing if it hurts their profit margins, and if we keep opening up new oil sites, they're going to continue taking the easy road because they've already mastered the extraction of oil with minimum overheads. The only way to convince them to invest in renewables is to give them a time limit for their oil business being profitable. Look at what we achieved as a civilisation when we were forced to invest in vaccine research when Covid hit; a working vaccine developed within months instead of years, because that was the only option. I'm not pretending that switching to renewables is going to have anywhere near the same timescale (distributing tiny bottles of chemicals versus colossal infrastructure projects), but it's remarkable what we can achieve without needing to bow to pressure from shareholders.

So long as there's an easy alternative, we're just not going to give renewables the investment they need. Protests like the one on sunday are about removing that easy alternative.

[Wrathbone]

Protests like this aren't about convincing oil companies to change, it's about forcing them to change through government regulation. The only way to get the government to do anything is to risk their re-election. The only way to do that is to convince enough people that it's worth affecting their voting.

Which comes back to the carrot and stick. They're not endearing themselves to anyone. In fact they're pissing off people to the point where it could increase support for a more authoritarian approach. Demands will achieve nothing in this context. You're also not going to convince enough of the public to vote for a government that prioritises holding oil companies to account over things like health, education, law enforcement, etc, by telling them - even proving to them - that we're fucked on the current trajectory. Which we are, and people have accepted that and normalised it.

The only way to gain public support for those sort of changes is if they're substantially better than the immediate alternative and don't cause inconvenience. Again, we need better technology for this and easy and cheap ways to transition to it, and it needs to be plainly better than what it's replacing. It's not easy, but it's necessary. That is where efforts will drive actual, real change, as opposed to trying to get run over by an F1 car.

What annoys me is the childish idea that causing disruption and making headlines by threatening lives will result in swift change. There is no swift change here - it's simply not possible. You have to accept that it will happen slowly and that there is opportunity to shape that change in a positive way rather than out of desperation and anger. The protesters would do well to learn what makes people, businesses and governments actually listen and get on board with their ideas, because it ain't what they're currently doing.

EDIT - Here we go, an important technological development which will help the transition to clean energy!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61996520

Imagine what protesters could achieve if they focused their undeniable tenacity on developing and promoting things like this.

[Raid]

It's always frustrating when these quite promising sounding ideas are reported, and it's presented not by a multi-billion dollar international corporation, but a couple of researchers at a university who managed to scrape together enough funding to build a working prototype. It all feels like a chicken and egg argument; there's no development because there's not enough will to invest in it, and there's not enough will to invest because the ideas haven't been sufficiently developed.

[DjchunKfunK]

What annoys me is the childish idea that causing disruption and making headlines by threatening lives will result in swift change. There is no swift change here - it's simply not possible. You have to accept that it will happen slowly and that there is opportunity to shape that change in a positive way rather than out of desperation and anger.

Swift change would be possible if there was the pressure and the will from the public to do so. Going slowly and tinkering around the edges is what Governments have been doing for years and it's got us nowhere. It's not childish to go for direct action, sometimes it is the only way left. When people push for direct action like this it is often because they have exhausted all other avenues and they are desperate.

As for the answer it isn't about technology alone, people need to change the way they live and consume and adapt to things being different. The idea that we just wait for technology to provide the same level of service we have now is head in the sand stuff as it will take too long. It's why you need things like the Government banning the sale of new combustion engine cars because the market wont do it quickly enough.

The protesters would do well to learn what makes people, businesses and governments actually listen and get on board with their ideas, because it ain't what they're currently doing.

People said the same sort of thing to suffragettes and the civil rights movement, just work within the system, appeal to the government. But when the system doesn't want to change there is little point with engaging with it.

[Wrathbone]

What annoys me is the childish idea that causing disruption and making headlines by threatening lives will result in swift change. There is no swift change here - it's simply not possible. You have to accept that it will happen slowly and that there is opportunity to shape that change in a positive way rather than out of desperation and anger.

Swift change would be possible if there was the pressure and the will from the public to do so. Going slowly and tinkering around the edges is what Governments have been doing for years and it's got us nowhere. It's not childish to go for direct action, sometimes it is the only way left. When people push for direct action like this it is often because they have exhausted all other avenues and they are desperate.

This isn't direct action though, is it? It's a different sort of tinkering around the edges, equally as ineffectual and now endangering lives.

As for the answer it isn't about technology alone, people need to change the way they live and consume and adapt to things being different. The idea that we just wait for technology to provide the same level of service we have now is head in the sand stuff as it will take too long. It's why you need things like the Government banning the sale of new combustion engine cars because the market wont do it quickly enough.

I never said it was about tech alone, but that will be the primary means of combating climate change or mitigating it. Lifestyle changes are worthwhile but are a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger picture and won't be anywhere near enough to make a difference without viable technology to replace fossil fuel industry and vehicles on a global scale.

I also never said we should just wait for it; in fact I specifically advocated that protesters (and other people of course) should actively engage with it to help it develop faster and more effectively. And again, if you want to force a government to do something, getting public support is much more likely to get results than pissing everyone off with stunts.

The protesters would do well to learn what makes people, businesses and governments actually listen and get on board with their ideas, because it ain't what they're currently doing.

People said the same sort of thing to suffragettes and the civil rights movement, just work within the system, appeal to the government. But when the system doesn't want to change there is little point with engaging with it.

That's a completely different scenario. I'm in no way saying that ALL protests for all things are pointless - the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of any democracy. When it comes to civil rights or social changes, protesting and raising awareness can be highly effective because the issues involved tend to revolve around ignorance and prejudices, which can be addressed with exposure and education.

The same is not true when it comes to climate change. The vast majority of people in the world are aware of it and have accepted that it's a major threat to humanity's future, but that alone is changing nothing, and protesting around climate change (particularly when it comes to aggressive stunts) has achieved very little of substance. That's because the problem can't be fixed in the same way as social issues. It involves vast changes to almost every aspect of global infrastructure and the global economy, controlled by people and organisations of unfathomable power, wealth and influence. To suggest that protesting climate change is a good idea because protesting for civil rights is a good idea really doesn't make sense.

[DjchunKfunK]

This isn't direct action though, is it? It's a different sort of tinkering around the edges, equally as ineffectual and now endangering lives.

I can't comment on the F1 incident as I don't know the details but the blocking of roads and the person who zip tied themselves to the goalposts at a PL game were all direct action. As Raid pointed out it has got media attention so it is not ineffectual.

There is a difference between people accepting that climate change is an issue and actively asking for Governments to do something. The point of any protest is to highlight and get people to engage with the issues. These protests are not about getting people to accept that Climate Change is a problem, they are about trying to point out that what is currently being done isn't enough, that we are close to a tipping point and more pressure needs to be put on Governments to make changes.

To suggest that protesting climate change is a good idea because protesting for civil rights is a good idea really doesn't make sense.

I never said that. My point regarding civil rights and suffragettes is that in all instances those campaigning had reached a point where they felt direct action was needed to push forward change and the same is happening here.

If you are for the rights to protest then you need to be for all forms of protesting, marching up and down a street only gets you so far.

[Wrathbone]

This isn't direct action though, is it? It's a different sort of tinkering around the edges, equally as ineffectual and now endangering lives.

I can't comment on the F1 incident as I don't know the details but the blocking of roads and the person who zip tied themselves to the goalposts at a PL game were all direct action. As Raid pointed out it has got media attention so it is not ineffectual.

Media attention is not the same as effecting change. If their ultimate objective was to get on TV rather than convince the government to take more action then yeah, I guess it was effective.

You could argue that it's a stepping stone, but I strongly disagree with the idea that what Just Stop Oil is doing will result in the government enacting policy changes or putting pressure on oil companies.

If you are for the rights to protest then you need to be for all forms of protesting, marching up and down a street only gets you so far.

Sorry, but that's an outrageous statement. If you're implying that the extent and methods of protests should not have limits then you're basically advocating terrorism.

[Drarok]

Most recently, members of the group glued themselves to a copy of Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper at the Royal Academy in London.

Do they think "oil painting" means literal oil, or…?

[Wrathbone]