http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/10/do1003.xml

If all environmentalists were like you I think that more people would listen to your views, because you explain them calmly and rationally and do not adopt a hectoring tone. Thank you for the invite to the climate camp, but I am afraid that I might have to decline, as I am considering starting my own ‘pro-Heathrow’ protest. Just joking. Interesting enough, despite being the in the Borough of Hillingdon, Heathrow actually derives its name from Hounslow Heath (once the most dangerous place in England).

“I think the measures you are taking to reduce your impact on the environment are great. I took a short haul flight about 3 years ago.”

I have been acting this way all my life. Cars are a hassle, and out of principle I take my own bags to the supermarket. It is cheapness, rather than environmental concern. Often it is the older generation (not me) who are the most environmentally friendly, simply because they have a mentality of staying in this country, not throwing things away and never wasting things. The spotlight should be focused on how they live as an example.

“There is massive support from the local community.”

Yes and no. There is a vocal minority that staunchly opposes Heathrow’s expansion and a majority that do not want it but are not too bothered. I do not see a need for a third runway, and think that BAA should concentrate on improving existing services at Heathrow. However, I do not feel strongly enough about it to go and demonstrate. Do not put too much faith in the proclaimations of the local MPs. Will the Keens vote against the Darling Brown budget that contains airline subsidies? I doubt it. That is the real test.

With regards capitalism, perhaps it is best to save it for another thread, but as I said before I do not think that inequality in itself is a bad thing, but it can be if it causes social unrest (which I suppose it is doing in China).

I do think that some things should be protected governments, but if they are not, then one way is for people to protect them with their own money, which is capitalism in action. It is not perfect obviously, and I do sometimes worry about the commercialisation of everything.

Anyway, I am glad that you have landed on this site, and you are a breath of fresh air regarding the environmental debate. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Firstly, I apologise in advance for the length of this post. Most of it is relevant to the climate camp. All of it is in response to previous posts!

Soru:
“Quite frankly, I would rather take my chances with boiling seas than let some jumped up totalitarian like you gain one single ounce of power. At least we would all die together, rather than whenever we displeased our eco-overlords.”

Arg! Have you properly read Dave S’s post at all? Why is it that this kind of debate makes people get tunnel vision? Once again- Dave S is an anarchist. So am I. It was at Climate Camp last year that I found out that anarchy doesn’t mean violence or chaos. There are many strains of anarchist thought (in fact, you could argue that there as many as there are anarchists) but the one I have follows the principles of: self-governance; and with that comes a degree of personal responsibility, community, organisation with small groups, mutual aid, decentralisation of power- indeed going as far as to say that no person has any actual power over anyone but themselves. For this to work, it needs a large amount of trust in your fellow human beings.

I actually know Dave personally, and I can tell you now that he is completely anti-totalitarian. He believes in the principles that I have outlined above, which would mean that he would never wish to gain any power other than that to live his own life. Never any power over another human being. We have had worried discussions about the way government is using the protection of the environment to increase their surveillance of us. He is also uncomfortable with the idea of banning things and taxation, because they can atrophy people’s ability to take personal responsibility.

Any of you who are concerned about misuse of power and the drift towards a totalitarian, police state, need look no further than what New Labour have been doing over the last 10 years. I recommend a film that came out recently called ‘Taking Liberties’ or a documentary that was broadcast on more4 called ‘Suspect Nation’.

And global warming is not ‘scientifically derived’- the ways of measuring it are. It is human behaviour derived. Although climate change is about science- in that we need to use science to understand what is happening- of course the solutions are political as well as scientific. Politics is about how we live our lives, which in turn affects the physical world in which we live- hence we now are disturbing the eco system and the climate.

Don and Rumbold:

The climate camp will have people of many different backgrounds and classes coming together to discuss solutions in the kinds of ways outlined above. There will be scientists, artists, electricians, plumbers, academics, parents, children, grandparents, locals, activists and just concerned ordinary people! We’re looking for solutions that aren’t based on your ability to pay for expensive techno-fixes- quite the opposite! There are workshops on how to build your own wind turbine, and I could tell you how to make a perfectly functioning solar water heater out of an old radiator. Yes, I’m sure there are some wealthy middle class people who splash out on all the expensive kit and expect everyone to do the same regardless of income (although I’ve never met one personally). I wish you were both coming to the camp. Most of the people who have been involved in organising it (I know a few of them) are people like me and Dave- and if you look at the aims and view pages on the climate camp website, you will see that the camp isn’t about lecturing from on high, it’s about discussion and organising from below.

Rumbold,

Hello. Thank you for your kind words. I have enjoyed debating with you and I will indeed stick around. : )

I can understand that you resent being harangued- I do too! But the feeling of being harangued can be sometimes as much about the mood and thoughts of the harangee as the motives of the haranguer, and the perceived intent of the alleged haranguer…. If that makes sense! It’s subjective.

Often I get defensive when I reckon someone is judging me without cause or that someone is making allegations about me without knowing the facts, that someone is insulting my intelligence or talking down to me (clearly I get defensive quite a bit!). I guess this is where a lot of the misunderstanding or anger comes from when these discussions occur or when any person tries to make other people aware of environmental problem or the need to change our behaviour.

But without wanting to sound preachy- we’re all just people. Fallible, human beings. No one has all the answers. And I have met hardly any people within the environmental movement who claim that they do. The ones who do are generally tolerated but kept at arms length. Even Dave S, who you seem to have put in the ‘haranguer’ category, knows he doesn’t have all the answers-

‘I don’t have the solutions – nobody does, and that is the point. Everybody needs to be allowed to arrive at their own localised solutions that work for them within the context of their community, wherever they are.’

I admit- I have sometimes grouped people together and accused them in my mind of not caring or being ignorant- and I should never make blanket accusations. You and this thread have reminded me of this, for which I am grateful. But I still stand behind the opinions of Dave S in general because I think they are sound, and I recognise his justified anger, as I do yours for feeling patronised.

Just a few more little points- I promise!! Sorry for my long rambling posts!

‘I presume that you are all going to emit a great deal of carbon to get to Heathrow. Better to set an example and just stay at home.’

Yes, there will be some carbon emitted in travel (many people are travelling by train, cycle or car sharing). But due to the situation we find ourselves in, we all emit carbon in many spheres of our lives. You could use the same argument for not going to work (which sounds fine to me!) or on holiday. The people travelling to the camp see the purpose as I, DaveS and Calvin have outlined above to be very important. As important as the people spending their hard earned money and time going abroad by plane from Heathrow feel their holiday is- perhaps even more. How will staying at home set an example? The camp changed many people’s lives for the better last year, including mine. The possibility of many more people coming this year means that it is a worthwhile thing to travel for, because the movement is growing. I believe next time, there are going to be multiple regional camps so people won’t have to travel so far.

Also, one of the main purposes of the camp is to spur people into action in their own lives, in their own communities. That happened from last year- I have come together with lots of people since to do stuff where we live. Some of them have already been doing that for years, like community allotments and things.

‘Moreover, though most local residents do not see the need for a third runway, Heathrow itself is tolerated, as it provides plenty of jobs. Somebody has to live near an airport anyway.’

Actually, almost the entire village of Sipson will be demolished if the 3rd runway gets built. The locals have been lied to by BAA for decades on it’s plans for expansion. There is massive support from the local community. Here’s an article about a local meeting held about the camp:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/376601.html

The local MP has formally welcomed the camp.

Also, not everyone at climate camp would think that the whole aviation industry should be scrapped- even Plane Stupid, the group that has got the most press coverage recently doesn’t argue for that:

‘Plane Stupid demands a fundamental rethink of the government’s 2003 Aviation White Paper which predicts that air travel will treble by 2030: an increase in annual plane journeys from 180 million to 501 million.
We want to see airport expansion plans scrapped, a tax on aviation fuel and an end to short haul flights.’

I think the measures you are taking to reduce your impact on the environment are great. I took a short haul flight about 3 years ago. I have made the decision never to do it again, except for some kind of emergency involving illness or death (god forbid). I have decided to only ever take one return long haul flight, and that would be to South America.

I don’t expect everyone to do this. But I do expect that people make it their responsibility to learn about the impacts of their travel options in order to weigh up the implications. Is that too much to ask? Having said that- doing this is pretty difficult nowadays, with all the misinformation and distractions the mainstream media put out, and the government and vested interests. So again, no one always get it right. But I wish people wouldn’t then get indignant when others try to point the implications out. We’re not trying to inflate our egos. We’re trying to change things for the better. Oh, and you’re right about offsetting!

‘Spot on Don. It is the patriarchal class lecturing the plebs all over again. They can afford to do it.’

Given your thoughts on the ability to pay (or not) for solar panels, wind turbines etc, don’t you think then perhaps that capitalism is not the answer in all cases? I can’t really foresee a time when these things are dirt cheap, even within the mechanisms of the market. Far better, given the urgency of the situation, for people to make their own, cheap solutions- the low cost, low-tech option? But the problem is, that that doesn’t make much money for the economy, so it only gets pushed by concerned people from the grassroots- not the market, not the government (who are, in my opinion, the patriarchal class).

“I disagree that capitalism is inherently anti-environment, because that assumes that nobody is willing to pay to save the environment. If people (say) purchased 10% of the Amazon rainforest and decreed that it will never be chopped down, then that is a victory for the capitalist principle.”

I think you might have a point there. Except I would rather people saved the environment because it necessary to do so, rather than paying for it. It implies that things are only safe if they have been paid for, and I personally don’t like a dollar or pound sign being attached to everything- especially things which don’t really belong to us alone. I believe in things like natural resources and the atmosphere to be held in common. Perhaps you think that’s unrealistic.

I’d like to debate more specifically on the pros and cons of capitalism on another thread, so as not to go too far off topic (although I think that it’s important to the issue of climate change and the climate camp). Perhaps I could write something or start a topic on this site? I’ll look into it. But just quickly: the article link that you posted for me on China’s economy from the World Bank actually has some stuff in it about inequality if you read further. As I said though, this is perhaps for another thread!

Thanks, Rumbold and whoever has read all this, for taking the time to do so!!!

Love,

kt

“Politicians unfortunately don’t seem to pass legislation for the long-term good, only on what people harass them on.”

And most legislation is bad for society.

Douglas:

It would be good if Bangladesh could harvest the power of the wave. If it could do it properly the power generated by hydro stations could be exported to India and China, making it a nice little earner.

Space travel is desirable, but we must also start to develop more powerful weapons to fight whatever is out there. Otherwise we might be conquered. Science fiction at its best is inspiring, and I do think that there are too many works that are bleak.

“My point about trying to colonise other planets was not meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I think that it is an option worth exploring. It does sound quite funny though.”

My reply was not tongue in cheek either. I happen to agree with you. If we agree that the human race is worthwhile, a moot point but, hey, it is obvious that we have to get off this planet and colonise others if we are to survive in the longer term. This planet is a vulnerable thing.

Whilst it is our only environment, we are obligated to look after it. I think, on that, you and I agree

Not all renewables rely on no cloud cover, although the extractable ones like geo thermal are difficult. I was not joking about Bangladesh having the potential to use tidal or river power to it’s advantage though. The dams and such that it would need to make that work would have flood control benefits too. Think ancient Egypt.

Not a complete answer, I grant you. Bangladesh is likely to be the first major victim of Western and Eastern indifference, if we don’t get our act out.

Personally, I’d like to go to some of the islands in the Indian Ocean before some coal merchant inundates them, but hey, he’s rich and I’m not. The global is the local these days.

I take it you too have read optomistic Science Fiction writers? There is too much negativity about the future. Mainly from folk that have never heard of Arthur C Clarke or Olaf Stapledon.

I don’t disagree at all. Which is why we have to lobby the government to change its behaviour and its incentives. But part of that process is to make people aware of the danger the environment is in, make the issue more of a hot topic and then force the politicians to change.

Politicians unfortunately don’t seem to pass legislation for the long-term good, only on what people harass them on.

Douglas:

Renewables are a nice idea, in theory, but often the projections rely on there being no cloud ever, or always strong winds or suchlike. If it works, good.

Kt:

Good to have you on board (at Pickled Politics, not with my views).

I disagree that capitalism is inherently anti-environment, because that assumes that nobody is willing to pay to save the environment. If people (say) purchased 10% of the Amazon rainforest and decreed that it will never be chopped down, then that is a victory for the capitalist principle.

You have brought some interesting arguments to the table and have not delivered them with the sort of messianic relish that I increasingly encounter. It would be good if you stuck around.

I do think that rich countries are damaging the environment, which is why we have to put our own houses in order before we can even think about lecturing India and China. Take Al Gore (please). He flies around the world, his house emits 12 times the carbon of an average American’s, and he lectures you and I. I consider myself ‘green’; I do not drive, I have flown once in the past four years, and I bring a bag to the supermarket to take home my shopping. I resent being harangued by climate change activists (not yourself obviously) who probably emit far more carbon dioxide then me. That is what annoys ordinary people so much.

Calvin Jones:

I presume that you are all going to emit a great deal of carbon to get to Heathrow. Remember, offsetting does not work- it is like punching someone then giving them £10 to buy a few drinks to make them feel better. Better to set an example and just stay at home. Moreover, though most local residents do not see the need for a third runway, Heathrow itself is tolerated, as it provides plenty of jobs. Somebody has to live near an airport anyway.

Don:

“I know several people who have wind turbines and solar panels, and one who heats his home/business through geo-thermals. They all have one thing in common; they are prosperous and middle class. OK, that’s two things.

But the vast majority of people simply can’t make those choices. You work, you pay your bills, you take what they give you.”

Spot on Don. It is the patriarchal class lecturing the plebs all over again. They can afford to do it.

Many of my mates take Dave S’s position, and I can see the attraction, but the pig-headed selfishness of those who squeal at the prospect of giving up even a fragment of their resource-hungry self-indulgence is as a real a factor as the melting ice-caps. Let’s call it the Clarkson Factor; ‘I like my toys, so you are a smelly hippy, nah nah nyah nyah nah.’

From a selfish point of view, some of us are in a position to prepare for a shift from a cheap, abundant energy economy to an expensive, energy poor economy because we have margins. But that’s only a minority. I know several people who have wind turbines and solar panels, and one who heats his home/business through geo-thermals. They all have one thing in common; they are prosperous and middle class. OK, that’s two things.

But the vast majority of people simply can’t make those choices. You work, you pay your bills, you take what they give you. I no longer believe that such things as climate camps or whatever will make any significant impact, but good luck anyway.

PS. Will Hawkwind be there?

I don’t think that analysis is quite right. The problem we’ve had over the last fifty years or so is that per kilowatt hour coal, oil, and gas, have been cheaper than nuclear. Or even most renewables – not sure about hydro. Which means that there was an incentive to be a polluter.

The issue is whether with dwindling supplies of fossil fuels there will be an early crossover in the costs per kilowatt hour between nuclear / renewables and fossil fuels or not. The earlier the better, obviously as the economics would then be on the side of the non polluting electricity generators. And I have, quite deliberately, included nuclear in the non polluting sector.

If that cost advantage were maintained, I could see a time in the not too distant future where renewables plus nuclear were giving us more electricity than we actually ‘need’. That would foreground, in turn, the prospects or a hydrogen based transport infrastructure.

Meanwhile we should continue to invest heavily in fusion research which seems to me to be medium term answer.

Voila! No more anthropogenic global warming.

Then we can do what Rumbold says and colonise Mars.

And what indication is there that if we didn’t invest similar amounts of money into renewable sources they wouldn’t generate energy?

Compare the mind-boggling huge investment into nuclear energy for DECADES and the puny investment into renewable sources over the past few years. And then look at how expensive nuclear energy still is.

You’re not comparing like with like in terms of what can be achieved.

If market forces determined investment into energy, there would be no reason to fund nuclear energy.

Deciding to highlight aviation growth with this years climate camp was not an easy decision. But we asked ourselves: ‘Where are government policies on climate change weakest or most badly needed?’. The answer is clearly the aviation industry: a heavy polluter that is highly subsidised and growing fast. Just imagine would could be done with the £9 Billion in subsides given to aviation(3). That is a lot of hospitals, schools…or tax cuts!

The government has climate policies that exclude aviation and aviation policies that exclude any consideration of climate change. According to a cross-party group of MPs who looked at this conflict, growth in aviation emissions are likely to entirely destroy progress made elsewhere(4). Whereas the government has shown it’s rhetoric to outshine it’s performance the Camp for Climate Action seeks to lead by example. The week long event will have a strong emphasis on learning, both about low carbon living and about communicating climate change. Renewable energy such as Solar and Wind will power the event, including on-site internet access, projectors and lighting(5).

Heathrow was chosen as the symbol of aviation due to it’s international profile and it’s vast carbon footprint—larger than many countries(6). It was also important to us that many local people are already strongly resisting the expansion of Heathrow, we felt a strong desire to strengthen their fight.
We have three aims:

1. To highlight government hypocrisy in pursuing both a climate plan and an entirely inconsistent airport expansion plan.

2. To support local communities i there struggle against loosing homes under the ever expanding tarmac of Heathrow.

3. To educate ourselves and all those who join us about low carbon living.

We do all this with a simple philosophy:

Climate change is our generations challenge, it must not be left to burden our children. As governments fail us the realisation is clear, action is our responsibility: we are the ones who we have been waiting for.

References:
1.http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article1359823.ece
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_for_Climate_Action
3. AEF, Hidden Cost of Flying, 2003
4. Environmental Audit Committee, 2002-2004, 9th Report (Budget 2003 and Aviation)
5. http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/aims.php
6.http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2007/05/heathrow-uks-worst-emitter.html

That means little, Hitler was in favour of dismantling the Polish border too.

Quite frankly, I would rather take my chances with boiling seas than let some jumped up totalitarian like you gain one single ounce of power. At least we would all die together, rather than whenever we displeased our eco-overlords.

Global warming is a scientifically-derived and very likely true statement about the planet. As such, it has no particular connection to political ideologies matters like capitalism or anti-capitalism.

I am currently munching my way through some (rather dense) stuff on economics and global inequality. It’s going to take some time, but it’s good that I’ve joined this debate and you guys have given me some things to read so I can give my views more of a work-out, as I said before.

I think you misunderstood me when I said ‘back to the drawing board’, as I wasn’t talking about energy. I would like to know what you thought about Bookchin’s quote about the nature of capitalism.

Incidentally, I am against nuclear power for many reasons, some of which given by Sunny above. Another one is that nuclear power would only tackle our electricity generation. And seeing as it comes with many problems and at great expense, I think it is as waste of time, money and resources. Also, world supplies of uranium would rapidly run out if we were to ramp up demand. Fast breeder reactors look like a no-go. And, new power plants would take 15 years roughly to build, by which time if we carry on as we are now, it will be too late. Remember the warming in average global temperatures we are experiencing now are from the 70’s, as there is a 30 year time lag between carbon released and its warming effect.

Also I don’t think renewables can supply our current demand either, but we’ll have to address the demand problem (and the waste through inefficiency). I don’t think this means going back to living in caves.

Finally, although DaveS was angry in his original post, he didn’t directly insult anyone. If you believe, which I realise some of you don’t, that the lifestyle of rich, heavily CO2 producing countries is causing the breakdown of the eco system on which we all depend, and that thousands of people are actually dying in poor countries due to climate change- then can’t you understand the frustration? I don’t think you have been fair to him and as he pointed out, he is an anarchist, not a Marxist. You say that his writings hark back to doctrinal Marxism when “the only thing that mattered was theory and if people lost out as a result, then tough”

But as he pointed out he, and his friends and wider community, are actually living some of the solutions he espouses, and is happier for it. I would argue that it is the current dominant economic system that does exactly as you quoted above (perhaps with the subtitution of theory with profit).

But maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. It’s been interesting to discuss this with you. I will carry on reading the ‘other side of the debate’. I am going to ignore the comment you made about moving to another planet! ;P

Take care everyone, I’m going to get some veg from me back yard and enjoy the sunshine!

Katy

There are quite a few exciting developments in renewables in the pipeline. I particularily liked this:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/04/spanish-solar-tower-could-eventually-power-an-entire-city/

(off topic, it looks quite like a religious icon in the wee picture does it not?)

or this:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Solar_Tower

Though perhaps Bangladesh should be looking at hydro power solutions, to be honest.

If renewable energy could supply our needs at a resonable cost, I would support it. I am aware that nuclear power requires huge subsidies but we know that it can generate enough power in the end- can renewable, even with massive investment.

I agree with you about India’s problems, and recognise that unfettered capitalism is not going to solve everything. Restricting growth however would just make matters worse.

Kt:

I believe you when you say that you are an environmentalist because you care about the poor. I do not believe Dave S however, because his writings hark back to the age of doctrinal Marxism, when the only thing that mattered was theory and if people lost out as a result, then tough.

“You can’t deny that people are suffering and dying due to inequality.”

I am denying it because it is not true in the first place. People die because they do not have enough, not because others have more. An example:

There are ten people. Under a communist system, they are each allocated a slice of bread per week for food. They are all equal, but all die from hunger. Under a capitalist system, they each get ten loaves of bread a week, apart from one person, who gets a thousand loaves. This is an unequal system, but nobody has died from hunger.

(Incredibly simplistic I know but I was just trying to explain what I meant).

“isn’t there a case for going back to the drawing board?”

We do need to invest in other sources of energy, and I think that taxpayers’ money should be spent on investigating all the options. We also need to spend more on investigating the possibility of moving to another planet.

I read what ChrisC had to say and found this article, which I think gives a fairly clear idea of the massive movements that are taking place in China:

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/16715/what-chinas-changing-labour-market-means-for-the-west.html

There are lots more. The Economist is a particularily good resource.

I think you’ll also find that China is looking at pebble bed nuclear reactors as a way of meeting their energy needs. So, it isn’t all doom and gloom.

I personally do not want the future of the human race to be a few survivors living a short and brutish hunter gatherer existence.

Rumbold, if you want to find out more about what a sustainable economy could be, then have a look at the New Economics Foundation website.

As for barbs… *sigh*… I can get pretty angry sometimes about situations where it seems as if people are too much ‘in it for themselves’. Conversely, this critisism is frequently levelled at ‘environmentalists’, as from others’ point of view, we’re just doing it to have the high moral ground or feel pious or something.

I can assure you, speaking personally, that is not why I get passionate about activism, campaigning or voicing my frustration and raising awareness of some of the shit that’s going on. It’s because I want to communicate with my fellow human beings about problems which we face in this increasingly inter-dependant global community. I don’t feel that this can be done sufficiently well through the mainstream media.

But why is it, when there are problems with a system, and people point this out- why does it have to descend into a slanging match? Why do we have to personally insult each other? Or assume things, perpetuate stereotypes, reinforce generalisations etc etc?

I can understand the ire that comes from defending our (DaveS and I) stance on these issues, because you can’t deny that people are suffering and dying due to inequality. The gap between rich and poor is growing, not shrinking.

So, at the risk of being ignorant, can you tell me why this issue makes you so angry that you want to pull other people down for caring about the welfare of others? I’m not being facetious- I’d like to hear your comments.

Here is an intersting quote on capitalism and ecology from the anarchist writer Bookchin. I don’t profess to have read him widely, so can’t say I subscribe to his views entirely. But nevertheless, this is a strong argument, I would say:

“Capitalism is inherently anti-ecological. Competition and accumulation constitute its very law of life, a law . . . summarised in the phrase, ‘production for the sake of production.’ Anything, however hallowed or rare, ‘has its price’ and is fair game for the marketplace. In a society of this kind, nature is necessarily treated as a mere resource to be plundered and exploited. The destruction of the natural world, far being the result of mere hubristic blunders, follows inexorably from the very logic of capitalist production.”

Given that we live on a concretely material, not virtual planet with finite resources(can anyone argue otherwise?), and that- correct me if I’m wrong- modern traditional economics seems to be based on an abstract notion of unlimited growth; isn’t there a case for going back to the drawing board?

Well, it depends on whether you want to take into account the full cost of re-processing, storing and dealing with all the waste. Not including the cost of building stations and taking into account the potential hazard and danger to local populations if it all goes bad. On balance, I would rather invest in renewable energy for the long term.

Us environmentalists like to think long-term

In India, people are discovering electricity for the first time, and protestors in this country

India has a chronic energy shortage, exacerbated by poor investment, corruption and people stealing each other’s power supplies. The problem isn’t that the government is not being capitalist enough, but of poor governance and not caring about poor people who have no voting rights.

You worry about providing people with electricity. I agree. But a bigger problem may be that the govt keeps demolishing their houses and refusing to provide them with proper housing… primarily because it can ignore them politically.

Saying environmentalists want to send them to the dark ages is a poor reduction of what is a complicated problem.

You agree that we have to invest in nuclear power then? Good. I do not want to destroy all the world’s resources either, but economic growth makes a real difference to most poor people’s lives. In India, people are discovering electricity for the first time, and protestors in this country (yourself excluded) seem to want them to return to the dark ages, literally.

Obviously, most protestors do not actually want Indians and Chinese to be dirt poor (though Dave S seems content with that outcome), but the impact of Asia slashing its growth will lead to just this outcome. At least India is increasing its civilian nuclear output. I would like to see less dependence on oil and natural gas, partly because this would reduce the power of states like Russia.

How much does man contribute to global warming though? And do camps like this help, apart from to increase the smugness of the participants? They would be better off staying at home and reducing their carbon footprint, and not causing further disruption to the residents of the Boroughs of Hillingdon and Hounslow.