Great Western Coffee Shop

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47959207


Does it make sense to target the overground when it's probably much more climate friendly that buses and much much more so than taxis and cars?

Memories of disruptive activities (threatened or more) in our own area: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1574

That's the first thing that occurred to me. Seems a bit bonkers to actually target the modes of transport that you are trying to encourage people to use. If this happens it could also be detrimental to the protesters credibility. I still salute the fact that they want to do something though but targeting public transport?

quite. And to demand a meeting with Government in order to call off the demos - the Government are on Easter holiday this week!

Now targeting DLR inter alia:

They may have a worthy cause but they are behaving like morons. I know of at least 3 blue light ambulance emergency calls yesterday which were delayed by their antics and frankly the Police have better things to do.....now this....."peaceful protest" - close to 300 arrests so far. Right.

I have some sympathy with the stated aims of the protesters, but little sympathy with many of the tactics in use.

Attempting to close down electric mass transit is daft, it should be encouraged.
Lets have some protests in favour of specific projects to reduce carbon emissions.

Build more wind turbines
Install more PV.
Build a tidal barrage in the Severn estuary.
Electrify the GWR, and other railways.

In fact all the above have been strongly objected to, quite possibly by the same protesters.

Usual ill thought out protest - "do as I say, not as I do".

These protests are led by 'Extinction Rebellion', who according to their website (here: https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/) have three demands:


I can find nothing on their website to suggest that the organisers object to wind turbines, PV, the Severn Barrage or rail electrification. The main thing they seem to object to is what they perceive as government inaction.

Government inaction? The UK has reduced carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country in the G20 since 2010.

I thought the main government inaction was Brexit. Or is that government paralysis?

A large part of that reduction is thanks to renewable energy generation. Wind power is now contributing close to 20% of the UK's electricity. Solar generation is approaching 4%. Total renewable energy generation in the UK now stands at 30%. Up from less than 5% fifteen years ago. A remarkable achievement that should be applauded.

That could easily reach 50% by 2030 and with the will of government we could have nuclear solely picking up the balance by 2040. Meaning the UK could be totally free of fossil fuel electricity generation before mid 21st century.

I agree with TG. In this area of policy, governments of the last fifteen years have been far from inactive.

The current protests are misguided.

 

I agree that there is nothing AFAIK on the extinction rebellion website that specifically opposes railway electrification or renewable energy infrastructure.
I do however strongly suspect that many of those same protestors would also attend protests such as

"save Goring gap" from railway electrification.
"save the Bristol channel" from tidal power.
"save Exmoor" from wind turbines.

Not that the emphasis is on "saving" this or that, and never on opposing renewable energy or railway electrification.

I suppose that its very difficult to protest in a way that gets noticed without inconveniencing the public to some degree. We should make sure all houses are properly insulated as other nations have done - but how do you protest ? Climbing up someone's loft with some glass fibre is hardly news worthy !

The problem is at the heart of capitalism itself - and changing our priorities away from making 100 people more wealthy than entire nations towards a fairer sustainable future for all isn't something the establishment are prepared to countenance. They will need to be forced into it eventually whether they like it or not. The alternative is that we put private profit first, ignore the consequences and everyone looses.

I agree, UK progress towards reducing fossil fuel use has been impressive with a significant percentage of electricity now coming from renewables.
More remains to be done of course, but progress has been made.

Most energy saving or carbon reduction schemes are opposed at least initially. Remember the outrage over plans to ban energy wasting light bulbs ?
And the present outrage over plans to prohibit gas heating in new homes, and by default also ban gas cooking in new homes.
Yet these and other related policies are very needed if carbon emissions are to be reduced.

If you're going to try to lay the problem at the door of capitalism you may wish to consider that China produces 28% of the World's carbon dioxide emissions....more than the USA, Russia & India combined.

"Save" in the regular run of campaign things is about keeping thing as they are ... and there's always an established base of people who like things as they are.  Ironically, this forum was born out of "Save the train" ... though we rapidly moved from a "please freeze as it is" to "look - here is a constructive way".

"Save the planet" strikes me as a bit different in that they're asking for things to be different ... not a comment on their initial research as to how much has been done or who to protest against or how (three big questions), but certainly asking for change for the better.

Unlikely - they do not seem to have an average age of 70+!

In any event, to be fair to my neighbours in the "Gap", it was not electrification, but what they saw as the intrusive design of the OHL supporting structures. I think there is universal agreement that electrification is a good thing.

I wholeheartedly endorse TG's comments - it is humanity's inability to foresee the adverse effects of its impact on the planet until it's too late. It's been going on since early man helped destroy the soil of large parts of the Middle East and China through ignorance of the effects of early unsustainable agriculture.

It's probably one of those Channel 4 "hoax" comedies, where the actors behave in ever more opposite ways to how you would expect climate change protestors to behave, until the whole thing becomes so outlandish that the public eventually "rumbles" them. Let's face it, "Extinction Rebellion" is just the right mix of absurd excitement as a tv programme title.

Noel Fielding will be along shortly dressed as a sunflower at Canada Water, I expect.

On "Save The Train", to be fair we never really said "please freeze as it is" - From Day 1 grahame and his volunteers based their case on at least 8 trains in each direction being needed to make a start on levering in the huge growth potential that existed on the TransWilts, and it has been great to see that materialise.

We certainly started with the view that the proposed 2 trains each way was woefully inadequate;   Lee's right in that "please freeze it" - a backward look - was rapidly (within hours!) - changed into a positive look to say "we need an appropriate service".  And then working on the definition of that word "appropriate" - in terms of what the communities needed and would support, in terms of what would fit financially, and would work operationally.  And then to work out the band around the most appropriate that's going to work.   I'll stop there ... otherwise I'll take over this thread off-topic!

If Extinction Rebellion's aim is to call attention to their demands, rather than promote or hinder any specific activity, then blocking the Overground and busy mainline stations is quite a good way to do it. Unfortunately for rail travellers.

China has not been a communist country for a couple of decades.

There is a sad irony in targeting one of the widely accepted solutions to the problem and consequently undermining it's reputation for reliability and robustness with the travelling public.

One of the aims of the protest is to get as many people arrested as possible. Most of those arrested appear to have been sitting in the road - a peaceful activity, albeit rather annoying if you wanted to drive that way.


China's CO₂ emissions have doubled since 2004, whilst the UK's have fallen by around 40% in the same period, and those of the USA have fallen slightly. But then there's methane...

Listening to Greta Thunberg's recent speech to EU leaders (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWsM9-_zrKo ) it is perhaps understandable that people feel the need to do something; as to whether they're hitting the right targets... history will judge, if there's anyone left to write it.

Yes. Though I dare say in terms of strict CO2 accountability, regular train travel isn't sustainable either.

This popped up elsewhere.  It might be considered a bit political for on here, so if the moderators wish to delete it I won't mind: https://www.desmog.co.uk/55-tufton-street

Meanwhile:


The BBC is airing the first of a new documentary series Climate Change – The Facts (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00049b1) at 9pm this evening (18th April).

We are ... drifting ... from the thread topic.  We often do, and I may be minded to split the topic and move some of the stuff in which transport plays a secondary or tertiary role into "and also".   I'm noting that all repsonses to the thread so far have been from frequent posters, so the move wouldn't cut any of you off from your own posts.

Meanwhile: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47974244

When you see video clips like the one attached to this story, you can’t help but think the powers that be a quite happy to let bridges and streets in London remain blocked which had caused no end of problems for those going about their daily lives. Can be hard enough in London as it is.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8888682/cops-rave-extinction-rebellion-eco-warriors-oxford-circus-arrests-commuters-agony/

Talk they are going after Heathrow. When does the government, responsible for law and order in this country, decide enough is enough?

This country is already a laughing stock because of the mishandling of Brexit, now we allow people to close off major roads and bridges in the nation’s capital for days on end with our police dancing and riding on skateboards with the protesters.

It is worth noting that the protesters who climbed onto the roof of a train at Canary Wharf are currently on remand for a month charged with obstructing trains or carriages on the railway by an unlawful act, contrary to section 36 of the Malicious Damage Act 1861. Enough, in that case, was enough.

At the last count 428 people have been arrested for taking part in these protests, and police cells as far away as Luton and Brighton are apparently filling up. I can't see any link between the government's handling of Brexit and the police's handling of peaceful protests. What would you have them do?

“Remanded in custody for a month” might hopefully act as a warning to those who are in two minds about the possibility of arrest...

Paul

Well they have lost all sympathy from me.  Don't they realise they are turning off the very people they hope would support them.  They have made their point.  There are other ways to put pressure on our political leaders.

These protests are going on in various countries around the world. I don't know where Extinction Rebellion originated but it's an international organisation.

Are they camping out in the streets of Beijing to bring traffic to a halt & glueing themselves to public transport there too?

What they should have done on Monday and that’s clear them off Waterloo Bridge and not allowed London to be held to ransom. Therefore making a statement that this kind of disruptive protest will not be tolerated.

I’m all for the freedom to protest and to make a point but not at the expense of others trying to go about their business. Tolerating it for more than one day was more than enough. To let it go on for four days is unacceptable.

I do have a degree of sympathy for the police who’s hands are very much tied by the politically correct, softly liberal approach to policing that those who make the law have handed down to them.

The connection I was making was the way things are being handled in this country by those in authority leaves a lot to be desired.

looks like they are trying to fill up the detention cells, by being arrested en masse, so causing disruption to the government, wonder how many minutes of delays they cause over Easter over the railways new trains, over runing engineering works etc.

Hopefuly it is enough of a deterant, if those 3 are employed its quite posible they will loose there jobs

I suspect that most employers would not care about a conviction for a climate change protest. Some of the more left wing, politically correct, or publicly funded employers might regard such a conviction as a recommendation.

Convictions for theft are taken more seriously.

Glad to see the "Luvvies" have joined in now.................

Emma Thompson arrived on the picket lines yesterday saying that she wanted to be arrested - you can't help but admire this amazingly generous gesture, as she had to return early from her 60th birthday party - in Los Angeles ........................

Only a matter of time before the luvvies get involved - normally a Redgrave or two in evidence as well. More bandwagons than David Lammy.

Still, flying 5,000 miles to join...…….a climate protest - hope she "gets" irony.

Yep, telling the audience that her (my) generation had failed them. Well, she's certainly not speaking in my name and some of the stats quoted earlier on this very thread show she's not speaking for a good deal of others, just the birthday transatlantic jet setters such as herself.
Blimmin' cheek!

Now there’s tears because they failed to disrupt Heathrow:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8896401/extinction-rebellion-protesters-fail-delay-heathrow-flights

And as for all these apologies for the disruption they are causing  ::)

She got a short video clip (sitting on the pink boat in Oxford Circus) and a mention on the BBC News tonight  - object achieved !!  Any publicity....................

It's my birthday next week - my wife has offered me a meal at the (very good !) Thai restaurant in Westbury - 10 mile round trip, and I'm paying for the b****y petrol !!
Better offer Emma ??

Getting wierder (https://newsthump.com/2019/04/19/crossrail-workers-mistaken-for-transport-disruption-protestors/)

Emma Thompson - update:

Actress Dame Emma Thompson has been defending her decision to fly from the US to attend a climate change protest in central London.

Speaking to reporters from the Extinction Rebellion campaign group's pink boat, she said did not fly as much as she used to - and planted a lot of trees. (From BBC News website)

Oh - that's absolutely fine then ??

My personal favourite quote:

Reminds me of a student prank in Oxford in the 70s. Bunch of students tipped of police that some of their peers had taken rag week prank too far and were posing as council workers digging up a road. They had also tipped off the genuine council workers on the road that some students had taken things too far and were dressed as policemen and arresting road workers. Well, it was the 70s!

Edit: I was not there at the time being a little too young but it was from a friend of mine (and academy a load brighter) who was at St Peter's at the time.

From the BBC: (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-48003955)

The schools go back after the Easter break on Tuesday so the teenage revolutionaries should fade away.......but as for the rest of them.....don't these people have jobs to go to?

I initially thought the protest aims were misguided. I'm not so sure now. More, much more, needs to be done to prevent the human race continuing on its path to mass extinction.

Peaceful civil disobedience and disruption has a long history of bringing about change. Civil rights, human rights, workers rights women's rights, LGBT rights. Ensuring the continuity of the human race is surely greater than all those. More power to the protesters elbow's I say. Meanwhile the media will focus on the disruption and not the message. And critics here and elsewhere will dismiss the protesters as clueless kids, crusties, feckless, luvvies... Having or not having a job to go to becomes a very minor concern when future generations may not have a habitable planet to live on. Preventing a mass extinction is THE priority.

Jonathan Pie says it better than me. (I've not embedded the video due to some strong language)

https://youtu.be/obFNcN0Zc7k

I await the brickbats... I await the "yeah but you drive a car" responses. I know I could and should do more. Some more carrot and maybe a little stick from the government would be a good place to start.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, with the political system in place at the moment..... where big multinational corporations can easily influence political decisions with the help of cash donations for this or that......... little will change. Just look at the number of petitions on various websites (eg 38degrees, etc) set up to fight issues such as the chemical companies lobbying to lift the ban on their pesticides that are killing off bees.

It is up to the 'little people' (i.e us!) to bring about change and to do it as peacefully as possible.

In the context of what the "little people" can do, a promising start would be to reduce demand for cheap electronics - do you really need that third device phone/tablet/laptop?

To upgrade that brand new smartphone to replace the one you upgraded to 18 months ago?

Satisfying the demand for cheap electronics is perhaps the most significant reason why China is the most polluting nation on the planet - higher CO2 than USA, India and Russia combined - in contrast the UK has the biggest reduction in C02 emissions in the G20, and we now generate 37% of our electricity via renewables, up from just 6% 9 years ago. We're actually doing pretty well.

In this respect, I think the protestors have missed a trick - if they targeted issues such as this, they may get their message across more effectively - facts are always better than emotions to convince the sceptical. Make it real to those concerned (ironically, when it comes to electronic devices, mostly the school age demographic who were clogging up London) - focus the protest on (for example) the Chinese Embassy. Don't clog up thoroughfares preventing the emergency services reaching their destination (at least 3 blue light ambulance attendances by one paramedic crew alone were delayed on Thursday in London) - that's self indulgent, needless, thoughtless and selfish.

No-one should be slagging off individuals for having one small car - they are generally much cleaner these days and most people legitimately need one to get around - ironically most of the additional pollution caused by open cast nickel mining is to meet the demand for hybrid/battery powered cars.

Everyone however is entitled to question the motivations of the likes of Emma Thompson - her 1st class 5,400 mile publicity grabbing flight equated to 3 tons of carbon - to attend a protest run by an organisation who contends that flights should be restricted to emergencies only - as these protests were allegedly worldwide, surely there was something more local? But hey, she plants trees  ::)

As I have said before I respect people’s right to protest but in a lawful and respectful of others who need to go about their business. This so called peaceful protest was well organised and designed to cause as much disruption and difficulties for the police as possible. Had they succeeded could also have bought chaos to Heathrow. I cannot and will not support people who feel they have a right to disrupt others going about their lawful business.

This country and its people are doing their bit to reduce carbon emissions and continue to do so. Until you get the big three, America, China and India to reduce theirs (little chance) you are whistling in the wind.

No, this country really isn't doing its bit. If it were,  we wouldn't still have lots of huge gas guzzling 4x4s used for urban transport,  or homes still being built to poor efficiency standards,  or streets still so unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists, or planning restrictions preventing growth in onshore windfarms and solar, etc etc.  We can't expect other countries to do better while we still fail to do as well as we could.  And we can't point the finger too hard at places like China when we have achieved much of our carbon reductions by offshoring our dirty manufacturing to them.

We produce just 1% of the worlds carbon emissions, are well in target to meet our 80% reduction being at 50% already, what more do you want?

I agree with you about 4X4s. Why people outside of rural communities need them I don’t know.

You have ignored the point that our imports involve emissions that are attributed to others. And that remaining 30% isn't going to be met unless we do more. So far we've done the easy stuff, replacing coal with natural gas and cutting heavy industry (offshoring it to others). Some of our supposed reduction is claimed from the use of biofuels that are not actually sustainable. That's not good enough, and there is plenty more that can be done without adversely affecting quality of life.

The "export" of carbon emissions and other forms of pollution, by manufacturing for rich countries' consumption being moved to places such as China,  goes hand in hand with the "export" of jobs and services (offshoring). Which is why protests at the Chinese embassy might be missing their target (though as China itself becomes richer, that is starting to apply less to them; and of course they're starting to "export" some of their production to other places, eg some African countries). It makes it increasingly hard for any protest (not just environmental) to protest directly at it source (though I'm still not sure of the value in jumping on train roofs).

The other factor is that as we have embraced the need to make our energy cleaner, it has pushed the cost up.  So energy intensive industries are encouraged to move to places where energy costs are less - which usually means places where energy is still relatively "dirty".  And then you have the energy involved in transporting the goods to here as well.

I wouldn’t say ignore as you make a good point. Imports being down to mass consumerism. How do you slow that down, by substantially increasing prices but it would take a brave retailer to be the first to do that. I don’t think you can slow it down by using an emotional argument.

I would say that a good start would be for all good exported from a country to be deducted from the carbon account for that country and added to the carbon account for the importing country (along with the carbon involved in the transport).  That way governments could not hide behind deindustrialisation in their own country and it might give incentives for low carbon production wherever it is in the world. 

Whilst the UK has indeed made reasonable progress towards carbon reduction, we should remember that the initial reductions are relatively easy.

Eliminating carbon emissions in just a few years is far harder. Consider just a few of the measures needed.

Ration electricity to that produced renewably. If electric public transport and vital services are to receive priority, then this means largely eliminating domestic electricity use.

Prohibit most domestic heating.

Eliminate road transport, unless it is electric AND if the owners very limited electricity ration permits charging the vehicle.

Close down air transport, apart from the trivial percentage that is electric. No more air freight.

Close down sea transport, apart from the minute volume that is sail powered or electric. No more bulk food imports.

And even those draconian measures wont eliminate carbon emissions, but would be a start.

Yes, although I think China in particular (I'm not sure about the other typical "offshore recipient countries") has installed a lot of wind and solar recently. But I don't think you can isolate energy costs from other reasons; countries with lower energy costs tend to also have lower labour, land and raw material costs.

 Ironic smile as some of the young 'eco-warrior's '  arrived back home to
 Totnes. Waiting was 'Mummy' who swiftly whisked them off in her 4x4.

:D sadly probably true.

Was that the lady in the (spotless) Hunter wellies and Barbour jacket, waiting with the Fortnum & Mason hamper for young Felicity?

I think I saw her at Taplow too! 🙂

I think there are two distinct points here. The first is recognising that we can't just use historic emissions as a benchmark to measure progress against. So we also need to look at a range of more specific indicators,  such as home and vehicle energy efficiency,  use of renewables, modal share for sustainable transport, use of resources etc. Until the UK is at the top of the  league in such indicators we shouldn't think we are doing well.

The second point is what to do about emissions associated with imported products. I agree there are limits to what individual retailers can do by themselves.  What is ideally needed is international carbon trading, so that the carbon price would be added to products wherever they are made.  As Ellendune says carbon emissions from production should be added to the importing country's total. But there are other things that could be done; such as introducing product standards covering life cycle emissions.

It's not football! A national league table can be one way to encourage progress but what matters is the world situation as a whole; if we're bottom of the league but the overall is sufficient, that's better than if we're top but the average is mediocre.

Times are hard, due to the beastly government putting taxes on vehicles and vehicle fuel, even for rural moms who simply HAVE to drive, how else is poor little Tamsin to be taken to her yoga for babies classes, whilst mother searches for the latest organic baby foods.

Therefore one simply cant afford Fortnum & Mason hampers, except for Christmas, Royal Ascot, and other REALLY special occasions.
Poor Felicity had to make do with a few treats from Marks and Spencer simply food. Such a paltry reward for our brave young eco-warrior.

And to insult to injury, the beastly government are erecting wind turbines within sight, AND absolutely AWFULL "mast things" on the railway line. According to Mumsnet, these not only look absolutely awful but might be giving off rays or radiations, or something that could harm babies. No wonder poor Tamsin is SO ill.

Perhaps Felicity could join a protest against all these intrusions on rural life, and the possible health risks.

Well yes, but global emissions are the sum of every individual contribution, so everyone and every country has to do their bit. A socially just outcome is that we follow a process of contraction and convergence that results in everyone having similar CO2 emissions per person.  That means rich countries with a legacy of high emissions need to go further than poor countries whose people need increased  energy to give them an acceptable standard of living.  As a rich country we should be leaders in introducing the more efficient technologies, buildings and vehicles that every country will need to introduce eventually. So yes, I would expect the UK to be adopting the highest standards available and pushing them forward, if we are to expect others to follow.  Nothing to do with football leagues.

As might be said by the mother of Felicity "I am certain that driving MY large 4 wheel drive vehicle cant be affecting the climate. It has climate control"

"how can I have a carbon footprint when I drive everywhere"

Look on the bright side  we've just had a glorious bank holiday weekend without any rain
Back later on , just off to Waitrose to fill up with sundried tomatoes, and the Range rover needs topping up again😉.

Edit to adjust smelling.

All new homes should have solar panels fitted.
The Government has abolished the feed in tariff, so a household as from April 2019 will no longer receive any payment for feeding back to the grid.
However, compulsory fitting of panels would mean households could benefit from their own panel generation (provided said householder was at home when the sun shines)!
At least excess generation could still be fed back to the grid.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-protests-climate-change/climate-change-protesters-target-london-stock-exchange-and-canary-wharf-idUKKCN1S10J9

Any plans to glue themselves to the Chinese Embassy?

Not again  ::)

It's just coming across as a middle class student rag week stunt now......point made (albeit poorly targeted/executed), time to get back to work/school & allow others to do theirs.

From Christian Wolmar (http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2019/04/letter-to-the-times-extinction-rebellion-demonstrates-the-benefits-of-pedestrianisation/)

"Borne out by anecdotal evidence" 😂😂😂😂😂

Perhaps XR missed a trick by failing to commission a properly-conducted scientific study into the commercial impact of their protest?

Although this doesn't quite apply to Oxford Street, where diesel buses and taxis manage to make it a grim place (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37131138) without the benefit of other motor vehicles, real evidence suggests that owners of retail businesses over-estimate, by up to 100%, the number of customers coming to them by car: See https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/

I'm old enough to remember the uproar when Broadmead, Bristol was pedestianised... it'll be the end for all of us! howled the shopkeepers.

Six charged with obstructing the railway at Canary Wharf - http://media.btp.police.uk/r/16440/six_charged_with_obstructing_the_railway___canary

Interesting to note that the mean age of those charged is 55, with the eldest being 83 years old.

SAGA louts! 😂

Please stop making posts like that when I'm having my tea....... ;D

A retired British Transport Police Inspector I know expressed her admiration for their smart paperwork in picking the serious indictable offence to charge this group. After a career of having to deal with the aftermath of foolish people getting into places on the railway they should not have been in, resulting in some terrible tragic results I can understand why

Two from Bristol, I note. And one from "Hamshire". <Insert pork joke here>

Following all the outrage here on personal safety and disruption to daily life, I would welcome suggestions of how to achieve rather more change in direction than has been achieved in the last thirty years, without the disruption/danger.

The following is a useful reference for international / historical comparison of GHG emissions. (There is also loads of other interesting stuff on the same site).


https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

There is a good argument that XR should pick their targets with more care, and that their celebrity supporters should realise that they damage their cause by jetting around the world to 'star' in protests. Greta Thunberg, notably, came by train.

As my fellow Bristolian says in his latest piece at Marble Arch:

The same line quoted, I think by another Bristol entity a few decades back on the cover of an L.P. by "The Pop Group".

Here are a few peaceful suggestions.
Lobby, petition, and march in favour of more and larger wind farms.
Ditto in favour of changes to the building regulations to require new homes to be zero carbon.
Protest against any more oil and gas exploration.
Argue against any and all new construction of gas burning power plants.
Argue against all new road building.
And of course set a good example by not driving or flying, and by minimising use of fuel in the home.

And a few less peaceful but probably more effective actions.
Disrupt air travel by blocking roads to airports, leaving fake bombs in airports, drone flying.
Try to close down coal burning power stations by disrupting rail access thereto.
Publicly shame NIMBYs who argue against renewable energy infrastructure.
Publicly shame and blockade or disrupt energy wasting organisations.

You missed a bit...

Anywhere with enough wind.

Broadgage is getting a bit radical...………….could Extinction Rebellion be overtaken by Extinction Buffet?  :)

Now look TG.  Thats the second time in one topic that I've had to clear up a mess... :P

The enlargement of my musical repertoire never ceases. And anyone claiming to be inspired by both Debussy and Funkadelic can't be that bad!

Westminster then.......

......just watch out for the refreshment trolley being pushed through the train with a chap glued to it. Make sure you say hello! 🙂

I am indeed a bit radical, but also realistic.

Despite the urgency of climate change, I do not feel that eliminating fossil fuel use in just a few years is realistic for reasons already given.
It certainly could not be done in a democracy, and probably not in a dictatorship.

I can think of more modest actions that would substantially reduce carbon emissions, but even these would be a considerable challenge.

Double the tax on road fuel to reduce use, not easy to introduce. Remember the fuel price protests?
Subject aviation to the same tax as road fuel.
Reduce speed limits to say 60MPH on motorways and 40 MPH on rural roads. Very unpopular.
Increase VAT to 20% on coal, oil, and gas.
Change the planning rules to automatically approve wind turbines and solar panels.

Introduce a second, much higher rate of VAT. This to be levied not on "luxuries" as in the past, but on all goods that are needlessly wasteful of energy or other resources. Including.

Disposable batteries.
Electric lamps with an efficiency of less than 150 lumens per watt.
Electrical/electronic appliances that use more one watt on standby.
TV sets and PCs that use more than 100 watts.
Motor vehicles that use more than one gallon per 100 miles.
Anything disposable for which re-usable alternatives are readily available.
For unavoidably disposable goods, higher vat rate UNLESS made from 95% recycled materials.
Air fares on routes also served by railways.

Now consider how many of those measures would be acceptable to a majority of the electorate ?

IME, most of the populace DO care about climate change, but WONT accept any measures that significantly affect THEM.

It's people like you what cause unrest !...😁

So true.

Arguably that's where the problem with our democracy lies: we want the moon on a stick, and are furious with our politicians when they say we can't have it.

No.  The politicians promise it to get elected and then we get angry when they cannot deliver it.

That's a fair point. But if two candidates put themselves up, one offering the moon on a stick and the other just a stick, which one's most likely to get elected?

Sad to say I think we've reached the stage where almost no one believes what politicians/candidates say anymore and that is not a good place for a country to be in.

The one who explains how the moon is going to be paid for.

...and that's the fundamental misconception underlying the neoliberal consensus, for:


;)

Extinction rebellion have announced plans to close Heathrow for a day later this month, and then for 10 days next month, unless the planned expansion of Heathrow is cancelled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48470623 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48470623)

That's Emma Thompson buggered then.

Perhaps that might be rephrased?

Underlying sentiment understood!

It certainly wasn't meant literally!  :)

Notwithstanding the activities of hypocritical luvvies, I hope that anyone from "Extinction Rebellion" moronic enough to put lives at risk by flying drones near Heathrow is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

As you will know, TG, I (like your good self) have no political bias whatsoever. However your use of the word 'moronic' and the phrases 'put lives at risk' and ''prosecuted to the full extent of the law' almost make me wonder if you are beginning to consider coming down from the fence on this issue?

As an aside, are any lives at risk if global heating develops in the way a number of people suggest that it may?

The more extreme climate change activists consider that peaceful and legal protests seldom change anything.

An analogy would be the fur trade. This has now largely ceased in the UK, not entirely I know but largely.
Was this achieved by peaceful protest and by voting ? no it was not ! The mainstream fur trade was ended by a determined campaign of arson attacks against stores selling furs.

"A bomb is worth a million votes"

I very much doubt that any aircraft will actually be brought down. However the threat thereof may put some people of flying which is the idea.
Many flights may be diverted, again a dis-incentive to air travel.
Any anti-drone operations will be expensive and disruptive, again no doubt this is the idea.
A few hundred or even a few dozen protestors equipped with small and cheap drones could be a very effective protest.

Or of course this may be fake news, put about by extinction rebellion in order to distract attention from some other mode of attack.
It would be easy for protestors to infiltrate one of the many outsourced services in a modern airport.
Once on the "inside" consider the fun they could have !

Doesn't bear thinking about,but you can bet the security services have done so.

Yes. of course they are, that's not in question. I'm far closer to helping to  alleviate it through my business on a daily basis than you could ever know.
Do you think a proper or acceptable way to mitigate this is to put hundreds of lives at risk by flying drones across Heathrow Airport, or would you agree that it's thoroughly irresponsible and illegal?

Ironically if Heathrow have the sort of detection that they say they have and react accordingly. or if the protesters are a bit careful then lives will not be put at risk, but disruption will be severe.  Though there are some big ifs in that. 

I find it sad that some appear to be saying it’s okay to break the law and bring potentially severe disruption to people’s lives through no fault of their own. The genie is out of the bottle as far as the masses travelling the world is concerned. You may stop it here and in Europe, but you have no chance in most of the rest of the developed world. If you think they will pay attention to what our little island does/doesn’t do you may well be disappointed. Those days are long gone and you can thank our politicians for that.

Phones not drones.

Yes, I'd like to see what would happen if they tried to pull that stunt at an American airport or Chinese or Russian etc

In the late sixties it seemed inevitable that our local railway would close, and that a six-lane urban motorway would be built within a few hundred metres of where I live. The railway is now flourishing, and the motorway never happened. Things can change.

There may be no practical alternative to air for long-distance travel, but should we be expanding short-haul flights? Would Heathrow need additional capacity if more short-haul flights switched to high speed rail?

The budget for expanding Heathrow is £14BN... how does this investment sit with the climate emergency?

Illegal yes, irresponsible too if it puts lives at risk. I don't see why it necessarily would put lives at risk, if the protest drone flights were carefully planned to avoid any risk of impact with an aircraft that is landing, taking off or flying.

I cannot support Extinction Rebellion's tactics, because they (the tactics) are illegal. But the objective of this campaign, to stop the expansion of Heathrow, is a worthy aim; if they weren't proposing to break the law to acheive that I'd agree with them completely.

I have mixed feelings about this.
I do not really agree with violent or otherwise illegal protests, but on the other hand lawful actions seem unlikely to have any effect whatsoever.
If serious about climate change, we may have to try and put the "genie back in the bottle". Air transport is inherently and unavoidably highly polluting with very little scope for improvement.
Flying large numbers of people for long distances needs a lot of fuel.
Only liquid hydrocarbon fuels have the required energy density.

I cant see air transport closing down in just a few years as is being demanded by some protesters. In view of the concerns about both climate change, and about the continued availability of cheap oil, it seems most unwise to actively expand air transport.

IME, most of the population ARE concerned about climate change, but WONT accept anything significant that affects THEIR lifestyle.
"of course air travel should be restricted, provided that this does not affect MY right to foreign holidays"
"petrol or diesel cars should be discouraged, but I HAVE to drive MY little darlings to school"

And of course the excellent point has been made that such protests would be dealt with very firmly indeed in many other countries.

Yes we should be expanding high speed rail to cut back on short haul flights.

We have the Channel Tunnel that opens up most of Europe to the UK but so far little advantage of this has been taken with trains to Amsterdam having only recently started and that’s only one way! Crazy.

Then you have HS2. Look at all the fuss being caused over building that. If you could get London-Edinburgh/Glasgow down to less than three hours then you would stand a chance of eliminating most air travel between London and Scotland.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see the third runway ever being built at Heathrow. Not now.

I've got my tin hat on and the chin strap is deployed, my flak jacket is buttoned up and belted so into the affray I go.

I COULDN'T CARE A MONKEYS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE.

Seriously though, when did you see our leader Mrs. TM step off of Eurostar in Brussels or London going to / coming from discussions with European Leaders over Brexit.

In a few hours time she will be greeting an elected man who by virtue of his position is regarded as the most powerful person on this planet of ours. By virtue of that position he has a private Boeing 747 Jetliner in which he flits around the world in and wherever he has to travel more than a mile or so over land he is helicoptered. He also withdrew his country from an International Climate Change Accord, The Paris Accord.

Nearer to home we had the Bath Burgermasters refusing to allow OHL to be erected through their city even though Network Rail had commissioned three designs for simulated Georgian / Victorian overhead ironmongery which were all approved by expert organisations in the field. Perhaps the newly elected Burgermasters might change that.

Even nearer to home, my city, Bristol has a bus service to its Airport and very often whilst sitting on a bench seat in The City Centre munching a meal deal from Tescos, Sainsburys or the Co-Op, I see the A1 Airport bus with only 1 or 2 passengers aboard, and within 10 minutes another A1 to the Airport comes along empty and stops to pick up a solitary passenger at the Forces Recruitment Office stop on the City Centre.

I remember when the bus service to the airport was. I think, the 122 from the Bristol Bus Station to Weston-Super -Mare which ran at a frequency of 1 per every 2 hours. Before that, as a child, I travelled to visit an aunt, who lived at Blagdon, on the bus and we passed RAF Lulsgate and other services passing that location besides the Bristol - Weston service as mentioned, were the Bristol - Blagdon (Chew Valley) Service, the Bristol - Cheddar service and the Bristol - Bridgewater service. There was also the Bristol - Dundry service which turned off the A38 before the airport.

SO why should I give up my jaunts to Glasgow by Easyjet to visit relatives when the people who SHOULD be taking the lead on Climate Change DON'T.

If we are being let down by those who have been put in a position to take the long term lead for us, then perhaps we should not follow their poor example but
* set good examples ourselves
* suggest workable and practical approaches
* partner with those who may be letting us down, but nevertheless have strong knowledge and skills, as well as pressures and constraint we (as we start at least) may not appreciate
* learn best practise from others - observe and ask "how can this apply"
* be in it for the long term (not just a stunt) and with a strategy
* shout about it too ...

I got into "this business" of campaigning when I felt let down.  And perhaps I have helped achieve a little something; true reward is talking to someone who's life has been changed - once or on a daily basis - by having a better train or bus service.  Without ... perhaps a dozen people I could easily name involved each in their own way ... this would not have been achieved.  And it really needs theist be taken from a local to a national and global scale with (for example) a sharing of best practise.

It is no accident that you are seeing (my) pictures from all over a different region at the moment ....

Thank you for your post, MartyJon - a really question at the end which I have picked up.  You started "I don't care a monkey's about climate change".   You might when it effects you ... but I would love to offer you a carrot to encourage you and everyone to make better use of our planet's resources that suits you too, rather than a stick to berate you for not doing so.   I want you to get on a fairly fast, cheap, electric train at a stop near your home and be  able to end up near your relative's home in Glasgow and that to be the logical best way for you.

Re post # 120.
I can not agree.
The President of the USA, and most other politicians, do indeed set a very poor example by the profligate use of fuel.

However I do not feel that this justifies similarly wasteful behaviour from the rest of us.

A brief note that I HAVE seen the notify requesting a retitle of this threat to something more relevant to where we are now; also looking at / wondering at a split.  As I'm train-hopping again today, a look at the structure will need to wait as I'm liable to end up loosing my connection in the middle of doing things, which would not be clever.

It terms of setting an example, my trip is a green one as I'm exclusively using trains which are running for other people anyway.  One case where I was the only person getting off a train and no-one got on, but as it was not a request stop, once again I claim my green badge.

Agree, the money should be spent on improving rail.
HS2-------------Yes, we have had years of studies, reviews and consultations, time to get on and actually build it.
More use of Chanel tunnel----------Yes.
And ALSO some relatively minor and incremental improvements to existing routes to improve capacity.

But you can be fairly confident that it wouldn't be...


Work has already started... which is not to say that it won't be cancelled by the next incumbent at No.10, judging by what they are saying. Again, don't expect the money to be invested in anything more useful than a 1p cut in income tax though.


Out of interest, does anyone know how much spare capacity there is in the Chunnel? I've googled around but not come up with a simple answer...

I've changed the title of this thread to 'Climate protests in London' to better reflect the fact that these actions are organised by more than one group and effect more than just the Underground.

Prophetic, yet again, RS!


Interesting question. So far as I can tell from RTT, there is a minimum 24 minute headway between the Eurostar services in each direction, but no mention of the shuttles services. The speed limit is 100 mph through the 31 miles of tunnel, which suggests that there are never two Eurostars in the tunnel in the same direction at the same time. The freight movement figures - albeit from Wikipedia - are of interest. These run at not much more than a third of the volume seen at the peak before the fire some 20 years ago. If it was running at capacity in the heyday and passenger trains have not increase in number, then there are presumably a couple of million paths available annually. A lot of assumptions there, but I haven't found anything else to answer the question.

Meanwhile a climate change activist has been forcibly removed from the roof of an underground train, not by TPTB but by a crowd of enraged commuters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50079716 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50079716)

Whilst I have some sympathy with the disrupting of carbon intensive air and road transport, to obstruct electric trains seems simply daft, and I have more sympathy with the underground passengers than with the protesters in this case.

There seems to be a growing view that "climate change activist" is simply the latest re-branding of the numerous protest groups that seem to exist primarily to stop people earning a living.
I expect considerable public anger if those passengers who removed the protesters from the train roof, are subjected to the full force of the law, whilst those who climbed onto the train get away with it.

Their justification for halting this DRL train was that it serves the City, which is financing fossil fuel extraction. I feel they could have made a more effective protest by doing something in the City, outside the relevant companies (or on their roofs!). This would also, more importantly, have been less divisive. In other words, I'm afraid they've blown a lot of public support, potential and actual, with this.

Yes, a classic own goal. Never mind the City, the underground goes to a lot of other places too, and protesting about public transport isn't going to win converts. Neither, if you saw the BBC morning news, did the "journalist" who was allegedly roughed up while filming help The Cause in any way. To say you are a journalist, then to start spouting the "if we don't climb on train rooves everyone will die" spiel rather puts his impartiality into question. It was also a bit rum of him to complain about how long the police took to arrive, given what they are dealing with across the capital.

The TV footage, by the way, didn't show me anything violent, just a bit of what we like to call "direct action" in these exciting times.

Idiocy of climbing onto a train roof

Idiocy of holding people up on their way to work to earn a living to keep food on their families' tables

These people won't stop until they have us all living in caves and eating turnip skins.

Canning Town was a very silly place to try this stunt (It would be silly anywhere, tbh).  They should have tried their luck at Angel, where the Islingtonist types might just have had a tad more sympathy, and invited the protestors to a sit-down and chat over a lovely soy latte

Waiting for someone to try this on a mainline with OHLE.

That would give a new meaning to the trendy phrase "carbon footprint".

I have noticed a lot of "toilet not available" mentions in the train running page. Have ER found a new target?

Source, and full article: The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/17/london-tube-protest-divides-extinction-rebellion)

And so it did. Locally to me, and separately from any ER protest, there has been a small campaign to close a road used as a rat-run to "stop noisy speeding cars using diesel fuel" to race up the road. I pointed out that the proposed solution would also stop quiet electric cars going slowly.

This is a bit of what has happened in London - a protest to stop the fat cats getting rich on fossil fuels to the detriment of humanity has led to some things which have stopped normal environmentally aware people going about their non-polluting business in a carbon-neutral way. When anyone complains, the stock answer of this being less inconvenient than having the whole planet turned into a scorched wilderness looks sanctimonious, simplistic, unsympathetic, and not very well thought through. Being a nuisance and treating anyone whose daily journey to work becomes a nightmare as mere collateral damage will lose support amongst the general public. And get you dragged off the train roof, even if you are surprised to find that not everybody shares your view outside of the echo chamber. The mob has tasted blood - the next protester to hold up a commuter train will be brave indeed. Or stupid.

The principal objective is said to be to cause government to act, and that at least is likely to come to pass. Depending on the make-up of the next government, expect a raft of new legislation, along the lines of the Public Transport (Prohibition of Self-Adhesion) Act, Police Cycle Lock Removal Powers Act, and similar. Existing laws cover quite a bit of the disruption, such as interfering with an aircaft, or not sitting down in one when told to. In Bristol, the proseecutors seemed to prefer simpler charges like obstructing the highway to anything that could end up in a 5-day Crown Court trial. It will be interesting to see what happens this time. The Met Police reckon it may be 6 months before they can get back to concentrating on drugs and knife crime in the capital full time.

Luxury. We used to dream of turnip skins.

I suspect that an exploded protester would cause even more disruption than the famous exploded pigeon. And leave larger carbon footprints.

From talkRaDIO (https://talkradio.co.uk/news/extinction-rebellion-activists-spared-jail-over-dlr-glue-stunt-19121932797)

The judge ordered a total of £1766 in costs. Miss Eastburn, who spent a week in prison on remand, must pay £1,166 of that. The conditional discharge means that if they get caught doing anything else wrong in the next year, they will be sentenced for this as well.

I agree with the verdict of the court. The offences were non-trivial, but also not hugely serious, and the judgement reflects this.
Whilst I have considerable agreement with the concerns and aims of ER, I cant support the disruption of electric public transport, use of which should be encouraged as an alternative to driving a private car.

Does anyone know what happened to the members of the public who removed the protesters from the train roof ? Nothing, I hope.

Nothing that I have heard. Any charge would probably be of common assault under s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, possibly assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 if more than pride was hurt. Common assault is a summary matter which can only be heard in the Magistrates Court. ABH is triable either way, so can be heard in Magistrates or Crown court. I would be surprised if the Crown Prosecution service proceeded with it, with the police probably finding evidence in the form of witness statements hard to come by, even if they tried.

Some 20 years ago, a noisy 16th birthday party of a neighbour's son spilled out into the road. One young man was taking a leak over another neighbour's garden wall, and got very mouthy with said neighbour when he came out to remonstrate. Moments later, the young man suffered a rapid decrease in potential energy after a punch was thrown, and called the police. A few witnesses seemed to recall the youth throwing the first punch, the other onlookers thought he might have tripped. Neither group could be certain. He was alone by this time, the rest of the party having either gone quietly home or back into the house, and started to shout about how it was all wrong and every was lying because they didn't like him, when an officer suggested with less than subtlety that he went home. He walked off, appearing from a side-street on his moped a few minutes later when he figured the coast was clear. He was stopped at the next corner, breathalysed, and taken away in handcuffs. From this, we learn that public opinion can sometimes sway an outcome.

One of the more sensible policies of Extinction Rebellion and other climate activists, was a call to prohibit the heating of outdoor seating areas of bars and cafes etc.
Excessive indoor heating is bad enough, but trying to heat the outdoors is daft.

Such a ban is now being introduced in France, though not until after this winter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53552526 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53552526)

Time IMHO to call for a similar prohibition in the UK.

Surely if it was done in Europe there is absolutely no chance of it happening in UK.

Possibly, but in certain respects at least we are making greater progress than our European neighbours WRT to climate change.
We have greatly reduced coal burning for electricity production, and have greatly increased wind power.
So there seems to be some hope of banning outdoor heating in England.

We could start by banning outdoor heating in summer, I suppose.  ;D

It is a very stupid idea by and large, and seems, at least in part, to be an unintended consequence on the very welcome ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants and workplaces. It is a wasteful use of a finite resources, as well as a source of unnecessary pollution. I would certainly not disagree with any plan to ban it, or make it subject to planning or licencing rules.

Thankfully, we use very little coal in generating electricity - practically none at all since the pandemic forced lockdown. We have greatly increased the capacity to generate electricity from wind and solar, but that doesn't translate into production itself. A quick look at Gridwatch (https://gridwatch.co.uk/?old=) shows that on this averagely breezy and slightly overcast day, we are deriving 8.6% of our electricity from wind and 5.4% from solar, less than we import from the continent. The latter will drop over a cliff at sundown. 52.6% of our electricity is currently coming from combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT). It seems the more renewable electricity machines we build, the more we will have to rely on gas as the replacement when it is not producing enough. To produce as much constant electricity a a 100 MW CCGT installation, you need 50 2MW wind turbines, and a 100 MW CCGT installation. Super-duper batteries will be with us soon after fusion power, but at the moment are only there as a means to restart the grid if it goes badly wrong. Using them to store excess renewable power will make sense when no fossil fuel is being burned at all, but otherwise makes as much sense as topping up your ISA by drawing cash with a credit card.

To add to the points above, utility scale batteries are now a reality. The UK already has about 0.5Gw of battery storage, and another 4Gw is planned. 4.5 Gw is enough to meet about 10% of UK demand.
Grid connected batteries able to meet 10% of national demand were science fiction until very recently.
AFAIK, the planned use is short term to cover for breakdowns or unexpected peaks, not for calm days, still an interesting start though.

The press release is unclear as to whether they are talking about Giga watts, or Giga watt hours. I suspect the later i.e. the ability to produce 4.5 Gw for some unspecified but short time, probably less than one hour.
Being able to source say 2Gw from batteries for the "high peak" of the worst 20 or 30 minutes would be very useful as it could avoid the need to run gas turbine plant for that time, saving start up losses and wear. The other 2.5Gw being kept in reserve in case something breaks before the earlier capacity has been recharged.

Spread your windfarms widely enough and it's bound to be blowing at one of them. The same isn't true of solar, except possibly in Russia.  :D

4.5 GWh would run the country on its own for 5 minutes if it were spaced out nicely. As a way of evening out high load, we can use Dinorwig for comparison. The electric mountain can provide 1.7 GW (in an impressive 16 seconds from starting) for up to 6 hours, giving a total storage of 9.1 GWh. That helps greatly with the surgein demand at the end of every Eastenders episode, or at half-time in a broadcast football or rugby game, and would be invaluable in rebooting the grid. It was actually built to smooth out surges when we had coal and oil supplying most of the nation's electricity.


Alas, no, unless you mean across oceans. This is one of many reports (https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/173665/britain-has-gone-nine-days-without-wind-power/?share=email) of a wind drought, this one in the summer of 2018. It happened to a smaller extent last week, compensated for by solar to a degree. Sustained periods without wind are not that uncommon in winter, when demand is high and solar low, as high pressure systems stall. Wind turbines then become net users of electricity, with the blades driven to keep ice from forming and maintain lubrication.

4.5 Gwh would indeed run the country for only a few minutes, and is less than the energy stored in the pumped storage plant at Dinorwic.
Still most useful though for short term peaks in demand, or shortages of supply caused by breakdowns.

I don't think that the batteries would help in re-starting the grid after a national blackout. Most large inverters connected to the grid, rely on the grid connection for operation.
They can feed power into a functioning grid system and perhaps avert a total shutdown, but they can not feed power into a "dead" grid system to re-start.

Re-starting after a complete shutdown is known as a black start.
The traditional way was to black start a couple of large coal burning power plants. Usually a diesel generator (that started from batteries or air bottles) supplied power to Auxiliary plant in order to raise steam and operate at least one main turbine and alternator.

These days, selected gas turbine plants can start without any grid power, and re-energise portions of the grid.

A black start of the entire UK grid has never yet been required.
There WAS a regional black start of the London and southern England area after the great storm of 1987.

Well one lot of protesters who climbed atop a train HAVE got away with it. Acquitted by jury.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/priests-acquitted-over-extinction-rebellion-train-roof-protest-in-london-z0cfjpjsk (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/priests-acquitted-over-extinction-rebellion-train-roof-protest-in-london-z0cfjpjsk)

I disagree with the verdict of the jury, it seems to me that the jury voted in line with their own views on and concerns about climate change, and ignored the facts which seemed clear cut to me.

I remain sympathetic to extinction rebellion in general, but can not support delaying and obstructing electric public transport. XR should be ENCOURAGING greater use of this, not deterring use by disruption.

As has been demonstrated with the Colston Four verdict – and countless times over several centuries – a jury is entitled to bring what is called a 'perverse verdict'. Having delivered the verdict, that's it, unless fresh evidence is presented. It's very difficult to know the jury's reasoning and they're not obliged to explain (in fact I think they're not allowed to). Also as seen in the Colston Four trial, the fact of having done something does not necessarily mean guilt; there are often defences. In the case of a charge of criminal damage, causing damage to prevent a crime which you believe is being committed – it does not have to actually be committed, belief is sufficient – was a defence. In this case, I see the right to protest under the HRA is mentioned.

What has it got to do with the Heritage Railway Association  :) Not aware of climate change protesters climbing atop heritage trains, or gluing themselves thereto.

If they did, they would have to use heritage fishbone glue, or just possibly Uhu or Bostick.