Eco activists heading to Lewes to 'reclaim the power'

Eco activists heading to Lewes to 'reclaim the power'

Eco activists heading to Lewes to 'reclaim the power'

First published in News
Last updated
by

Environmental activists known for their civil disobedience tactics are set to gather in a Sussex town.

Campaign group No Dash For Gas has announced it will host a Reclaim the Power meeting in Lewes later this month.

Sussex Police are now urging organisers to get in touch to explain their intentions and help them understand what if any presence will be needed for the weekend.

Organisers say they have plans for “some kick-ass action” and want fellow activists to join them at the gathering at Zu Studios on the Phoenix Industrial Estate on the weekend of March 22 and 23.


MORE:


The site is less than a mile from the Sussex Police Crime Commissioner and within a mile and a half of Sussex Police’s headquarters.

Members from the No Dash For Gas group took part in a mass civil disobedience during a week-long Reclaim the Power camp in August at Balcombe.

The action saw officers arrest more than 30 people, including Green MP for Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas.

In October 2012, members of the group shut down the West Burton gas power station for a week, while most recently a blockade held up the delivery of a wind turbine blade to the Barton Moss shale gas test site in Salford.

A member of the group told The Argus: “We’ve had gatherings in Manchester and Oxford, now we’re going further south to be more accessible to all.”

Martin Thomas, of Zu Studios, said: “A mutual acquaintance suggested us and I was very happy to open up the space.

“I have been told to expect maybe 50 people.

“I am providing the space but I don’t really know what they have planned.

“Lewes as a town has a history of people standing up against things they don’t want so it’s quite a relevant place.”

Lewes MP Norman Baker said: “This is a free country and if people want to congregate why shouldn’t they?

“There aren’t any fracking sites in Lewes so in that sense I am not sure why they are coming here.”

Chief Inspector Gary Keating said: “We are seeking to make contact with the premises owner through our neighbourhood policing team to determine whether there will be a need for any police presence to prevent disruption on the estate and in the town.”

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:10am Sat 8 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

We won't have any gas at all if the situation in the Ukraine escalates then this group can advise the elderly on how exactly they can heat their homes.
We won't have any gas at all if the situation in the Ukraine escalates then this group can advise the elderly on how exactly they can heat their homes. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 17

8:21am Sat 8 Mar 14

hyram77 says...

"Some kick **** action" eh, sounds like fighting talk to me! People will take no notice of your little demo so my advice, instead of wasting your time, have a nice walk along the seafront, perhaps stop for a bit of lunch and a cold beer, stroll around a few nice shops and then home to catch a movie...... Much better idea.
"Some kick **** action" eh, sounds like fighting talk to me! People will take no notice of your little demo so my advice, instead of wasting your time, have a nice walk along the seafront, perhaps stop for a bit of lunch and a cold beer, stroll around a few nice shops and then home to catch a movie...... Much better idea. hyram77
  • Score: 10

10:18am Sat 8 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Its because of groups like this that we don't have energy security any more in the UK,we are reliant on imports when we have massive reserves in the UK.Basically everyone has a right to protest but as soon as they start blockading roads etc then action should be taken.The protesters use energy just as we do but they are actually more polluting with there open fires and vans etc.
Its because of groups like this that we don't have energy security any more in the UK,we are reliant on imports when we have massive reserves in the UK.Basically everyone has a right to protest but as soon as they start blockading roads etc then action should be taken.The protesters use energy just as we do but they are actually more polluting with there open fires and vans etc. clubrob6
  • Score: 3

11:15am Sat 8 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Hey hop ... spring is in the air ...
Hey hop ... spring is in the air ... mimseycal
  • Score: 4

11:16am Sat 8 Mar 14

Ish1 says...

hyram77 wrote:
"Some kick **** action" eh, sounds like fighting talk to me! People will take no notice of your little demo so my advice, instead of wasting your time, have a nice walk along the seafront, perhaps stop for a bit of lunch and a cold beer, stroll around a few nice shops and then home to catch a movie...... Much better idea.
I would much rather they stayed in Lewes rather than defile Brighton.
[quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: "Some kick **** action" eh, sounds like fighting talk to me! People will take no notice of your little demo so my advice, instead of wasting your time, have a nice walk along the seafront, perhaps stop for a bit of lunch and a cold beer, stroll around a few nice shops and then home to catch a movie...... Much better idea.[/p][/quote]I would much rather they stayed in Lewes rather than defile Brighton. Ish1
  • Score: -2

11:54am Sat 8 Mar 14

Martha Gunn says...

Another gig for the Luddite Lucas?
Another gig for the Luddite Lucas? Martha Gunn
  • Score: 3

11:58am Sat 8 Mar 14

Bluebeef says...

Kick-**** action: when did caring for the planet descend into this sort of aggressive and provocative nonsense.

Why don't they grow up and present a reasoned case against fracking or what ever their issues are and explain in realistic terms how to keep the lights on and the public transport running. Presumably owning a car would be considered immoral so they must use public transport to make their terribly important journeys.
Kick-**** action: when did caring for the planet descend into this sort of aggressive and provocative nonsense. Why don't they grow up and present a reasoned case against fracking or what ever their issues are and explain in realistic terms how to keep the lights on and the public transport running. Presumably owning a car would be considered immoral so they must use public transport to make their terribly important journeys. Bluebeef
  • Score: 1

12:10pm Sat 8 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Bluebeef wrote:
Kick-**** action: when did caring for the planet descend into this sort of aggressive and provocative nonsense.

Why don't they grow up and present a reasoned case against fracking or what ever their issues are and explain in realistic terms how to keep the lights on and the public transport running. Presumably owning a car would be considered immoral so they must use public transport to make their terribly important journeys.
Because, like all extremists and confirmed fanatics, their attitude is if you don't subscribe to their opinion 100% you are an oxygen thief.
[quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: Kick-**** action: when did caring for the planet descend into this sort of aggressive and provocative nonsense. Why don't they grow up and present a reasoned case against fracking or what ever their issues are and explain in realistic terms how to keep the lights on and the public transport running. Presumably owning a car would be considered immoral so they must use public transport to make their terribly important journeys.[/p][/quote]Because, like all extremists and confirmed fanatics, their attitude is if you don't subscribe to their opinion 100% you are an oxygen thief. mimseycal
  • Score: 3

1:33pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Number Six says...

Bluebeef wrote:
Kick-**** action: when did caring for the planet descend into this sort of aggressive and provocative nonsense.

Why don't they grow up and present a reasoned case against fracking or what ever their issues are and explain in realistic terms how to keep the lights on and the public transport running. Presumably owning a car would be considered immoral so they must use public transport to make their terribly important journeys.
I don't think that logic plays a big part in their thought processes. They fondly believe that anyone is going to take any notice of them. They'll learn soon enough
[quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: Kick-**** action: when did caring for the planet descend into this sort of aggressive and provocative nonsense. Why don't they grow up and present a reasoned case against fracking or what ever their issues are and explain in realistic terms how to keep the lights on and the public transport running. Presumably owning a car would be considered immoral so they must use public transport to make their terribly important journeys.[/p][/quote]I don't think that logic plays a big part in their thought processes. They fondly believe that anyone is going to take any notice of them. They'll learn soon enough Number Six
  • Score: -5

1:55pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Bluebeef says...

mimseycal and Number 6 you are sadly probably both right: the problem is they have cost the ratepayers of Sussex & Brighton something like £10 per head (very approx.!) to police Balcombe and more for their sily **** kicking in Lewes. Ho hum: right to protest important though.
mimseycal and Number 6 you are sadly probably both right: the problem is they have cost the ratepayers of Sussex & Brighton something like £10 per head (very approx.!) to police Balcombe and more for their sily **** kicking in Lewes. Ho hum: right to protest important though. Bluebeef
  • Score: -4

2:05pm Sat 8 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
We won't have any gas at all if the situation in the Ukraine escalates then this group can advise the elderly on how exactly they can heat their homes.
Very little, if any, of our gas comes from Russia.

Perhaps the protesters preffer a fabric first approach, that is re-engineering buildings and processes to use much less energy to acheive the same or better result. Te elderly would not need to heat their homes so much, nor pay such high bills.

We need to leave the majority of existing reserves of hydrocarbons in the ground, let alone discover and exploit more!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: We won't have any gas at all if the situation in the Ukraine escalates then this group can advise the elderly on how exactly they can heat their homes.[/p][/quote]Very little, if any, of our gas comes from Russia. Perhaps the protesters preffer a fabric first approach, that is re-engineering buildings and processes to use much less energy to acheive the same or better result. Te elderly would not need to heat their homes so much, nor pay such high bills. We need to leave the majority of existing reserves of hydrocarbons in the ground, let alone discover and exploit more! HJarrs
  • Score: 4

2:07pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Bob_The_Ferret says...

If they want to conserve energy they should stay at home in the dark.
If they want to conserve energy they should stay at home in the dark. Bob_The_Ferret
  • Score: -3

2:44pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources.
That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 1

3:03pm Sat 8 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne?

Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.[/p][/quote]No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control. HJarrs
  • Score: -5

3:14pm Sat 8 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne?

Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.
HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans.

Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.[/p][/quote]No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.[/p][/quote]HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-) mimseycal
  • Score: 7

3:29pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Bluebeef says...

Excellent logic mimseycal and this before we take into account whether the protestors are productive members of society or support themselves in other ways.
Excellent logic mimseycal and this before we take into account whether the protestors are productive members of society or support themselves in other ways. Bluebeef
  • Score: -1

3:31pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Number Six says...

mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne?

Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.
HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans.

Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)
Well said Mimseycal but sadly Hugh, like the protestors, is another stranger to rational thought and logic
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.[/p][/quote]No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.[/p][/quote]HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)[/p][/quote]Well said Mimseycal but sadly Hugh, like the protestors, is another stranger to rational thought and logic Number Six
  • Score: 1

4:03pm Sat 8 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.
HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)
You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline.

The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change.


There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.[/p][/quote]No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.[/p][/quote]HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)[/p][/quote]You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline. The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change. There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact. HJarrs
  • Score: -9

4:22pm Sat 8 Mar 14

ronrostog says...

Middle class wasters with too much time on their hands who I hope get their '**** kicked' off the old bill.
Middle class wasters with too much time on their hands who I hope get their '**** kicked' off the old bill. ronrostog
  • Score: 3

4:22pm Sat 8 Mar 14

John Steed says...

I thoroughly recomend a trip to lewes , good place to meet, eat and drink exceptionaly tasty beer, and good for shopping or sight seeing, now assuming they are not up to anything under hand where is the problem? thats what I though as well there is no problem, have a nice week end
people
I thoroughly recomend a trip to lewes , good place to meet, eat and drink exceptionaly tasty beer, and good for shopping or sight seeing, now assuming they are not up to anything under hand where is the problem? thats what I though as well there is no problem, have a nice week end people John Steed
  • Score: 9

4:34pm Sat 8 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.
HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)
You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline.

The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change.


There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.
No dearling, you are getting confused. You claimed that a commenter blamed children as yet unborn. I merely pointed out that this was not the case and why ...
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.[/p][/quote]No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.[/p][/quote]HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)[/p][/quote]You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline. The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change. There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.[/p][/quote]No dearling, you are getting confused. You claimed that a commenter blamed children as yet unborn. I merely pointed out that this was not the case and why ... mimseycal
  • Score: 2

4:45pm Sat 8 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.
HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)
You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline. The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change. There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.
No dearling, you are getting confused. You claimed that a commenter blamed children as yet unborn. I merely pointed out that this was not the case and why ...
Don't be so patronising. Read your own comments, you are the one that mentioned "infinite number of humans".

Some people may not like the protesters nor agree with their tactics, however they hold a mirror up to society; we are not addressing environmental degradation in any meaningful way.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.[/p][/quote]No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.[/p][/quote]HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)[/p][/quote]You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline. The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change. There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.[/p][/quote]No dearling, you are getting confused. You claimed that a commenter blamed children as yet unborn. I merely pointed out that this was not the case and why ...[/p][/quote]Don't be so patronising. Read your own comments, you are the one that mentioned "infinite number of humans". Some people may not like the protesters nor agree with their tactics, however they hold a mirror up to society; we are not addressing environmental degradation in any meaningful way. HJarrs
  • Score: -7

4:46pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Thank you mimseycal. I did not blame unborn children.
Birth control is a tool to manage population growth to ensure those entering the world have enough food and resources to survive. It's not rocket science. Two of the biggest challenges to the UKs growing population are land for both housing and food production and water supply so continually reproducing children or growing a population is unsustainable. I cannot believe the Eco expert HJarrs doesn't know this.
With regards to gas coming from Russia HJarrs, the gas pipelines from Russia cross the Ukraine and Russia is protecting its assets which are under threat since the 'revolution'.
Perhaps you should start reading the international business pages instead of being so parochial.
Anyway HJarrs while you are on here, when is the Green council going to move the travellers from wild park. Once again you have allowed them into the park during the start of the key breeding season of many species.are we going to have another record year of park occupation by diesel vans and cars in our green spaces?
Thank you mimseycal. I did not blame unborn children. Birth control is a tool to manage population growth to ensure those entering the world have enough food and resources to survive. It's not rocket science. Two of the biggest challenges to the UKs growing population are land for both housing and food production and water supply so continually reproducing children or growing a population is unsustainable. I cannot believe the Eco expert HJarrs doesn't know this. With regards to gas coming from Russia HJarrs, the gas pipelines from Russia cross the Ukraine and Russia is protecting its assets which are under threat since the 'revolution'. Perhaps you should start reading the international business pages instead of being so parochial. Anyway HJarrs while you are on here, when is the Green council going to move the travellers from wild park. Once again you have allowed them into the park during the start of the key breeding season of many species.are we going to have another record year of park occupation by diesel vans and cars in our green spaces? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 3

4:54pm Sat 8 Mar 14

JHunty says...

HJARRS says "The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change."

Yeah but if no further children are born then devastating levels of climate change won't matter cos like obvs there will be no one around to experience them!

Typically woollen green thinking, like only expecting the first world to act on climate change and giving the developing world a free hand to continue polluting.

It's not unreasonable to expect demonstrators to go to where the problem is being caused, even if. Britian produced no carbon emissions it wouldn't solve the problem so why are they demonstrating here?

Let me guess at first they will be proudly proclaiming how if needs be they will break the law because of a democratic deficit and then when in court it will be the usual I didn't do anything wrong don't punish me spiel. Strange how quickly these demonstrators lose their principles when faced with the consequences of their actions. I wonder if st. Lucas will stick to her line that she broke the law but it was justified or will she chicken out and claim she never broke the law in the first place.
HJARRS says "The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change." Yeah but if no further children are born then devastating levels of climate change won't matter cos like obvs there will be no one around to experience them! Typically woollen green thinking, like only expecting the first world to act on climate change and giving the developing world a free hand to continue polluting. It's not unreasonable to expect demonstrators to go to where the problem is being caused, even if. Britian produced no carbon emissions it wouldn't solve the problem so why are they demonstrating here? Let me guess at first they will be proudly proclaiming how if needs be they will break the law because of a democratic deficit and then when in court it will be the usual I didn't do anything wrong don't punish me spiel. Strange how quickly these demonstrators lose their principles when faced with the consequences of their actions. I wonder if st. Lucas will stick to her line that she broke the law but it was justified or will she chicken out and claim she never broke the law in the first place. JHunty
  • Score: 1

5:12pm Sat 8 Mar 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

The police are the common enemy of the people now, they prefer to protect the rich and companies who get 50% tax reductions from the rich elite in power in government - disgusting corrupt bunch all of them.
The police are the common enemy of the people now, they prefer to protect the rich and companies who get 50% tax reductions from the rich elite in power in government - disgusting corrupt bunch all of them. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: -10

5:25pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Roundbill says...

If I worked at Tesco's petrol station, I'd probably hear that a distant family member had died and was being buried the weekend after next.
If I worked at Tesco's petrol station, I'd probably hear that a distant family member had died and was being buried the weekend after next. Roundbill
  • Score: 3

5:36pm Sat 8 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.
HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)
You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline. The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change. There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.
No dearling, you are getting confused. You claimed that a commenter blamed children as yet unborn. I merely pointed out that this was not the case and why ...
Don't be so patronising. Read your own comments, you are the one that mentioned "infinite number of humans".

Some people may not like the protesters nor agree with their tactics, however they hold a mirror up to society; we are not addressing environmental degradation in any meaningful way.
I will be as patronising as I please thank you liefling. Especially when you attempt to reprimand me when it is evident you have incorrectly read a post.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.[/p][/quote]No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.[/p][/quote]HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)[/p][/quote]You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline. The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change. There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.[/p][/quote]No dearling, you are getting confused. You claimed that a commenter blamed children as yet unborn. I merely pointed out that this was not the case and why ...[/p][/quote]Don't be so patronising. Read your own comments, you are the one that mentioned "infinite number of humans". Some people may not like the protesters nor agree with their tactics, however they hold a mirror up to society; we are not addressing environmental degradation in any meaningful way.[/p][/quote]I will be as patronising as I please thank you liefling. Especially when you attempt to reprimand me when it is evident you have incorrectly read a post. mimseycal
  • Score: 4

6:08pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Number Six says...

HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.
No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.
HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)
You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline. The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change. There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.
No dearling, you are getting confused. You claimed that a commenter blamed children as yet unborn. I merely pointed out that this was not the case and why ...
Don't be so patronising. Read your own comments, you are the one that mentioned "infinite number of humans".

Some people may not like the protesters nor agree with their tactics, however they hold a mirror up to society; we are not addressing environmental degradation in any meaningful way.
Hugh, Stop digging!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They should sign up to an agreement not to reproduce but to adopt children. Too many humans drawing on too few resources. That would be a bold and realistic step. Until that happens, they should mind their own business.[/p][/quote]No they shouldn't, how ridiculous and bonkers. Why should people blame children yet to be borne? Too many humans drawing on too few resource is true. Those people are us, we are here today, we are the ones profligately using resources and causing so much environmental degradation, so why don't we actually get serious about reducing our environmental impact rather than passing the buck to the unborne? Not difficult and way easier and less controversial than population control.[/p][/quote]HJarrs, nothing in the post you ridicule suggest blaming as yet unborn children. It does however refer to the rather often quoted, by eco-warriors, fact that finite resources cannot be expected to support an infinite number of humans. Therefore it suggest, quite rightly, that a very effective step would be to minimise the drain on resources by committing to not add the the number of resource users. Further if they really want to do some good, then adopting innocent children and offering them a good home would be far more effective then using transport to kick rear ends in Lewes ;-)[/p][/quote]You are getting confused, we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources, yet this is effectively what our current economic system encourages. Nobody is suggesting that the human population is expanding to infinity, quite the reverse, it is expected to peak somewhere near 11 billion and then go into decline. The over population argument is an excuse for those of us causing the problems today not to face up to the problems that we have and continue to create. If no further children are borne, without changing our ways, we will still have devatating levels of climate change. There are many respected strategies for significantly reducing our environmental impact, be it in terms of climate or resource use, while maintaining a similar quality of life (I say better in most respects). I will be quite happy to discuss incentives to control population when we are well on our way to doing what we can to address our own environmental impact.[/p][/quote]No dearling, you are getting confused. You claimed that a commenter blamed children as yet unborn. I merely pointed out that this was not the case and why ...[/p][/quote]Don't be so patronising. Read your own comments, you are the one that mentioned "infinite number of humans". Some people may not like the protesters nor agree with their tactics, however they hold a mirror up to society; we are not addressing environmental degradation in any meaningful way.[/p][/quote]Hugh, Stop digging! Number Six
  • Score: 5

6:54pm Sat 8 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Thank you mimseycal. I did not blame unborn children. Birth control is a tool to manage population growth to ensure those entering the world have enough food and resources to survive. It's not rocket science. Two of the biggest challenges to the UKs growing population are land for both housing and food production and water supply so continually reproducing children or growing a population is unsustainable. I cannot believe the Eco expert HJarrs doesn't know this. With regards to gas coming from Russia HJarrs, the gas pipelines from Russia cross the Ukraine and Russia is protecting its assets which are under threat since the 'revolution'. Perhaps you should start reading the international business pages instead of being so parochial. Anyway HJarrs while you are on here, when is the Green council going to move the travellers from wild park. Once again you have allowed them into the park during the start of the key breeding season of many species.are we going to have another record year of park occupation by diesel vans and cars in our green spaces?
The population is predicted to peak before 2100. There are resources available to support the predicted peak population if the resources we have are used responsibly. It's not rocket science.

Improving process efficiency, improving appliance efficiency, adjusting diets, flying less, insulating homes, renewable energy, changing transport habits (more bike lanes!) etc, etc all help address our stressing of the planet's support mechanisms. It is this we should first turn our attention to, not to extreme population control.

As for Wild Park, go ask the council.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Thank you mimseycal. I did not blame unborn children. Birth control is a tool to manage population growth to ensure those entering the world have enough food and resources to survive. It's not rocket science. Two of the biggest challenges to the UKs growing population are land for both housing and food production and water supply so continually reproducing children or growing a population is unsustainable. I cannot believe the Eco expert HJarrs doesn't know this. With regards to gas coming from Russia HJarrs, the gas pipelines from Russia cross the Ukraine and Russia is protecting its assets which are under threat since the 'revolution'. Perhaps you should start reading the international business pages instead of being so parochial. Anyway HJarrs while you are on here, when is the Green council going to move the travellers from wild park. Once again you have allowed them into the park during the start of the key breeding season of many species.are we going to have another record year of park occupation by diesel vans and cars in our green spaces?[/p][/quote]The population is predicted to peak before 2100. There are resources available to support the predicted peak population if the resources we have are used responsibly. It's not rocket science. Improving process efficiency, improving appliance efficiency, adjusting diets, flying less, insulating homes, renewable energy, changing transport habits (more bike lanes!) etc, etc all help address our stressing of the planet's support mechanisms. It is this we should first turn our attention to, not to extreme population control. As for Wild Park, go ask the council. HJarrs
  • Score: -4

8:34pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

mimseycal wrote:
Bluebeef wrote:
Kick-**** action: when did caring for the planet descend into this sort of aggressive and provocative nonsense.

Why don't they grow up and present a reasoned case against fracking or what ever their issues are and explain in realistic terms how to keep the lights on and the public transport running. Presumably owning a car would be considered immoral so they must use public transport to make their terribly important journeys.
Because, like all extremists and confirmed fanatics, their attitude is if you don't subscribe to their opinion 100% you are an oxygen thief.
Mmseycal's comment nicely defines Caroline, Jason and our resident zealot Hugh Jarrs for anyone not familiar with the Green Party in Brighton !
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: Kick-**** action: when did caring for the planet descend into this sort of aggressive and provocative nonsense. Why don't they grow up and present a reasoned case against fracking or what ever their issues are and explain in realistic terms how to keep the lights on and the public transport running. Presumably owning a car would be considered immoral so they must use public transport to make their terribly important journeys.[/p][/quote]Because, like all extremists and confirmed fanatics, their attitude is if you don't subscribe to their opinion 100% you are an oxygen thief.[/p][/quote]Mmseycal's comment nicely defines Caroline, Jason and our resident zealot Hugh Jarrs for anyone not familiar with the Green Party in Brighton ! Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 1

8:52pm Sat 8 Mar 14

oldskool_raver says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Thank you mimseycal. I did not blame unborn children.
Birth control is a tool to manage population growth to ensure those entering the world have enough food and resources to survive. It's not rocket science. Two of the biggest challenges to the UKs growing population are land for both housing and food production and water supply so continually reproducing children or growing a population is unsustainable. I cannot believe the Eco expert HJarrs doesn't know this.
With regards to gas coming from Russia HJarrs, the gas pipelines from Russia cross the Ukraine and Russia is protecting its assets which are under threat since the 'revolution'.
Perhaps you should start reading the international business pages instead of being so parochial.
Anyway HJarrs while you are on here, when is the Green council going to move the travellers from wild park. Once again you have allowed them into the park during the start of the key breeding season of many species.are we going to have another record year of park occupation by diesel vans and cars in our green spaces?
I think the travellers will soon be moving to Carden Park. The concrete blocks in front of the gate were moved on Thursday and it seems to have 'accidentally' been left unlocked ever since.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Thank you mimseycal. I did not blame unborn children. Birth control is a tool to manage population growth to ensure those entering the world have enough food and resources to survive. It's not rocket science. Two of the biggest challenges to the UKs growing population are land for both housing and food production and water supply so continually reproducing children or growing a population is unsustainable. I cannot believe the Eco expert HJarrs doesn't know this. With regards to gas coming from Russia HJarrs, the gas pipelines from Russia cross the Ukraine and Russia is protecting its assets which are under threat since the 'revolution'. Perhaps you should start reading the international business pages instead of being so parochial. Anyway HJarrs while you are on here, when is the Green council going to move the travellers from wild park. Once again you have allowed them into the park during the start of the key breeding season of many species.are we going to have another record year of park occupation by diesel vans and cars in our green spaces?[/p][/quote]I think the travellers will soon be moving to Carden Park. The concrete blocks in front of the gate were moved on Thursday and it seems to have 'accidentally' been left unlocked ever since. oldskool_raver
  • Score: 3

10:58am Sun 9 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

Good luck to them.

We need to look for a viable alternative to constantly using up every natural resource we have and in the process destroying our planet.

Sometimes direct action like this is the only option available.
Good luck to them. We need to look for a viable alternative to constantly using up every natural resource we have and in the process destroying our planet. Sometimes direct action like this is the only option available. Ania Green
  • Score: -4

12:19pm Sun 9 Mar 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Hilarious. Saving humanity by eating Wednesday night's five-bean casserole cold.
Will they be protesting about the lack of organic options at the local food banks they visit each day?
Hilarious. Saving humanity by eating Wednesday night's five-bean casserole cold. Will they be protesting about the lack of organic options at the local food banks they visit each day? From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 5

12:44pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Number Six says...

Ania Green wrote:
Good luck to them.

We need to look for a viable alternative to constantly using up every natural resource we have and in the process destroying our planet.

Sometimes direct action like this is the only option available.
And this direct action will accomplish what, specifically? It hasn't accomplished much so far

Still, beats working for a living, I suppose.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Good luck to them. We need to look for a viable alternative to constantly using up every natural resource we have and in the process destroying our planet. Sometimes direct action like this is the only option available.[/p][/quote]And this direct action will accomplish what, specifically? It hasn't accomplished much so far Still, beats working for a living, I suppose. Number Six
  • Score: 3

12:49pm Sun 9 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Thank you mimseycal. I did not blame unborn children. Birth control is a tool to manage population growth to ensure those entering the world have enough food and resources to survive. It's not rocket science. Two of the biggest challenges to the UKs growing population are land for both housing and food production and water supply so continually reproducing children or growing a population is unsustainable. I cannot believe the Eco expert HJarrs doesn't know this. With regards to gas coming from Russia HJarrs, the gas pipelines from Russia cross the Ukraine and Russia is protecting its assets which are under threat since the 'revolution'. Perhaps you should start reading the international business pages instead of being so parochial. Anyway HJarrs while you are on here, when is the Green council going to move the travellers from wild park. Once again you have allowed them into the park during the start of the key breeding season of many species.are we going to have another record year of park occupation by diesel vans and cars in our green spaces?
The population is predicted to peak before 2100. There are resources available to support the predicted peak population if the resources we have are used responsibly. It's not rocket science.

Improving process efficiency, improving appliance efficiency, adjusting diets, flying less, insulating homes, renewable energy, changing transport habits (more bike lanes!) etc, etc all help address our stressing of the planet's support mechanisms. It is this we should first turn our attention to, not to extreme population control.

As for Wild Park, go ask the council.
Suggesting that mayhap eco-warriors might consider adopting children rather then breeding children is not extreme population control. It is merely suggestion an alternative, less militant and possibly a more sustainable form of protest that would have positive social benefits for those otherwise unadopted children
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Thank you mimseycal. I did not blame unborn children. Birth control is a tool to manage population growth to ensure those entering the world have enough food and resources to survive. It's not rocket science. Two of the biggest challenges to the UKs growing population are land for both housing and food production and water supply so continually reproducing children or growing a population is unsustainable. I cannot believe the Eco expert HJarrs doesn't know this. With regards to gas coming from Russia HJarrs, the gas pipelines from Russia cross the Ukraine and Russia is protecting its assets which are under threat since the 'revolution'. Perhaps you should start reading the international business pages instead of being so parochial. Anyway HJarrs while you are on here, when is the Green council going to move the travellers from wild park. Once again you have allowed them into the park during the start of the key breeding season of many species.are we going to have another record year of park occupation by diesel vans and cars in our green spaces?[/p][/quote]The population is predicted to peak before 2100. There are resources available to support the predicted peak population if the resources we have are used responsibly. It's not rocket science. Improving process efficiency, improving appliance efficiency, adjusting diets, flying less, insulating homes, renewable energy, changing transport habits (more bike lanes!) etc, etc all help address our stressing of the planet's support mechanisms. It is this we should first turn our attention to, not to extreme population control. As for Wild Park, go ask the council.[/p][/quote]Suggesting that mayhap eco-warriors might consider adopting children rather then breeding children is not extreme population control. It is merely suggestion an alternative, less militant and possibly a more sustainable form of protest that would have positive social benefits for those otherwise unadopted children mimseycal
  • Score: 1

1:09pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Bluebeef says...

Ania Green wrote:
Good luck to them.

We need to look for a viable alternative to constantly using up every natural resource we have and in the process destroying our planet.

Sometimes direct action like this is the only option available.
They could always stop travelling around and wasting resources , which forces police to drive about (wasting resources) after threats to kick-**** or does Ania approve of threats of violence being allowed without control?
Legitimate, argued, considered protest yes.
Blinkered childish "kick-****" nonsense a waste of energy in every sense; blurs issues, polarises and prevents intelligent debate.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: Good luck to them. We need to look for a viable alternative to constantly using up every natural resource we have and in the process destroying our planet. Sometimes direct action like this is the only option available.[/p][/quote]They could always stop travelling around and wasting resources , which forces police to drive about (wasting resources) after threats to kick-**** or does Ania approve of threats of violence being allowed without control? Legitimate, argued, considered protest yes. Blinkered childish "kick-****" nonsense a waste of energy in every sense; blurs issues, polarises and prevents intelligent debate. Bluebeef
  • Score: 5

1:13pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Bluebeef says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
The police are the common enemy of the people now, they prefer to protect the rich and companies who get 50% tax reductions from the rich elite in power in government - disgusting corrupt bunch all of them.
Good grief: Dave Spart lives.
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: The police are the common enemy of the people now, they prefer to protect the rich and companies who get 50% tax reductions from the rich elite in power in government - disgusting corrupt bunch all of them.[/p][/quote]Good grief: Dave Spart lives. Bluebeef
  • Score: -1

1:53pm Sun 9 Mar 14

All 9 of me says...

Bluebeef wrote:
getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
The police are the common enemy of the people now, they prefer to protect the rich and companies who get 50% tax reductions from the rich elite in power in government - disgusting corrupt bunch all of them.
Good grief: Dave Spart lives.
while Bluebeef lives a blinkered life oblivious to reality.........
[quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: The police are the common enemy of the people now, they prefer to protect the rich and companies who get 50% tax reductions from the rich elite in power in government - disgusting corrupt bunch all of them.[/p][/quote]Good grief: Dave Spart lives.[/p][/quote]while Bluebeef lives a blinkered life oblivious to reality......... All 9 of me
  • Score: -4

4:19pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Bluebeef says...

All 9 of me wrote:
Bluebeef wrote:
getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
The police are the common enemy of the people now, they prefer to protect the rich and companies who get 50% tax reductions from the rich elite in power in government - disgusting corrupt bunch all of them.
Good grief: Dave Spart lives.
while Bluebeef lives a blinkered life oblivious to reality.........
But has met quite a few members of the police force who nearly to a man( or woman) are there to serve their communities with decency and humanity
[quote][p][bold]All 9 of me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bluebeef[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: The police are the common enemy of the people now, they prefer to protect the rich and companies who get 50% tax reductions from the rich elite in power in government - disgusting corrupt bunch all of them.[/p][/quote]Good grief: Dave Spart lives.[/p][/quote]while Bluebeef lives a blinkered life oblivious to reality.........[/p][/quote]But has met quite a few members of the police force who nearly to a man( or woman) are there to serve their communities with decency and humanity Bluebeef
  • Score: 6

5:46pm Sun 9 Mar 14

her professional says...

hyram77 wrote:
"Some kick **** action" eh, sounds like fighting talk to me! People will take no notice of your little demo so my advice, instead of wasting your time, have a nice walk along the seafront, perhaps stop for a bit of lunch and a cold beer, stroll around a few nice shops and then home to catch a movie...... Much better idea.
Lovely seafront at Lewes.
[quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: "Some kick **** action" eh, sounds like fighting talk to me! People will take no notice of your little demo so my advice, instead of wasting your time, have a nice walk along the seafront, perhaps stop for a bit of lunch and a cold beer, stroll around a few nice shops and then home to catch a movie...... Much better idea.[/p][/quote]Lovely seafront at Lewes. her professional
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Number Six says...

her professional wrote:
hyram77 wrote:
"Some kick **** action" eh, sounds like fighting talk to me! People will take no notice of your little demo so my advice, instead of wasting your time, have a nice walk along the seafront, perhaps stop for a bit of lunch and a cold beer, stroll around a few nice shops and then home to catch a movie...... Much better idea.
Lovely seafront at Lewes.
No trace of getting swept away, either
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hyram77[/bold] wrote: "Some kick **** action" eh, sounds like fighting talk to me! People will take no notice of your little demo so my advice, instead of wasting your time, have a nice walk along the seafront, perhaps stop for a bit of lunch and a cold beer, stroll around a few nice shops and then home to catch a movie...... Much better idea.[/p][/quote]Lovely seafront at Lewes.[/p][/quote]No trace of getting swept away, either Number Six
  • Score: -1

11:43am Mon 10 Mar 14

billy goat-gruff says...

30 years ago Thatcher closed down the pits. Britain is built on coal. Coal was once used to make gas, until free North Sea gas was discovered. That's now been squandered. Now we import coal - and gas! Instead of fracking, it's time to reopen the pits and use technology to make it a clean form of fuel.
30 years ago Thatcher closed down the pits. Britain is built on coal. Coal was once used to make gas, until free North Sea gas was discovered. That's now been squandered. Now we import coal - and gas! Instead of fracking, it's time to reopen the pits and use technology to make it a clean form of fuel. billy goat-gruff
  • Score: -1

12:12pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Bluebeef says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
30 years ago Thatcher closed down the pits. Britain is built on coal. Coal was once used to make gas, until free North Sea gas was discovered. That's now been squandered. Now we import coal - and gas! Instead of fracking, it's time to reopen the pits and use technology to make it a clean form of fuel.
Although I would argue that Scargill closed the pits, Billy goat gruff raises an interesting point. This along with fracking should be investigated in a scientific and judicious manner to see what the most viable options for our future are. Megaphone point scoring and "kick ****" action will get us nowhere.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: 30 years ago Thatcher closed down the pits. Britain is built on coal. Coal was once used to make gas, until free North Sea gas was discovered. That's now been squandered. Now we import coal - and gas! Instead of fracking, it's time to reopen the pits and use technology to make it a clean form of fuel.[/p][/quote]Although I would argue that Scargill closed the pits, Billy goat gruff raises an interesting point. This along with fracking should be investigated in a scientific and judicious manner to see what the most viable options for our future are. Megaphone point scoring and "kick ****" action will get us nowhere. Bluebeef
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree