Just Stop Oil are the latest in a long line of single-issue campaign groups to take an Underpants Gnomes approach to politics. Phase one, apparently, is to have a load of upper-class white kids make a nuisance of themselves by throwing orange paint at things. Phase three is the UK ending its use of oil entirely. As in the South Park episode, phase two has yet to be revealed.
The billionaire-funded group is an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion, and as the name suggests, they have just one aim; to see the UK stop using oil entirely. Although, tellingly, the one thing the group seem determine to avoid disrupting is the flow of oil from Britain’s handful of remaining oil refineries… something which would serve to emphasise just how dependent a complex industrial economy like the UK is upon a steady flow of oil and oil products.
For the most part, opposition to Just Stop Oil has focussed on the disruptive nature of their protests, which involve either blocking roads or disrupting the sporting events enjoyed by people who are largely powerless to do anything about energy policy. Although perhaps the hope is that if they piss-off enough ordinary people, they will go out and vote for politicians who want to ban oil. But even in the unlikely event that people respond in this way, the bigger problem is not that the political class doesn’t listen, but that the political class has already consumed rather too much of the Just Stop Oil Kool-Aid. Indeed, the man being touted as Britain’s next Prime Minister has pledged to make a rapid transition to the utopian net zero, including a pledge to end any further oil and gas extraction in the North Sea.
It is this which has spurred some detractors to point to the impossibility of ending our use of oil unless the aim is to plunge us into an apocalyptic deep green dark age. As Henry Hill at CapX puts it:
“There are some deep Greens who truly believe in that deeply misanthropic objective. There is also the slightly more fashionable ‘degrowth’ movement, which could row in behind the idea so long as they didn’t think too hard about the consequences.
“But outside those circles, it’s rightly seen as nonsense. One doesn’t have to be a climate change denier, or even oppose huge investment in renewable energy generation and other new technologies, to accept that we live in a machine civilisation that more or less runs on fossil fuels and will do so for some time to come…
“Trying to brute-force modern society off fossil fuels before adequate alternatives are brought on-stream is a recipe for economic disaster; nobody who complains about the cost of living crisis or the impact of government spending cuts has any business dallying with such an idea.”
Hill makes the point that the current combination of political commitments and gaping holes in the infrastructure required for the net zero project leaves the UK facing a series of dangerous cliff edges:
“This generation of politicians have set 2035 as the deadline for sweeping changes, from getting the National Grid to Net Zero to banning gas boilers and stopping sales of new petrol and diesel-powered cars; yet as James McSweeney has detailed, actual planning for the cliff-edges that would create is patchy or non-existent.
“A simple thought experiment suffices: think about this country’s track record on major infrastructure projects, and then try to estimate the odds that we will have a comprehensive network of road charging points in place in just over ten years – let alone the additional grid capacity as the burden of road traffic shifts en masse onto the electricity network. (Happily, the date is just far enough away that everyone involved in setting it will be safely removed from office by the time it arrives; they can then shake their heads sadly that those who came after them let them down so badly.)”
This is likely the outline of a new counter-narrative to the neoliberal version of net zero – plausible because it neither denies the reality of climate change nor the desirability of deploying more non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) but merely argues that without a credible phase two to the current Underpants Gnomes net zero project, it would be foolish to race ahead to phase three. And once one rejects the desirability of a rapid descent to a way of life similar to that enjoyed by the Anglo-Saxons – one which would be unable to support more than a million people – then the choice before us is whether to continue using local deposits of oil (and coal and gas) or whether we should risk making ourselves dependent on some of the world’s least savoury regimes… Hill plays the Putin card:
“Were that [North Sea] pipeline to dry up (pun intended), all that would happen is that the United Kingdom’s energy needs would need to be met through more overseas imports – a double-whammy to the balance of trade, as a fair share of current domestic production is exported for plastics and manufacturing.
“That means more money going to the many unsavoury regimes around the world which prop themselves up with oil and gas. That almost certainly includes Russia, too – we might not buy from them directly, but there’s arbitrage opportunities for less scrupulous countries to sell on Moscow’s exports with a more palatable flag (and a mark-up).”
A similar rationale was used in support of the recent decision to open a new coal mine in Cumbria to supply coal to what remains of Britain’s steel industry. Insofar as we are going to continue to need coal for steel making, then using local supplies rather than shipping coal from around the world, is surely the lesser evil. Indeed, it may have become more of a necessity now that the political class has sanctioned the coal that the UK used to import from Kazakhstan.
The same point is often made in support of shale gas fracking in the Bowland shale deposit in Northern England. Again, if the choice is between imported gas from Russia or domestic gas from Lancashire and Yorkshire, surely the latter is both environmentally and politically better. Moreover, in the wake of energy shortages and their impact on the cost-of-living, there is growing support for an economic imperative to restart domestic fossil fuel production – at least until NRREHTs can demonstrably provide the promised energy too cheap to meter.
It is here though, that Just Stop Oil are going to win the argument. Because what many of the opponents of net zero within the political class fail to understand is that energy security is about more than the simple presence of a deposit or the uncosted supposed benefits of a technology. Keir Starmer – assuming he doesn’t repeat Neil Kinnock’s skilful snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory – may be kicking at an open door when it comes to new production in the North Sea. All of the big deposits have been in decline since the end of the last century. And Britain has been a net importer of oil and gas since 2005. For more than a decade, the North Sea oil and gas industry has required state subsidies to keep running. And with government net zero targets and ESG investment rules making further production prohibitively expensive, even supposedly “proven” reserves are increasingly unviable. The same applies to fracking. While there may be some shale gas left to be drilled beneath the UK, the tortured and broken strata beneath us likely means that most of the gas that was there escaped to the surface some 250 million years ago. In any case, what stopped the industry from taking off 15 years ago was the cost. That is, even if there was a viable reserve of shale gas, the price it would need to fetch would be more than anyone would be prepared to pay.
The underlying issue with oil is about finding a balance between the oil price investors need to make further production worthwhile and the price businesses and consumers need in order to grow the economy. In periods where a stable “goldilocks” price range can be maintained – usually as a result of a cartel controlling production – the economy has grown. But periods of price volatility – as we face today – are associated with recession and depression:
This is because – despite claims that we have entered a third, digital, stage of the industrial revolution – we remain in an oil age in which almost everything we depend upon for life support, along with the much wider array of consumer goods and services, is either made from or with oil, transported using oil, and/or maintained using oil. And this means that if sufficient low-cost oil cannot be produced, then consumption – by both businesses and households – must decline. And as consumption declines, so demand for oil falls, forcing the price down:
Previous periods of volatility were eventually overcome as new abundant and relatively low-cost oil deposits were developed. Most recently, for example, the depression of the 1980s was ended by the development of oil fields off the North Alaskan slope, the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico – ushering in the period of relative price stability which came to an end in 2005… the ensuing price increases paving the way for the 2008 crash and the depression which followed.
The once-and-done oil glut created by the US shale bubble was somewhat different in that it was never profitable in the long-term. Although it was sold as a technological revolution, the technology for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing had been known for decades – it was just too expensive while conventional oil was still abundant. The peak of global conventional oil production in 2005, together with the economy-wide low returns on financial investment caused by quantitative easing and near zero percent interest rates after 2008, created the conditions for investment in fracking – which, with oil prices seemingly stuck above $100 per barrel appeared to offer a far greater return on investment than could be found in safer government bonds or in stocks and shares.
Fracking though, is its own worst enemy because of the fast rate of depletion. Almost all of the oil a well will produce comes in the first couple of years. So that, as money flowed in and fracking wells spread like mushrooms, so much new US oil entered the world market that – despite OPEC+ cutting production – it crashed the price back to an unsustainable $40 per barrel by 2015.
During the pandemic lockdowns, much of what remained of the fracking industry was shut down and locked in. And with interest rates rising faster than at any time in modern history, there is little enthusiasm for funding drilling on anything like the scale needed to bring prices down toward $40 per barrel again; particularly in an environment in which governments and banks are actively promoting regulations which make further oil production ever harder. As Juliet Samuel at the Telegraph wrote in response to last year’s energy crisis in the UK:
“The meeting goes like this: ‘We need you!’ say the politicians. The producers scratch their heads as they mull $20 billion, 20-year investments, and wonder whether, when the war is over and the green bandwagon rolls back into town, the politicians will still sound so sweet on them. ‘Your green targets still say we need to shut down by 2030,’ they point out. To which Europe says: ‘Well, of course. Fossil fuels are evil!’”
Suppose though that the growing economic fallout from oil too expensive for the wider economy to bear, was to finally jolt the political and financial elites into a self-interested volte-face. Perhaps, contrary to the Labour Party’s recent policy announcement, ongoing economic depression and growing political unrest will oblige Kier Starmer – or quite possibly Rishi Sunak – to take the advice of critics like Henry Hill and wait until we have developed a renewable energy system which really can make oil obsolete. But there lies the killer blow. Because globally – and remember that the majority of Britain’s fossil fuel consumption takes place in Asia, where most of our goods are made – we have been consuming more than four barrels of oil for each new barrel the industry discovers. As Nick Owenn, Oliver Inderwildi and David King explain:
“Until now, the widening gulf between discoveries and production can be almost entirely attributed to reduced discovery rates… In the near future, however, this rift could be driven further apart by forecasted declines in production from the relatively few fields that support supply…
“According to the WEO 2008, the world’s 20 most productive fields were discovered in 1959 (IEA, 2008), which suggests that the chance of finding fields of similar size is remote.”
The stark reality is that there are no more large and cheap oil deposits left to fill the gap between production and consumption. And what remains – like the chimerical Cambo field in the Northeast Atlantic – is too small and too difficult to be developed at a low enough price to relieve the pressure on an increasingly energy-starved economy.
The government might, of course, cut some of the regulations and provide subsidies to get some new oil flowing. And we might attempt to mend fences with Mr Putin – although having stolen his bank reserves and blown up his pipeline, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Which brings us to the harsh reality that whether we like it or not, this time around there will not be any new oil to end the price volatility which is killing both investment and consumption. And whichever way you cut it, that means that Just Stop Oil will have their wishes granted far sooner than they appear to think… so well done them.
But before the posh kids who front up Just Stop Oil, along with the billionaires who fund them, take their victory lap, they may want – as you may want, dear reader – to take a moment to look around the place you call your home and consider all of the material things around you, from the consumer goods to the food in your cupboard and from the clothes you are wearing to the cement, concrete and steel which prevents the walls and roof falling in on you. And then consider that none of those things can currently be made, transported, or maintained without fossil fuels. And perhaps more importantly, the critical infrastructure which you barely notice but which underpins your life support – electricity grids, road and rail networks, communications networks, water and sewage systems, etc. – also depend upon fossil fuels to operate and maintain.
In the absence of a viable alternative system, Just Stop Oil’s inevitable “victory” will be pyrrhic, because the society it ushers in will not be the shiny green techno-utopia so beloved of the technocracy in which you will own nothing and be happy, but – without careful management – is likely to more resemble something akin to the economy of the 1820s… and with a collapse in population to match.Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
"...But before the posh kids who front up Just Stop Oil, along with the billionaires who fund them, take their victory lap, they may want – as you may want, dear reader – to take a moment to look around the place you call your home and consider all of the material things around you, from the consumer goods to the food in your cupboard and from the clothes you are wearing to the cement, concrete and steel which prevents the walls and roof falling in on you. And then consider that none of those things can currently be made, transported, or maintained without fossil fuels. And perhaps more importantly, the critical infrastructure which you barely notice but which underpins your life support – electricity grids, road and rail networks, communications networks, water and sewage systems, etc. – also depend upon fossil fuels to operate and maintain."
We had a thread on this a while back with similar conclusions :
You trust his judgement despite the Russia Hate and anti-Putin BS, do you ?!
The quote is from an article in which Hill criticises Starmer for telling porkies about banning North Sea oil extraction and the Brave New Green world he will build. If you can bear one Tory criticising another Tory for being an outright liar, its here:
And yes. Whatever his Tory allegiances and views on Putin and Russia (doubtless no different from Starmers)...in much the same way as Tucker Carlson can be right about the Russia Ukraine war but facistically unpleasantly wrong about near everything else, Hill is correct.
He finishes his piece:
"...that golden day is not going to be brought any closer by ministerial ukase, no matter how well-intentioned each might be. Starmer would do better, like the wise King Canute to his fawning courtiers, to tell his party and the country that."
Which summerises his main point and one that has been highlighted on this board before now. "Just Stop Oil" is a JM Barrie moment. The bit where Peter Pan tells Wendy: "...Just think of happy things, and your heart will fly on wings, forever, in Never Never Land!"
And "Ministerial ukase" is that in modern "action". For our politicians like Peter Pan have taken to believe in their comforting hubris that something can just magically "happen" merely because it has been decreed by them. That "he/she wills it" ... makes it so...but what will actually take place if for example we don't extract North Sea oil is that a source will be found for that oil elsewhere.
You cannot kill the demand for oil by merely banning the most local source because the whole of this and every society is built on fossil fuels. Its integral to society. Until you have alternatives "Just Stop Oil" as an imminent aim is in fact espousing mass starvation and hypothermia. With Starmer, he's just lying to people: after all with his track record he's simply doing what he is good at.
On your own "Green New World" which espouses electric cars as part of the solution, as Vaclas Smil points out:
..."highly energy-intensive material dependencies are emerging and electric cars are their best example. A typical lithium car battery weighing about 450 kilograms contains about 11 kilograms of lithium, nearly 14 kilograms of cobalt, 27 kilograms of nickel, more than 40 kilograms of copper, and 50 kilograms of graphite—as well as about 181 kilograms of steel, aluminum, and plastics. Supplying these materials for a single vehicle requires processing about 40 tons of ores, and given the low concentration of many elements in their ores it necessitates extracting and processing about 225 tons of raw materials. And aggressive electrification of road transport would soon require multiplying these needs by tens of millions of units per year."
Think about it: the mining, processing, refining, manufacturing and assembly of e-cars requires fossil fuels at every stage of the game. No coal and oil = no e-cars simply because we have no economic available alternatives to fossil fuels for the processes required. As Smil further points out in his book "HOW THE WORLD REALLY WORKS" the same is true for the main items we utilise: what he calls the "four pillars of modern civilization", cement, steel, plastics, and the ammonia for fertilisers that keep billions of people fed.
-A great number crunch and an informative read but of course you might not want to read that either as he highlights the serious obstacles in the journey to that green new world and there's no fairy dust involved to just "make it so"...but here's the clincher: evil Bill Gates thought it was good.
'The billionaire-funded group is an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion, and as the name suggests, they have just one aim; to see the UK stop using oil entirely.
He still hasn't bothered to look at their website, where we immediately read:
'Just Stop Oil is a nonviolent civil resistance group demanding the UK Government stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects.' - https://juststopoil.org/
Admittedly the ambition is to use this as a starting point, and:
'In eight years we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels completely. The transition will require massive investment in clean technology, renewables and energy storage but it cannot be done at current levels of energy consumption. We need to cut energy demand by insulating Britain and rethinking how we travel including providing free public transport everywhere. This starts by switching government subsidies from dirty fossil fuels towards clean energy, transport and insulation.' - https://juststopoil.org/background/
So yes, plenty of points to be made about the feasibility of this programme, but it's unfair to portray them as simply being against one thing without being for something else to replace it, or to accuse them of ignorance about the dependence of society on fossil fuels. A read of their research doc quickly disproves this strawman, and shows they have thought about at least some of the issues relating to the equity of their proposed transition, eg:
'A transition based upon the most basic necessity of Justice
We need to move rapidly, but no-one should be left behind. We need a well planned and managed fair transition for workers, suppliers, communities and consumers so no one is left behind - but this should not be an excuse for slowing action. We need the government to develop, with the involvement of workers, a plan for the provision of free, comprehensive, accessible and integrated support and training for all workers in the UK Oil and Gas sector to transition to jobs in the clean energy and transport sectors. The transition plan needs to also consider the needs of workers and communities that are heavily dependent on carbon intensive businesses. As the transition picks up speed, the location of job losses and employment gains will be critical and the need to avoid ‘stranded workers’ and ‘stranded communities’ as well as to make sure that new green jobs are also quality jobs.' - p.16 in this doc: https://juststopoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/JSO_research_public_v1_27022022.pdf
You could say it's pie in the sky stuff and that the possibilities of 'clean' (sic) energy have been overstated, all of which is fair criticism IMO, but it's untrue to say that they have no plan of how to get there. If their plan is shite, what's the alternative - keep burning the stuff until we cook the planet, and it runs out anyway leaving us in a worse position?
Also, on this:
'Although, tellingly, the one thing the group seem determine to avoid disrupting is the flow of oil from Britain’s handful of remaining oil refineries… something which would serve to emphasise just how dependent a complex industrial economy like the UK is upon a steady flow of oil and oil products.'
er...
'Earlier this morning, Extinction Rebellion and groups in the Just Stop Oil coalition blocked 10 major oil facilities across the UK, calling on the Government to stop all new fossil fuel investments immediately. Extinction Rebellion blocked 3 oil terminals: Esso’s West London terminal, ExxonMobil’s Hythe terminal, and BP’s Hamble terminal.'
Anyway, I agree with most of his analysis, he could just spend 5 mins to get his facts right and give JSO the credit they're due rather than lazily repeat cheap daily mail-type smears.
'Although, tellingly, the one thing the group seem determine to avoid disrupting is the flow of oil from Britain’s handful of remaining oil refineries… something which would serve to emphasise just how dependent a complex industrial economy like the UK is upon a steady flow of oil and oil products.'
er...
'Earlier this morning, Extinction Rebellion and groups in the Just Stop Oil coalition blocked 10 major oil facilities across the UK, calling on the Government to stop all new fossil fuel investments immediately. Extinction Rebellion blocked 3 oil terminals: Esso’s West London terminal, ExxonMobil’s Hythe terminal, and BP’s Hamble terminal.'
I think it is interesting they (as in JSO at least) think it worth probing and confronting England's (only .. so far) energy infrastructure. Good luck. Do probe. But the fact is, there will be suffering of the underclass (as well as well off, I guess .. do they suffer?). I agree with them in a sense that it will go up in the PTB agenda. As long as it is not green fascism ala Deutsche Greens that we end up with, if you see what I mean hehe. In any case, if this conversations gets rational one could get places, as long as it is not deep green pastoral society by 2030. One would have to get Malthusian for that scenario, oops. Remember, we have to consider it is worth preserving 8 billion humans on this planet, so far, fwiw. I talk too much sometimes : ). It slips out.
I can't remember where I read it, maybe Klein's 'This Changes Everything' but there were polls done suggesting people were willing to make sacrifices to deal with climate change as long as other sectors and social classes were sharing the burden proportional to their wealth. The eruption of the gilets jaunes protests over a fuel tax that would predominantly affect those dependent on car use for commuting in & out of small towns shows what happens when an underprivileged class sees that they're being singled out to pay a price others aren't paying. I think there are ways of lowering carbon emissions that target mainly the wealthy, eg: banning private jets and taxing frequent fliers, but yes ultimately there's no escaping the pain that withdrawal from the fossil fuel drug will involve and the way capitalist society is set up practically guarantees that those who bear the brunt will be the poor & working class. Again. That's why there will need to be revolutionary shake-ups in society as we start to bump down the other side of the peak in oil/gas/coal/etc. production.
But for all the talk about suffering and privation, it should be noted that there are a lot of potential upsides to the 'deep green pastoral' you refer to. Yes it's unlikely to come about on a mass scale by 2030, and JSO's vision of groovy wind & solar technician jobs for all isn't one I find inspiring, or even sustainable in the long term. But if the govt ever decided (more likely: was forced) to facilitate a back-to-the-land movement, it would start to solve innumerable chronic problems both for society and for individuals starved of contact with nature and the psycho-spiritual benefits of meaningful employment. As one who's on that journey already (admittedly leveraging privileges not available to most) I can vouch for the enjoyment & satisfaction possible from a neo-peasant way of life Nearly all of the things that make it hard come as a result of obstruction - often passive, sometimes active - from the dominant culture which doesn't want autonomous communities of people outside of its control. As those institutions continue to unravel alternatives outside of the system will start to become possible (at first illegal) then eventually inevitable. As forest activist George Draffan once put it to Derrick Jensen:
'Years ago I was riding in a car with friend and fellow activist George Draffan. He has influenced my thinking as much as any other one person. It was a hot day in Spokane. Traffic was slow. A long line waited at a stoplight. I asked, “If you could live at any level of technology, what would it be?”
As well as being a friend and an activist, George can be a curmudgeon. He was in one of those moods. He said, “That’s a stupid question. We can fantasize about living however we want, but the only sustainable level of technology is the Stone Age. What we have now is the merest blip—we’re one of only six or seven generations who ever have to hear the awful sound of internal combustion engines (especially two-cycle)—and in time we’ll return to the way humans have lived for most of their existence. Within a few hundred years at most. The only question will be what’s left of the world when we get there.”Years ago I was riding in a car with friend and fellow activist George Draffan. He has influenced my thinking as much as any other one person. It was a hot day in Spokane. Traffic was slow. A long line waited at a stoplight. I asked, “If you could live at any level of technology, what would it be?”
As well as being a friend and an activist, George can be a curmudgeon. He was in one of those moods. He said, “That’s a stupid question. We can fantasize about living however we want, but the only sustainable level of technology is the Stone Age. What we have now is the merest blip—we’re one of only six or seven generations who ever have to hear the awful sound of internal combustion engines (especially two-cycle)—and in time we’ll return to the way humans have lived for most of their existence. Within a few hundred years at most. The only question will be what’s left of the world when we get there.”' - https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/history/
"...if the govt ever decided (more likely: was forced) to facilitate a back-to-the-land movement, it would start to solve innumerable chronic problems both for society and for individuals starved of contact with nature and the psycho-spiritual benefits of meaningful employment."
Yes. Unfortunately in the UK (and especially in Scotland) where the control and ownership of near all the land by a tiny number of exceptionally wealthy people and "Hedge funds" inevitably means taking on what is essentially the UK establishment itself.
The next block obstacle would be the required dismantling of the Town and Country planning legislation... which would bring out the nimbys and property owners by the million as allies in opposition, frightened by the prospect of a massive decrease in their property prices (and thus wealth) brought about by the grubby peasants exercising their new freedom to build their own house and little farm "next door".
The only way around the ownership issue is I think a "land tax". You don't nationalise the acreage outright to remove it from the wealthy: just make it far too expensive for them to hold any more than say, enough for a farm.
As to the relaxing of the planning controls, I reckon one of the few criteria to be imposed should be that whatever was built should be parsimonious with resources and that as far as possible the materials be sourced locally.
I was thinking about Smil's "four pillars" of modern civilisation I mentioned above, and looking around realised that my house and garden are near totally lacking in all these modern fossil fuel burning "essentials" as "Cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia" which were scarce or indeed non-existent commodities in 1850.
Essentially the sum total of my entire house is a few pounds of iron nails and maybe a couple of tons of local coal or wood to burn in the old lime kiln on the hill for the mortar and plaster. The red sandstone and rubble fill were clearly quarried locally as was the timber sourced... when doing it up I was pleased to find my hundred and fifty year old lintels untouched by rot and worm as they were made of resin-rich Scots pine: knew what they were up to those old builders...The roof though is clad with Scottish slate which probably had a journey by cart from the west as we don't have any in Fife. But of course there are endless types of local materials that could be used in ingenious ways.
The "disadvantage" of this kind of low fossil energy /local resource building is that everything takes much more time, thought, and lots of human labour but is that not what we are after in a world that has become deskilled and where most of us are now "surplus to requirement" as a consequence of the machine world we presently live in?
'Yes. Unfortunately in the UK (and especially in Scotland) where the control and ownership of near all the land by a tiny number of exceptionally wealthy people and "Hedge funds" inevitably means taking on what is essentially the UK establishment itself.'
Indeed, I liked Simon Fairlie's idea in Land Magazine 31 of broadening anti-slavery protests to landowners who acquired their thousands of acres from slave profits: 'We need a landless movement to follow the example of the MST, the landless workers' movement of Brazil - to press home the demand for land reform by moving in force onto the estates of the wealthy with yurts, cows, chickens and tractors, breaking the ground and sowing crops to the cry of "land to the tiller".
The movement could learn a thing or two from the toppling of Bristol's Colston statue, and how it increased awareness of the legacy of colonialism and the slave trade. A reminder that England's peasantry was dispossessed and its working class exploited by the forerunners of many existing landowners would not go amiss. And where better to occupy first than the 14,000 acres belonging to Conservative MP Richard Drax, whose land and riches came from his ancestor's slaveholdings in Barbados?' - Breaking the Landlock, TLM issue 31 https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/back-issues
Funnily enough we've already had our first sour experience with council planning. It took 2 months to get approval from them to get approval for our first polytunnel, something which should be permitted development on agricultural land, just needing us to notify them and then get it rubber stamped. But they got all pissy about the 'visual impact', and could we site it nearer the existing settlement, could we screen it with hedging etc. Spent most of yesterday potting on half of the tomatoes and cucumbers into giant pots and throwing the other half away because the bloke who was going to help us put it up can't come until next week. And yet, to hear councillors speak in public, you'd think they were doing everything in their power to support local food production! Not 'joined up thinking' as one of them (a Tory, funnily enough) privately put it to me. Needless to say applications for the 2nd tunnel + packing shed are going in asap...
'The "disadvantage" of this kind of low fossil energy /local resource building is that everything takes much more time, thought, and lots of human labour but is that not what we are after in a world that has become deskilled and where most of us are now "surplus to requirement" as a consequence of the machine world we presently live in? '
Indeed, well put. None of the things that are worth doing well and taking time over in order to create something that lasts are recognised and valued under the capitalist system. Another thing that makes it hard is being primarily oriented around the need to make money for all the 'necessities' the culture forces on us, eg: vehicle ownership, electricity, insurance, council tax etc. If we were doing this to feed ourselves directly and maybe a dozen other people in exchange for the skills & services they could provide, it would be a breeze and significantly alter our priorities from day to day. Funny how that works out...
Congrats on the pine marten. Never seen one myself but have already seen a couple of red squirrels since being here, and even some signs of beaver activity, which is pretty magic!
Lol! - that says it all. They want you to "screen" a polytunnel. Actual function of polytunnel: to gather light...
Reminds me of a local wood which sat on a lowland peat moss near my old place. Before handing it over to the "Woodland Trust" the local council dug a five foot ditch around one side and stipulated in the deed that the trust were to maintain the ditch... which was in effect draining the moss and ruining it. The "Woodland trust" amazingly accepted the provision. Years later the whole moss went on fire as all the peat had been drained and indeed it burned internally for weeks. They also dumped about 20 tons of shale blaze on part of the wood to use as a car park for "public access". The spot where I used to see Butterfly orchids sprinkled around is now replete wit used condoms instead.
Alas for idiot Councillors whence spring idiot MP's: shit floats.
Yes, they wanted exact dimensions, scale plan, even species mix, and we're to plant it no later than Spring 2024 and send pictures as evidence. Shouldn't block too much light where we've proposed, and we were thinking of having one there anyway to interrupt the wind. Could have been worse: they made the other growers re-site there's completely and even asked if they could make it green
Awful story about the peat moss wood - wtf do these people have in their heads? I bet they don't even realise what they did... ::shakes head::
...on that "contact with nature"...I was cycling through the wood last night and what shot across the path right in front of me but a Pine Marten! Never seen one here before. Apparently they had disappeared in Fife: probably due to human persecution well over a hundred years ago...but they are obviously back! I don't think our red squirrels will be as pleased as I was mind...
"Oo you lookin at?"
Posted by Keith-264 on June 9, 2023, 8:46 am, in reply to "ps..."
Posted by Keith-264 on June 9, 2023, 8:48 am, in reply to ""Oo you lookin at?""
No Pine Martens at the bridge but rabbits, squirrels, foxes and deer. About a month ago, on a night shift in Lane 6, I saw something out of the corner of my eye and it was a fox, strolling down the lane. Oi! That's £1.50" I called but he took no notice.Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
on June 6, 2023, 10:45 pm
Nearly all of the things that make it hard come as a result of obstruction - often passive, sometimes active - from the dominant culture which doesn't want autonomous communities of people outside of its control. As those institutions continue to unravel alternatives outside of the system will start to become possible (at first illegal) then eventually inevitable. As forest activist George Draffan once put it to Derrick Jensen: 
