But they may not infringe my liberties ( or anyone else's) in doing so,
Either people already know, or people don't agree.
Let me just repeat what you quoted, along with the rest of the paragraph:
"The protestors that campaign about climate change are not trying to get people to use a bit less energy, or some other small change (well I would hope not anyway), but rather to remind those in power that the system needs to change. We need to decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency."
Let me repeat: They are not raising awareness to the the population, but rather protesting to the powers that be.
I'm reminded of a number of protest movements over the years that have tried different techniques.
Suffragettes: Terrorists who held their campaign back through violence.
Road building protestors in tunnels and trees: Peaceful, and Swampy said something like "Do you think I'd have go this level of awareness if I'd written to my MP?" as he was dragged out.
Fathers4Justice: The founder looked at previous protests, and came to the conclusion that dressing up as superheroes and climbing on top of important bulidings was the way forward.
But this one of those where a definite result is hard to measure, unless you look at how we are doing with regard to our declared aims for net zero. Even then, it isn't enough though. We will almost certainly need to be less than that in the next few decades.
The protests make no more difference than the Greenham women, over the heads of whom, cruise missiles arrived.
I remember (I'm that old) one of the GW on a phone-in to one of Thatcher's top ministers "Where will you be if the nuclear bombs start dropping?". The implication was that the the minister would be cosy in a bunker and the poor people would take the hit.
It was Heseltine or Maude or Pym or someone like that: "That may happen if we do not have a ready nuclear response. In which case I would expect to be dead. Having a suitable, ready response, reduces the likelihood of the eventuality occurring".
Another peaceful protest. We do certainly have less nuclear weapons these days don't we. We may disagree with their aim, but they were peaceful.
It would be a reasonable thing to say that at the moment we want to call a halt on costly emissions reductions. We are a bit-part player in the world, and we're down, to relatively low levels now, and we at war. Plenty above us in the lists are doing much less. Why should we take disproportionately more of the hit?
I saw somewhere our emissions are at 1853 levels. Gosh.
We are not at war, we need more renewables and nuclear power for the long term security of this country.
We are also a fairly big economy, but with a lot of techincal know how. As the first country to industrialise, it is not just fitting, but morally right, that we are there to lead the way to decarbonisation. As a country who buys goods off polluting countries, we should also show the way, and even help where appropriate.
CO2 emissions know no boundaries, and as someone who lives not that high above the sea level, it kind of focusses the mind.
Forgot the steel for range roves may well be imported.
