Good for you, climate camp are a source of hope, right off now before the sceptics start chanting ‘burn baby burn’ and cutting up rough cos you want to take their matches.

Good work Tim

Direct action – we need more of this.

OP, Tim Gee: “The UK’s £8 billion pound aid budget goes some way towards alleviating poverty. Yet since the bail out, the Royal Bank of Scotland has invested nearly £13 billion in to fossil fuel projects.”

There are different ways of calculating the annual UK aid budget. Some would say £8 billion, others £9 billion; both would agree that it is a per annum figure. For the period following the bank bailout, however, we can agree that UK aid amounts to about £16 billion.

Of the aid budget, we all hope that the majority is spent on projects that directly improve the lives of the poor on a sustainable basis. We also know that some will be stolen and some will be spent on misguided projects. That £16 billion was spent but it may not be unblemished.

From your link to the “£13 billion” invested by RBS in “fossil fuel” companies: “…RBS has directly loaned nearly £3.6 billion to fossil fuel companies since the bailout on 13 October 2008. At the same time, the bank has helped raise equity finance worth £9.3 billion.”

So RBS has actually loaned £3.6 billion in companies that you do not like. Given the magnitude of the loans, I suspect that most of that money is for oil/gas extraction and transportation. However, it is worth noting that some of the companies are trying to reinvent themselves as energy companies and some of that money will be spent on renewable projects.

A hypothetical question: if a “fossil fuel” company comes up with a good idea for cheap renewable energy, would you ask RBS to reject the loan on the green puritanical argument that they are an unsuitable partner?

This argument has been corrected elsewhere: “Royal Bank of Scotland is our bank, owned by the British tax-payer.”

Childish, anti-democratic. I could go on but what’s the point.

@5

How is it “undemocratic”? RBS were bailed out by we, the people, so it’s only right that we hold them to account with what games they play with our cash.

Oh and fair play to you OP Tim, too many of us sit around on our arses complaining but doing nowt. Good work chap.

You cannot compare money given and money lent in that way – it’s a meaningless comparison.

Direct action – we need more of this.

Why exactly? For its own sake? Because it’s fun? Because it will actually make a difference to anything? If you think it helps then fine. Others think praying to God is more beneficial. What ever works for you is what a person should do I suppose.

I hope the glue wasn’t oil based.

However, it is worth noting that some of the companies are trying to reinvent themselves as energy companies and some of that money will be spent on renewable projects.

Think you’re falling for their ‘Beyond Petroleum’ crap Charlieman. Suggest you look properly at % of money spent on renewable sources versus fossil fuels.

f a “fossil fuel” company comes up with a good idea for cheap renewable energy

We can hope but it’s not happening. They wouldn’t want to cannibalise their existing revenue streams.

Childish, anti-democratic. I could go on but what’s the point.

There’s no point. You’re only here to sneer.

. Others think praying to God is more beneficial.

Hmmm.. yeah I can see how praying to god changed the world…

Me: “If a “fossil fuel” company comes up with a good idea for cheap renewable energy”

Sunny: “We can hope but it’s not happening. They wouldn’t want to cannibalise their existing revenue streams.”

That is so daft. Every company wants to get onto the income stream that is not oil based.

Every company wants to get onto the income stream that is not oil based.

Err what? And what about the billions of capital they have invested in equipment (transportation, generation, storage, drilling) that depends on oil? If oil was suddenly usurped as the main source of energy, you don’t think that equipment will rapidaly become redundant? I’m afraid you’re the one being naive here. The amount BP and Shell spend on renewable energy R&D is negligible.

Hmmm.. yeah I can see how praying to god changed the world…

I hope that’s a joke. It’s probably not though.
If larking about could change the world, I’d be all for it too.

@ Damon

Hmmm.. yeah I can see how praying to god changed the world…

I hope that’s a joke. It’s probably not though.
If larking about could change the world, I’d be all for it too.

uhmm, not sure what you mean Damon. Sunny was being sarcastic. The comment is suggesting that while direct action has been affective, prayer has not. Think of women chaining themselves to railings (among other headline grabbing activities) for female suffrage, tens of thousands of people participating in pacifist protests in India and America against imperialist or racist regimes, millions protesting and boycotting companies involved in apartheid. I could go on, but you should get the point. Clearly, all these were a complete waste of time (hint for Damon, that last was also a sarcastic statement).

Thanks to modbod for pointing out the obvious for me. Damon, what planet are you living on now? You’re trying to compare direct action with prayers?

“direct action has been affective, prayer has not”. Correct. How effective’s dicking about though?

women chaining themselves to railings (among other headline grabbing activities) for female suffrage – tick
tens of thousands of people participating in pacifist protests in India and America against imperialist or racist regimes – tick
millions protesting and boycotting companies involved in apartheid – tick

A bunch of bob students fannying about in a branch of RBS playing the accordion and singing Poker Face? Likely to piss off the branch manager but I can’t see it changing the world somehow.

So let me get this straight Sunny, if I (apparently I don’t need majority backing) believe your website is not in the public interest then it would be acceptable for me to bring it down with a DOS attack.

‘Two years ago I moved away from Scotland to London for a job in international development – working alongside people in some of the poorest countries in the world.’

Oh, come on – London’s not that bad.

Modbod @15 – I think Parasite @17 has it.
What they did in the RBS does not deserve to be held up alongside the other nobel causes and justified use of direct actions.
Faffing about on a skit … is just that – and is about as useful as praying. ie – not very.

This dedication to these pointless climate camp like activities reminds me of SWP like conviction in fantasy ideas of changing the world. Peter Pan or Wolfie Smith like.

I suppose we all want to think that we can play some part, and it is exciting to put yourself at the center of things.

Royal Bank of Scotland is our bank, owned by the British tax-payer

a sign pinned to my front reading ‘You would be horrified if you knew where RBS invests your money’

What basis do you have for thinking that a majority of UK tax payers would disapprove of RBS lending money to, or helping raise equity for, businesses involved in the production and distribution of oil and gas? After all, the majority of UK tax payers don’t show much sign of objecting to using oil and gas.

You may be correct that it would be better if RBS didn’t do that (thereby achieving a small increase in the cost of capital for fossil fuel companies)

Since I seem to have read the bit of the original post below the picture, which I’m not sure many have, I’ll have some fun with that then…

That was quickly followed by press smears. Most frustrating was the media focus on a police allegation that ‘an oil like substance’ was spilt on a main road. Yet, as it was soon revealed, “there were no pictures of the spill; no traffic reports showing disruption; no bystanders or drivers complaining; no banner and no word from any climate activist on any website saying they did it”.

A complaint has been lodged with the PCC. Whatever the result, the damage has been done.

Direct action works by attracting popular support for a cause. If instead what happens is a counter-narrative starts to circulate, portraying your cause badly, guess what happens – direct action becomes pointless. Climate Camp managed to come out badly on Twitter (for God’s sake, how do you manage that…) and in the press, so a complaint to the PCC won’t do much good. If your cause is that important, it should have the momentum to overcome dirty tricks easily enough.

Imagine, for a moment, the country viewed [sic: 'as' required] a ship. The government stands by the tiller, studiously ignoring the fact that Royal Bank of Scotland is bashing a hole in the hull. The moral reaction for fellow passengers then is to do something about it themselves. That is direct action.

But what if most of the passengers are perfectly happy to have a hole in the hull there, as it will allow water into generators to provide electricity to the ship. Why should direct action therefore be automatically right. Also, this analogy has the minor problem that you equate the ship with the country, but the cost of climate change (if the worst case scenarios came about) would be born by other countries.

If people are alarmed at the Royal Bank of Scotland’s investments, then perhaps it is the bank that should stand trial in Edinburgh rather than us climate campaigners.

Well, if you can manage to find a crime it has committed, take it to court. But it may come as a shock to you to find that you can’t make an institution stand trial simply because you do not like its views and actions – it needs to do something actually illegal first. The fact it hasn’t done this is surely a problem there.

I’m all in favour of direct action (although peaceful protest is perhaps more sensible), but surely achieving something other than a PR disaster and a few court appearances (which I doubt the media will cover particularly, nullifying any benefit) will be of any use. To have the laws you seem to desire you need to use democracy I’m afraid.

Well Done, And thank you for doing this. You are an inspiration to us all.

@23 Molly

What makes you assume the OP inspires us all? I doubt it is the case. There are many ways to protest about RBS in particular, or the global economic situation in general. However laudable the desire of the super gluey one to stand up and be counted, don’t presume that he inspires everyone.

Many people will find his actions pointless, objectionable or even faintly ridiculous, others might reckon the RBS is fair game, but doubt such direct actions will have any impact at all. Others will simply see it as a way of inconveniencing lots of members of the public, costing money in wasted police time, and being less effective than other potential strategies not involving the faintly student prankish attempt to turn the branch into an unoffical Fringe venue.

The bank is “healthy” if it invested with profit. What else is more profitable then oil or gas extraction in these days? Renewable projects are not that profitable because of their highly sophisticated technologies that are still not developed properly. So, all what you have to do now is to decide either you want to keep money in “healthy” bank or to keep the money in a bank with poor condition…

my friend and I glued our index fingers to the lounge coffee table in an act of solidarity with you.I was told this raised a laugh in the climate camp !!!