Guildford Youth Continue Climate Protests In Town Centre

Published on: 14 Feb, 2020
Updated on: 14 Feb, 2020

About 150 protesters, mainly from local schools and the University of Surrey, marched in Guildford town centre again today (Friday, February 14).

The march was highlighting what they see as a lack government and local authority action on the climate emergency declared last year.

Young climate crisis protesters marched up Guildford High Street in a good natured protest against climate change.

Aidan Knox, a youth strike co-ordinator, said “We must keep the pressure on those in power to act on the climate emergency, to help save our future, and to mitigate the harm that the climate breakdown is already doing to millions of people across the world.”

Their home-made placards were a direct call to action on global warming.

One of the organisers, university student Aiden Knox, being interviewed by BBC reporter, Jack Fiehn.

Reaction by passers by was mainly positive. One couple said: “Well done to them. It’s wonderful what they are doing.”

Another man was less convinced that the protesters were going to make a difference. He said: “It’s f*****g rubbish. We can’t do anything about the climate changing anyway.”

While Ian Allen, 73, said he had joined the protesters on previous marches. He agreed that action by the government was needed.

He said: “It’s obvious to me that the weather has changed; you can’t deny it. I don’t know how enthusiastic Boris is about a climate change policy though.”

The march stretched down North Street…..

And filled Friary Street.

The police were in attendance.

The march drew attention from shoppers but didn’t disturb usual activity In the town centre.

Even the youngest joined in with their home-made placards.

Responses to Guildford Youth Continue Climate Protests In Town Centre

Steph Bleach Reply

February 15, 2020 at 8:52 am

Gutted I missed the march but so encouraging to see so many young people standing up for their futures – and great to see a university presence too!
- John Armstrong Reply
  
  February 15, 2020 at 3:52 pm
  
  Frankly I think the universities should know better; politics and science do not mix, as many burned for heresy could testify.
  
  The future of the young? I think they would do better protesting for the reinstatement of our industry and our pre-eminence in science and engineering so that they have decent jobs to go to.
Jim Allen Reply

February 15, 2020 at 10:28 am

A question for all climate change enforcers and deniers.

Which contributes more to climate change? Painting your house once every two years with eco-friendly paint or every ten years with paint which remains in good condition for 10 years but is not eco-friendly? Taking into account solvents, sand paper, paint brushes and quantities of dust etc.
Dave Middleton Reply

February 15, 2020 at 6:14 pm

Again, I commend the local protesters for making their point in a dignified and lawful manner, causing minimal disruption to the lives of their fellow citizens.

Something that Extinction Rebellion and other environmental type groups, should careful take note of.
John Perkins Reply

February 16, 2020 at 11:22 am

Climate change is beyond doubt, and it is equally certain that it currently involves a rise in temperature.

Whether or not the rise can be extrapolated into the future is less so, but is acceptable as a premise.

Accordingly the question is whether or not mankind has caused or exacerbated that rise. The evidence for that is far less conclusive, though, in order to keep an open mind, it must be considered.

On the assumption that mankind is at fault, then there are two obvious ways to counter it.

One is to try to make complex decisions by balancing activities which release less greenhouse gas against those which release more.

The other is to reduce the number of humans to something the climate can sustain – and keep it there. Logically, reducing the population by 90% produces a similar reduction in CO2, whilst marching about demanding something be done produces a slight increase.
Sam Peters Reply

February 17, 2020 at 1:55 pm

A few responses to comments above:

Jim – not sure to be honest. You could work it out, but realistically the difference might be so minimal in the grand scheme of things that it won’t matter much. Individual efforts can only go so far – without systemic change no amount of recycling, changing lightbulbs or eco-friendly paint will solve the climate crisis!

Dave – plenty of the Youth Strikers are part of Extinction Rebellion (XR), and vice versa. Like it or not, XR got climate change into the public debate over the last two years and continue to keep it there while now targeting businesses and governments directly, with minimal disruption to the public (see the recent actions outside the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, at Gatwick, at coalmines etc)

John – population is certainly a part of the equation, but consumption is by far the biggest component at the moment. The poorest 4billion contribute just 10% of all emissions, while the richest tenth contribute over 50%. If we all lived like the poorest half of humanity, we could reach 40billion people before our emissions were the same as now.

Obviously there’s a population limit where everyone can live decent AND sustainable lives, but consumption is by far the most important issue currently. But then again, having read your last line, perhaps you’re not too concerned about the actual causes?
- jim Allen Reply
  
  February 18, 2020 at 11:13 am
  
  I can – It is far more destructive to the climate to replace while still working, than it is to newly manufacture and use less afterwards. ie longevity over single use.
  
  In respect of changing light bulbs (when they stop giving out light) means most house wiring size could be reduced from 1.5 to 1 so a one third reduction in power requirement in new properties – installing solar hot water is a major refurbishment only suitable if re-plumbing an old house or on new builds, while solar electric can be easily installed and efficient in less than two days.
  
  As for the progress by mother nature through her 1000 period cycles, sorry you will have to ask my great-great grand son…
Jules Cranwell Reply

February 18, 2020 at 9:51 am

The students from UoS should turn their attention to the university’s plan to profit from the destruction of Blackwell Farm.

This will ruin areas of AONB, and be calamitous to the local environment.

How about a sit-in, in the vice-chancellor’s office, until the university changes tack.
Peter Elliott Reply

February 19, 2020 at 12:47 pm

Quite agree, Jules, destroying all that beautiful countryside, and productive farmland, in order to build thousands of houses which the office of national statistics has said are surplus to local requirements, seems completely crazy to me.
John Perkins Reply

February 19, 2020 at 2:33 pm

Using Sam’s figures, a reduction of 90% evenly distributed amongst the population (such as might be caused by a pandemic) would result in reductions in emissions of 9% by the poorest, 45% by the richest and 36% by the rest, or 90% in total.

Yes, if only the richest were to reduce their emissions by 90%, then there would be an overall reduction of 45%, which is proportionally a bigger benefit.

Human nature being what it is, that’s likely to prove difficult to achieve. Woe betide anyone who gives a baby a dummy and then tries to take it back!

To all live like the poorest half the rich would have to mostly give up using trains and boats and planes as well as cars, computers and mobile phones.

It isn’t enough to replace them by more eco-friendly versions as there is no evidence that eco-friendly things could reverse the trend.

However, that was my original point – new and more efficient things can only reduce emissions by the difference between the old and the new, certainly not to zero, and delivering them incurs a cost of its own.

Actual causes are complex and poorly understood, but for sure climate change was happening millions of years before modern consumerism and even before the advent of mankind.

It’s illogical to presume that I’m not concerned about them just because I’m critical of those who make a lot of noise, but achieve little.

I’m not saying nothing can or should be done, but organised protests CREATE emissions. Even if they persuade politicians to make new laws they are unlikely to have much beneficial effect on the planet as they are aimed at such a small proportion of humanity and only one of the possible causes.