Extinction Rebellion

[MC Prussian]

Watch out - they're climbing planes now:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/oct/10/activist-climbs-plane-as-extinction-rebellion-takes-protest-to-london-airport-video

 

"We're taking this airport, this airport belongs to ER".  Nope, it doesn't.

[Tommo220]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Watch out - they're climbing planes now:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/oct/10/activist-climbs-plane-as-extinction-rebellion-takes-protest-to-london-airport-video

 

"We're taking this airport, this airport belongs to ER".  Nope, it doesn't.

i'm very loosely on their side at the minute, but if they descend on Birmingham Airport tomorrow afternoon and stop me going on holiday i could quite easily switch sides and join the calls to have them publicly hanged!

[Jon the Hat]

On 09/10/2019 at 23:48, MC Prussian said:

This may sound petty and infantile - but who in the world names their daughter Zion? Is Zion Lights even her real name?

 

I think she should quit ER and do something more sensible, her previous work suggests she's actually rather level-headed. Being part of this group isn't doing her any good.

 

The Maldives example is an interesting one - 30 years ago, there were plenty of scientists suggesting rising sea levels would swallow islands like it whole. Today, we're seeing an increase in land size in many areas, such as Tuvalu - despite rising sea levels:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/43/6/515/131899/Coral-islands-defy-sea-level-rise-over-the-past?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

Next you will be telling me that the sea makes islands, and if the sea level rises so do the islands.  Oh hang on...

[Leicester_Loyal]

What the hell is with all the weird dancing to Drum & Bass music? Absolute freaks.

Edited 11 October 2019 by Leicester_Loyal

[Parafox]

We need aliens to land here and then ask them what propelled their spacecraft millions of miles to Earth.

On 10/10/2019 at 15:48, leicsmac said:

 

http://asbronomers.com/are-rocket-launches-bad-for-the-environment/

 

Here's the lowdown - liquid fuel and solid fuel rockets both have their own drawbacks, the former in terms of soot, the latter in terms of alumina.

 

However, the emissions of both of these things from total launches pale in comparison to emissions from air transportation, car transportation, or practically any other form of internal combustion transportation to be honest, given the sheer infrequency of launches by comparison.

We need aliens to land here and then we can ask them how they propelled themselves millions of mile to Earth.

[Carl the Llama]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49997755

I forget if we're allowed to listen to expert opinions on this or not, let's hope not because making changes to save the planet would be inconvenient as we're seeing with the response to ER.

[Leicester_Loyal]

People aren't arguing about climate change being an issue, it clearly is as many people have stated. Shutting down a city and costing your average Joe a days wage isn't going to convince them to join or help you with your case. Some of ERs proposals are ridiculosu and would literally take us back to the dark ages. How is weirdly dancing to drum and bass music in police officers faces going to convince me to use my push bike more? How is doing yoga on a bridge going to make me take less flights a year? Answer below.

 

It's not.

[WigstonWanderer]

Taxation changes designed to change behaviour to reduce carbon emissions could in principle be tax neutral. For example, why not replace VAT with some sort of Carbon Added Tax, or even a more general Pollution Added Tax. I appreciate that this would be more complicated to administer than the simple addition of 20% or whatever, but with modern technology at everyone’s fingertips that need not be an issue.

 

The issue as to whether more tax needs to be raised overall is a political one and quite independent of the basis of the taxation. Also, (as in principle is the case with VAT), the poor could be protected by income tax rebates. These are political questions.

 

Obviously the absolute first priority from a taxation viewpoint is to remove any and all subsidies to fossil fuels.

Edited 11 October 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49997755

I forget if we're allowed to listen to expert opinions on this or not, let's hope not because making changes to save the planet would be inconvenient as we're seeing with the response to ER.

Lifestyle changes - I'm in and I don't have an issue with it, because I already lead a rather modest and comparatively eco-friendly life.

I just don't want it to get to the point where the change in habit is forced upon people by the government.

 

Electric cars are a thorn in my eyes, because of the production costs and the impact on the environment itself - getting that lithium puts an enormous ecological strain on places such as Bolivia.

The car industry is massively lagging and should already move a step further.

 

And we still haven't solved the issue of energy supplies - coal and nuclear plants will have to stay for a while still, as much as I want the former to disappear asap and the latter to become safer.

 

What is clear is that the general population could use a bit of an ad campaign, highlighting the issues, handing out practical recommendations.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

People aren't arguing about climate change being an issue, it clearly is as many people have stated. Shutting down a city and costing your average Joe a days wage isn't going to convince them to join or help you with your case. Some of ERs proposals are ridiculosu and would literally take us back to the dark ages. How is weirdly dancing to drum and bass music in police officers faces going to convince me to use my push bike more? How is doing yoga on a bridge going to make me take less flights a year? Answer below.

 

It's not.

But they are, or at least the severity of the threat - on this thread and out in the wider world.

 

Arguably the most powerful individual on the planet with a huge following doesn't think it is an issue at all based on policy decisions, and there are many more who think as he does.

 

And again, the idea that all or even most of those wanting change are neo-Luddities is a daft strawman probably concocted by those who want nothing done. The cooler heads know that tech development is the way this is solved, not regression.

[ozleicester]

[st albans fox]

‘Extremist’ viewpoints generally tend to put the masses off any cause. ER could actually undo so much ‘good work’ that’s been done over the years by FOE and greenpeace 

[MC Prussian]

12 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Taxation changes designed to change behaviour to reduce carbon emissions could in principle be tax neutral. For example, why not replace VAT with some sort of Carbon Added Tax, or even a more general Pollution Added Tax. I appreciate that this would be more complicated to administer than the simple addition of 20% or whatever, but with modern technology at everyone’s fingertips that need not be an issue.

 

The issue as to whether more tax needs to be raised overall is a political one and quite independent of the basis of the taxation. Also, (as in principle is the case with VAT), the poor could be protected by income tax rebates. These are political questions.

 

Obviously the absolute first priority from a taxation viewpoint is to remove any and all subsidies to fossil fuels.

The main issue here is to lower or eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels without impacting the energy costs for the average consumer and business in general.

How should we go on about that?

[WigstonWanderer]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The main issue here is to lower or eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels without impacting the energy costs for the average consumer and business in general.

How should we go on about that?

I actually don’t agree with that 

if it is a dirty energy source it needs to be more expensive 

[Matt_Lcfc]

Bunch of freaks. I get climate change is an issue but the 80 year olds attempting to cause havoc in the streets make me laugh. 
disrupting people trying to get from a to b and earn their money is not the right way to make an impact and voice their issues imo.

 

as for greta thurnberg  she really is a freak, don’t get all the bollox of her being “inspiring”, she’s being used by her influential parents and just coming across as confrontational. Worst thing is that I have to put up with her for the rest of my life what with her only being a few years younger than me 

[leicsmac]

A quick question here...

 

If people really do believe that climate change is a problem for the future (and I'm not sure that is the case with all or even most people)...then why, from a purely rational viewpoint, does the way the fact that it is a problem is communicated mean anything at all? The scientific information itself doesn't change simply because some the way it's communicated is rather odd.

 

Just strikes me as a bit inconsistent.

 

NB. This is of course to say nothing of the possible solutions to the problem, rather to the fact that the problem exists in the first place.

[Leicester_Loyal]

What about all these celebrities advertising/endorsing British Airways and high polluting vehicles while also preaching to us about climate change and taking photos with ER.

 

Do as I say, not as I do.

Edited 12 October 2019 by Leicester_Loyal

[Leicester_Loyal]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A quick question here...

 

If people really do believe that climate change is a problem for the future (and I'm not sure that is the case with all or even most people)...then why, from a purely rational viewpoint, does the way the fact that it is a problem is communicated mean anything at all? The scientific information itself doesn't change simply because some the way it's communicated is rather odd.

 

Just strikes me as a bit inconsistent.

 

NB. This is of course to say nothing of the possible solutions to the problem, rather to the fact that the problem exists in the first place.

Would you listen to someone coming up to you in the street preaching while dancing to DnB music or doing yoga? No, and neither will your average Joe, regardless of what is being communicated. All it does is put people off, why would you want to be associated with them?

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A quick question here...

 

If people really do believe that climate change is a problem for the future (and I'm not sure that is the case with all or even most people)...then why, from a purely rational viewpoint, does the way the fact that it is a problem is communicated mean anything at all? The scientific information itself doesn't change simply because some the way it's communicated is rather odd.

 

Just strikes me as a bit inconsistent.

 

NB. This is of course to say nothing of the possible solutions to the problem, rather to the fact that the problem exists in the first place.

Because Extinction Rebellion aren't communicating facts. As many are now starting to find out its massive hyperbole and exaggeration, very few scientists agree with these people.

 

Everyone knows we need to do something about climate and we need to trust the UN scientific evidence over a load of drugged up hippies in the street gluing themselves to things because they think Europe will be underwater by Christmas. 

[MC Prussian]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A quick question here...

 

If people really do believe that climate change is a problem for the future (and I'm not sure that is the case with all or even most people)...then why, from a purely rational viewpoint, does the way the fact that it is a problem is communicated mean anything at all? The scientific information itself doesn't change simply because some the way it's communicated is rather odd.

 

Just strikes me as a bit inconsistent.

 

NB. This is of course to say nothing of the possible solutions to the problem, rather to the fact that the problem exists in the first place.

We have two options here:

Stay rational, listen to scientists, discuss the issues at hand, debate the findings and stick to the facts that we have, take it from there and do the best we can, sensibly.

OR

Behave irrationally, appeal to fear instead of facts, use buzzwords, use threatening language, hyperboles, and use laymen and children in order to convey complicated systems and processes.

 

Which way would you rather go?

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Would you listen to someone coming up to you in the street preaching while dancing to DnB music or doing yoga? No, and neither will your average Joe, regardless of what is being communicated. All it does is put people off, why would you want to be associated with them?

I agree that I wouldn't listen to someone in the street either...but that, I know, is solely down to my own prejudices and irrationality and nothing more. It has nothing to do with the scientific evidence as it stands. That's rather my point.

 

Is it too much to expect of people to be able to separate message and messenger?

 

 

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Because Extinction Rebellion aren't communicating facts. As many are now starting to find out its massive hyperbole and exaggeration, very few scientists agree with these people.

 

Everyone knows we need to do something about climate and we need to trust the UN scientific evidence over a load of drugged up hippies in the street gluing themselves to things because they think Europe will be underwater by Christmas. 

As far as I can tell they are not communicating facts in terms of solution (as I've said before, a lot of neo-Luddism going on but that's far from the only voice), but on the topic of average temperatures and the (possible) consequences they seem to be very close to what the official scientific line is. That's why I made it clear that the problem and solution are very separate in this case.

 

I absolutely agree we need to trust the UN, NASA and other related scientific evidence, but I'm not seeing an awful lot of evidence that people are doing that trusting beyond nodding their heads and saying its true.

 

 

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

We have two options here:

Stay rational, listen to scientists, discuss the issues at hand, debate the findings and stick to the facts that we have, take it from there and do the best we can, sensibly.

OR

Behave irrationally, appeal to fear instead of facts, use buzzwords, use threatening language, hyperboles, and use laymen and children in order to convey complicated systems and processes.

 

Which way would you rather go?

 

I'd naturally prefer the former, but as above, I'm unsure as to how much facts can sway a population on this matter in this particular era of communication.

[MC Prussian]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd naturally prefer the former, but as above, I'm unsure as to how much facts can sway a population on this matter in this particular era of communication.

I'd be great if activists, politicians and the media were at least start trying. Then we could take it from there.

Edited 12 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I'd be great if activists, politicians and the media were at least start trying. Then we could take it from there.

I'm not entirely convinced as to the extent of the lying, but I do think it would be better if some folks from the scientific community could step up, present the data for as big an audience as possible conference-style on TV - without having to go through press releases that could be misinterpreted - so there could be no doubt whatsoever about the veracity of the information.

 

Of course, again, I'm inclined to think the usual suspects would simply dismiss the scientists as paid shills for whoever/incompetent/scaremongering and things would go on as they are...but you never know, perhaps we could take it from there.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, Matt_Lcfc said:

Bunch of freaks. I get climate change is an issue but the 80 year olds attempting to cause havoc in the streets make me laugh. 
disrupting people trying to get from a to b and earn their money is not the right way to make an impact and voice their issues imo.

 

as for greta thurnberg  she really is a freak, don’t get all the bollox of her being “inspiring”, she’s being used by her influential parents and just coming across as confrontational. Worst thing is that I have to put up with her for the rest of my life what with her only being a few years younger than me 

Well, never mind. Look on the bright side. When a combination of economic and environmental issues have caused the collapse of modern society, you probably won’t be able to afford the tech to follow what she’s doing, so perhaps she won’t be quite so annoying.

[BoyJones]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

The last 12 words fit ER to a "T".

 

Got accosted by two female green Eco warriors on Queens Road in the summer. Actually let them give me the doomsday spiel, then said can I ask two questions? Do you have children, they do. Do you use disposable nappies? Yes they do! Just walked away, couple of hypocrites.  

 

My experience of these people is they pick and choose what Eco / planet saving aspects suit them.