Extinction Rebellion

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, Strokes, but I'm really not getting the logic behind his argument here and I'm not sure why it merits such a staunch defence.

 

Of course he can criticise ER and their methods (and renewable energy at the same time, it seems), but the crux of it seems to be that in order to preserve the economic stability of the UK we must maintain the status quo in terms of fossil fuel power generation, because other countries are doing the same. (He mentions nothing about other options, simply that we shouldn't follow ER's stated solutions.)

 

In practically every future scenario imaginable that is going to end badly, if not sooner then later. And I don't see how one can possibly think it's a good argument at all, unless one either values the present much, much higher than the future or thinks everyone is screwed anyway so we may as well go down having a party.

 

 

https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/

Have you read their demands?

[Beechey]

I don't disagree with their end goals, but their time-frame and use of overly alarmist language.

Their main stated goal of 2025 for net 0 g/CO2 emissions is completely mad. There's no feasible way we can generate all of our energy from renewable or non-emitting sources within about 5 years.

 

Gas/oil accounts for about 50% of the UK's energy usage. The largest offshore wind farm on Earth (built by the UK) cost over £1 billion, and produces (at full capacity, 100% efficiency) about 1.7% of our energy needs, and that's with no real way of capturing the energy produced. We'd produce as we need it, and if we couldn't produce it, we'd need to import it. Normally nuclear plants are the answer to this issue, but they take upwards to a decade to build and open, way too long of a a time-frame for XR's demands. Hinkley Point C is going to cost at least £20 billion, produce about 8% of our energy needs, but the very first reactor won't be completed until 2027, 11 years after construction began.

 

Realism is required in this debate, and frankly, XR lacks it.

Edited 14 October 2019 by Beechey

[Strokes]

19 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I don't disagree with their end goals, but their time-frame and use of overly alarmist language.

Their main stated goal of 2025 for net 0 g/CO2 emissions is completely mad. There's no feasible way we can generate all of our energy from renewable or non-emitting sources within about 5 years.

 

Gas accounts for about 50% of the UK's energy usage. The largest offshore wind farm on Earth (built by the UK) cost over £1 billion, and produces (at full capacity, 100% efficiency) about 1.7% of our energy needs, and that's with no real way of capturing the energy produced. We'd produce as we need it, and if we couldn't produce it, we'd need to import it. Normally nuclear plants are the answer to this issue, but they take upwards to a decade to build and open, way too long of a a time-frame for XR's demands. Hinkley Point C is going to cost at least £20 billion, produce about 8% of our energy needs, but the very first reactor won't be completed until 2027, 11 years after construction began.

 

Realism is required in this debate, and frankly, XR lacks it.

That’s the point Hitchens is making.

The point most rational people are making. There are definitely things we could do to accelerate plans but to what cost and to achieve what exactly?

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

That’s the point Hitchens is making.

The point most rational people are making. There are definitely things we could do to accelerate plans but to what cost and to achieve what exactly?

He seems to be going way beyond that that, particularly with his characterisation of anyone concerned about climate change as “warmists”.

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

He seems to be going way beyond that that, particularly with his characterisation of anyone concerned about climate change as “warmists”.

Don’t tell me that is offensive now? 

[WigstonWanderer]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Don’t tell me that is offensive now? 

Haha, I share your apparent dislike of the modern tendency to take offence at just about anything, however his use of this term (that he seems to have made up himself) clearly indicates which side of the fence he sits in the debate.

Edited 13 October 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Strokes]

40 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Haha, I share your apparent dislike of the modern tendency to take offence at just about anything, however his use of this term (that he seems to have made up himself) clearly indicates which side of the fence he sits in the debate.

I’m not sure how or why that is relevant if you disagree, then tell us why.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m not sure how or why that is relevant if you disagree, then tell us why.

Genuinely confused by this reply 

Edited 13 October 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Genuinely confused by this reply 

What about his article do you disagree with? Apart from the assumption he might not be completely sold on rising temperatures.

Edited 13 October 2019 by Strokes

[WigstonWanderer]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What about his article do you disagree with? Apart from the assumption he might not be completely sold on rising temperatures.

That is what I disagree with, and his tone and choice of words confirms it, his skepticism as to the problem clearly shines through. As for ER, I agree that carbon neutral by 2025 is quite impossible as any kind of practical proposition.

Edited 13 October 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Wymsey]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10123037/extinction-rebellion-founder-central-america-luxury/amp/

[UpTheLeagueFox]

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10123037/extinction-rebellion-founder-central-america-luxury/amp/

I refuse to believe any "leftie" might be a hypocrite !!!! 

[ozleicester]

Climate change has been known about since the 70s Little to nothing has or is being done. 

 

XR have (in other guises) tried to drive change from politicians and have failed... what is the alternative?

 

If you accept that humanity affects climate change then doing nothing is accepting that your children, grandchildren etc will live shorter worse lives.

 

If you dont accept it... well.

 

 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Strokes said:

https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/

Have you read their demands?

I have...and the point is, exactly?

 

I think we're having two different conversations here or I'm not communicating clearly, and sorry about that. I'll give it another go:

 

Hitchens has every right to complain about the extreme members of ER, and some of his complaints may well be justified. However, he supplies no alternative solution to their plan and it seems reasonably clear he thinks the whole thing regarding climate science is a farce anyway, so his complaints are very, very hollow.

 

8 hours ago, Beechey said:

I don't disagree with their end goals, but their time-frame and use of overly alarmist language.

Their main stated goal of 2025 for net 0 g/CO2 emissions is completely mad. There's no feasible way we can generate all of our energy from renewable or non-emitting sources within about 5 years.

 

Gas accounts for about 50% of the UK's energy usage. The largest offshore wind farm on Earth (built by the UK) cost over £1 billion, and produces (at full capacity, 100% efficiency) about 1.7% of our energy needs, and that's with no real way of capturing the energy produced. We'd produce as we need it, and if we couldn't produce it, we'd need to import it. Normally nuclear plants are the answer to this issue, but they take upwards to a decade to build and open, way too long of a a time-frame for XR's demands. Hinkley Point C is going to cost at least £20 billion, produce about 8% of our energy needs, but the very first reactor won't be completed until 2027, 11 years after construction began.

 

Realism is required in this debate, and frankly, XR lacks it.

 

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

That’s the point Hitchens is making.

The point most rational people are making. There are definitely things we could do to accelerate plans but to what cost and to achieve what exactly?

...except Hitchens isn't making that point. He's saying that our energy usage needs to rely on fossil fuels if not for the foreseeable future then in perpetuity (rather than just the 5 years) because he gives no reasonable alternatives to it. He's picking at low-hanging fruit while avoiding the obvious problem (again, because I think he doesn't believe it exists) as well as the reasonable solutions that have been put forward to combat it.

 

He's using ER as an excuse to discredit the entire green motion for change.

 

And, as I said above, engaging the Chinese in a race to the bottom as he suggests will only end badly; for them, for the UK, for everyone.

 

 

5 hours ago, Strokes said:

Don’t tell me that is offensive now? 

I find blatant ignorance of scientific data and contempt towards good scientists and the scientific method by big-C Conservative god-botherers offensive...but the term itself, nah.

 

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

What about his article do you disagree with? Apart from the assumption he might not be completely sold on rising temperatures.

...well, that''s a pretty big part of it tbh, what with the blatant disregard for scientific fact and all.

 

@WigstonWanderer makes the point better than I do, though.

[Beechey]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I have...and the point is, exactly?

 

I think we're having two different conversations here or I'm not communicating clearly, and sorry about that. I'll give it another go:

 

Hitchens has every right to complain about the extreme members of ER, and some of his complaints may well be justified. However, he supplies no alternative solution to their plan and it seems reasonably clear he thinks the whole thing regarding climate science is a farce anyway, so his complaints are very, very hollow.

 

 

...except Hitchens isn't making that point. He's saying that our energy usage needs to rely on fossil fuels if not for the foreseeable future then in perpetuity (rather than just the 5 years) because he gives no reasonable alternatives to it. He's picking at low-hanging fruit while avoiding the obvious problem (again, because I think he doesn't believe it exists) as well as the reasonable solutions that have been put forward to combat it.

 

He's using ER as an excuse to discredit the entire green motion for change.

 

And, as I said above, engaging the Chinese in a race to the bottom as he suggests will only end badly; for them, for the UK, for everyone.

 

 

I find blatant ignorance of scientific data and contempt towards good scientists and the scientific method by big-C Conservative god-botherers offensive...but the term itself, nah.

 

...well, that''s a pretty big part of it tbh, what with the blatant disregard for scientific fact and all.

 

@WigstonWanderer makes the point better than I do, though.

Oh I'm not referring at all to the article posted, just my thoughts on the group

[MC Prussian]

7 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Climate change has been known about since the 70s Little to nothing has or is being done. 

 

XR have (in other guises) tried to drive change from politicians and have failed... what is the alternative?

 

If you accept that humanity affects climate change then doing nothing is accepting that your children, grandchildren etc will live shorter worse lives.

 

If you dont accept it... well.

Climate Change has been known way longer than just the 1970ies, it's the science that really got going a couple of decades ago. Climate science did start somewhere in the 19th century.

Unless you're talking about Global Warming, which is something different altogether.

"Nothing has or is being done"? No CO2 reduction in most Western Countries, no technological advancements on the whole (solar, wind, hydro, fission, nuclear), no change in general consumer behaviour (eating healthier products)?

Ok. Seems rather odd for you to gloss over the facts.

 

The alternative to hysteria? Facts. Scientist-based panels, a sensible and sober global dialogue. Neutral media.

 

Climate Change has been known on a scientific level for at least two centuries and some global warming been going on ever since the end of the last Little Ice Age.

Climate conservationism started as early as at the end of the 19th century, human life expectancy and living conditions have improved ever since, and that will continue and that even with an extremely quickly growing global population in the past 50, 60 years. What's the issue?

 

We. Are. Not. Doing. Nothing.

 

 

Edited 14 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Climate Change has been known way longer than just the 1970ies, it's the science that really got going a couple of decades ago. Climate science did start somewhere in the 19th century.

Unless you're talking about Global Warming, which is something different altogether.

"Nothing has or is being done"? No CO2 reduction in most Western Countries, no technological advancements on the whole (solar, wind, hydro, fission, nuclear), no change in general consumer behaviour (eating healthier products)?

Ok. Seems rather odd for you to gloss over the facts.

 

The alternative to hysteria? Facts. Scientist-based panels, a sensible and sober global dialogue. Neutral media.

 

Climate Change has been known on a scientific level for at least two centuries and some global warming been going on ever since the end of the last Little Ice Age.

Climate conservationism started as early as at the end of the 19th century, human life expectancy and living conditions have improved ever since, and that will continue and that even with an extremely quickly growing global population in the past 50, 60 years. What's the issue?

 

We. Are. Not. Doing. Nothing. ENOUGH

 

 

 

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I have...and the point is, exactly?

 

I think we're having two different conversations here or I'm not communicating clearly, and sorry about that. I'll give it another go:

 

Hitchens has every right to complain about the extreme members of ER, and some of his complaints may well be justified. However, he supplies no alternative solution to their plan and it seems reasonably clear he thinks the whole thing regarding climate science is a farce anyway, so his complaints are very, very hollow.

 

 

...except Hitchens isn't making that point. He's saying that our energy usage needs to rely on fossil fuels if not for the foreseeable future then in perpetuity (rather than just the 5 years) because he gives no reasonable alternatives to it. He's picking at low-hanging fruit while avoiding the obvious problem (again, because I think he doesn't believe it exists) as well as the reasonable solutions that have been put forward to combat it.

 

He's using ER as an excuse to discredit the entire green motion for change.

 

And, as I said above, engaging the Chinese in a race to the bottom as he suggests will only end badly; for them, for the UK, for everyone.

 

 

I find blatant ignorance of scientific data and contempt towards good scientists and the scientific method by big-C Conservative god-botherers offensive...but the term itself, nah.

 

...well, that''s a pretty big part of it tbh, what with the blatant disregard for scientific fact and all.

 

@WigstonWanderer makes the point better than I do, though.

I’m completely and utterly bemused by all of this 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Beechey said:

Oh I'm not referring at all to the article posted, just my thoughts on the group

That's totally fair enough.

 

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m completely and utterly bemused by all of this 

I guess we'll leave it at that and call it a failure to communicate then. I'm truly sorry I couldn't make my point clear enough.

[Beechey]

Good news for this domain though, for the first time, the UK has produced more of its energy from renewable or carbon neutral sources than fossil fuels over an entire quarter.

 

 

[ozleicester]

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/hundreds-of-scientists-back-climate-civil-disobedience?fbclid=IwAR0AmXgZ2NVyD8CYqnhixLrodYEh7qFBs5vKze_b3BMIw41f3WABkDS9JRc

 

[MC Prussian]

26 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/hundreds-of-scientists-back-climate-civil-disobedience?fbclid=IwAR0AmXgZ2NVyD8CYqnhixLrodYEh7qFBs5vKze_b3BMIw41f3WABkDS9JRc

 

Ok, and how many of those scientists are actually active in the field of climatology, I wonder...

Where's the full list?

 

Do we need more fearmongering activists or more people who know what they're talking about?

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Good news for this domain though, for the first time, the UK has produced more of its energy from renewable or carbon neutral sources than fossil fuels over an entire quarter.

 

 

Always good to see progress.

 

I guess the gripes often come because for all the good changes that are happening, the overall temperature and CO2 levels continue to rise. But news like this shows at the very least work is being done and maybe we can get a lid on it all...it certainly demonstrates such is possible given the right will.

[MC Prussian]

38 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Good news for this domain though, for the first time, the UK has produced more of its energy from renewable or carbon neutral sources than fossil fuels over an entire quarter.

 

 

Great, that's one quarter - one out of four. The yearly total is still dominated by fossil fuels, although in the case of the UK, coal is about to disappear forever, that percentage is now negligible.

 

Also, is it just me or has the graph been tampered with? Are they using the exactly same values for all years?

"Quarterly electricity generation in the UK between 2009 and the third quarter of 2019, in terawatt hours"

Sounds to me they're combining numbers in a rather manufactured/contrived context to make it look more impressive than it actually is.

 

The Hornsea One windfarm just opened in 2019 and it remains to be seen whether they can continue to produce enough or that amount of energy in the months and years to come.

Two more North Sea/channel windfarms to come (2020 and 2013).

 

Important note here for all activists:

Quote

the UK is unlikely to meet its legally binding goal of cutting overall emissions to net-zero by 2050, unless progress in the electricity sector is matched by reductions in other parts of the UK economy, such as heating and transport.

 

Oh, and add the source:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time

 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

We are not doing enough.

Well, which one is it now? Nothing or not enough?