Extinction Rebellion

[ealingfox]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Ugh, they state "transition to net zero carbon emissions by 2025".

 

Still, trying to push it to 2025 is an out-of-this-world demand, as one single nation as the UK - who is already doing pretty well in terms of reduction of emissions on a global level - cannot make that much of an influence on its own in the space of six years, as climate knows no boundaries and improvements can only be felt with a particular delay (which one cannot forecast), much later than 2025.

 

The biggest polluters would have be held the most accountable and the UN would have to demand the most drastic measures in their cases specifically - are they doing it, though? And if not, why not?

Oh, look - China and India are reversing tables:

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/17/china-india-demand-cash-climate-action-eve-un-summit/

 

In that regard, activist movements such as ER are hypocrites - they are preaching to the choir in places where one is already conscious about climate change and personal responsibility, and the dangers of counterproductive actions leading to strong resistance from the general population is thus increasing.

 

 

Ugh. They actually state (this took a full 48 seconds of research):

 

Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025

 

Besides, net zero carbon and carbon neutral are the same thing so I don't know what your point is.

 

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Nope, zero carbon means all cars coming off the road.

 

If it were totally zero they wouldn't even be able to have their own diesel generator

 

 

 

The demands that you are (falsely) attributing to them describe a zero-carbon policy, not a carbon-neutral one. But as I've pointed out, that isn't what they are demanding anyway.

[Strokes]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do you actually agree with the sentiments though? Extinction Rebellion demands a carbon neutral country by 2025, that pretty much means all flights being grounded, about 30 million cars coming off the road, an end to economic growth, mass unemployment, the end of farming, no central heating and gas cookers. Putting LSD in your Vegan burger isn't going to satify 60 million people.

I don't believe for one minute there is any serious support for this happening in the country. The current government target of 2050 is optomistic and we have to hope for huge techonological developments for that to happen.

We should send Barnier to negotiate with them, Who would the left paint as the enemy then?

 

[Strokes]

32 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Did it? I can buy 1000 packs of 200 in 10 seconds.

   https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drinkstuff-Super-Jumbo-Straws-9-Inch/dp/B002Q134ZE?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_3

You buying plastic straws wasn’t the issue, it was the 10s of millions being used in big chains across the country. I suspect you know that already though.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, foxy boxing said:

They shouldn't be targeting ordinary people going about their daily business. it just pisses people off. their protests won't make a bit of difference in changing the minds or the ways of the big companies or corporations or countries that are the biggest polluters. they need the public onside to make a difference and pissing the public off won't help.

I disagree, it is ordinary people that can change things. We have been waiting too long for politicians and big business to get its act together and it is still way behind. In this economic climate companies are not going to adopt green policies at the expense of the bottom line without pressure from ordinary people and a desire for ordinary people to be more conscious of their buying habits. 

 

You can have as many new businesses starting up as you want selling organic, carbon neutral, ethically sourced, packaging free products but if people don't change their buying habits it's not going to make any difference. Slow fashion seems to be the new buzz term but Primark is still packed out every weekend with people buying £3 t-shirts.

 

This affects all of us and we all need to make sacrifices, I don't agree with XR, I'm more of a Greta fanboy but they have pushed climate back to the top of the agenda. In a week when Hurricane Lorenzo hit the west of England as the strongest ever recorded this far north/east we are constantly being hit by extremes of weather yet are doing so little about it. We are experiencing record storms, blistering heat waves, extreme weather records being broken every year and still people bury their heads in the sand, if the only way to get it back to the top of the agenda is for extremists to super glue themselves to busses then fair play to them. Their demands are ridiculous but the message needs repeating again and again until politicians, big business and ordinary people start doing more.

Edited 8 October 2019 by Captain...

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Ugh. They actually state (this took a full 48 seconds of research):

 

Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025

 

Besides, net zero carbon and carbon neutral are the same thing so I don't know what your point is.

 

 

The demands that you are (falsely) attributing to them describe a zero-carbon policy, not a carbon-neutral one. But as I've pointed out, that isn't what they are demanding anyway.

The quote

"transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions" (carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, although one of several minor ones)

was taken straight from their own website.

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

(Under "Three demands bill")

 

Just to quote the source.

Edited 8 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Nope, zero carbon means all cars coming off the road.

 

If it were totally zero they wouldn't even be able to have their own diesel generator

 

 

It has to be pointed out that the generator was used in a ER protest in Berlin recently, not London. At least if you go by the comments on Twitter.

 

Still, the energy for smartphones and laptops needs to come from somewhere, doesn't it? Whether the source is fossil fuels or nuclear doesn't matter in the heat of the moment...

[spacemunky]

delete 

 

Sorry, I thought it said erectile dysfunction.

[Captain...]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

Nope, zero carbon means all cars coming off the road.

 

If it were totally zero they wouldn't even be able to have their own diesel generator

 

 

You are right they should invent their own portable energy source.  

 

[bmt]

Can't help but think a lot of people are missing the point of protest. It is meant to be annoying and cause disruption, the fact it is being discussed shows they are doing well.

 

Been thinking about joining them myself. I've just completed a masters in development and climate change so obviously it is something I care greatly about. Definitely care about personal hygiene though.

[bmt]

3 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

However their methods make it very hard for people to buy into their message. It's also awkward for them that emissions in the EU have been on a downward trend for a long time (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emission-trends-6/assessment-2), so when they're lying under cars crying about how "the Government" are killing the environment their scientific credibility goes out the window immediately.

 

If they want to tackle the real issue then they should get themselves to India or China (without using a plane or a car remember), where their emissions have increased by over 400% in under 30 years, and between them they contribute to over 35% of the TOTAL global CO2 emissions for 2017.(https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/fossil-co2-emissions-all-world-countries-2018-report). Even the US' emissions have remained pretty stable over the same period with some fantastic emerging technologies in electric vehicles, PV panels, wind turbines etc coming from there during that time. 

Trending downwards is completely insufficient, it needs a fast and large step change. Then we would be in a better position to challenge emissions in the countries you have stated (and other developing nations which follow similar trends).

 

How can Western nations tell less developed nations they need to reduce emissions without getting their own house in order first? Per capita emissions are largely higher in Western nations anyway, so you would be fighting a losing battle. Only if that large step change was made would you have a good argument to bring down emissions in other countries, which is what is required to come out of this crisis well.

[yorkie1999]

54 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You buying plastic straws wasn’t the issue, it was the 10s of millions being used in big chains across the country. I suspect you know that already though.

Course i know that, my point is its all lip service. I've just had sausage and chips from morrisons, comes in a brown paper bag....lined with plastic, with 2 sachets of tomato sauce...in plastic sachets. The sausages taste like they're made of plastic too!

[Jon the Hat]

I’d comment but my plane is about to take off.

[bmt]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

I’d comment but my plane is about to take off.

Yawn

[The Guvnor]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

The one great thing about these protests are the videos that come out of it

 

 

Ha ha thanks Matt, I've now watched that a dozen times, fcuking hilarious. Why they were focusing on the guy with the red top is however a mystery when clearly the star of the show was the guy on the extreme right lifting up alternate legs in a semi squat routine.

🤣

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

However, if you're offering a more in-depth discussion, then you'll surely agree you'll have to formulate it in a way that myself and others can follow you and understand you more easily.

Throwing around scientific jargon doesn't help educating the masses.

But that's precisely my point...shouldn't you have done your due diligence before you made the assumption supported by a link that you don't appear to have even read? 

 

Science is hard...and to reiterate, anthropogenic climate change is a highly involved subject. It is impossible to ignore the fact that most challenges to the validity of this originate with arguments from incredulity or misrepresented data. 

 

Thank you for your civil replies by the way, and I agree that ad hominem responses are a logical fallacy that accomplish nothing. I can assure you that I'm more concerned with your "message" and your "statements". 

[The People's Hero]

All this is enough to just make you want to jet off somewhere sunny!

[bmt]

2 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

All this is enough to just make you want to jet off somewhere sunny!

About 18 minutes late to that hilarious joke unfortunately 

[The People's Hero]

Just now, bmt said:

About 18 minutes late to that hilarious joke unfortunately 

Balls. 

 

Glad you enjoyed it though. Keep an eye out for my posts... admittedly that one was a highlight, but you could be in for a (rare) treat, on occasion!

[MC Prussian]

Extinction Rebellion exposed:

 

"Nothing is happening." Just because you can't see it, don't like the speed at which it's happening or not happening in areas you'd like change happening doesn't mean it isn't happening... You want YOUR change

"We have to start breaking the law in order to make change happen". Good luck with that.

"The governments have been lying for the past 30 years." - And before that? 

"There's no words to describe how serious it is" - and you have no proof, no data, no science are no good grounds for a debate.

"When people go through depression and rage, they decide to do things" - is that a self-reflection and how general can you be?

"We're beyond this terrible situation"

"There's not a third option here, carrying on with business as usual" Business owners would disagree

"We can do whatever we want in our society, if we're prepared to take on the costs" - please elaborate how much it would in fact cost

"We're not making up a political point or an ideological point, ... we're simply saying that the science is real" - which science, what data, what research?

"We're facing social clubs is because we're facing mass starvation" - even though the Global Hunger index has gone down 39% in 2014?

"The science says if that there's not a fundamental change in the structure of the global economy in the next ten years, then we're heading for catastrophy"  - that's not what science says at all - that's what certain economists and politicians and activists want to see happening!

"The public is getting around the idea that we're facing social clubs" - proof? And the theory of social clubs has been floating around for decades, if not centuries

"The British public didn't have any opinion on Climate Emergency before the protests, now 67% agree there is one" - I'd call that a lie - 67% of what?

"Capitalism will destroy itself in ten years, capitalism is destroying the climate." 

"If we don't change things, we will be ten times worse"

"If you go see the doctor, you don't accuse the doctor of being a revolutionary" - yeah, but you're no doctor, you're an organic farmer (and maybe a "sociologist")

"There will be mass civil disturbances in the next year or so"

"I'm not encouraging anyone" - really? Then bragging about the size of your movement?

"Teenagers are shitting themselves about what's happening in the future, they've got another fifty, sixty, seventy years to live on this planet, by that time there could be only a billion people left" - teenagers can be easily misled and nobody knows what's happening in the future

"You're listening, but you're not emotionally connecting" - ok, so feelings over facts, eh?

"Slaughter, death and starvation of six billion people in this century" - some have tried, they've all failed.

"If the Elites don't react to non-violent interactions, then you know what's coming next.. others will use violence." Making indirect threats isn't helping the cause.

"The level of rage in countries is increasing exponentially" - say what? 

 

No rebuttal when the accusation of "terrorist organization" comes up or his quote of "some people may die".

 

These people are dangerous. Eco-terrorism, here we come...

 

Not going to go down well with the general public.

Hallam comes across as a fanatic - very much idealistic and making dangerous simplifications, indirect threats to society and faulty logical assumptions.

Wonder who's behind ER financially...

[The People's Hero]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

Extinction Rebellion exposed:

 

"Nothing is happening." Just because you can't see it, don't like the speed at which it's happening or not happening in areas you'd like change happening doesn't mean it isn't happening... You want YOUR change

"We have to start breaking the law in order to make change happen". Good luck with that.

"The governments have been lying for the past 30 years." - And before that? 

"There's no words to describe how serious it is" - and you have no proof, no data, no science are no good grounds for a debate.

"When people go through depression and rage, they decide to do things" - is that a self-reflection and how general can you be?

"We're beyond this terrible situation"

"There's not a third option here, carrying on with business as usual" Business owners would disagree

"We can do whatever we want in our society, if we're prepared to take on the costs" - please elaborate how much it would in fact cost

"We're not making up a political point or an ideological point, ... we're simply saying that the science is real" - which science, what data, what research?

"We're facing social clubs is because we're facing mass starvation" - even though the Global Hunger index has gone down 39% in 2014?

"The science says if that there's not a fundamental change in the structure of the global economy in the next ten years, then we're heading for catastrophy"  - that's not what science says at all - that's what certain economists and politicians and activists want to see happening!

"The public is getting around the idea that we're facing social clubs" - proof? And the theory of social clubs has been floating around for decades, if not centuries

"The British public didn't have any opinion on Climate Emergency before the protests, now 67% agree there is one" - I'd call that a lie - 67% of what?

"Capitalism will destroy itself in ten years, capitalism is destroying the climate." 

"If we don't change things, we will be ten times worse"

"If you go see the doctor, you don't accuse the doctor of being a revolutionary" - yeah, but you're no doctor, you're an organic farmer (and maybe a "sociologist")

"There will be mass civil disturbances in the next year or so"

"I'm not encouraging anyone" - really? Then bragging about the size of your movement?

"Teenagers are shitting themselves about what's happening in the future, they've got another fifty, sixty, seventy years to live on this planet, by that time there could be only a billion people left" - teenagers can be easily misled and nobody knows what's happening in the future

"You're listening, but you're not emotionally connecting" - ok, so feelings over facts, eh?

"Slaughter, death and starvation of six billion people in this century" - some have tried, they've all failed.

"If the Elites don't react to non-violent interactions, then you know what's coming next.. others will use violence." Making indirect threats isn't helping the cause.

"The level of rage in countries is increasing exponentially" - say what? 

 

No rebuttal when the accusation of "terrorist organization" comes up or his quote of "some people may die".

 

These people are dangerous. Eco-terrorism, here we come...

 

Not going to go down well with the general public.

Hallam comes across as a fanatic - very much idealistic and making dangerous simplifications, indirect threats to society and faulty logical assumptions.

Wonder who's behind ER financially...

I've just tweezed out all the grey hairs from my beard. I see this guy has done the exact opposite.

 

We must to yin and yang. Two sides of the same kind. My nemesis... or soulmate?

 

 

[Guest MattP]

23 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Ha ha thanks Matt, I've now watched that a dozen times, fcuking hilarious. Why they were focusing on the guy with the red top is however a mystery when clearly the star of the show was the guy on the extreme right lifting up alternate legs in a semi squat routine.

🤣

They bring the "stink" to Extinction.

[Guest MattP]

This poor guy was about to save the amazon.

 

 

Edited 8 October 2019 by MattP

[The People's Hero]

Bloody hell, I've gotta try that food colouring.

[James.]

History will more than likely look favourably on those protesting and less so those making cheap, embarrassing jokes at their expense.

[The People's Hero]

1 minute ago, James. said:

History will more than likely look favourably on those protesting and less so those making cheap, embarrassing jokes at their expense.

Probably, but some of them are absolutely bonkers. Surely you put your best foot forward?

 

Its a bit like us sending someone like Boris to negotiate Brexit with the EU.... oh.