Extinction Rebellion

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, James. said:

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

History shows those who claim history will look favourably on them are historically usually wrong. 

 

This whole "history will look kindly on us" is spouted so often these days and it's very peculiar, I'm not sure if those using it are trying to convince others or themselves. 

 

The vast majority of people are trying to do something about climate change and the environment, but drugged up hippies dancing on the roads of Western capitals whose carbon output is 1% of the total isn't actually going to solve anything is it?

 

I mean if we are wrong and 2050 isn't enough then we are all totally ****ed anyway, because the Chinese are going to pump out twenty times what we do and over a longer period of time - so it's all pointless anyway.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, James. said:

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

Bold of you to assume there will be anyone with the skill to chronicle history and they'll have access to reliable records when this is all done tbh.

[bmt]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

History shows those who claim history will look favourably on them are historically usually wrong. 

 

This whole "history will look kindly on us" is spouted so often these days and it's very peculiar, I'm not sure if those using it are trying to convince others or themselves. 

 

The vast majority of people are trying to do something about climate change and the environment, but drugged up hippies dancing on the roads of Western capitals whose carbon output is 1% of the total isn't actually going to solve anything is it?

 

I mean if we are wrong and 2050 isn't enough then we are all totally ****ed anyway, because the Chinese are going to pump out twenty times what we do and over a longer period of time - so it's all pointless anyway.

Are they? From research I have done (I will try and dig out the papers/articles) people have said they WOULD change their behavior but only if others did too, and therefore haven't currently changed anything to do with their footprint. I certainly haven't seen much evidence people have made genuine large changes to behavior. 

 

Also history certainly won't look favourably on the "it's all pointless anyway" gang.

[Samilktray]

Don’t think I’ve ever heard the term “history will look favourably on us” used, let alone hearing it so often 

[bmt]

4 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Don’t think I’ve ever heard the term “history will look favourably on us” used, let alone hearing it so often 

I agree but it is to be expected. The key argument is what world future generations will have to live in, and how we can act to make that the best world possible. Makes sense for people to think that history books will have something to say about sides of this debate.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, bmt said:

Also history certainly won't look favourably on the "it's all pointless anyway" gang.

Please use the full quote - it's all pointless anyway if the Chinese keep pumping out the levels they intend to.

 

A global effort to combat it certainly isn't pointless.

 

2 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Don’t think I’ve ever heard the term “history will look favourably on us” used, let alone hearing it so often 

You won't as you don't take an interest in current affairs/news. It's referenced an awful lot these days in politics all over the World. Brexit/Trump/Climate change/Arab Spring/Syria/Russia/Hong Kong - a lot of the time is both sides thst love to channel their inner Churchill in the modern discourse.

 

Simple fact is nobody knows how history will judge them, often as the winners are the ones who write it. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Chuck all of the idiots in prison for a while. Some of their ideas and policies are ridiculous and will take us back to the dark ages. I agree with Finners, all there doing is turning people away from thinking about climate change.

[bmt]

Just now, MattP said:

Please use the full quote - it's all pointless anyway if the Chinese keep pumping out the levels they intend to.

 

A global effort to combat it certainly isn't pointless.

Sorry, that's how I read it because of the syntax but my mistake.

 

However to be on any footing to convince China to change consumption trends it requires wholesale change here and in other Western nations (USA most obviously) first, or at least concurrently.

[Samilktray]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Please use the full quote - it's all pointless anyway if the Chinese keep pumping out the levels they intend to.

 

A global effort to combat it certainly isn't pointless.

 

You won't as you don't take an interest in current affairs/news. It's referenced an awful lot these days in politics all over the World. Brexit/Trump/Climate change/Arab Spring/Syria/Russia/Hong Kong - a lot of the time is both sides thst love to channel their inner Churchill in the modern discourse.

 

Simple fact is nobody knows how history will judge them, often as the winners are the ones who write it. 

I’m not sure you’re qualified to tell me what I do and don’t take an interest in tbh 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, bmt said:

Sorry, that's how I read it because of the syntax but my mistake.

 

However to be on any footing to convince China to change consumption trends it requires wholesale change here and in other Western nations (USA most obviously) first, or at least concurrently.

Completely agree. India also.

 

The biggest problem with this is going to be convincing those in the third World to abandon the economic growth that has allowed us to prosper, how we do that I have no idea.

[bmt]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Chuck all of the idiots in prison for a while. Some of their ideas and policies are ridiculous and will take us back to the dark ages. I agree with Finners, all there doing is turning people away from thinking about climate change.

And yet here we are debating climate change (as well as the movement). 

 

As an aside, how do I quote multiple posts in one reply? 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, bmt said:

And yet here we are debating climate change (as well as the movement). 

 

As an aside, how do I quote multiple posts in one reply? 

Click the addition sign next to the quote one in the bottom left of a post. Then click 'Quote * posts* in the bottom right corner of your screen.

Edited 8 October 2019 by Leicester_Loyal

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, bmt said:

And yet here we are debating climate change (as well as the movement). 

 

As an aside, how do I quote multiple posts in one reply? 

Problem is its not positive is it?

 

As someone earlier in the thread said, if you were cynical you would assume the oil giants are paying them to do it.

[bmt]

Just now, MattP said:

Problem is its not positive is it?

 

As someone earlier in the thread said, if you were cynical you would assume the oil giants are paying them to do it.

I think protest can start being seen negatively and then move into a more positive movement, the Suffragette movement is a decent example. 

 

Also Hallam has done study in the area - "Between at least 2017 and early 2019 he was studying for a PhD in civil disobedience at King's College London,^[7] researching how to achieve social change through radical movements." Not saying everything XR have done is right but I don't think it matters that much at this stage whether they are perceived positively or negatively, more that they are being discussed. 

[Milo]

3 hours 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.

But their general sentiment regarding climate change and bio diversity are also issues that I agree with. 

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Milo said:

But their general sentiment regarding climate change and bio diversity are also issues that I agree with. 

Fair enough.

 

I do wonder when it comes to the ballot box though how many people will be prepared to make the sacrifices they want and vote accordingly. My guess is not many.

[MC Prussian]

30 minutes ago, bmt said:

I think protest can start being seen negatively and then move into a more positive movement, the Suffragette movement is a decent example. 

 

Also Hallam has done study in the area - "Between at least 2017 and early 2019 he was studying for a PhD in civil disobedience at King's College London,^[7] researching how to achieve social change through radical movements." Not saying everything XR have done is right but I don't think it matters that much at this stage whether they are perceived positively or negatively, more that they are being discussed. 

That may be - thing is, are they being discussed with the emphasis on climate change or the emphasis on civil disobedience/disrupting daily life or a focus of the byproducts of their protests?

 

Given the fact that Hallam's odd interview with the BBC didn't shed a particularly positive light on the movement or its intentions, the views in general could soon shift to the negative side.

[Milo]

37 minutes ago, MattP said:

Fair enough.

 

I do wonder when it comes to the ballot box though how many people will be prepared to make the sacrifices they want and vote accordingly. My guess is not many.

Jesus, I hope you’re right. Just because I vaguely agree with some of their aims doesn’t mean I want any of these soap dodging scrotes in any position of power. 

[LiberalFox]

It's somewhat inevitable that this issue becomes left/right focused. It's anti-consumerism. 

 

The comparison to the tobacco industry is quite good in my opinion.

Edited 8 October 2019 by LiberalFox

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, bmt said:

Yawn

It literally was.  I'm now in Romania. 

I sort of see their point, but I think that pissing off the general population - who don't see themselves as responsible and have a point - or the British Government - who are already putting in place ambitious targets to reduce Co2 at great expense for all of us - will achieve anything.  They should be protesting at companies who produce in China and other places where they are building coal fired power stations everywhere, effectively outsourcing our emissions.

[Jon the Hat]

On the down side the traffic they are creating is not doing good things for the air quality in London.  Glad I am not working in Westminster this week.

[MPH]

40 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

It's somewhat inevitable that this issue becomes left/right focused. It's anti-consumerism. 

 

The comparison to the tobacco industry is quite good in my opinion.

 

 

there’s been quite a lucrative industry developed from ‘green issues’  and safe electricity  and more ‘ energy efficient electrical items  so maybe the answer is right here..

 

 

Maybe they haven't yet worked out a way to make this appeal to everyone?

 

Sure people can talk about the importance of the moral aspect of the subject we are discussing but the reality is some people consider the impact  on their wallets, and life in general.  Should we cry foul and talk about how bad they are or would it be wiser not to get in a tit for tat/  draw battles and find a way of making this work for everyone?

Edited 8 October 2019 by MPH

[Jon the Hat]

10 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

there’s been quite a lucrative industry developed from ‘green issues’  and safe electricity  and more ‘ energy efficient electrical items  so maybe the answer is right here..

 

 

Maybe they haven't yet worked out a way to make this appeal to everyone?

 

Sure people can talk about the importance of the moral aspect of the subject we are discussing but the reality is some people consider the impact  on their wallets, and life in general.  Should we cry foul and talk about how bad they are or would it be wiser not to get in a tit for tat/  draw battles and find a way of making this work for everyone?

Lets be honest, most people care about the planet, but suspect the forecasts are exaggerated and the response is overblown.  Unless they are kids.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Lets be honest, most people care about the planet, but suspect the forecasts are exaggerated and the response is overblown.  Unless they are kids.

 

 

agree completely.  but my point remains- if you want to engage this group then you have to reach them from less of a confrontational “ i’m right look how wrong and bad you are” angle . Telling people just how bad and evil they are rarely works in getting them on your side..

 

Also just some of the rhetoric in general is what  puts people off. 

 

“You’ve stolen my childhood!” Really Greta?

 

 

Edited 8 October 2019 by MPH

[The Horse's Mouth]

Honestly these cretins want me to pollute more