Extinction Rebellion Protests

[Richard Hakluyt]

Plane travel is quite efficient. The principal problem is that it is also very fast, so the possibility of a weekend in Rome or a few days in Barbados become possibilities. If Emma Thompson had travelled by rail and sea to the protests then I doubt her carbon emissions would be much changed; on the other hand she would still be on her way or maybe would not have bothered coming at all.

[Tamas]

Good point, but luxuries becoming available to the masses has been an insanely beneficial process for everyone, and global travel in particular needs to remain accessible if we ever hope to get rid of the very divisions that still prevent us from finding global answers to global challenges. Revoking flight to be a tool of the rich elite only would be a bad idea imho.

Overall, this whole topic is a very careful and complex balancing act of stopping destructive processes without destroying people's livelihoods and quality of life (and by that I mean things that have been ingrained as necessities, not luxuries).

By failing to act on it in time by governments, the whole thing is now being pushed to the radicals on both end of the spectrum, and is going to end up as a religious conflict of extremes.

[crazy canuck]

Plane travel is quite efficient. The principal problem is that it is also very fast, so the possibility of a weekend in Rome or a few days in Barbados become possibilities. If Emma Thompson had travelled by rail and sea to the protests then I doubt her carbon emissions would be much changed; on the other hand she would still be on her way or maybe would not have bothered coming at all.

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Just to remind everyone, Last fall the IPCC issued a report that stated we are almost out of time.  We need to have infrastructure in place by 2030 - that is 11 years from now.  And please also keep in mind that since the IPCC report was released the data shows the arctic is warming faster than had been anticipated.  So our window may be even shorter.

What do we need to do?  Here is a good summary from the Brookings Institute.

While it is vital to understand the risks with different levels of warming, an equally urgent question is whether and how the planet can get onto an emissions trajectory that would keep on a 2 degrees or, if at all possible, a 1.5 degrees path. There are a few key aspects of this challenge: a dramatic retooling of the global production and consumption toward low or zero greenhouse gas approaches by roughly 2030; a likely build out of untested carbon removal technologies at large scales toward mid-century; and widespread measures to adapt to climate change.

The IPCC report illustrates several approaches that could achieve 1.5 degrees with limited "overshoot" (i.e., going above 1.5 and then back down). Coal power would have to drop by 60-80 percent from 2010 levels by 2030. Renewable energy sources would grow by roughly 100-500 percent, reaching about half of total global electricity generation by 2030 (again, 12 years from now), and 70-90 percent by 2050. These features and others are laid out in detail in the information-rich figure below. The overall message is that the math can actually work, but the mechanism for realizing such rapid and dramatic transformations is, well, just not part of the report, and of course is the biggest question of all. In other words, the report tells us that these pathways are physically and technologically possible, but it is up to us to figure out what social and political approaches we have to take to implement those pathways.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/were-almost-out-of-time-the-alarming-ipcc-climate-report-and-what-to-do-next/

[Valmy]

I'd ask how this differs from the yellow umbrella protests( which Mono was alone in opposing)?

I don't know. I do not live in either city. I was just commenting on what that one protest leader was saying. Since you are the expert maybe you can tell me. Break down and compare and contrast both protests for us.

I guess one thing is that I generally support the ultimate goals of both, without knowing any specific lists of demands or anything.

[mongers]

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Of course there's alternatives, you could fly less.

[Eddie Teach]

Since you are the expert maybe you can tell me

[Tamas]

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Of course there's alternatives, you could fly less.

I already see my family rarely enough, thankyouverymuch. How about you use less electricity?

[Admiral Yi]

If someone checked out a book from the library that you wanted to read, you would be inconvenienced.  If he tied you up with bungee cords and duct tape and left you in the basement, you would also be inconvenienced.  Those two are also similar in that regard.

But no one would argue that that someone checking a book out of a library is an unjust act, whereas leaving someone tied up in the basement generally would be.

That's the point I'm making to Raz.

[Razgovory]

If someone checked out a book from the library that you wanted to read, you would be inconvenienced.  If he tied you up with bungee cords and duct tape and left you in the basement, you would also be inconvenienced.  Those two are also similar in that regard.

But no one would argue that that someone checking a book out of a library is an unjust act, whereas leaving someone tied up in the basement generally would be.

That's the point I'm making to Raz.

It's not a point that is particularly clear.  We are discussing non-violent direct action and you bring up kidnapping.

[Admiral Yi]

It's not a point that is particularly clear.  We are discussing non-violent direct action and you bring up kidnapping.

It's an example of an act that inconveniences someone.  That makes it, in your formulation, similar to other acts that inconvenience.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Of course there's alternatives, you could fly less.

But your criticism is of people who fly to attend events which have as their express purpose bringing about the changes in government policy that are needed.

It is much better to have those events take place with those people participating.  Otherwise you simply cede the field to the climate change deniers/delayers.

[mongers]

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Of course there's alternatives, you could fly less.

But your criticism is of people who fly to attend events which have as their express purpose bringing about the changes in government policy that are needed.

It is much better to have those events take place with those people participating.  Otherwise you simply cede the field to the climate change deniers/delayers.

No it's not, my point is that people should fly less, given the excessive pollution involved and the as yet not fully quantified rediactive forcing of where in the atmosphere the pollution is released.

[crazy canuck]

ok, but why should people stop flying to events that are designed to affect change in government policy?  You have been critical of people flying to this event I don't follow that logic.

[mongers]

ok, but why should people stop flying to events that are designed to affect change in government policy?  You have been critical of people flying to this event I don't follow that logic.

Because I think it's necessary for all of us to demonstrate to ourselves and others, the efficiency of our actions.

To be clear their action DO produce more pollution, so the calculation needs to be made by them, are the likely positive outcomes of their own protest actions going to outweigh the proven negative costs involved. 
As of yet I've seen no evidence that their actions have moved any government plans or affected politician's minds.

Otherwise environmental protesters and activist, can easily fall into the self fulfilling prophecy of 'my aims are worthy, therefore anything I do is justified and beyond criticism'. 

[Razgovory]

It's not a point that is particularly clear.  We are discussing non-violent direct action and you bring up kidnapping.

It's an example of an act that inconveniences someone.  That makes it, in your formulation, similar to other acts that inconvenience.

Are we still using your "illegal and unjust" criteria?