Extinction Rebellion Protests

[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.

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'.

If we followed your advice everyone who believed that immediate action is needed to stop the climate from warming more than 1.5 would stay home and simply hope that governments took action for fear that any activity would generate more emissions no matter how insignificant they might be compared to the emissions that might be reduced if governments are pressured into taking action.

Please go back and read the summary from the Brookings Institute as to what needs to occur to prevent warming of 1.5 or more.  Reduction of Coal as a source of energy and an very large increase is other sources of electricity.  Everyone could stop flying tomorrow and unless that those dramatic changes to the worlds electricity generation is achieved, it is all for naught.

You started this thread by taking the position that the protest was counter productive.  I suggest that the only way in which governments will take the steps necessary to carry out the changes to the electrical grid that are necessary in the next 11 years is if sufficient pressure is put on governments to act.  That is not going to be achieved if everyone stays at home.

[Tamas]

not fully quantified rediactive forcing of where in the atmosphere the pollution is released.

Does that really matter? I remember learning in Physics class that a gas fills the available space equally i.e. it will dissipate over time. Meaning, just because you don't drive, the 300 million Chinese cars will still flood your ass in due time

[Admiral Yi]

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

I was asking if that was your criteria.

[dps]

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

That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

[Admiral Yi]

That's more or less my position dps.  That's why I asked Raz if he thought riding the tube was an unjust act.

[crazy canuck]

That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

Civil disobedience can also be breaking a just law (for example a law regarding trespass) to protest an action.  A well known example is trespassing on land on which a company is carrying out certain activities to protest those activities.  BB used the example of protesters chaining themselves to trees to protest legal logging activities.

You have simply narrowed the definition to exclude these acts.

[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'.

If we followed your advice everyone who believed that immediate action is needed to stop the climate from warming more than 1.5 would stay home and simply hope that governments took action for fear that any activity would generate more emissions no matter how insignificant they might be compared to the emissions that might be reduced if governments are pressured into taking action.

Please go back and read the summary from the Brookings Institute as to what needs to occur to prevent warming of 1.5 or more.  Reduction of Coal as a source of energy and an very large increase is other sources of electricity.  Everyone could stop flying tomorrow and unless that those dramatic changes to the worlds electricity generation is achieved, it is all for naught.

You started this thread by taking the position that the protest was counter productive.  I suggest that the only way in which governments will take the steps necessary to carry out the changes to the electrical grid that are necessary in the next 11 years is if sufficient pressure is put on governments to act.  That is not going to be achieved if everyone stays at home.

CC, you're promoting a false choice, it's not an either or situation, you can lobby government/politicians to change policy and also cut your own pollution. Or is the assumption once persuaded a government / internations agreements results in changes, changes that happen elsewhere and don't materially affect our own lifestyles?

I take it you do a lot of flying? 

[mongers]

not fully quantified rediactive forcing of where in the atmosphere the pollution is released.

Does that really matter? I remember learning in Physics class that a gas fills the available space equally i.e. it will dissipate over time. Meaning, just because you don't drive, the 300 million Chinese cars will still flood your ass in due time

It's a specific issue with burning kerosene in the upper atmosphere, how NOX, water vapour, particulates interact with the gases there to multiply the warming effect. The suggestions for the figure vary from one to more than two (a doubling), I think I've seen 2.6 or 2.7, but I'm no scientist and as yet I don't think there's a consensus.

[Razgovory]

That's more or less my position dps.  That's why I asked Raz if he thought riding the tube was an unjust act.

I do not.  Nor do I think eating at a table to be unjust act or trespassing laws to be unjust by themselves.  Why do you ask?

[Admiral Yi]

Why do you ask?

See above.

[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.

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'.

If we followed your advice everyone who believed that immediate action is needed to stop the climate from warming more than 1.5 would stay home and simply hope that governments took action for fear that any activity would generate more emissions no matter how insignificant they might be compared to the emissions that might be reduced if governments are pressured into taking action.

Please go back and read the summary from the Brookings Institute as to what needs to occur to prevent warming of 1.5 or more.  Reduction of Coal as a source of energy and an very large increase is other sources of electricity.  Everyone could stop flying tomorrow and unless that those dramatic changes to the worlds electricity generation is achieved, it is all for naught.

You started this thread by taking the position that the protest was counter productive.  I suggest that the only way in which governments will take the steps necessary to carry out the changes to the electrical grid that are necessary in the next 11 years is if sufficient pressure is put on governments to act.  That is not going to be achieved if everyone stays at home.

CC, you're promoting a false choice, it's not an either or situation, you can lobby government/politicians to change policy and also cut your own pollution. Or is the assumption once persuaded a government / internations agreements results in changes, changes that happen elsewhere and don't materially affect our own lifestyles?

I take it you do a lot of flying? 

As Rich already pointed out there is no other* practical way to travel from Europe to North America.  So unless you are advocating for only locals lobbying locals I am not sure how your restrictions on travel would be practical.

*edit

[Razgovory]

Why do you ask?

See above.

Okay, that was unspecific, but I'll go with what Damage Per Second said.  You said you agreed with him.  Civil disobedience is when you refuse to obey unjust laws.

Then I stand by my original statement in that I don't see how this is different than a strike or a sit-in.  Neither activity is in violation of an unjust law.  Refusing to work is not typically against the law.  A lunch counter sit-in is not a violation of an unjust law either.  The unjust law was allowing merchants to refuse to serve people based on race.  By sitting at the counter they are not violating that law.  Instead they are inconveniencing the lawful owner of the lunch counter and people who would like to eat at the lunch counter but can't because the space is occupied.  The behavior of the protesters is aimed at inconveniencing the owners and the public enough that they will relent and change the unjust law.  If they are in violation of the law it would be laws against trespassing or loitering, neither of which are unjust laws.

So in short, I disagree with your definition of civil disobedience.

[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'.

If we followed your advice everyone who believed that immediate action is needed to stop the climate from warming more than 1.5 would stay home and simply hope that governments took action for fear that any activity would generate more emissions no matter how insignificant they might be compared to the emissions that might be reduced if governments are pressured into taking action.

Please go back and read the summary from the Brookings Institute as to what needs to occur to prevent warming of 1.5 or more.  Reduction of Coal as a source of energy and an very large increase is other sources of electricity.  Everyone could stop flying tomorrow and unless that those dramatic changes to the worlds electricity generation is achieved, it is all for naught.

You started this thread by taking the position that the protest was counter productive.  I suggest that the only way in which governments will take the steps necessary to carry out the changes to the electrical grid that are necessary in the next 11 years is if sufficient pressure is put on governments to act.  That is not going to be achieved if everyone stays at home.

CC, you're promoting a false choice, it's not an either or situation, you can lobby government/politicians to change policy and also cut your own pollution. Or is the assumption once persuaded a government / internations agreements results in changes, changes that happen elsewhere and don't materially affect our own lifestyles?

I take it you do a lot of flying? 

As Rich already pointed out there is no other* practical way to travel from Europe to North America.  So unless you are advocating for only locals lobbying locals I am not sure how your restrictions on travel would be practical.

*edit

That's a yes then.

[Eddie Teach]

But Vancouver is paradise, why would he ever leave? 

[Richard Hakluyt]

My solution is for CC to still visit Europe but to increase his carbon efficiency by coming for 3 months instead of just a fortnight or so. That would be a great holiday and the reduced earnings would lead to further reductions in CO2 down the line