Extinction Rebellion

Sorry but “ they are concerned “ did they really think there would not be dealt with , I was amazed
At how lax the Met was in its handling of the whole situation .

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/first-climate-activist-successfully-prosecuted-over-latest-extinction-rebellion-protests-escapes-a4124231.html

Labour backing Extinction Rebellion:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/23/labour-extinction-rebellion-climate-change

Sorry but “ they are concerned “ did they really think there would not be dealt with

Sorry if I gave you wrong impression. They were always expecting a charge.

Being concerned is reasonable.

This is the article I mentioned upthread http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/extinction-rebellion-arrests-london-protests-climate-change-people-of-colour-global-south-a8879846.html
Josette saying support Labour for a Green New Deal instead of XR, kind of "we're the real deal".
(I think lots of things in this piece are missing the mark somewhat. )

Neo-liberalism requires liberal social policy and identity-politics in order to appear at-all progressive.

In no way cynical, nor sarcastic, but genuinely a challenge to those that feel one way or another about this...

What are you doing to:
A, reduce your carbon footprint (ie lifestyle change, beyond cycling places)
B, improve or reverse the carbon footprint of others
C, encourage others to action A & B
?

For example,

Sharing the news stories to friends and family to try to increase awareness and promote discourse about the issues. Before the protests I linked to the original BBC story and one friend effectively said “I think it’s the wrong approach”, but when linked to the other stories one week later said, “maybe I’ll look into getting involved some time in the future”. I challenged that friend for driving one mile to the shop out of convenience, and that a start is to make more journeys in less environmentally damaging means. That friend actually cycles to work in all weathers, and it is nearly 10 miles round trip. In the near future I must prompt that friend to make a greater effort.

Or,

Discussing with family to try to promote more discourse, and learn to talk around issues like those @cycleclinic raised, where you might otherwise get brickwalled. I must try to find ways of encouraging actual positive outcomes rather than all talk and no action. But, I must encourage those family members to talk to other extended family and friends to try to build on the discourse, if only to keep the issues current.

Mostly, are you actually doing more than simply enjoying the echo-chamber here?

This to me is the same challenge as the cycle safety argument, in that it’s easy for people to say “oh yes, road deaths and injuries are terrible aren’t they, but they shouldn’t be cycling on those dangerous roads”, but it’s difficult to challenge someone you may otherwise get on well with and say “but what are you doing to improve the safety of that road? Do you want me to be next?” At every opportunity I am the road safety evangelist, arguing helmets don’t save lives, considerate road use saves lives, greater care, etc etc.

Maybe some things you are doing are easy or difficult but are encouraging for others here to try.

So, what are you doing for A/B/C ?

Lots of police hanging around Waterloo Bridge this morning for no obvious reason

What are you doing to:

A, reduce your carbon footprint (ie lifestyle change, beyond cycling places)

No flights, minimal meat, reduced dairy, growing our own veg, reduce level of foodwaste. I still need to switch energy supplier & consider the eco-impacts of my coffee habit.

More to do on journeys, it's hard to not jump in the car for allotment runs with daughter (6) when cycling there would use valuable working time and leave her tired & grumpy.

B, improve or reverse the carbon footprint of others

See above re challenging journey purpose/necessity/mode.

Trying to end appliance standby / lights on culture in our own house, as minimal a benefit as this makes. My partner thinks I'm nuts switching idle stuff off all the time, but I keep explaining why. Hoping the message gets through eventually.

Otherwise it's gentle conversation. E.g. have realised my Dad is receptive to discussing this when we talk in terms of wildlife disappearing. He notices this and is saddened by decline in bird species & absence of bats in his locality, this is the hook around which to discuss things.

C, encourage others to action A & B

Hard, as that's when the defences go up.

Immensely impressed by what XR has managed to achieve in such a short space of time. As a small case in point compare for example the number of comments/views here compared to the older "Climate Change" thread! No doubt in terms of more widespread public support/engagement there is still a long way to go, and conversations with friends have been dispiriting (just a bunch of hippies, get a job, etc etc). Ultimately once/if they start getting results it will become harder and harder to make such out of hand dismissals.

One point on the non-violence principle - for me this is one of their most important values. Go back or weaken this point and I and I think many others would be out the door.

In terms of influencing others, as XR refer to in their "no blame" principle, anything which smacks of being preachy or telling people what they should be doing emphatically does not work.

In general I find a kind of nudging approach works. For example, if friends/family ask if I want to go on a trip requiring a flight, I just say no I'm not flying to go on holiday any more. Its rare this gets a negative reaction, at worst it promotes a discussion of why not, and at best changes their behaviour, without having to go on a guilt trip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xT62MZrRM&feature=youtu.be&t=190

ER summed up in less than 60 seconds

It's important to recognise how XR are dealing with this. They are specifically not blaming individuals, but are (correctly, IMHO) saying that this should be dealt with by the government.

They also are not suggesting specific solutions, as this has the possibility of being divisive and turning people off the message, which is that we are in a crisis that needs immediate action.

They want the government to commit to cutting carbon emissions to zero by 2025 and to hold a people's assembly to work out the exact details of how that happens.

If the government commits to that goal, then large scale action can happen very quickly and all of our behaviours will change, whether we like it or not.

By not discussing specific solutions now, will this just defer the point at which the specific solutions emerge & turn people off the idea?

Or put another way... How will government be able impose solutions that folks are not prepared to discuss openly at present as they already acknowledge that many people won't like them?

A good short summary of the situation^

The raging debate happening on various forums and social media places is brilliant. Even the negative comments and views illustrate the massive effect of XR. (The Nextdoor App is buzzing with responses to this)

People, when having a core value challenged (such as their way of life) will respond in different ways. Some will immediately 'get it' and change their view, some will deny it and respond with hostility, others will bury their head in the sand and not engage. Each of these reactions is part of a process of change in construing the situation and are equally valid for those people.

The fact that XR has had these effects is promising

There is some well good chat in here that I can't contribute to at the same level so, I'm just gonna pop in here every now and then, with the odd thing that people might want to get involved in.

XR critical mass this Saturday 17th. Apologies for the Facebook link - working on getting the lad sitting next to me who's been giving up his weekends and the last week for XR to get hold of another way of sharing this info... Not sure about the copy or the use of die-ins but, the right side of history, etc...

1 Attachment

I believe that people respond to both positive and negative stimuli. If you rely on the gov’t to impose the rules, you rely on long and drawn out negative stimuli - for example fines and sanctions to get people to fall in line. An example is speeding or seatbelts in motor vehicles, with fines and so on. The gov’t is important for the big industry, but as we see by other social issues they fail the person on the street in some respect every day.

However, I am asking if people -as @rhb has demonstrated - are willing and capable to make a change from the ground up. That is an incredibly positive stimuli if the youngest generations have their habits formed by the closest influencers in their lives, and if the older generations attempt to set a good example.

I fear that even by 2025 it will be too late, because that is only one generation of change, and there will still be the billions in the world that buy bottled water for convenience, shop fast fashion, eat the cheapest food thanks to the tightest margins of budget from their employment. It relies on you and I making a small change each day, for an incredibly large cumulative effect year on year.

Mostly, if each individual makes changes, the demands change. For example when you or I demand ethically sourced nutrition then the food shops want to protect their profit and start stocking it, because no amount of advertisement will succeed in engineering demand in reverse.

Also, notice how many people willed themselves to change their habits on plastic thanks to Attenborough. That was genius propaganda, because it was nothing the rest of us didn’t already know, but suddenly the tv-watching, convenience-shopping percentile were faced with what they had otherwise chosen to remain ignorant of.

People still buy plastic bags from the shops no matter what the levy, so more needs to be done on the discourse not just the government.

There are many, many changes that can be made in almost every business sector that could be made relatively easily and quickly with only minor costs. No businesses (except those marketed as ‘green’) will adopt these widely if it puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Change has to come from above.

A people’s assembly would research and detail changes and put them forward for government. Once a government is broadly committed to a people’s assembly the political cost (to the gov) of implementing change is reduced because responsibility lies largely with the assembly.

People still buy plastic bags from the shops no matter what the levy, so more needs to be done on the discourse not just the government.

This is a case-in-point which somewhat counters your argument.

The levy on plastic bags was vaguely unpopular but reduced plastic use. Your assertion that ‘people will ... at whatever price’ isn’t actually the issue. What matters is how many people and therefore how much wasteful plastic/recourse. Measured this way it was a success.

Fwiw I totally acknowledge individual daily behaviour can make a difference and is the place to start if for no other reason than it gives a better understanding of any costs/sacrifices that society may need to implement.

@Velocio can we get this thread moved back to the 'normal' forum please? I started it to raise awareness of XR so would be good to have it seen by the widest possible audience.

Not sure why @miro_o asked for it to be moved, but as XR have been completely non-violent and are completely open about their policy of trying to get arrested, I don't see any reason for this to be members only

That's fair.

Cheers!

You’re happy I discuss the legal strategy re specific future court cases in an open forum?

I won’t be doing that.

By all means, please don't.

But also recognise that this is a public thread and make your decision on what to post from that, rather than making the thread private so you can post whatever you like.

Fair enough.

There are damaging misconceptions of why XR have done things the way they have. It’s tempting to answer those, but I’ll not.