Extinction Rebellion

You seem strangely blinkered to the fact that this issue is as much a political issue as it is an engineering one. XR are attempting to address the political component of climate change. Getting angry that they aren’t addressing the engineering aspect is silly.

Lobbying for green energy to get priority access to the grid and for renewable energy targets is part of what had to be done to get the costs down. I have mentioned green lobbying again and again. XR doesn’t have a monopoly, or even the best strategy, on the political battle. But as I said, if they do succeed in moving the dial I’ll eat my hat. I don’t think they will because I think they’re alienating too many people.

XR doesn’t have a monopoly, or even the best strategy,on the political battle

Who claims that they do? The existence of XR doesn’t preclude lobbyists doing their jobs, just as the existence of lobbyists doesn’t preclude ordinary people expressing their voice through protest. What’s the issue here?

Well the urgency of centrism certainly won’t.

What 'centrism'? Centre of what?

The centrism that thinks that climate change is a disaster but non violent protest to raise awareness is a negative because it causes disruption to the bus schedule.

You really still think 'raising awareness' is going to do something?

There is a really big gap in the chain of events that is supposed to lead from "we block some average commuters in their buses" to "something happens about climate change". How exactly is that going to work? Because I'm really struggling to see it.

Not to mention that the 'awareness' is largely there. Most people have known about this for quite a long time, and it's now commonly accepted and common wisdom that 'something has to be done'. And that's exactly where it stops.

My problem with the whole XR stuff is that I am now getting the distinct impression that they think getting into the newspaper in itself is achieving something. Well, it can be a first step, but so far I don't see the second and third step there. Yes, a lot of people agree with what they do and are generally on their side, as am I, in principle at least. However, I get the feeling most of those people - again, same as myself - are not new converts and have held those opinions since before XR came into existence.

Then why protest anything ever? Surely the aim of repeated protests is to ensure that climate action stays at the forefront of our collective consciousness and is a constant in the media. If the goal is to shift the Overton window, then I think they are already succeeding.

Why do they also have to be the ones to complete the next step and the step after that? I don’t quite understand why people seem to want XR to have all of the answers and solutions.

If I were an optimist, I’d say the real change we need to see is politically, a green new deal perhaps. Well that will only happen if we elect a government who puts that at the front of the agenda - and isn’t there more chance of that with groups like XR pushing us voters and hopefully the media in that direction?

Then why protest anything ever?

I mean... most protests seem to be unsuccessful inasmuch as nothing really changes. The ones that do are the ones that really serve to 'raise awareness' of something concrete that was up to that point not really that well-known, or something that can be solved in a specific and concrete way. Bonus points if it involves animals or children. It might sound cynical, but it's not far from the truth. If you tell people that some kids are being exploited to sew clothes somewhere in Bangladesh, that's something concrete that not everyone might have been aware of, with a relatively easy solution as far as the average person is concerned. If you tell people about climate change, well, most people know about it already, but solutions are very complex even if you just look at political action alone, i.e. voting intentions.

If the goal is to shift the Overton window, then I think they are already succeeding.

I honestly don't. I really don't see it. I've been reading about climate change and the need to 'do something' for seemingly ever, I don't see what has actually changed. There's a spike of reporting about them now, even that will fade away as everyone gets used to their existence. I don't see any Overton window changes thanks to them. The one that I did notice was one that happened over at least a decade - climate change going from something scientists talk about and that scientists were quoted on to something that is just common knowledge for all but a minority of tinfoil hat people. That was nice, but it hasn't done nearly enough either.

Why do they also have to be the ones to complete the next step and the step after that?

They don't, but it'd be nice if there was at least a faint idea as to how it's supposed to 'work'. As it is, I don't see them pushing the bulk of the population in any direction, and I definitely see them putting off some people. I don't think they're doing much damage, but I also don't think they are helping that much. I'm also not saying they should stop with what they're doing. But I don't see it working out particularly well right now.

Not to mention that the 'awareness' is largely there. Most people have known about this for quite a long time, and it's now commonly accepted and common wisdom that 'something has to be done'.

What on this earth makes you think that? Ignorance of the situation is a massive issue. The lack of truthful reporting in the media is a massive issue.
The platforming of climate denial is a massive issue.
One of XR’s demands is to make sure people are properly informed. Who else is campaigning on that issue?

One of XR’s demands is to make sure people are properly informed. Who else is campaigning on that issue?

I mean, you have actual news services like Grist, Carbon Brief, Renewable Energy News, not including more trade-oriented news services like Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The energy correspondents/editors at the Guardian and the Times are also pretty solid on climate change.

You also have activists like Greenpeace and FoE; you have thinktanks like groups like E3G, The Green Alliance, the Energy Saving Trust; you have industry bodies like Renewables UK.

These are all organisations (and far from a comprehensive list of them) that are contributing to the discourse by putting actual useful information out there, not just campaigning about it (let alone claiming that 6 billion people are going to be slaughtered in the next 40-odd years)

Well the urgency of centrism certainly won’t.

People devoting their lives/careers to actually doing something about climate change is ‘centrism’ and bad, while dilettantes getting themselves arrested is radical and good? Mmm-kay.

Who claims that they do? The existence of XR doesn’t preclude lobbyists doing their jobs, just as the existence of lobbyists doesn’t preclude ordinary people expressing their voice through protest. What’s the issue here?

The issue IMHO is that XR through their tactics allow the issue to be recast as part of the culture wars and thereby turn people against climate activism on a tribal basis, rather than building the non-partisan consensus that we need for real change. I think they are undermining everyone else’s work.

If I’m missing something let me know.

The cost of emerging technologies is reducing therefore direct action is useless.

Is that your argument? That’s not strong.

I’m not going to engage with your comments on public relations because (honestly) you don’t seem even remotely aware how campaigning works. We could be here all day.

If you think of XR as a form of lobbying does that make you happier? A form of ‘lobbying’ that Shell can’t directly counter. Unlike a traditional lobbyist there is no pay packet, but real personal sacrifice. All done in full view of the public.

No. My argument is that we need something like a Green New Deal, and that I think we need to build a consensus around this that isn’t just reduced to political fault lines. XR, by playing into the culture wars trap, makes this harder. And all this holier-than-thou bullshit about how noble they are totally disregards the hard work done by many over the last 20 years to actually make a low-carbon economy possible.

And with that, I’m done with this thread, as I’m sure you’ll all be pleased to hear.

You think XR made a UK Green New Deal less likely.

Interesting take.

I don’t share this view at all and don’t agree the XR’s actions sidelines the work of lobbyists in green industries.

Yup.

Edit to add -
You’re fixated on the fact I used the word ‘lobbying’. Greenpeace lobbies for change; Ecotricity lobbies for change; scientists engaging in the debate are lobbying for change. I’m not talking about PR firms.

And for the record, I have all the time in the world for the school strikers and Fridays4Climate. I think the work they’re doing is far more effective than XR, because they’re building consensus and not alienating people.

I’m sure you’ll all be pleased to hear.

For my part I find your reflections interesting - and valuable because you highligt a stance that is shared with quite a few in the society.

And with that, I’m done with this thread

Why? I think it's useful to hear viewpoints, including yours. Doesn't seem like there is currently a slanging match just questioning.

I was thinking on the commute that it doesn’t add up, all this techno-determinism about how a green industry is going to swoop in, it doesn’t make sense. The main thing about XR’s position is that there is an emergency and it’s causes and consequences are being suppressed. Their deal is about awareness and I think they are right, not enough people, let alone enough people in government, allow themselves to feel anything like a proportionate sense of urgency. I guess I am guilty too or I would be on the streets more often. Economics is often reduced to a situation of supply and demand. The sense of urgency is an index of the demand; and judging by that the demand is weak whereas there is still a huge demand within markets like oil and gas that are causing the ecological catastrophe that is happening. It doesn’t matter if a magic solution can technically be made.

I also think a lot of people - I'd guess most but I have no way of knowing - hold conflicted / various views within themselves. Most people don't assert an unshakeable truth in what they think, although the internet can make it seem that way.

I also think, when you broadly agree (basically everyone in this thread) there is slightly more reason to spend your energy in both listening and explaining. There are things you know better than others, and there are things others know better than you. By better I mean more closely or more fully.
(This not aimed only at h2o)

@adroit

What on this earth makes you think that?

The fact that it is constantly mentioned in all kinds of situations. No, climate change denialism isn't really a big problem in the UK. This article from 2015 says:

Britons are more likely to agree the climate is changing than at any time in recent years, with nearly nine in 10 people saying climate change is happening and 84% attributing this somewhat or entirely to human activity, new research has found. Two-thirds say they are concerned by global warming.

And this graphic shows concern has been on the rise since before XR's first action last November.

In short - 'awareness' is not the problem here. Maybe in the US, but not here. The problem is getting anywhere useful from that awareness. And that's why I'm so critical of people who seem to think getting into the news is a big win in itself. Its a little bit too self-congratulatory.

I have contributed at times some uninformed navel-gazing to this thread, but I'm really here because I'm still hungry for information, and that "information" includes a great deal of opinions because this is a problem that concerns people, how they think, how they work, how they respond. Lots and lots of people.

all this techno-determinism about how a green industry is going to swoop in

Who’s claimed that?

There are people who have done hard work to develop and deploy the technologies, and they’re not just the technologists. For example I have a friend with no engineering skills but a legal qualification - he sorts out permitting for new wind farms for a living, because he sees that as making a difference while also allowing him to keep a roof over his family’s heads. Yes, I think what he’s doing is far more useful than smashing some government windows. And he would have made far more money as a regular corporate lawyer, but that’s not what he wanted to do with his life.

Point being that we’re in a position to make progress because of lots of people finding the things that they personally can do to help move things along. Nobody’s advocating sitting around waiting for a techno-miracle.

I had the privilege of being able to observe the relationship between some United Nations committees relating to the environment, industry representatives and campaign group representatives (including Greenpeace) a few years ago.

I was amazed at how political it was. The environmental activist and charity organisations basically refuse to have any dialogue with the worst polluting companies and just put their fingers in their ears and demand that somehow these companies just cease to exist overnight and stop trading. This is clearly not going to happen and is not constructive in any way.

Even in one instance, where a major oil and gas company pledged to stop selling oil products within a couple of decades, the response was "Fuck off and die! Shut down now!". Surely there was an opportunity there to welcome the commitment but say that it wasn't enough rather than throw a hand grenade back?

I'm not arguing for a moment that any companies are doing enough to reduce their impact on the world but in a scenario where a company is legally betrothed to its shareholders and not the environment, surely there should be a greater focus on discourse and planing together? As it stands, the higher profile environmental organisations refuse to take a hands on approach to helping industry find solutions.

From what I have heard, this division and confrontation without working together has existed for decades.