Extinction Rebellion

It's an interesting point.

My counter to that is that XR are only listening to, and being driven by, the wide scientific consensus on climate change. Across the world, scientists are telling us that we need to drastically reduce climate emissions in the next 10 years.

Unfortunately, encouraging everyone to ride bikes isn't going to achieve the level of change needed. We need systemic change at governmental level. XR is putting pressure on governments to make the kinds of change that are needed.

To your comparison with preppers, the difference is that XR are actually trying to avert the catastrophe, not just preparing for it. Also, rather than being faith based, a worldwide consensus of scientists are telling us that the apocalypse is coming, but it seems that XR and groups like them are the only ones listening.

groups working at trying to wrap the idea of living within the planets limitations in a positive way

One way that works (imho) is to frame it in terms of (in)equality.

The people and organisations that will need to change the most are the largest polluters.

If you order it by ultimate end consumer, that’s basically (1) western military, (2) western rich people, (3) everyone else in the west and (4) everyone else everywhere else. Most people we interact with are probably group 3 with a smattering of group 2?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/10/xr-extinction-rebellion-listed-extremist-ideology-police-prevent-scheme-guidance

What a shambles

look out for include people who speak in “strong or emotive terms
about environmental issues like climate change, ecology, species
extinction, fracking, airport expansion or pollution.

twats.

Amazing isn't it. That section is just beyond belief. Acknowledgment of climate change an extremist position...

it's almost as if the police exist to control an increasingly unruly working class and protect the interests of private capital...

Tinfoil hat time.

Well, police does exist to protect the status quo and keep it stable. This tends to benefit the haves more than the have-nots. That's not really a conspiracy.

The agents of the state have violently suppressed sedition since Peterloo.

In this case the police are saying that someone who writes on a wall:

"I love trees and flowers and the little bees!"

is an extremist like Islamic fundamentalists.

The Met seem closer to extremists when they unlawfully ‘ban’ protest.

It's revealing but at least they are trying to recall the guidance.

Don't be crazy!!! 🙃

Thanks for the tip re Transition Towns, am following this up in my local area

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/01/14/1579009289000/Why-Extinction-Rebellion-is-wrong-about-BlackRock/

Can't access that, despite having an FT account (thanks to my uni). Not sure what's going wrong there.

XR’s motives and objectives are good. But climate pressure groups like it are much more likely to inspire investor-led change if they acknowledge the bitter truth that “societal collapse and mass death” is equally likely to occur if fossil-fuel producers are deprived of financing too quickly, or are shamed into dropping core operations in favour of renewables before cost-comparable options are amply available. This is especially the case for renewable sources that aren’t yet competitive with fossil fuel (ie most of them) and which thus, ironically, demand the expenditure of more fossil fuel in the short term than there would otherwise be if they weren’t being manufactured at all.

That's the crux of it.

XR aren’t overly concerned with ‘investor lead change’.

Try ‘science lead legal change’.

Yeah I can't agree with any of this.

“societal collapse and mass death” is equally likely to occur if fossil-fuel producers are deprived of financing too quickly

Fucking lol. What utter drivel. As if sources of financing for fossil-fuel producers were all drying up at record speeds.

As much as I've disagreed with some of the XR ideas in this thread, I'm entirely on their side in this: amping up the pressures that lead to a change in the financial incentives, on a system-wide level, is definitely a good thing. Rather than worrying about this going too far, I'd worry about it not having any impact at all, because that's closer to what is actually happening.

And finally, as usual: you don't change the way the world works by not changing anything. This is really starting to drive me insane: every single time there is pressure to change things due to environmental or climate change concerns, some people look up from their desks and go "but... but... you're trying to change things". Yes. That is the point.

Like the whole hullabaloo about carbon taxes. "But... but... that'll make flying less affordable for people?" Yes. That is the point. There absolutely are issues arising from this kind of thing that are worth discussing. But the solution cannot be just to conclude "seems like nothing can be changed then" - however that very much seems to be what is suggested by some. Almost like they don't actually give a shit about the issues they raise, but just want to avoid any change.

you don't change the way the world works by not changing anything

Pffft, that's obviously what we need to change. :)

I think that paragraph is probably the worst written of the whole piece - Isabella Kaminska is a pretty sloppy writer, I find.

The broader point that I think she was trying to make is that it's a gradual transition, not an overnight change. But she didn't do a great job of making it. And debating how quick that transition should be is still entirely valid.

This is especially the case for renewable sources that aren’t yet competitive with fossil fuel (ie most of them) and which thus, ironically, demand the expenditure of more fossil fuel in the short term than there would otherwise be if they weren’t being manufactured at all.

I don't understand her point here. Any technology generally improves by mediocre versions being available first and better versions being developed on the back of that. How are we meant to jump straight to the more cost-comparable version?

K well that paragraph is the only one I was able to read as for some reason I can't access the whole article, but honestly the sentence I quoted alone is ridiculous enough to severely undermine the credibility of the article as a whole, even if everything else is super reasonable...

I mean honestly. Of all the things we really do not need to worry about, societal collapse due to everyone moving too quickly on climate change must be very near the top, probably just underneath the moon Nazis invading. It's just so entirely divorced from what is actually happening...

This is especially the case for renewable sources that aren’t yet competitive with fossil fuel (ie most of them)

Aren't renewables cheaper than most fossil fuels at the moment? And the price of renewables is dropping further each year.

which thus, ironically, demand the expenditure of more fossil fuel in the short term than there would otherwise be if they weren’t being manufactured at all.

Don't even know what is happening here.

Aren't renewables cheaper than most fossil fuels at the moment? And the price of renewables is dropping further each year.

Wind and solar generation, in some locations, are cheaper than fossil fuelled power generation, yes. Renewables aren't yet cheaper than fossil fuels for space heating or transport, which together unfortunately account for the majority of final energy consumption.

Don't even know what is happening here.

Yeah. I regret posting that link now - I'd skim-read it and not noticed quite how godawful that paragraph was. I should know better than to read Kaminska...

"Kamin" means 'chimney' in German. Nice to have a writer on energy with a bit of nominative determinism. :)

#relentlesslypursuingtheissuesthatmatter