-
From outside the echo-chamber: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/an-environmentalist-s-apology-i-am-guilty-of-alarmism-
(while promoting his new book obvs)
-
third question related to a 2017 internal report from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) which said the institute, which represents the nuclear energy industry, had “engaged third parties to engage with media through interviews and op-eds” and named “environmentalist Michael Shellenberger” as one of those it had engaged.
-
^^ I'm less vexed with those sorts of ties, as I'm not against nuclear on principle and it's hard to work out which is the chicken and the egg in that relationship.
Haven't read his book, but I'll put a fiver on it containing all sort of nuanced points underpinned by the overarching need to reduce climate change. The problem is climate skeptics (like the person who sent me the article) then cherrypick points as a gotcha.
-
The problem is climate skeptics (like the person who sent me the article) then cherrypick points as a gotcha.
Yeah sigh. The "someone changed their mind so the whole thing is a sham" vibe is very strong. I'm sure lots of the points could be very carefully unpicked, but my initial reactions were:
Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’ - That doesn't mean we're not wiping out huge numbers of species and harming our own wellbeing
The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’ - so? It doesn't mean it doesn't have value in terms of biodiversity.
Climate change is not definitively making natural disasters worse - Note that he says "not definitively", which is absolutely not the same as "definitively not"
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003 - Hmm... the trend does look quite upward since the 90s in the USA at least. Is that a bit selective in terms of a baseline?
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have declined in Britain, Germany, and France from the mid-1970s - Good, so?
Netherlands is becoming richer, not poorer while adapting to life below sea level - Classic reactionary gotcha right there. It's a very rich nation, which might have done even better if it didn't have to maintain extensive sea defenses. How do we think places like Bangladesh will fare? Note that this does admit to the reality of sea level rises.
We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter - In the places that need it?
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are potentially larger threats to species than climate change - Habitat loss is potentially linked to climate change. Also, why can't we address all of them. Again, note that climate changes is accepted here.
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels - Agreed.
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture - That seems like a statement which will have much more detail in the book.
-
The Netherlands point especially irritated me. Of what relevance whatsoever is the example of a highly developed, phenomenally wealthy country with a unique historical/economic situation?
I mean seriously what can say the Maldives learn from their experience? Go back in time and reposition themselves in a key geographical location to benefit economically from the expansion in European and global trade?
(Again guessing) but the actual point is probably, "invest shitloads the right way into high risk locations and they don't have to get totally fucked something something."
-
So much water is now being used that ground water levels in Helmand
are estimated to be falling by 3m a year.The fear is that pretty soon the water will simply run out.
"Maybe this boom will not last longer than 10 years," says Orzala
Nemat, who runs the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, the
country's biggest think tank.That won't just affect the people who have moved into the desert
areas, she says. It will affect the entire region.More than 1.5 million people could be forced to migrate.
Sounds wonderful. Reminds me of this that I read a week or two ago.
We really need to look beyond small regions to recognise the absolute impact of actions and changes that people make
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qj4z9p/green-economic-growth-is-a-myth
-
What hapeened last night on the bridges?
-
A sample:
xr has been through a bitter civil war, emerging scarred and exhausted. In theory, the group was run along “holacratic” lines, based on a theory in which traditional hierarchies are replaced by semi-autonomous “circles”. In xr’s case, this meant that small local groups were able to carry out protests independently. Initially, the approach united disparate factions of the rag-tag climate movement behind a core aim: pressuring the government into declaring a climate emergency.
In practice, though, hierarchies persisted. Many saw the outfit’s co-founders, Gail Bradbrook and Roger Hallam, as the people in charge. They were members of the Anchor Circle and the Rapid Response Team, two small groups that held power during protests last year. The pair were also directors of Compassionate Revolution, a company which handled donations. Yet they did not have a strong enough grip to prevent an unholy alliance of eco-fascists, eco-socialists and eco-anarchists descending into conflict.
I thought it was worth reading.
-
“I believe if I don’t do whatever I can to protect our Earth, to protect life on this Earth, to stop the death and injury that is and will be happening, I’m committing a crime, a really serious crime, and I’m willing to break a window, to paint a message on a wall, I’m willing to break the glass on that emergency button, even if some say that’s a crime."
“Because this is a much bigger crime and I’m trying to stop that crime, I’m trying to protect life in the only way I feel I can.”
And
“This is such a significant victory for the consciousness of the British people when it comes to the huge, immediate threat of climate change and the absolute failure of our government to do anything meaningful about it.”
-
Jury and judge refusing to uphold the law. That’s quite big!
The Guardian apparently almost fucked it by publishing trial details too early.
The judge was definitely hugely sympathetic and I hope this isn’t atypical. I hope it spreads.
About what this means ... The Police, Crime, Sentencing, Courts and Traveller Persecution Bill (did I get that right?) seems to be going through, still somewhat under the public’s radar. This will result in more politicised and selective/abusive/corrupt policing. I think we’ll see many more charges, brought at the discretion of the police against activists, later rejected in court. This is actually a terrible way to police, for the police. Government will more-easily use the police as enforcers, but quietly distance themselves if that’s politically advantageous. It’s a cowardly and short-sighted direction for government to take. All instead of putting energy towards the real issue.
All Conservative governments are hyper-sensitive to criticism from their right on (lack of) ‘law-and-order’. I think this response reveals a unique lack of imagination, on an ‘easy’ issue such as domestic policing.
These are definitely not the people who will grapple with the real, big issues.
rhb
hugo7
dubkev
ffm
miro_o
branwen
deleted
adroit
greentricky
h2o
EB
hoefla
moocher-
Post a reply
About
Extinction Rebellion
Posted by
@Lebowski
cheers