Extinction Rebellion

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48132541

At the same time, the Greens also put in what looks set to be one of their best local election results ever. They posted an average of 11% of the vote in the wards they contested, up four points on their performance where they stood four years ago. The party may have been helped by the recent protests about climate change.

Relatively, it was a massive jump in their numbers. Still, climate change remains a footnote behind “frustrations” over the Brexit thing.

What a bunch of twats :

https://apple.news/AXeVCOpBAQnWNzDYv69NURw

What a non-story. Why the tears?

When I joined XR I had an evening's training which included what to expect in prison, from someone who spent time in prison as a result of their action on another protest.
It made it clear what to expect from experience, and how to use the time. It made me confident I could handle it if I was arrested but I never got to put it to the test.
It did though make me a lot more bold in my actions, I did things I knew could lead to arrest and as the subsequent coverage and impetus has proved it was worth it.
I would definitely do it again, even though 3 of my colleagues did get arrested and each have handled it very differently after the event.

Emma Thompson in BA first class LHR - JFK on Friday morning:

What were we saying about a change of mindset being needed?

First class is much, much more polluting than an economy seat.

Why is it more polluting?

Lower passenger density in first. A full plane flight produces x tons of CO2, y tons of NOx etc. There could be 600 economy seats or 100 first, or some other combination. If we all fly economy then there is less pollution per passenger.

Allegedly Emma Thompson offsets her CO2 impact but that doesn't help with NOx etc.

I'm also not sure there is enough planet available for everyone to offset their CO2 so it isn't really a solution.

If the plan is to reduce air travel through taxation etc. then people like her will still be able to afford it and it will be more enjoyable.

Well, it's not hugely surprising that, having flown in, she's flying out again (and quite openly, too).

Obviously, I think she should have saved herself the trip and instead put out a supportive statement. but singling out individuals isn't going to help here, even if it's a celebrity. While the constant ability of celebrities to fly all over the shop and appear wherever product is to be promoted or concerts to be held at the drop of a hat is most definitely a main cause of why non-celebrities find how they perceive this kind of lifestyle very appealing and aspire to it, the real problem is seated still deeper and lies in the attitude that as we're modern people, we have to fly because we have all those great machines and these highly-trained people to fly them, yada yada.

Sure, Emma Thompson should practise what she preaches, but there are very few celebrities who've put their heads above the parapet on this, hardly any, in fact (someone's going to be along in a moment with a long list of supportive celebrities, I'm sure), and effectively accusing her of hypocrisy (I don't think she was being hypocritical, as she was open about it, just short-sighted and inconsistent) is merely the exception that affirms the rule, that most celebrities wouldn't support this cause (yet) and if they do, they'll be hypocrites, hence the status quo is resoundingly re-established.

I also don't think that flying economy class (difficult for someone famous, anyway) makes a huge great difference to flying first class. Flying is the problem, full stop, and making distinctions in that is a distraction.

I also don't think that flying economy class (difficult for someone famous, anyway) makes a huge great difference to flying first class.

About fives times the emissions per head. So it certainly does.

If the plan is to reduce air travel through taxation etc. then people like her will still be able to afford it and it will be more enjoyable.

Which is no problem. The tax revenue has good uses, and she might fly less often.

Off topic - but dunno what to think of this statement by one of the bike-ambassadeurs

1 Attachment

The IPBES is publishing a report later today.

Here's a BBC report (which you will be pleased to hear doesn't include any 'balance' from Nigel Lawson).

You shouldn't quote selectively when it generates a misleading impression. I said: 'Flying is the problem.' I'm obviously well aware of all these emissions/'carbon footprint' calculations. For the most part, they lead people into fallacies, as they are way too simplistic (and that, incidentally, is also a reason why they are resisted by a lot of people--who often can't put their finger on why, but one of the reasons is simply the large number of fallacious arguments that occur in the public sphere).

Far more people fly economy/standard class than people who fly first class. The planes are in the air mainly because of economy flyers. Overall, there's no great difference in their contribution to the problem, never mind how much responsibility you can assign to each flyer. As I said, don't single out individuals for particular criticism here. You can sometimes do that productively, but here the problem is, purely and simply, with flying itself.

I love Mikael, but this is one fat fallacy. Firstly, the problem with flying isn't so much the total amount of emission but its effect on the atmosphere. Secondly, where does he get the idea from that "nobody"'s talking about motorised ground traffic? Er? Thirdly, of course that's a (widely recognised) problem, but comparing flying and ground transport is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course both are very damaging, but there are different kinds of fuel used, the environments in which ground transport is used is far less sensitive to pollution than the atmosphere, they are distributed much more widely, and the actual utility achieved by flying is far, far less than that achieved by all forms of ground transport, even the worst ones.

I didn't realise he'd relocated to Berlin.

Yes, we need population level change.

By your logic a private jet would be fine because ‘it’s flying it’s self that is the problem’.

It’s not without consequence.

I'm all for Emma Thompson flying if it gets her out of the country.

I'm all for Emma Thompson flying if it gets her out of the country.

We have a winner.

This video suggests that first/business class massively subsidise economy seats and has a big effect on why we have such cheap seats today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc

Of course the carbon count per head is lower with economy. There's more passengers to divide the count by. By this logic it makes sense that all planes are evennomy and lots of people fly because the cost per head will be lower.

Rather than. Not fucking flying.
He says after flying to Scotland recently.
With a family though. So the cost per head was lower.

I don't think she was being hypocritical, as she was open about it

I think she's a massive hypocrit. It's not just that there is actually a huge difference between flying first class and economy as @miro_o says, it's that her entire transatlantic life is unsustainable. Singling out individuals like her DOES help, because for some strange reason a lot of people aspire to a celebrity lifestyle, so therefore aspire to what celebrities do, such as flying first class. If we can get them to be more responsible they can influence others to do the same. She's got a massive cheek getting involved in XR.

The reality is that in the modern world at least some flying is necessary. Making distinctions between different reasons for flying and types of flying is entirely valid.

For example, I was in the Philippines back in January and took an internal flight from Manilla to Tuguegarao to go to a wedding. It was with a budget airline - pretty much their version of Ryanair with every seat filled and not much leg room. This is one of the most efficient ways to fly because the capacity utilisation is about as good as it gets.

Sat next to me were a big group of midwives from Ilagan going down to Manilla for essential training. The trip by road takes 12 hours, and believe me, Philippino roads are dangerous: someone dies every hour, which is 28 people a day, over 10,000 people a year. They were going to learn techniques to reduce infant mortality - literally life saving work.

Do you really think that making a distinction between their travel and Emma Thompson's unsustainable, extravagant lifestyle is a distraction? I sure don't.

Who knows her reasons for flying first class, could have been the only ticket available for all we know. At least it wasn’t a private jet.

I think it's a shame that it's so easy for 'sceptics' to point out the hypocrisy. It's mentioned more often than not in the same sentence as Emma Thompson speaking with XR that she of course flew in first class for it. I very much doubt she flew in for it. I assume she had some other business/work in London and the dates were convenient. At first there were many similar comments about Greta Thunberg coming to London - easily countered by people pointing out that she didn't fly, she took trains, and that in itself became a positive story.

unsustainable, extravagant lifestyle

Mine is too.
Given that the film/entertainment industry is fairly international (studios, locations etc), how feasible is it for individuals to have much control over their flight footprint? (Not a rhetorical question - you know about media industry so maybe you also know more about film stuff). Is there anyone who chooses economy over first class? Is there anyone who chooses jobs based on how much travel is involved? Do directors choose to use local locations?
It seems there's been more attention given to music tours than the film industry.

Very very unlikely on a BA flight to New York that there wouldn't be a business class or premium economy seat available. That's part of the problem with 'full service' airlines, using fuel to fly empty seats around the world. But yes, private jets are far worse.