Extinction Rebellion

I wish mine was, it's not sustainable but I don't think anyone would call it extravagant!

I don't know much about Hollywood-type stuff but I imagine it's pretty difficult for actors to have much control over their flight footprint to be fair. I think directors choose the locations (having been advised by location scouts) and actors just have to go with it. I do know that a Hollywood actor choosing to fly economy would be a news story so I presume it's rare or non-existent.

I enjoy the level of complexity dialogue in this thread #allguilty

I think she's a massive hypocrit.

She was asked about this and her response was kinda odd. Like ‘I’ve been moaning for ages about how polluting air travel is and because of how long I’ve been moaning I’m not a hypocrite’

Or something. It was weird.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neaz3d/airpods-are-a-tragedy

Conspicuous consumerism will be the death of us all

(also, RIP Motherboard)

Presumably trying to suggest that there are far more valid targets to criticise for excessive flights than someone who is actively using their fame as a platform to spread the message about climate change

I gather XR enshrined ‘no blame’ into their values early because (correctly) the scale of the problem needs political solutions. The Daily Mail are not neutral on the subject of man made climate change and seem to be going for a narrative of ‘them and us’, presenting XR as preaching middle-class hippies to obfuscate the real problem. These pieces are usually written by public schoolboys who still think it’s all a big game because their lives have been comfy as fuck.

Emma Thomson clearly has shitty flying habits. But the story is still a smear and used tactically.

Those I know who are heavily involved in XR have absolutely pure intentions, they live low (or very low) impact lifestyles, care deeply about what irreversible damage we’re doing to people and the planet. This shouldn’t really matter, because their argument is irrefutable, but I find it remarkable and sad there’s so much energy (and money?) going into discrediting them.

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

Well, since that doesn't follow at all from what I said there's no need to comment on it beyond that.

I think she's a massive hypocrite.

You don't know what hypocrisy means. The Wikipedia definition will do:

Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham.

It continues:

Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.

Note that this part must be read in conjunction with the primary definition above; merely being inconsistent doesn't amount to hypocrisy. It requires that element of secrecy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

She doesn't hide that she flies and is therefore not a hypocrite about it. For the avoidance of doubt, I think she's wrong to fly while holding these beliefs, at best inconsistent, at worst self-contradictory, and she doesn't practise what she preaches, but she's not a hypocrite.

She's got a massive cheek getting involved in XR.

That may well be the case, but it's a different thing from hypocrisy.

A good, thought-provoking and ultimately quite depressing article!

Further to Fox's post:

it's that her entire transatlantic life is unsustainable

I agree.

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.

No, it doesn't help. I tried to allude to why in my earlier post, but that probably needs to be expanded upon.

Firstly, accusing environmental protesters (let's, for the sake of argument, count Ms Thompson among them for now) of hypocrisy is a tried-and-tested tactic of the right-wing press. It always has the desired result: People stop talking about the real issues, discussion time is wasted with irrelevant frippery about just one scapegoat (as here), those who want to find some kind of reason not to change their lifestyle will find one (or several), e.g. 'I don't want to be a hypocrite', holding opinions like Ms Thompson's is presented as a privilege of the chattering classes, again, while all hard-working folk getting on with their lives have to drive their white vans, etc.

Secondly, because protesters invariably generate an exceptionalism, whether they want to or not, they become merely the exceptions that prove the rule. Protest is very rarely effective and only when really disparate groups, like 90s road protesters and local residents, get together to reduce the appearance of exceptionalism (it's also been effective at Heathrow, not that this has stopped the Government from ploughing ahead). When someone like Thompson speaks out, the vast majority of celebrities don't--because they don't want to put themselves in the firing line, because they genuinely want to continue leading their celebrity lifestyles and would feel like hypocrites if they spoke out, etc. If you then accuse her of hypocrisy (or direct whatever other flak you have at her), you merely affirm that what she says isn't possible to be followed, just look at her own (failure of) example, and everybody can happily go back to what they were doing before.

Thirdly, divide-and-rule works a treat even if one side of the people you divide is made up of very few people, e.g. Labour's last election slogan 'for the many, not the few'. Granted, 'the few' are the primary practitioners of divide-and-rule, and problems with social injustice are undeniable, but it's the same thing. Hence, if you just single out one person, e.g. the Fool on the Hill, you can achieve your objective in creating the division. Division then gives certain politicians excuses not to engage in action. Every time. I've seen this not just on the news, but in actual things I've been involved in.

Don't single out individuals. It's a waste of time. Continue to be focused on the issues and bring people together.

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.

Well. Read your second sentence here again. It's straightforwardly true because you can make distinctions between different types of flying. However, what you appear to mean, that one ought to evaluate different types of flying (based on whatever criteria, let's not worry about those for now) is something I consider completely irrelevant, as all types of flying are roughly equally damaging in their environmental impact. The seemingly essential, comparatively harmless kind, like in your example ...

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.

... together are easily as damaging as the comparatively low numbers of individually more damaging flights, e.g. private jets. There is a symbiosis, so you want to deal with it all together.

And, as ever with things that are merely the symptom, not the cause, flying fails to achieve basic utility and doesn't compensate for what is behind it, which is the basic problem with (particularly motorised) transportation: It is a symptom of a lack of sustainable arrangements for living, i.e. that XYZ isn't local, can't be got locally, etc., e.g. their 'essential' training thatm, despite being essential, isn't available in Ilagan, although it obviously should be.

In the example of the Philippines, their rail network is almost non-existent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_the_Philippines

Rail is not massively sustainable, but vastly more so than flying or motorised road transport. The internal flights are merely a symptom of the lack of rail (so far, I note plans to expand rail). (I don't say 'a symptom of the lack of roads', as the last thing I want to see are more motorways.) Perpetuating flying there is only going to delay investment in better forms of transport. Needless to say, the Philippines are a mountainous island country and it won't be possible everywhere to build rail or RRORO ferries, but with modern engineering it's not at all impossible.

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.

Yes. Concentrate on the underlying causes and not the symptoms.

More number-crunching:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report

Thanks, but I do know exactly what hypocrisy means and I don't need you to tell me. But, to clarify, from your definition:

Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations

This is exactly what Thompson is doing. A false appearance of virtue by appearing in a high profile way at the XR protest, while being covertly photographed travelling first class. By any common, accepted definition of hypocrisy, she is one.

Just look at how Europe's extensive rail network has controlled the growth of aviation... oh wait.

ll types of flying are roughly equally damaging in their environmental impact

Not true, as we've already told you there are huge differences between flying economy with a budget airline for a short flight and travelling first class across the Atlantic. It's not just about how spaced out the seats are, all that champagne, food, hot towels, real china etc. needs energy to get into the sky.

No. She never hid that she was flying in any way. She was not being hypocritical.

Europe's rail network has been politically disadvantaged in favour of flying for two generations.

The question is, how much value are you bringing to the cause by flying across the world*? Is the world better off with Emma Thompson in London and x tonnes of CO2 in the air or with her staying in the US and those emissions not occurring and/or lower demand/profit for airlines?

I have literally no idea who she is but the mere fact we're discussing her flying in this thread indicates to me that mostly what she has achieved with this action is causing a distraction and negative backlash/coverage which we've all paid for in CO2/NOx/etc. And on that basis we'd almost certainly have been better off if she hadn't bothered.

Greta Thunberg on the other hand has had a massive positive impact and the cost of what she's done to the climate is lower. If she was flying, it would still be a net gain.

Pragmatism is needed. Certain people are strongly opposed to the actions of groups like XR and we should be careful not to give them more ammunition. If someone like Emma Thompson wants to fly over to participate then maybe she should collect some data or facts to show that overall it's a worthwhile thing for her to do. Did she help get access to an important person for a meeting, or help create a (positive) media impact, or get a bunch of her fans to sign up to the protests, or whatever? Was there any other way of getting to London that would have achieved the same thing? Could she have taken someone else's seat or a spare seat on a flight, thereby not creating additional demand? If she can say "without me flying over we couldn't have done x y z, and I did it with the lowest possible impact" then she neuters a lot of the criticism.

* I expect almost no one can justify flying around the world really except maybe those directly involved in climate change research/mitigation, in cases where flying makes a dramatic difference to how much work you get done. I know a few big-name climate change academics and their carbon footprints are humongous (conferences, collaborations, instrumentation, fieldwork, etc.). I haven't done any calculations but I'm guessing for most individuals in the world the climate would be in better shape if we died suddenly.

Once again, all those things are more than offset by the mass take-up. It's the same problem as with small cars in the 70s, etc. It's effectively greenwash. See also what NickCJ posted a little earlier about the Jevons Paradox.

I genuinely don't think you understand hypocrisy.

Not hiding that you do something doesn't stop you being considered a hypocrite.

If I drove everywhere, then told all my friends they shouldn't drive because it's bad for the environment, they'd still consider me a hypocrite, even if I was open about the fact I was driving everywhere.

I have literally no idea who she is but the mere fact we're discussing her flying in this thread indicates to me that mostly what she has achieved with this action is causing a distraction and negative backlash/coverage which we've all paid for in CO2/NOx/etc. And on that basis we'd almost certainly have been better off if she hadn't bothered.

.

I'm sure we can easily agree that 'being considered a hypocrite' is different from 'being a hypocrite', no? Sure, I obviously understand that you consider her a hypocrite. However, to do this you have to assume that she doesn't really hold the views she professes to hold, e.g. that flying is bad. Yes, if in reality she thought that flying is great, or that flying is great for her but not for everybody else, then she would be a hypocrite--but she'd have to be caught at espousing such views; her actions in flying across the Atlantic, twice, don't show that. However, I don't accuse her of that, because I genuinely have no idea what she really thinks.

Unfortunately, that she flew to the protest is not evidence of hypocrisy. As before, she was perfectly open about that. And again, yes, she was inconsistent, didn't practise what she preaches, etc., but that alone does not amount to hypocrisy. The secrecy is an essential component of hypocrisy. Don't fall for the right-wing press trying to discredit the protest (because that's what's going on with that story).

To add: I could certainly imagine what @hoefla said, that she may well have had business in London, anyway, and if she claimed (somewhat counter-productively) that she only flew in for Extinction Rebellion, then that would have been hypocritical, but I again wouldn't accuse her of that, because I don't know.

I have literally no idea who she is but the mere fact we're discussing her flying in this thread indicates to me that mostly what she has achieved with this action is causing a distraction and negative backlash/coverage which we've all paid for in CO2/NOx/etc. And on that basis we'd almost certainly have been better off if she hadn't bothered.

I agree (as I said upthread). She should have put out a supportive statement, perhaps involving a mea culpa like 'I fly far too much'.

To discuss something more substantial again, let's take bus policy, just because there's a convenient good article. :)

On political choices of private vs. public transport, the British bus conundrum is very interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/05/bus-fares-reveal-massively-unfair-gulf-between-london-and-rest-of-england

Privatisation merely caused bus operators to concentrate on the most lucrative routes while neglecting the rest as much as they could get away with. This has been one of the main contributing factors in the rise of driving (and the decline particularly of badly-connected communities) since the 80s.

Buses are not a sustainable form of transport, but they are miles better than individual private motor traffic.

I think we just have to agree to differ on the definition of hypocrite (and for the record the OED definition is much broader "Behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.". I don't believe that secrecy is an essential component of hypocrisy and I think most people would agree.

It would definitely be more hypocritical if she hadn't been open about flying to the protest though.