Extinction Rebelion roadrage

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It's statements such as that (and I know you're just repeating what some "worthy" has stated) which really boils my p*ss.

There is absolutely no way that anyone can predict that sort of thing with that sort of accuracy. Human knowledge of how climate works is rudimentary at best, there's no "control sample" to test hypothesis against, and there is a huge amount that science does not understand about the drivers of climatic events and effects, yet organisations such as the IPCC continue to publish their rubbish doomsday predictions that have proven to be at least an order of magnitude wrong in the past.

Worse still, scientifically illiterate politicians amplify the problem by ascribing degrees of accuracy to broad estimates, the scientific community fails to give the health warnings about their analysis that they really should, and all of a sudden we get this sort of unverifiable nonsense driving policy.

We really are in a mad world.

OK, we'll forget projections and deal with fact as it is. In the last 100 years the temperature has increased 0.7C. Which is warming at a rate ten times faster than ice age recovery and there is but one obvious change - and it isn't more or fewer volcanoes.
No projections from me whether the temperature rise continues, stalls or reverses. But, to what degree does climate change have to be understood before we act or safely ignore an obvious trend that may threaten our existence?
 
Post-industrial-revolution mankind has made a significant impact on the global environment. The global population took about 200,000 years to reach 1 billion and over the last 200 years has risen to 8 billion. This latter issue is by far the biggest Elephant in the room when it comes to climate change. Actively managing/reducing the global population is deeply unpalatable.

We have in the last 200-years extracted and made use of huge quantities of various materials, dumped waste products on an unprecedented scale. Through widespread use of fossil fuels to satisfy our needs for energy, food production, transport and so on, enormous amounts of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere. At the same time the deforestation that has occurred has reduced the global capacity for capturing atmospheric CO2. The result is accelerated climate change, some of which correlates uncomfortable well with human activity. Currently, that is often termed global warming. From what I've read, the present objective is to attempt to limit global warming to an increase of no more than 1.5degC. Thus doesn't sound like much, but given the size of the atmosphere, a change if 1.5 degrees represents a very large change in atmospheric energy. Hence the concerns about increased frequency if severe weather events.

As mentioned on the recent Attenborough program, there are a number of potential tipping points that could result in a flip from the current benign conditions to something more severe. Depending on what one considers, this could be the onset of an ice-age within a few decades or the other extreme.

Without a complete change in our consumeristic way of life, in our social ambitions, in the way we do business, politics, health care, etc. etc. we will continue to reward big businesses for whatever it is they do, (all they actually do is concentrate wealth to a few individuals) The demand for (electrical) energy, food, transportation, housing, clothing, raw materials and so on will continue to grow and the means by which energy is produced will still need fossil fuels for a long time to come. So impact on the environment due to human activity will continue.

Simply protesting about these things is frankly a cheap shot at the obvious and achieves little. Even though CND campaigned for decades there are still (allegedly) nuclear weapons. Any reductions that were achieved had nothing at all to do with the protests, but instead were simply a result of improved technologies.

And of course, if/when the big volcano under the ice in Iceland or the one under Yosemite or other similar natural event kicks off, then significant climate change will probably occur soon afterwards.
 
Completely agree with your post but for below.

Simply protesting about these things is frankly a cheap shot at the obvious and achieves little.

The increase in awareness makes it worthwhile especially as it can encourage individuals to make changes without impacting on anyone else or waiting for legislation. Example: you mention deforestation. When that is happening merely to graze cattle for meat consumption, people once aware of it and how damaging it is, can act at the individual level. Sounds small, but all the world's population is but individuals. What we do (and don't do) today, developing countries will do tomorrow (eg China's increasing meat consumption as a symbol of wealth).
 
how do the protestors get time off work to protest ???

Because, like the unwashed left wing CND activists from the 60's, I imagine many are on benefits and without a job. They seemed to have plenty of time to hang around Greenham Common as I recall.

I have no beef with a legal protest, but when it becomes disruptive and people/businesses losing money because of them it's time to call a halt.
Their demands of zero carbon by 2025 is an impossible goal anyway. And all the while China and India continue to increase pollution and global warming at will.
Perhaps the protestors would like to block the streets in Bejing:doh:. I think we know how that would end.

Get the water cannons out and wash them away. They have made their point. Now go away.
 
Completely agree with your post but for below.



The increase in awareness makes it worthwhile especially as it can encourage individuals to make changes without impacting on anyone else or waiting for legislation. Example: you mention deforestation. When that is happening merely to graze cattle for meat consumption, people once aware of it and how damaging it is, can act at the individual level. Sounds small, but all the world's population is but individuals. What we do (and don't do) today, developing countries will do tomorrow (eg China's increasing meat consumption as a symbol of wealth).
You have a point, however we will have to agree to disagree. I would like to be wrong, but I don't believe for one second that these protests wil produce any meaningful change to meat consumption in China or for example lead to improved air quality in India.
 
On a very general note... just to point-out that in a Democracy protest and demonstrations serve to alleviate feelings of resentment, frustration, and alienation among parts of the population, even when they fail to produce any meaningful direct change. It is part of the foundation that makes Democracy a stable system of government by allowing a managed legal channel to air (or vent, if you prefer) people's grievances thus reducing the risk of social unrest.
 
You have a point, however we will have to agree to disagree. I would like to be wrong, but I don't believe for one second that these protests wil produce any meaningful change to meat consumption in China or for example lead to improved air quality in India.

All mainstream views were once niche.
A politician's biggest difficulty is getting the public onboard as without support nothing changes and they fear being ousted if going against the will of the public. Protest gives them the mandate and support for change.

But it's OK to disagree. It's a form of protest though....
 
I know I've posted this before, but:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Just saw Emma Thompson on the news - who could have appeared on a big screen via a video link of course...…..

"but I have to fly in from the USA for things like this - but don't fly as much as I used to"
"so, do you fly economy to reduce your carbon footprint?" (fatuous question I agree)
"hell no" - with rolled eyes

Whilst I understand what they are all trying to say (and IMHO they are only partly right - Mother Earth will do what the hell she wants!), why do they have to ruin Easter for the police and families? Not even mentioning what this has all cost
 
I wonder how many of the protestors

..have clothing with a % of plastic in the fabric, shoes, underwear
..got there by some sort of polluter (car, train, bus)
..had water from a plastic bottle, drank their milkshake with a plastic straw
.. used some form of heating in winter
..bought a sandwich (or crisps) in a plastic wrapper
.. smokes filter tip cigarettes
.. brushed their teeth with tooth paste that comes in a plastic tune and has micro beads & a plastic brush
.. used soap & shampoo - although the probably have poor hygiene
-- wiped their asses with toilet paper (instead of leaves or grass...) and then flushed the single turd away - what don't they have a hole in the garden
..flew to Spain or elsewhere for their last holiday
.. they all seem to have plastic tents and plastic banners
..the list is endless

I have a vegan sister who wears leather products

The protesters are generally a bunch of hypocrites..................
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just saw Emma Thompson on the news - who could have appeared on a big screen via a video link of course...…..

"but I have to fly in from the USA for things like this - but don't fly as much as I used to"
"so, do you fly economy to reduce your carbon footprint?" (fatuous question I agree)
"hell no" - with rolled eyes

Whilst I understand what they are all trying to say (and IMHO they are only partly right - Mother Earth will do what the hell she wants!), why do they have to ruin Easter for the police and families? Not even mentioning what this has all cost
Genuine question:

How does flying economy reduce her carbon footprint?
 
Energy is possibly the most potent drug man has stumbled across- and we are all addicts. Perhaps what's so annoying to many people is that these protesters remind us of that somewhat unpalitable fact. Their antics are as nothing to what the drug pushers/cartels the big multinational oil companies have done- hell we've gone to war, invaded countries, raised cities to the ground, killed hundreds of thousands to get that daily shot. The first step to recovering from an addiction is maybe to acknowledge you have one?
 
Energy is possibly the most potent drug man has stumbled across- and we are all addicts. Perhaps what's so annoying to many people is that these protesters remind us of that somewhat unpalitable fact. Their antics are as nothing to what the drug pushers/cartels the big multinational oil companies have done- hell we've gone to war, invaded countries, raised cities to the ground, killed hundreds of thousands to get that daily shot. The first step to recovering from an addiction is maybe to acknowledge you have one?

unpalatable
 
Genuine question:

How does flying economy reduce her carbon footprint?

I would gess [ Hope I have spelt gess korrectly ;)] that its to do with "vehicle occupancy" Business class=more room per passenger =less passengers carried per airliner= more airliners = more jet fuel ----sorta arguement
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom