Extinction Rebellion

[lazythursday]

How do we stop the emission of greenhouse gases?

Will stopping the emission of greenhouse gases stop climate change?

Why are the government’s plans to go net zero carbon inadequate

We stop emissions by no longer burning oil and gas. By switching to new technologies and also using less energy, to put it at its simplest.

Yes, if we stop emitting greenhouse gases climate change should stop - unless we have already reached a 'tipping point' where basically things have spiralled out of control. But this has to happen globally.

The government's plans are inadequate because the numbers don't add up. Reductions aren't quick enough to ensure we only burn through our share, as a country, of the remaining carbon budget - the emissions we can probably get away with still making and stay within a 'safe' temperature (even that could have significant negative impacts)

 

[PTK]

Extinction Rebellion has three demands, according to its website:

“Tell the Truth
Things are getting worse faster than we expected.

Act Now
Those in power aren’t acting quickly enough.

Decide Together
We need change that is decided fairly and transparently. We need a Citizens’ Assembly on Climate and Ecological Justice.”

The first demand has been met. We ARE being told the truth. Climate scientists are not hiding the truth of what is happening.

As regards the second demand, Extinction Rebellion does not appear to make clear what it expects the people in power to do, over what time span.

The third demand has been fulfilled. The UK government convened a Citizens’ Assembly in 2020.

https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/committees/climate-assembly-uk/

 

[PTK]

We stop emissions by no longer burning oil and gas. By switching to new technologies and also using less energy, to put it at its simplest.

Yes, if we stop emitting greenhouse gases climate change should stop - unless we have already reached a 'tipping point' where basically things have spiralled out of control. But this has to happen globally.

The government's plans are inadequate because the numbers don't add up. Reductions aren't quick enough to ensure we only burn through our share, as a country, of the remaining carbon budget - the emissions we can probably get away with still making and stay within a 'safe' temperature (even that could have significant negative impacts)

"Yes, if we stop emitting greenhouse gases climate change should stop"

That is not what the scientists say. The climate will continue to warm for years.

 

[PTK]

"If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years"

20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago? | Royal Society

If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago? Answer

royalsociety.org

 

[lazythursday]

"If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years"

20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago? | Royal Society

If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago? Answer

royalsociety.org

That doesn't say the climate will continue to warm. It says it won't go back to how things used to be.

 

[lazythursday]

Extinction Rebellion has three demands, according to its website:

“Tell the Truth
Things are getting worse faster than we expected.

Act Now
Those in power aren’t acting quickly enough.

Decide Together
We need change that is decided fairly and transparently. We need a Citizens’ Assembly on Climate and Ecological Justice.”

The first demand has been met. We ARE being told the truth. Climate scientists are not hiding the truth of what is happening.

As regards the second demand, Extinction Rebellion does not appear to make clear what it expects the people in power to do, over what time span.

The third demand has been fulfilled. The UK government convened a Citizens’ Assembly in 2020.

https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/committees/climate-assembly-uk/

Climate scientists are telling the truth but that doesn't mean their message is being amplified by governments. Climate scientists are collectively having a nervous breakdown about the situation.

The UK government did not convene a citizens assembly. A parliamentary committee did, and it was completely ignored by government.

 

[andysays]

That doesn't say the climate will continue to warm. It says it won't go back to how things used to be.

My understanding is that even if we stopped adding to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the current levels are such that they will continue to have an effect and the climate will continue to warm until the level of greenhouse gases is actually reduced.

 

[Karl Masks]

Climate scientists are telling the truth but that doesn't mean their message is being amplified by governments. Climate scientists are collectively having a nervous breakdown about the situation.

The UK government did not convene a citizens assembly. A parliamentary committee did, and it was completely ignored by government.

what good is a citizens assembly if they democratically decide to do something that doesn't help or nothing at all?

 

[lazythursday]

what good is a citizens assembly if they democratically decide to do something that doesn't help or nothing at all?

I'm not a citizens assembly fetishist personally, but you could say exactly the same about any democratic process. In reality, those that have met (there have been a lot of local ones) tend to come to similar conclusions and do make useful proposals - but usually the local authority only takes elements of it on board.

 

[Serge Forward]

Where has the money gone?

Flyers and stickers?

 

[Karl Masks]

I'm not a citizens assembly fetishist personally, but you could say exactly the same about any democratic process. In reality, those that have met (there have been a lot of local ones) tend to come to similar conclusions and do make useful proposals - but usually the local authority only takes elements of it on board.

You could but in doing so you'd be sidestepping the question

 

[newme]

They did some interesting/chaotic open application for funds within the organisation, with a big spreadsheet that was visible to a lot of people at one point. Some good uses, some questionable uses got requested, I never saw the follow-up. Tbh I wouldn't expect an organisation like XR to be super careful with money, and it isn't their expertise. I hope there's been no open corruption, but they've made more impact than some charities with a £100m budget. If some of it got pissed up the wall I wouldn't really care. Would I give money to XR? No, but other people chose to, knowing that it was a chaotic organisation out to make a big splash, not some careful charity counting every penny. I think they'd be silly to feel hard done by if some money went on nonsense.

I mean it does sound like they tried initially with the open concept. There's always some nonsense anyone to pick out if they try hard enough even at a well run charity as I worked for one. Someone would make a fuss it would actually be easily explained as useful and appropriate but they didn't know why thay was the case and made a fuss. Ceo wasn't one on silly money either and had spent 30 years working with that area, homelessness. If anything he was underpaid but kept the position and did loads that helped get donations in and spread impact more than just awareness. Found out he died lately, gave me a job after I volunteered there, helped me with a cv when they couldn't keep me longer and mentored me on various parts of the job. Guy ran a mock interview with me with another place i had an interview with then went off and did a BBC interview on radio while I was doing mine. Then was genuinely interested in the result, didn't get it so then got more tips on what may have gone wrong.

i'm not an XR member, so i have no clue about where the money has gone, or if indeed it has gone anywhere at all. Maybe it has been channelled towards its stated purpose of confronting a system that is hell bent on killing millions of innocents? Pickmans Model complains it isn't transparent and that its funds are not appropriately used to support XR/JSO members being persecuted by the state. He may have a point, idk whatever is the case its an issue they ought to address quickly. i have never given them a penny, but im sympathetic to their aims and objectives. my guess is that Pickman's wouldn't become a sympathiser of XR even if it had done all the things he claims they have not. Thats fair enough of course. Its politics when alls said and done.

I was just interested, do a lot of financial deep dives for Work purposes and tbh I didn't even know how much they raised. Had figured money would likely be put aside to fight legal stuff since glue/etc isn't a major cost (most of what I heard about them). Hopefully they are supporting the people who put their legal future on the line for them tho.

 

[lazythursday]

You could but in doing so you'd be sidestepping the question

I think the answer is then, that the very design of citizens assemblies makes it unlikely that a 'do nothing' or ' do something pointless' outcome would emerge. But it does depend on that design - I guess it would be perfectly possible to steer them in a direction you wanted, by putting forward particular experts / points of view, but the fact that the citizens are chosen to be demographically and politically representative should help guard against some of that.

 

[8ball]

I think the answer is then, that the very design of citizens assemblies makes it unlikely that a 'do nothing' or ' do something pointless' outcome would emerge. But it does depend on that design - I guess it would be perfectly possible to steer them in a direction you wanted, by putting forward particular experts / points of view, but the fact that the citizens are chosen to be demographically and politically representative should help guard against some of that.

They have a Citizen’s Assembly Working Group who hold fairly regular Q&A sessions over Zoom for both new members and anyone else who is interested.

 

[T & P]

A nuclear winter would do the job immediately, and lower the global temperature by tens of degrees for decades to come, mind

 

[kabbes]

I ask the following of those who support Extinction Rebellion

What is to be done about human-generated climate change?

What measures must be implemented to combat climate change?

Will these measures stop climate change altogether?

If not, then what measures are needed to minimise the effects of climate change?

The thing is, you’re talking like the choice is between acting to reduce climate change (which involves serious changes to how we live) or not acting, and just continuing to live as we do now. But that’s not right. The choice is merely between planned, controlled dramatic change now or unplanned, reactive dramatic change later. That‘s what “unsustainable” means. It’s not just a buzzword. If you can’t sustain something, eventually you are forced to stop it, because you run into the brick wall of reality.

So, the answers include things like: we can either stop burning fossil fuels now, or we can have insufficient food production and massive flooding of our habitats later. It’s one or the other, you can’t avoid both.

 

[Pickman's model]

The thing is, you’re talking like the choice is between acting to reduce climate change (which involves serious changes to how we live) or not acting, and just continuing to live as we do now. But that’s not right. The choice is merely between planned, controlled dramatic change now or unplanned, reactive dramatic change later. That‘s what “unsustainable” means. It’s not just a buzzword. If you can’t sustain something, eventually you are forced to stop it, because you run into the brick wall of reality.

So, the answers include things like: we can either stop burning fossil fuels now, or we can have insufficient food production and massive flooding of our habitats later. It’s one or the other, you can’t avoid both.

Nearly 30 years ago I was shelving economics books about China the next superpower and all manner of titles about sustainable development. The one is coming to pass and the other, well they're probably past their use-by

 

[Karl Masks]

I think the answer is then, that the very design of citizens assemblies makes it unlikely that a 'do nothing' or ' do something pointless' outcome would emerge. But it does depend on that design - I guess it would be perfectly possible to steer them in a direction you wanted, by putting forward particular experts / points of view, but the fact that the citizens are chosen to be demographically and politically representative should help guard against some of that.

So you'd have to select a bunch of options that don't achieve nothing. But you are still requiring those participating to be willing to choose something positive. Which means you can't just have a completely open sortition system. Inevitably this falls into the hands of experts because we can't just trust any old sod to participate. They might be completely opposed to green new deal/china/big tech/global reset etc, thanks to reading bullshit news

 

[Signal 11]

"Yes, if we stop emitting greenhouse gases climate change should stop"

That is not what the scientists say. The climate will continue to warm for years.

Asked and answered.

 

[lazythursday]

So you'd have to select a bunch of options that don't achieve nothing. But you are still requiring those participating to be willing to choose something positive. Which means you can't just have a completely open sortition system. Inevitably this falls into the hands of experts because we can't just trust any old sod to participate. They might be completely opposed to green new deal/china/big tech/global reset etc, thanks to reading bullshit news

I'm not sure this is the case in terms of citizen selection - some of these processes have gone out of their way to include climate sceptics, for example. But then the next stage - the information giving to the citizens - is very open to being manipulated through which experts are chosen, with what spectrum of views. So eg, there could be lots of green growth type stuff, from a very technocratic business as usual environmental angle, excluding more radical voices from the degrowth end of the spectrum. And the scope / terms of reference might be very narrow to begin with. I think their record is very mixed, but I do think a big national, well publicised and transparent assembly could unlock some progress.

 

[PTK]

What submission did Extinction Rebellion make to the Citizens’ Assembly on climate change?

What submission would it make if another Citizens’ Assembly was held?

What are its detailed proposals to ameliorate climate change?

Are the members of XR simply rebels without demands?

(“Act now” is not actually a demand, and apparently it is not actually addressed to the government, but to the public at large, and to “act now” is to participate in XR’s activities).

 

[Brainaddict]

What submission did Extinction Rebellion make to the Citizens’ Assembly on climate change?

What submission would it make if another Citizens’ Assembly was held?

What are its detailed proposals to ameliorate climate change?

Are the members of XR simply rebels without demands?

(“Act now” is not actually a demand, and apparently it is not actually addressed to the government, but to the public at large, and to “act now” is to participate in XR’s activities).

This is silly. Different groups have different strengths. There are endless reports, including by the UN, about what needs to be done to prevent ever-deepening catastrophe, starting with winding down fossil fuel use starting yesterday. XR don't have to write their own report or list of demands. Governments of the world have been told what they need to do, by very serious people who have done extensive research. They simply refuse to do it because it would be unpopular with their funders and to some extent their electorates.

 

[PTK]

This is silly. Different groups have different strengths. There are endless reports, including by the UN, about what needs to be done to prevent ever-deepening catastrophe, starting with winding down fossil fuel use starting yesterday. XR don't have to write their own report or list of demands. Governments of the world have been told what they need to do, by very serious people who have done extensive research. They simply refuse to do it because it would be unpopular with their funders and to some extent their electorates.

So, we should just protest without making any specific demands? Then how will we know if we have won or lost?

 

[Brainaddict]

So, we should just protest without making any specific demands? Then how will we know if we have won or lost?

In one scenario we'll have a livable planet, in the other we won't.

You're being obtuse. Government's could actually implement the recommendations of IPCC reports, and if XR are still being annoying at that stage, there can be some negotiation over niggling details. But it's really not a secret what needs to be done, and I congratulate XR on not getting pulled into some silly pretence that they have e.g. the exact correct formula for ending fossil fuel use, when others have done much more research than they can hope to do.

 

[8ball]

So, we should just protest without making any specific demands? Then how will we know if we have won or lost?

It's not about winning or losing, it's about taking part.

 

[lazythursday]

In one scenario we'll have a livable planet, in the other we won't.

You're being obtuse. Government's could actually implement the recommendations of IPCC reports, and if XR are still being annoying at that stage, there can be some negotiation over niggling details. But it's really not a secret what needs to be done, and I congratulate XR on not getting pulled into some silly pretence that they have e.g. the exact correct formula for ending fossil fuel use, when others have done much more research than they can hope to do.

Extinction Rebellion has a very loose set of demands, most of which are demands on all institutions in society to tell the truth and get on with it, not just the government. Conversely, Just Stop Oil has one very specific achieveable demand: that the UK Government stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects. But given that the same set of people loathe both organisations, and neither seem to be achieving an awful lot right now, I don't think how they frame their demands is much of an issue.

 

[PTK]

Extinction Rebellion has a very loose set of demands, most of which are demands on all institutions in society to tell the truth and get on with it, not just the government. Conversely, Just Stop Oil has one very specific achieveable demand: that the UK Government stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects. But given that the same set of people loathe both organisations, and neither seem to be achieving an awful lot right now, I don't think how they frame their demands is much of an issue.

The IPCC recommends going net zero carbon by 2050. The UK government if legally committed to this target under the Climate Change Act 2008.

 

[PTK]

The IPCC recommends going net zero carbon by 2050. The UK government if legally committed to this target under the Climate Change Act 2008.

Extinction Rebellion says it wants net zero to come in by 2025. So, it disagrees with the IPCC target.

 

[lazythursday]

Extinction Rebellion says it wants net zero to come in by 2025. So, it disagrees with the IPCC target.

That was always unachievable and I've no idea why they chose it. It looks plain daft now several years later in 2023.

But next zero by 2050 misses the point anyway. There has to be year on year very significant cuts in emissions to meet that target. You can't leave it all to the 2040s or we blow the carbon budget. The IPCC targets are also a compromise between all the countries involved - they aren't a perfect reflection of the scientific consensus by any means.

 

[Pickman's model]

The IPCC recommends going net zero carbon by 2050. The UK government if legally committed to this target under the Climate Change Act 2008.

Or what? They pay a piffling fine? The prime minister gets a slap on the wrist in Westminster Hall?