IPCC report 2021; analysis, discussion, and are we fucked?

[platinumsage]

Why are they sitting in the street in London? That makes the message seem like “individual citizens: stop driving”.

They should be trying to close down Fawley refinery, or Grangemouth refinery. They need to hit Exxon and BP. Not exacerbate congestion zone queues.

Around here they either seem to sit on a roundabout stopping NHS workers getting to the large hospital or glue themselves to a local bank branch stopping pensioners from taking money out.

I'm not sure that refinery type targets are much better - we don't actually want the refineries to shut down because we aren't ready for diesel to stop being supplied to forecourts yet. Direct action is great when you actually want something to stop immediately , like a factory chucking mercury in the river or sending cluster bombs to Yemen or whatever.

I think pressure on politicians in both local and national government to expedite net zero plans is the only kind of protest that makes sense at the moment (other than peripheral stuff like luxury yachts that LynnDoyleCooper mentions).

 

[Pickman's model]

I think pressure on politicians in both local and national government to expedite net zero plans is the only kind of protest that makes sense at the moment (other than peripheral stuff like luxury yachts that LynnDoyleCooper mentions).

Atomised protest through petitions and letter writing, which seems to be what you suggest, doesn't sound a great plan when years and years of such work, and of politicians receiving report after report detailing our progress down the road to catastrophe, have had so little impact.

 

[platinumsage]

Atomised protest through petitions and letter writing, which seems to be what you suggest, doesn't sound a great plan when years and years of such work, and of politicians receiving report after report detailing our progress down the road to catastrophe, have had so little impact.

That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.

 

[maomao]

That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.

A programme of assassinations then?

 

[Pickman's model]

That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.

So what do you mean by pressure on local and national politicians?

 

[mojo pixy]

... we aren't ready for diesel to stop being supplied to forecourts yet.

Are we ready for floods, wildfires and hurricanes? It seems to me that fuel shortages for a while may turn out to be easier to manage, and less lethal to fewer people, than .. well. The kinds of climate events which are already inevitable, and already in progress. And can only worsen, while we shy away from eg. causing fuel shortages.

 

[glitch hiker]

Are we ready for floods, wildfires and hurricanes? It seems to me that fuel shortages for a while may turn out to be easier to manage, and less lethal to fewer people, than .. well. The kinds of climate events which are already inevitable, and already in progress. And can only worsen, while we shy away from eg. causing fuel shortages.

We're ready for neither. It's not either/or.

That's the tragedy of it. We should be ready.

 

[glitch hiker]

Around here they either seem to sit on a roundabout stopping NHS workers getting to the large hospital or glue themselves to a local bank branch stopping pensioners from taking money out.

I'm not sure that refinery type targets are much better - we don't actually want the refineries to shut down because we aren't ready for diesel to stop being supplied to forecourts yet. Direct action is great when you actually want something to stop immediately , like a factory chucking mercury in the river or sending cluster bombs to Yemen or whatever.

I think pressure on politicians in both local and national government to expedite net zero plans is the only kind of protest that makes sense at the moment (other than peripheral stuff like luxury yachts that LynnDoyleCooper mentions).

I thought they were pretty careful not to hinder the emergency services and nurses etc. But I suppose they can't distinguish between commuters on public transport, while an ambulance is obvious. That's not going to go down well at this time, if they impede health staff of any kind

 

[LDC]

We're ready for neither. It's not either/or.

That's the tragedy of it. We should be ready.

Yeah exactly, fuel shortages impacting people negatively aren't inevitable, if they happen they'll be the result of the choices and priorities of politicians and business.

 

[mojo pixy]

The argument just goes in circles.

It's the state and business that need to act! But they aren't acting. Then individuals need to act! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or, we need to prepare for both. But it's not individuals' fault! No, so government and business need to act! But they aren't acting. We must persuade them! They aren't listening. Persuade them harder! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or..... etc.

I'm beginning to think someone needs to just start exploding infrastructure, not just blocking it. The consequences of not exploding infrastructure now seem potentially more serious for more people. But here I'm just restating my last post.

I'm not here to argue though, I'm here to read others' arguments. I'm simply at a loss to know what "we" who aren't in charge should do, if "they" who are in charge continue not to act. Ultimately Earth is as much my responsibility as yours, or any individual's. If the collective fails in its duty of care, what's an individual to do?

 

[danny la rouge]

The argument just goes in circles.

It's the state and business that need to act! But they aren't acting. Then individuals need to act! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or, we need to prepare for both. But it's not individuals' fault! No, so government and business need to act! But they aren't acting. We must persuade them! They aren't listening. Persuade them harder! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or..... etc.

I'm beginning to think someone needs to just start exploding infrastructure, not just blocking it. The consequences of not exploding infrastructure now seem potentially more serious for more people. But here I'm just restating my last post.

I'm not here to argue though, I'm here to read others' arguments. I'm simply at a loss to know what "we" who aren't in charge should do, if "they" who are in charge continue not to act. Ultimately Earth is as much my responsibility as yours, or any individual's. If the collective fails in its duty of care, what's an individual to do?

Yup. And to be fair to XR they have the numbers and they’re doing something.

 

[LDC]

The argument just goes in circles.

It's the state and business that need to act! But they aren't acting. Then individuals need to act! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or, we need to prepare for both. But it's not individuals' fault! No, so government and business need to act! But they aren't acting. We must persuade them! They aren't listening. Persuade them harder! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or..... etc.

I feel like you're missing the point, or interpreting it in a unhelpful way. I'm not seeing it as that circular thing at all.

The argument many are making is pretty simple; action needs to be taken, action that is more militant and forceful than is currently being taken, and it needs to target the production/extraction processes of fossil fuels and the luxury end of carbon emissions, while minimizing the negative impact on most people's lives, push for full support for those impacted by the changes, and ideally in alliance with people working in those industries. Fuck having pressurizing the politicians and businesses as an aim, they'll feel the pressure and catch up (or not) either way - and to some extent its the same for the wider population.

 

[bimble]

So Malm talks about private aviation, SUVs, luxury yachts... climate class war if you like. And he mentions this has the advantage of acting as deterrent to those aspiring to this lifestyle, so changing the limits of what is acceptable culturally.

Yep that is interesting, shame is a powerful force. Like how nobody parks on the disabled bays for instance, and nobody (in UK) wears fur coats anymore. Are SUVs and yachts a significant contribution to emissions? idk but still. Ostentatious consumption becoming a shameful thing i can imagine quite easily.

 

[lazythursday]

I feel like you're missing the point, or interpreting it in a unhelpful way. I'm not seeing it as that circular thing at all.

The argument many are making is pretty simple; action needs to be taken, action that is more militant and forceful than is currently being taken, and it needs to target the production/extraction processes of fossil fuels and the luxury end of carbon emissions, while minimizing the negative impact on most people's lives, push for full support for those impacted by the changes, and ideally in alliance with people working in those industries. Fuck having pressurizing the politicians and businesses as an aim, they'll feel the pressure and catch up (or not) either way - and to some extent its the same for the wider population.

I completely agree with you, though with the proviso that in targeting things like luxury emissions we don't end giving a different impression - that all that matters is the emissions of the rich, because while they are absolutely the worst offenders it isn't really true, unfortunately. System change does have to happen at every level (and people need to be supported with that).

Occurred to me while out walking the dog in a leafy village nearby, that if finger pointing has any role at all in climate activism (whether intentionally or because that is how actions are going to be interpreted anyway) then that needs to be targeted at the most profiligate. There is a really interesting tool that came out recently that shows which neighbourhoods across the country are burning the most carbon. Place-based carbon calculator

The worst places are mainly rural and wealthy. Often these are the sorts of people that can damn well afford to spend the money on retrofitting their houses, buying electric cars, etc etc, but damn well aren't going to, because they can afford massive gas bills and don't give a fuck.

 

[LDC]

Yeah the targeting the rich/luxury emissions is Malm's idea, not mine, and I'm not totally convinced by it. But there needs to be some discussion about what to do that isn't blocking roads and parading about in costumes and doing symbolic chalking of walls etc.

There's been some chat about, and targeting of, the banks (the finance behind carbon etc.), but the way that plays out is mostly at local branches which is just a slight variation on the road blocking in that it just annoys people and comes across as finger pointing moralism, and tbh I think it makes you look weird to pretty much anyone but Guardian readers. If you want to target the banks go to the houses of the CEOs etc. not the local branch ffs.

 

[bimble]

i'm in a red place on that map, F- very bad. Rural. All my heating & hot water comes from oil delivered by a truck into my big plastic tank. I don't know what if anything i can do to change that.

 

[LDC]

i'm in a red place on that map, F- very bad. Rural. All my heating comes from oil delivered by a truck into my big plastic tank. I don't know what if anything i can do to change that.

Nothing and it doesn't matter.

 

[lazythursday]

Nothing and it doesn't matter.

I don't think this is 100% true. Bimble could start working out what would be needed to do to insulate the property and have a heat pump installed (which is what I'm doing at the moment). I can't afford it right now but I want to be ready to take advantage of the next inevitable lot of government grants. Yes individual action isn't the priority BUT we do still need individuals to take action - apart from anything else research shows that there is a contagion effect from people taking action in improving their properties etc. We shouldn't be pushing individual action as a political message but it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.

 

[danny la rouge]

I’m not on it.

 

[bimble]

It can't be as simple as individual actions do not matter, consumer choices are irrelevant / the wrong tree to bark up. It's got to be at least a part of the mix hasn't it.

 

[lazythursday]

It can't be as simple as individual actions do not matter, consumer choices are irrelevant / the wrong tree to bark up. It's got to be at least a part of the mix hasn't it.

At the end of the day one part of whole system change is individual behaviour and preferences. It's not just changes of regulations and laws and business practices. At some point in the next two decades we will all have to replace our heating systems, individual action will have to take place. It has to be part of the mix, it's just historically been perceived to be the only lever that is getting pushed.

 

[LDC]

I don't think this is 100% true. Bimble could start working out what would be needed to do to insulate the property and have a heat pump installed (which is what I'm doing at the moment). I can't afford it right now but I want to be ready to take advantage of the next inevitable lot of government grants. Yes individual action isn't the priority BUT we do still need individuals to take action - apart from anything else research shows that there is a contagion effect from people taking action in improving their properties etc. We shouldn't be pushing individual action as a political message but it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but yeah fair point, although it's massively dependent on being able to afford to do that as you say. It's also that this is going to be pushed as the solution so to some extent we need to be highly critical of it as well, or at least move it away from the political solutions discussion into personal life changes discussion as they get very mixed up in people's heads, encouraged by media/State etc.

I've made some changes, but why and what they are doesn't belong in any of these discussions I think.

 

[maomao]

Governments acting rather than individuals at some point is going to involve governments putting limits on individual behaviour and individual access to resources. I think it's fine to discuss what those changes might be like, what might be more or less acceptable and even to start making those changes without waiting for them to be forced.

 

[mojo pixy]

I feel like you're missing the point, or interpreting it in a unhelpful way. I'm not seeing it as that circular thing at all.

The argument many are making is pretty simple; action needs to be taken, action that is more militant and forceful than is currently being taken, and it needs to target the production/extraction processes of fossil fuels and the luxury end of carbon emissions, while minimizing the negative impact on most people's lives, push for full support for those impacted by the changes, and ideally in alliance with people working in those industries. Fuck having pressurizing the politicians and businesses as an aim, they'll feel the pressure and catch up (or not) either way - and to some extent its the same for the wider population.

I fully agree.

It's not me being unhelpful though; it's the climate being unhelpful, and it's the people in charge being unhelpful. Don't look at me, I'm just 'little people' like you, with eyes and ears, and the ability to do what I can, which I do. Calling me 'unhelpful' (given my personal unimportance to any of this) is even more pointless than the circular arguments I've (we've all) been hearing for the last 40-odd years about who should bear the heaviest burden of climate change. The argument is nearly irrelevant, we know it will be the poorest. It always is (and ftr, 'the poorest' on a global scale isn't us in the UK).

The question for me is, how long do we go on talking about this, before we start throwing actual physical spanners into the works? The debates have been raging for at least 2 generations, when do we do something else? Yesterday? Today? Tomorrow? And we can direct action against companies and rich individuals as carefully as we like, but they will ensure they aren't the ones who bear the brunt of any losses and harms. They'll pass on whatever they can, downwards, because they always do.

I am in favour of extreme and destructive direct action, in the cause of inhibiting and disabling extreme and destructive systemic action. I always have been, and like many of us I've taken part personally. Once my parenting responsibilities are discharged I expect to find myself in trouble personally once again

 

[LDC]

I fully agree.

It's not me being unhelpful though; it's the climate being unhelpful, and it's the people in charge being unhelpful. Don't look at me, I'm just 'little people' like you, with eyes and ears, and the ability to do what I can, which I do. Calling me 'unhelpful' (given my personal unimportance to any of this) is even more pointless than the circular arguments I've (we've all) been hearing for the last 40-odd years about who should bear the heaviest burden of climate change. The argument is nearly irrelevant, we know it will be the poorest. It always is (and ftr, 'the poorest' on a global scale isn't us in the UK).

The question for me is, how long do we go on talking about this, before we start throwing actual physical spanners into the works? The debates have been raging for at least 2 generations, when do we do something else? Yesterday? Today? Tomorrow? And we can direct action against companies and rich individuals as carefully as we like, but they will ensure they aren't the ones who bear the brunt of any losses and harms. They'll pass on whatever they can, downwards, because they always do.

I am in favour of extreme and destructive direct action, in the cause of inhibiting and disabling extreme and destructive systemic action. I always have been, and like many of us I've taken part personally. Once my parenting responsibilities are discharged I expect to find myself in trouble personally once again

That's one of the issues Malm beings up in his book I mentioned above... "When is it time to be more forceful and direct, now, or at 2 degrees, or at 3 degrees? Should we wait for a consensus? A majority? A big minority?" (From memory, so not his exact words, but something like that.)

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't think this is 100% true. Bimble could start working out what would be needed to do to insulate the property and have a heat pump installed (which is what I'm doing at the moment). I can't afford it right now but I want to be ready to take advantage of the next inevitable lot of government grants. Yes individual action isn't the priority BUT we do still need individuals to take action - apart from anything else research shows that there is a contagion effect from people taking action in improving their properties etc. We shouldn't be pushing individual action as a political message but it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.

Yeah, just as shaming individuals to do stuff while ultimately the system is structurally to blame seems the wrong focus, so is it the wrong focus to ridicule people for at least trying. You want to make some changes? Good. Go ahead.

But me recycling the plastic bag round the bananas is a drop in the ocean when a) the food industry needs to stop putting it round them in the first place, b) we can’t be sure it won’t just be shipped to Turkey rather than actually recycled anyway.

The individual acts aren’t nothing, but they aren’t enough nor are they what the main focus should be.

 

[maomao]

The problem with 'more forceful and direct' is that it's very difficult to discuss in detail in public.

 

[lazythursday]

Yeah, just as shaming individuals to do stuff while ultimately the system is structurally to blame seems the wrong focus, so is it the wrong focus to ridicule people for at least trying. You want to make some changes? Good. Go ahead.

But me recycling the plastic bag round the bananas is a drop in the ocean when a) the food industry needs to stop putting it round them in the first place, b) we can’t be sure it won’t just be shipped to Turkey rather than actually recycled anyway.

The individual acts aren’t nothing, but they aren’t enough nor are they what the main focus should be.

I completely agree but we do have to recognise that the actions we want governments and industry to take will end up impacting on individuals and force individual action. Yes there are political choices about how those actions are put into place that can change how that impact is felt but the rhetoric from some parts of the left that this is all about a small number of evil companies obscures the fact that system change affects everyone.

 

[andysays]

I feel like you're missing the point, or interpreting it in a unhelpful way. I'm not seeing it as that circular thing at all.

The argument many are making is pretty simple; action needs to be taken, action that is more militant and forceful than is currently being taken, and it needs to target the production/extraction processes of fossil fuels and the luxury end of carbon emissions, while minimizing the negative impact on most people's lives, push for full support for those impacted by the changes, and ideally in alliance with people working in those industries. Fuck having pressurizing the politicians and businesses as an aim, they'll feel the pressure and catch up (or not) either way - and to some extent its the same for the wider population.

I think your point about alliances with people in particular industries is really important here.

For action to be effective, it needs to go beyond protest or even direct action which aims at stopping something happening, to actions which are or include the active building of alternatives.

Much of XR's activities seem to be based on the idea that if they protest enough, government will take the necessary action.

But the necessary action of transforming society (and that's what we're talking about, ultimately) needs to be taken by ordinary people working collectively, not by government or even by well intentioned climate activists.

danny la rouge was right when he said that XR are asking for a revolution, even if they don't realise that themselves, and they might be part of that revolution but they and their activities will never be the whole of it.

 

[LDC]

A snippet of info from Malm's book that made me laugh was that the book XR has based its strategy on, Why Civil Resistance Works by Chenoweth and Stephan (https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820) was authored and written by Stephan while she worked in the US embassy in Kabul as as officer in the State Department's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations.

He demolishes the book's premise (and so XR's strategy that came from Hallam etc.) pretty nicely.

So, if XR have based their entire strategy on a flawed study, have they shown any indication of re-thinking that?