Extinction Rebellion

[JimC]

We definitely need to speed things up, but it simply may not be possible to speed up the change as fast as wanted by ER...

Not without *sound of dread, horror and foreboding* "causing unimaginable damage to people's lives" *sound of dread, horror and foreboding*, Lord Jim.

Dont paint me on the same side as that British think tank. I won't use that sort of emotive language, and I won't pretend that accelerating the change might need some pain to get the gain. But I stand by my point that ER may simply be calling for unreachably early targets, even given maximum practical effort.

[Hermit]

My apologies. You are clearly a centrist, Lord Jim.

[Scot Dutchy]

Jim is the middle wicket.

[JimC]

So, do we try to achieve practical targets by rational means that a majority will support, or do we wail, gnash our teeth, and call down doom?

I want to call for governments to put serious effort into accelerating renewables, electric cars, and a timed program for getting rid of coal-fired power stations one by one, the oldest and least efficient first. I want them to give immediate tax cuts to all industries that contribute to solar and wind power. I want them to mandate solar panels on the roof of every government school and office. I want them to rule out any new coal mines, and have a realistic target for winding down existing ones. I want the people of Australia to be persuaded to elect governments that will move in that direction. To do that, I suggest that deliberately disrupting the lives of everyday citizens is counter productive.

[Brian Peacock]

We definitely need to speed things up, but it simply may not be possible to speed up the change as fast as wanted by ER...

Why?

As Hermit pointed out, where there's a will there's a way. XR are trying to galvanise that will. We can look to how the UK quickly shifted its economy in WWI or in response to the Atlantic blockade in WWII for example if we like. Again, if the science is to be believed we are facing an existential threat far, far more significant than the dreaded Hun.

Individually we might be thinking that if past experience is anything to go by then we should be OK - we've had problems before, massive problems like war and pestilence, and we're still here right(?) But the past is an unreliable sample. I'm reminded of the statistician's joke about the clever turkey who noticed that the farmer came out to the barn every day at 10:30 with a bag of grain. Based on the available data the turkey reasoned that tomorrow was going to be just as good as today until, that is, 25 November when the farmer came out to the barn with a cleaver. Looking at the turkey's graph the data clearly indicated an ongoing upward trend that gave it no reason to worry about tomorrow, but the data didn't account for that single, unpredictable catastrophic event. The difference between us and the turkey is that our predictions can account for tomorrow - indeed predictive models are the foundation of the scientific arts - and catastrophe is baked into those climate models whether we like it or not.

So do we accept the science or don't we? And if we do then shouldn't we act now in light of what the science is telling us, or not? Why is it impossible to be carbon neutral by 2025? What are the problems, what are the blockages, what are the breaks on that, what can be done to alleviate the issues, what resources do we need, what are the manpower requirements, the political choices, the economic necessities, etc etc?

What 'we' face is what what 'humanity' faces; the threat to 'us' is the threat to the future progress of our civilisation and perhaps our species itself. XR are talking collectively, inclusively, and they want governments to acknowledge and promote the unvarnished scientific truth so that people are as informed as possible. This, they believe, will galvanise people into thinking about this seriously, and by that to make rational decisions and knowingly undergo the hardships needed to literally save our civilisation, our species, and our biosphere. Their naysayers on the other hand confuse matters by collectivising the experience of individual turkeys: it's not a problem for us collectively because individually we are not in crisis; extreme weather events are individual weather events not part of a greater pattern etc; we got grain today didn't we? As one of the comments to the Hardtalk video pointed out the Goans lost their entire rice harvest as the result of a single storm. The crisis is ongoing, but as long as we can buy our rice from somewhere else this year it doesn't really seem to be effecting us - we're still getting grain tomorrow.

So rather than waiting for the day when the farmer comes along with his big chopper we need to start thinking about getting off the farm, and if that's not an option then we need to creep up to the farmhouse in the middle of the night and peck the bastard to death in his sleep. It's a matter of survival.

[pErvinalia]

So, do we try to achieve practical targets by rational means that a majority will support, or do we wail, gnash our teeth, and call down doom?

I want to call for governments to put serious effort into accelerating renewables, electric cars, and a timed program for getting rid of coal-fired power stations one by one, the oldest and least efficient first. I want them to give immediate tax cuts to all industries that contribute to solar and wind power. I want them to mandate solar panels on the roof of every government school and office. I want them to rule out any new coal mines, and have a realistic target for winding down existing ones. I want the people of Australia to be persuaded to elect governments that will move in that direction. To do that, I suggest that deliberately disrupting the lives of everyday citizens is counter productive.

We kind of need to go on a war footing, or at least a post-war rebuilding footing. Seemed to do wonders for the economy after WWII.

[JimC]

Again, both Hermit and you have missed my point, that ER may be calling for an impossible rate of change, a fantasy land. It is possible that this posture will actually get in the way of a series of practical, achievable steps, such as I outlined above, which would lead to accelerated change if adopted whole-heatedly, not just by a radical fringe, but by the population at large. You may have missed my repeated calls for a faster transition to renewables, but faster than our current slow pace does not mean faster than practically possible...

[Brian Peacock]

Again, both Hermit and you have missed my point, that ER may be calling for an impossible rate of change, a fantasy land.

Why might it be impossible?

It is possible that this posture will actually get in the way of a series of practical, achievable steps, such as I outlined above, which would lead to accelerated change if adopted whole-heatedly, not just by a radical fringe, but by the population at large. You may have missed my repeated calls for a faster transition to renewables, but faster than our current slow pace does not mean faster than practically possible...

And I guess the basic point I'm making is that the profit incentive cannot escalate the kind of changes the science says we need to make. We can't wait for the markets to develop according to their needs and then buy-in to a different, better future. Only government intervention can bite the bullet now and create the conditions where significant change is even possible.

[pErvinalia]

The profit motive could potentially work, but we'd need to price in environmental externalities.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

Only government intervention can bite the bullet now and create the conditions where significant change is even possible.

I certainly agree that government intervention is needed, but this will only happen when governments with strong policies on climate change are elected, which in turn will only happen when a clear majority of people vote for such policies. That, in part, is my reason for objecting to some of the tactics of ER.

But there are also market forces at work. Renewables are becoming more and more a better economic bet for companies, and coal support from the general business community is declining. Alone, this may well be too slow, but a market moving in that direction makes it easier for government policies to push it further.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian Peacock wrote:

Only government intervention can bite the bullet now and create the conditions where significant change is even possible.

I certainly agree that government intervention is needed, but this will only happen when governments with strong policies on climate change are elected, which in turn will only happen when a clear majority of people vote for such policies. That, in part, is my reason for objecting to some of the tactics of ER.

You object to XR because they might galvanise a clear majority of the public to vote for policies to mitigate the climate and environmental crisis?

But there are also market forces at work. Renewables are becoming more and more a better economic bet for companies, and coal support from the general business community is declining. Alone, this may well be too slow, but a market moving in that direction makes it easier for government policies to push it further.

Renewables are only a better bet for companies where governments impose certain obligation on the fossil industry and/or create or subsidise a renewable market. But nobody is arguing that that isn't a good thing, only that it needs to be prioritised and rate of transformation in the energy sector ramped up.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

You object to XR because they might galvanise a clear majority of the public to vote for policies to mitigate the climate and environmental crisis?

I have no objection to them being a ginger group to press strongly for faster change, even if I have a slight cavil about their unrealistic targets. Groups like them are probably needed to galvanise action, as you say. However, it is the tactics of shutting down city streets for fairly long periods that may be counter productive to getting ordinary people on side.

Renewables are only a better bet for companies where governments impose certain obligation on the fossil industry and/or create or subsidise a renewable market.

Actually, from what I've read, they are becoming economically attractive with or without government intervention. But of course, such intervention, carefully done, can speed up the process further.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian Peacock wrote:

You object to XR because they might galvanise a clear majority of the public to vote for policies to mitigate the climate and environmental crisis?

I have no objection to them being a ginger group to press strongly for faster change, even if I have a slight cavil about their unrealistic targets. Groups like them are probably needed to galvanise action, as you say. However, it is the tactics of shutting down city streets for fairly long periods that may be counter productive to getting ordinary people on side.

Renewables are only a better bet for companies where governments impose certain obligation on the fossil industry and/or create or subsidise a renewable market.

Actually, from what I've read, they are becoming economically attractive with or without government intervention. But of course, such intervention, carefully done, can speed up the process further.

You'll have to wait for the last well and mine to pretty much run dry before you'll see the fossil industry disinvest voluntarily, but the people who work in those industries have exactly the sort of skills and experience needed to build and maintain onshore and offshore wind farms and solar capture stations. So the idea is to incentivise them to do what they will have to do anyway in the end, however reluctant they might be now, or even if it means stuffing their mouths with gold.

I still think you see yourself at the fat end at the bottom of the horseshoe between doing absolutely nothing and trying to go zero-Carbon within the 10-12 year period scientist say we have left to achieve that. Would that be a fair summation of your position? If so then there's two questions that spring to mind, i) where do you see the mid point between zero-Carbon and business as usual, and ii) by how many years do you think we can overshoot the 10-12 year cutoff period?

[JimC]

My impression was that the ER wanted zero emissions in 5 or 6 years, earlier if possible. That I consider unrealistic, but the 10 - 12 years should be achievable with some hard work, and the election of governments who are serious about it. So, put me a fair way up the side of the horseshoe opposite the deniers, but not at the very tip, if that's where ER lives......

[rainbow]

As we are already DOOMED, I've decided to upgrade from a V6 to a V8. None of this turbo rubbish, neither.