Extinction Rebellion
- This topic has 447 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“One reason that the police is handling the demonstrators with kid-gloves is that they do have the sympathy of much of the public despite the disruption caused. “
Yes, I think that was largely true of the actions in central London a few months ago, but it’s not clear if this is going to last if the disruptions continue on a regular basis as planned.
Anyway, the news item you mentioned was about Australia, a climate sceptic country where commentators argue that the Labor Party lost the recent elections there because many voters regarded it as too “pro-greenie”. Which suggests that your point works both ways. If the protestors do not enjoy public sympathy the police can be more heavy-handed. It will be interesting to see what happens if XR try anything in New York next month. And whether discretion will (sensibly) get the better part of valour as in Katowice last year
“..A senior Scotland Yard officer giving evidence at the first group trial of Extinction Rebellion activists behind mass protests in central London said the demonstrators had provoked “soul searching” and proved articulate and rational as they made their case.
The protests, in April this year, had found support even among the public facing severe disruption from the demonstrations, he said.
But the officer, Duncan McMillan, a superintendent, also told City of London magistrates court that others had found the protests, which shut down sections of central London for some days, “abhorrent”…Shops reported drops in sales – as much as 13% for flagship stores and 20% for smaller ones – along with allegations of verbal abuse and stickers and chalk being put on property, he said…”More than 1,000 people were detained at the protests, in what organisers described as the biggest civil disobedience event in recent British history
On the question of public support, a friend of an XR activist in Portsmouth told me that they’d been booed and called hippies during a march through the north part of the city, so I guess the level of public sympathy varies, even in the UK.
Actually, by coincidence, it is exactly 50 years ago this month that hippies were causing a scandal by squatting an empty building in central London. Here’s what the Socialist Standard said at the time:
Click the link to 144 Piccadilly for more and a picture of hippies. There’s even an ageing hippie on our executive committee,
There’s some totally ‘unbiased’ footage of the ‘scandal’ at this link. 😆
What XR can expect when a city goes into lock-down
The southwestern French city of Biarritz “will be transformed into more of a fortress than a surfers’ paradise.”
“France is deploying 13,200 police backed up by soldiers and drones to make sure protesters are kept far from the summit,” the news agency reported.
The country is rolling out “a raft of unprecedented measures” to deal with potential unrest. “Authorities have banned all demonstrations, not just in Biarritz but also the conjoined towns of Anglet and Bayonne,” Agence France-Presse reported.Two security perimeters will be set up in Biarritz, with a “red zone” including the beach and the Hotel du Palais off limits to anyone without summit accreditation.
Outside that area, much of the rest of the city center will be in a blue zone where locals and businesses will need a badge obtained from the town hall to gain access.The “yellow vest” movement, hold a counter summitroughly 18 miles away in the twin cities of Hendaye, France and Irun, Spain.
“The hasty erection of pre-fabricated cells in front of the court in Bayonne and the arrival of dozens of additional prosecutors and judges,” said Perolin, of Amnesty International “are a signal of intent that could lead to indiscriminate mass arrests and fast-track prosecutions.”
The Extinction Rebellion group says that from 10am on Friday at least 750 people have pledged to take over part of Deansgate, Manchester.
A “canvas city” is expected to be pitched on the street outside House of Fraser, with tents occupied around the clock until Monday evening for what organisers have billed the northern rebellion. All of the events will be open to the public and will include talks from experts, including the climate scientist Prof Julia Steinberger – one of the authors of the UN climate change report, which warned there are only 12 years left to limit global warming to 1.5C to avoid a climate emergency. Organisers are also expecting an address by an Amazonian tribesman who is studying English in Manchester. There will be dedicated zones within the occupied area, including the “rebel camp”, which will include art installations, a garden and activities for families and children.
Police said its aim was to “facilitate the protest, whilst trying to minimise disruption to all those who work, live or who will be visiting Manchester over this period”.
We have highlighted the issue of accountability before and here is another example.
The Heathrow Pause group says the action is “to highlight the incompatibility of Heathrow Airport’s expansion with the government’s own legally binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050”.
The group – a splinter of the Extinction Rebellion movement but separate from it – plans to fly what it calls “toy drones” within the exclusion zone specified by the Civil Aviation Authority.Report from a comrade who went to see the rebellion in Manchester this weekend:
“I’m just back from the Extinction Rebellion demo in Manchester. Deansgate was closed to traffic (the part including Kendals/House of Fraser), and there were notices about it being closed over the weekend too. Plenty of police there, but no trouble that I could see. Probably a few hundred people, with a stage with speakers, drummers and various small gatherings. Just a couple of people selling leftie papers and handing out their stuff. I gave out nearly all the leaflets I took with me (Q&A, and ‘The problem isn’t the Tories or Labour’).
The XR people want government to declare a climate emergency and cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero, and that a citizens’ assembly be set up to oversee the changes. “More comrades might return to leaflet and discuss on Saturday and/or Sunday.A very interesting critique of XR, reflecting the views of some here that pessimism isn’t positive politics.
“…claims made by Roger Hallam are not, as he contends, based on climate science. They are based on extrapolations and interpretations that do not form part, as such, of the ‘climate science consensus’. The models used by climate scientists and the reports and scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not make it possible to assert with any degree of certainty that mass starvation will start in the next decade or that six billion people will die from starvation or slaughter during this century…These exaggerated claims, in fact, make Hallam an easy target for climate change deniers, who can portray him as either a nutcase who is just peddling fiction to foster “global warming hysteria”, and/or as an unscrupulous political activist who (mis)uses climate science to serve his political aim of overthrowing the current economic, social and political order. Either way, his claims about what “science” allegedly says do not necessarily serve the cause of climate action…”
“…At the same time, using alarmism as a political tool is understandable, maybe even justifiable. Climate activism, it has to be said, has so far been a resounding failure, in the sense that despite all the awareness it has generated it hasn’t changed almost anything to the world’s trajectory of ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). In order to finally mobilise people on a wider scale and convince them that drastic action must be taken urgently, the climate movement probably needs to step up a gear. Making shocking claims about impending catastrophe can be one way of doing so. When people start getting scared, it can be hoped, they will maybe start moving…This “be afraid, be very afraid” approach has already been tried of course, in particular by American scientist Guy McPherson, who has for several years now been warning about “near-term” (i.e. by 2030) human extinction. This claim has gained him few friends in the scientific community, and it has also failed to attract mass following – but that’s probably because he offers no hope of salvation whatsoever: we’ll just all be dead in about ten years time and that’s it… ”
“…Extinction Rebellion, on the other hand, seems to be more successful at attracting people and having an impact on the public conversation, probably because the movement’s claims are catastrophist rather than apocalyptic, as it asserts that we can still change course and avert extinction if we really want to. In his interview to the BBC, Roger Hallam declared, for instance, that “we can do whatever we like in our societies if we’re prepared to undertake the costs” or that the UK could be at net-zero carbon emissions by 2025. These claims are no more supported by science than those about the starvation and slaughter of six billion people in the next decades, but at least they make it possible to spur people into some sort of action….”
“…‘human overshoot’, i.e. the crossing by humanity of multiple ‘planetary boundaries’, which destabilises the Earth system and puts at risk the planet’s hospitality to living things. This predicament cannot be understood through climate science alone, and requires a much broader understanding of a myriad of complex systems and of their interactions. Based on this broader understanding, the claims made by Roger Hallam do not seem so implausible anymore. The outcomes he predicts if we don’t change course are by no means certain, but they are certainly within the range of possibilities, regardless of whether humanity’s energy and material throughput continues to rise as foreseen in most climate models and scenarios or becomes constrained earlier than expected as a result of fossil fuel depletion. The probability of their occurrence, in fact, tends to be rising over time rather than decreasing. Unfortunately, all this cannot be fully and unequivocally “demonstrated” scientifically. Human overshoot and the very real risk of social and environmental ‘collapse’ that it entails can be discussed and documented at length, but any attempt at modelling the world’s complex systems and their interactions can only be inherently partial and incomplete, and the consequences and outcomes of human overshoot cannot be investigated and tested empirically at any meaningful or reliable scale. To some extent, there is therefore inevitably an element of “belief” in the minds of people who think they have grasped the human predicament, and in the predictions they make, publicly or not, about the future….”
“…The movement and its leaders should however probably be careful when claiming that this or that is going to happen by such or such date because “the science says so”…Science is never so unequivocal as to support detailed and time-bound predictions about the fate of the world…”
“…Extinction Rebellion, and climate activists in general, should also be mindful that trying to scare people into action also conveys the significant and inherent risk that scared people may move in the wrong direction, i.e. towards survivalism rather than resilience, selfishness and exclusion rather than solidarity, frantic resource-grabbing rather than conservation, violence rather than cooperation, etc. The prospect of ecological and societal collapse is apparently already being hijacked by ‘eco-fascist’ murderers, and it looks like parts of the political right in the West may be in the process of flipping from denialism to the instrumentalisation of climate change for their political aims. As liberal democracy keeps degenerating and becoming dysfunctional and unable to meaningfully address the various aspects of the human predicament, it is therefore possible that more and more people may get lured, in Western countries, towards some form of right-wing radical environmentalism, which would somehow acknowledge human overshoot but vow to reduce it by scrapping excess people from the surface of the Earth – or at least preventing them from achieving or maintaining Western levels of energy and material throughput…”
Good stuff (except for the use of the term “eco-communism” at the end). Only lacking is a criticism of XR’s mystical spiritual beliefs.
I’ve just finished reading the XR Handbook,This is Not a Drill published for them by Penguins, which expounds the ideology behind their actions.
Here’s an example of their alarmism, from Professor Jem Bendell (echoed by Roger Hallam in that interview):
“My guess is that, within ten years from now, a social collapse of some form will have occurred in the majority of countries round the world … A likely collapse in rain-fed agriculture means that governments need to prepare for how to ration some basic foodstuffs …”
I predict that in ten years time he’ll have egg on his face. If I’m wrong, I’ll let him have some of my ration tickets.
They are not even really convinced that their demand of net zero carbon emissions by 2025 is possible. Hazel Healey writes of it being just a scenario:
“What if we aimed to cut absolute carbon emissions to zero by 2025? No one knows if it’s possible — let alone at this rate — but it’s instructive to imagine how such a scenario would play out.”
If you are doubtful that your key demand is possible (actually, it’s unrealisable even if socialism were to be established tomorrow). why put it forward? It does seem to be, as the author of the article Alan has linked to suggests, to offer some hope, amidst the gloom about human and other animal extinction and the collapse of civilisation, that something can be done to avert this.
And here’s Roger Hallam on how little support XR needs to overthrow a government that refuses its demands?
“The arrogance of the authorities leads them to overreact, and the people — approximately 1-3 per cent of the population is ideal — will rise up and bring down the regime. it’s very quick: around one or two weeks on average. Bang: suddenly its over.”
Yes (that’s what happened to the state-capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe), but then what? There’d still be capitalism, the cause of the problem and an obstacle to its solution, and to get rid of that requires majority understanding and action not civil disobedience by a relatively small minority.
Of course most of the thousands that XR is currently “mobilising ” (it’s a term they use) won’t adhere to these views. They will just, rightly, be concerned about the threat of global overwarming and frustrated that nothing effective is being done about it. They certainly won’t agree with the way-out views expressed by Hallam in that BBC interview.
My non-science-based prediction is that XR will disappear after a few years, a bit like Occupy did. It will have raised consciousness, about climate change, but that’s all. Hopefully, some of those they “mobilised” will have come to see that the only framework within which the problem can be solved is a society based on the common ownership (no ownership) and democratic control of the Earth’s natural and industrial resources,
“My non-science-based prediction is that XR will disappear after a few years…”
XR may go but my prediction is that another movement will arise…the Friday strike school students growing up, hopefully as you also hope like me, into political maturity.
First, to Alan: The main point of the article you mentioned was not pessimism, it was the fact that at some point XR will have to face the reality that “bringing humanity down to ‘sustainable’ levels of energy and material throughput in just a few decades, and maintaining it there, is most likely incompatible with democracy, freedom and openness.” The same could be said about socialists, btw.
ALB: your phrase “Only lacking is a criticism of XR’s mystical spiritual beliefs.” is misleading and just plain wrong. First of all, is suggests that the article was overall critical, which it was not. It gave a good overview and presented several weak points, but at the same time agreed with a lot of things XR people hold. Secondly, where is the “mystical” part you mention? You just made it up.
What you call alarmism, is in fact a strategy any sane scientist would take: if there is even a small probability of a very destructive event, measures should be taken. There is nothing alarmist about predicting social disturbance within the next decade, given the ‘human overshoot’ problem described in the article Alan quoted. Really, ALB, your criticism of “They are not even really convinced that their demand of net zero carbon emissions by 2025 is possible.” is laughable at best and possibly dangerous. What is the point of what you wrote? What are you trying to say? The author in the book is trying to help people envisage a reality where we really do reduce CO2 emissions radically, this can be helpful. And what are you doing? Just sitting there and criticizing other people who are teaching, reaching out, supporting each other – is not very helpful. If you wanted to present the book you read, you failed miserably. The book is composed of many chapters written by completely different people who represent various points of view, and you did not even deign to point that out.
You say, “Yes (that’s what happened to the state-capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe), but then what? There’d still be capitalism” – and just where did you read or hear this? Authors in the book are suggesting “system change”, and they do not write that it has to be capitalism. You are just writing your own fantasies, nothing more.
Instead of giving your “non-science-based” predictions that help no one, why don’t you go out to the streets and start bringing all those people who are now flocking to the XR meetings, before they “disappear after a few years”? It is easy to criticize, much more difficult to propose something constructive!
where is the “mystical” part you mention?
This is the sort of stuff I mean:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/extinction-rebellion/page/7/#post-186274
There’s plenty more of that in the book. And the Afterword is written by a former Archbishop of Canterbury.
your criticism of “They are not even really convinced that their demand of net zero carbon emissions by 2025 is possible.” is laughable at best and possibly dangerous.
The author, Hazel Healy, was the one who suggested that no one knew if it was possible.
In that BBC interview the following exchange takes place:
Hallam has just said that the elite and media were telling lies. Stephen Sackur, the interviewer, then says:
“But aren’t you lying and misleading people too because you are suggesting that it is possible, for example in the United Kingdom where the group was founded, that we could in the UK move to zero carbon emissions by 2025 and that really isn’t possible?
Hallam: Of course it’s possible. Anything is possible. It’s a matter of whether there’s a political will.
Sackur: OK, let me rephrase the question. It’s not possible within the framework of our capitalist economy without causing unimaginable damage to people’s lives.
Hallam: Well, the damage is imaginable and proportionate and it’s necessary because the alternative is social collapse.”
Make of this what you will but after watching the whole of that interview I think Hallam is a raving lunatic. But I don’t imagine all of those XR’s ideologues are that bad. Hazel Healy, for one who at least had the honesty to wonder whether net zero carbo emissions could really be achieved within 5 or 6 years of now.
Authors in the book are suggesting “system change”, and they do not write that it has to be capitalism.
You are missing the point. I wasn’t suggesting that Hallam or XR were advocating capitalism, but merely that the collapse/overthrow of a government opposed to XR’s policies would not amount to ending to capitalism, to “system change”. My point was what comes next after the 1-3% minority has brought down the government? The sort of participatory democracy that the authors you mention want (let alone the common ownership of the Earth’s resources, which they are vague about but which I don’t suppose all of them would necessarily oppose) could not come into being with only 1-3% of the population in favour. You can’t force people to cooperate voluntarily or to voluntarily participate in decision-making. They’ve got to want to. It’s not something that could be imposed by a minority. It can only come about when a majority want and understand it, not by the civil disobedience by a small minority. You’ve got to have a majority on your side before you can achieve a lasting alternative to capitalism.
So merely overthrowing a government by minority action would still leave capitalism in existence since the majority desire and understanding needed to end capitalism would not exist. You’d be back to square one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.