Dryne Thank you for addressing this on the basis of current research and practices. I'd much rather argue on science than unfounded personal attacks on protestors' hygiene or lifestyles.
So let's look at the science. This is from the IPCC's 2018 report.
^In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).
For limiting global warming to below 2°C CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways
(10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range). Non-CO2 emissions in
pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C. (high confidence)
Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in
energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence). These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options (medium confidence).
All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and,
in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of GtCO2 subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence).
Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a
few hundred GtCO2 without reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence).
Strengthening the Global Response in the Context of Sustainable Development and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty Estimates of the global emissions outcome of current nationally stated mitigation ambitions as submitted under the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 of 52–58 GtCO2 eq yr−1 (medium confidence). Pathways reflecting these ambitions would not limit global warming to 1.5°C, even if supplemented by very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of emissions reductions after 2030 (high confidence). Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future
large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well
before 2030 (high confidence).^
That's why XR are not interested in petitioning the government to stick to its Paris Climate Conference goals or it's 25 year plan. Because the best current science says very clearly that those goals are inadequate and we need rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence). These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options.
Nowhere does the IPCC report suggest that what is needed is for people to recycle, use reusable cups, buy a bike and sit quietly at home not making a fuss. Those things are necessary, but they are so far from being sufficient that it's laughable.
I share your distrust of this government, but I don't believe that they want us all to burn. I think the main reason we have failed to address this problem is because climate change is not seen as a vote winner. As you rightly observed, people would rather we spent money on hospitals and schools and tax reduction, and not doing so loses elections.
I don't see XR's job as to cost and plan how the government will take the actions required above. I see their job as to make it clear that doing so will be a vote-winner, and to persuade members of the public that this should be talked about. Which they have. Before this year, climate change had been debated once in parliament in three years. Since the April actions, the government has declared a climate emergency, and both Labour and the Lib Dems have made climate change part of their manifestos in a way I haven't seen in my lifetime. That's a huge win.
And to answer your question - yes, I would be happy with tax increases. (I think we should introduce carbon tax and dividend, personally). Yes, I would be okay with a loss of business investment - although in practice I think the amount of investment and labour necessary to make these changes will create many more jobs. Yes, I think laws will need to be changed, and I have faith that the government can do so quickly when it's urgent enough.
And as the piece above makes clear - reducing carbon is only the first step in a long process. It would not be a five-year tax increase to rush it through needlessly quickly and then everything would go back to normal. (Or not). CDR is necessary, and it's currently highly expensive and inefficient. Making use of it will require a high level of investment and capital.
It's not going to be easy. It's not going to cheap. But we're going to have to do it one way or the other. And this way is the cheapest way we have.