To risk arrest for protesting about the climate emergency?

[medicellen]

I have recently taken part in climate protests with Extinction Rebellion but have stopped short of activities that would lead to an arrest.

I am a scientist and it has been beyond doubt for some years that the climate emergency is accelerating.

And yet, global carbon emissions continue to increase. Our government is granting new licences for fossil fuels, whilst oil companies rake in massive profits. This is utter madness (aka "collective suicide" according to the lead of the UN).

I have an 8-year old son who says one day he might like to have children. I have avoided saying that this may be either not possible or not desirable due to the state of the climate by then.

Petitions, campaigning, pleas, marches have failed. In my mind, the only option left is civil disobedience. Mass arrests advanced the causes of suffrage and civil rights and I am now contemplating arrest as the only meaningful contribution I have left.

But, thinking about it logically, (and maybe I'm not emotional enough), how will protesting in a way which I don't think is going to be effective help my children in the future? Also, how long am I expecting them to live for? If we stopped emissions immediately, they may live to see climate change slow down at the end of their lives, but their lives will be affected. That's a done deal!

I'm not unconcerned at all. I am very concerned for their future and I passionately believe we should be aiming for net zero emissions ASAP. But equally I want investment in infrastructure which can help mitigate against the affects of climate change. This takes investment and an educated / skilled workforce, which also takes investment. All of these issues are so enmeshed and it is very complex. Most people 'get' economics and climate change, however, some people think one or the other can be ignored which really isn't true (imo)

I get what you're saying... that it would be difficult to carry as much weight if the assemblies are independent and not set up by government. But if they managed to get enough experts around the table and put forward some really serious, realistic, thought-through proposals about what needs to happen, I think they might stand a chance.

Protesting is the easy bit. Anyone can glue themselves to a road if they so choose, but it doesn't actually solve the problem. We all know that urgent action needs to be taken, and we don't really need the ER protestors to raise awareness of the issue. The real challenge is what we're actually going to do about it. That's where we need some radical thought. That's where people should be putting their energies. That's where we need people to be making a difference.

Successive governments have demonstrated clearly that they either don't know what to do about climate change, or else they do know what to do but they're not brave enough to do it. Our competitive party political system always gets in the way of long term thinking anyway. Instead of all this silly, futile disruption that ER is causing, which isn't actually achieving anything anyway, what we need is an honest, open, informed and grown-up debate about what actions need to be taken, when they need to be taken, what they will cost, what the implications will be, how the most vulnerable can be protected etc. ER (or whoever) could invite politicians from all parties to participate in the process.

These are going to be tough decisions. We are going to have to change the way we live... we can't just pretend that science will come up for solutions to it all....we haven't got time for that now. Let's have a proper national conversation about this, rather than the divisive protests that aren't really getting us anywhere. Telling your grandchildren that you were out there protesting to protect their future will be very cold comfort if you don't actually manage to achieve anything as a result.

FFS can you read? Seriously, READ that post you just quoted.

Argh, I'm stepping away now, this is doing no good for my blood pressure OR my faith in humanity.

Exactly, mother nature will sort it out. These protests achieve nothing.

Good. Keep off the road too whilst you're about it.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves - XR have been holding peoples assemblies for years, but they have no mandate. Only the government can grant that and they have chosen not to

@medicellen really? I'm pretty sure I've seen this demand.
I actually think we are having the wrong discussion entirely. We should be talking about growth and the fact that our entire society and economy is structured around constant growth forever, which, throughout all our history, has gone hand in hand with growth in energy demand. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you that all energy, no matter if it was generated carbon neutrally or not, will release heat when it is put to work (in the physics sense of the word) and we are not going to invent ourselves out of this inconvenient fact. We can calculate that with much greater certainty than any climate models. I know growth lifts people out of poverty but thermodynamics doesn't care and can't be argued with. I don't actually have a solution for this but admitting that we can't forever grow on a limited planet which is pretty much a closed system would be a good start, though I admit it's fecking scary.
Here, for anyone who doubts what I say with regard to growth Galactic Scale Energy
Off to my lab now.

This is current Labour policy isn't it? They have shortened timescales on renewables to 2030 which is really not far away.

Would it not therefore be worth your while finding your nearest Labour/Tory marginal seat and campaigning for a change of MP?

Why should someone unelected represent me?

I don’t want that

@medicellen the moment you take any action which burns more fossil fuels to clear up/undo, you've lose support.

You're a scientist so why not start working on projects to create clean energy, eg nuclear fusion? If we can get that to work we can get clean energy for the entire globe, just from sea water.

www.gov.uk/government/news/site-of-uks-first-fusion-energy-plant-selected

You could have remained childfree for a start but I suppose that horse has bolted.

Problem we have I think is that the action we need to take is like dieting. We're all over weight, we know we're over weight and need to do something but we really want that cake, so we eat the cake.

Are you going to protest in China and India then ?. Thought not.

@Igneococcus And I'm sure I don't need to tell you that all energy, no matter if it was generated carbon neutrally or not, will release heat when it is put to work (in the physics sense of the word) and we are not going to invent ourselves out of this inconvenient fact. We can calculate that with much greater certainty than any climate models. I know growth lifts people out of poverty but thermodynamics doesn't care and can't be argued with.

Release of heat from burning fossil fuels is not responsible for any measurable impact on climate change. It is the release of green house gases that is causing climate change. I'm afraid you've got the physics completely wrong here.

Per capita emissions from India are less than ours. When imported emissions are taken into account so are those of China.

Exactly, it's the population of those countries that is the real problem. No country should be allowed to have a billion people, there needs to be a scheme in place to cut the global population to 2 billion max, that would drastically improve things in relation to climate change.

I know this @Daftasabroom and that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that all energy, no matter how it is generated, will release heat when it is used to carry out work, it's one of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. You can cover the planet in solar panels and wind turbines if you keep increasing energy use, which is required to support economic growth, eventually you will generate enough heat to heat up the planet beyond the point at which life is possible (you'd run out of everything else, water, food, ... before that though). My point is that indefinite economic growth is not sustainable even with renewable energy sources.

Ah @Dotjones the end justifies the means???
Why are you more concerned with future generations that don't yet exist than humans actually alive today?

What a ridiculous statement - the population density of India is about half that of the UK and China is about 1/5.

NVDA has achieved a lot in the last few years in getting action on climate change and biodiversity loss. There is an evidence base to that. Protest also increases discussions about issues without putting people off those subjects. Those that voted that it is unreasonable: what are you doing? What have you achieved in the last few years to ensure your beloved children inherit a livable planet?

The problem isn't purely population levels anyway. A large family in some developing countries emits less than a single childless person in the western world (statistically speaking) so lifestyle comes in to it too.

Also, more developed and economically stable countries tend to have lower birth rates. In fact there is a direct corellation between high birth rates and poorer living standards. So, economic growth can lead to lower birth rates but as @Igneococcus says, economic growth cannot be sustained forever.

Low birth rates aren't always the best thing for planet but it depends on your perspective. It's a horrible thing to say, but one of the issues with population in western countries is that we have an ageing population (people live a long time and we have a lower birth rate). But that's really reducing people to pounds and pennies which I know is very crass, but this is the way these threads always end up (usually saying people in India must not have babies because poor planet)

Indefinite economic growth may or may not be sustainable, but the pseudo-physics you're using to justify it is really very wrong. Heat release from work done is absolutely not causing climate change. If you have any evidence, i.e. peer reviewed papers please link to them.

Ok, so are you saying that a lot of the work on this has actually been done and that ER have already drawn up detailed, costed policy proposals etc, with full impact assessments, plans on how these policies could be practically implemented, considerations about how to minimise the impact on the most vulnerable etc? And that the main problem is that politicians from all parties are failing to engage with their recommendations?

That's great if they have already done this work, but glueing themselves to the roads doesn't seem to be a very effective way of getting their message out there or ensuring that their recommendations are heard.

Could you provide a link to the detailed policy proposals and plans that they are asking politicians to take on board, please? I can see the "bill" that they are proposing which would require the government to come up with a serious plan to tackle climate change, but I can't seem to find any of the serious detailed plans that ER themselves are proposing with regard to what actually needs to be done to tackle the climate emergency. I might be missing it, but if I am, I guess that just highlights the fact that their communications strategy isn't working very effectively.

It always seems to me that there is a lot of handwringing and demanding that the government should do something (which I don't disagree with) but I struggle to find a great deal of detail about what that something should actually look like in real, practical terms. Yes, there are headlines about insulating homes etc, but how do they want that to happen, when, how will it be funded etc? What specific actions do people want the government to take and how do they propose that those actions should be paid for and implemented? I'm not arguing against the fact that action is needed at all. I just want to know more about the detailof what people think that should look like and how we can make it work.

If we took all the measures proposed today and kept them up, optimal situation, by how much would we delay disastrous climate change?

What exact outcome do you want from the protest and how does the protest achieve that outcome?