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.

@ShallowHalWantsAGal why one child? If you REALLY cared you would have had none. Shocking

Climate change summits involving hundreds of people flying... why not do it online?

Because it's not as appealing as travelling somewhere nice for a jolly?

Considering the importance some delegates place on their own status, you didn't really think they'd hold themselves to the same standards they prech to everyone else did you?

I can think of someone who tried not to attend. It did not go down well.

It depends on the size of the population and the nature of the infrastructure of the country at the time you hypothetically legislate on their being one child born per couple. It would also depend on the details within said hypothetical legislation, so I cannot possibly answer as there is no such legislation. You came up with this brilliant proposal so maybe you could trot off and get a law and economics degree and get back to us when you've got it all sorted 😂 🙄

@antelopevalley how would banning all wood burning stoves and 4x4s help those who don’t live in the city? In the city where there is no need, perhaps, but a blanket ban just wouldn’t work.
we aren’t all on a main road and have a gas line you know!

You guys are heroes.

The comments in this post are making me weep for the future.

I can think of someone who tried not to attend. It did not go down well

Whether you mean someone known personally or some sort of leader I believe you completely, Marsha - once one breaks ranks it shines a light on everyone else's lack of thought and that'll never go down well

We need less people. It’s the only thing that will slow down the environmental damage for any hope that our species can survive.

Tbh I can’t even get wound up about the protestors having an effect on my life, they don’t. They are all based down South, I get that’s where the MP’s are but it makes it seem even more like a middle class get together.

The hippies I do know and have taken part in fracking protests, all use either alcohol or drugs and can’t string a sentence together unless it’s about Aliens. I love them but we need some better protestors up North. Not that it’s going to do anything because as I mentioned in my first sentence, we need less people.

I was being a bit vague ; but Rishi got so much flack - from climate activists and the opposition parties - until he said ok

I don't think your methods are working. Yes, when you close a motorway people are talking about you and you get a platform to talk about the issues, but you are too easy to demonise and therefore ignore. Now commentators have started saying how concerned they are about some young activists' mental health because holier than thou speeches, angry ranting or getting tearful in radio interviews is just not coming across well.

You need to work out how you can be the sort of people that powerful people want to emulate and align themselves with. Small example: DEPHER is a social enterprise that does useful, constructive work to help people in poverty. OK it's not about the climate emergency but it shows how you can get people's attention by constructive, useful means and take people with you. When James Anderson talks about poverty people listen. He has famous, wealthy supporters, nobody's demonising him, they want to be seen with him. If he was just glueing himself to old people's front doors and crying into a camera he would have absolutely no effect. DEPHER is a small community group based in the north of England but they have 80k followers on Twitter. JSO has 88k followers.

I just think ER and JSO's methods are very old hat. I respect useful people and I am very happy to support them and I think many others feel the same.

It's not a proposal, I think it's an overreach of control and would never support that kind of regulation of our choices.

It's just that I think the only thing that can have any impact whatsoever on manmade impact on climate change is ... well, less man.

I.e. fewer people. But populations are growing, so I wonder what the point in much of this is, especially sitting in a road. I've yet to hear from OP what impact that is supposed to have and I know full well that's because she herself has no idea.

So we need more protestors up North so they can do nothing?

I find the arguments that direct action is "necessary" because political action "doesn't work" rather weak.

The only reason political action doesn't work is that activists are not able to convince the majority of people to vote for parties that support their aims. Leaving aside the point that disruptive action puts people off supporting groups like XR, IB or JST, why are the organisers of these groups so incapable of persuading the public through peaceful, polite dialogue?

The biggest reason is surely that they know they don't have the answers themselves - they think something is wrong but don't have the practical answers as to how to solve things.

It's not good enough to demand change if you can't explain how that change should come about.

Just Stop Oil are basically the same as the English Defence League and other similar groups. They have an end aim but no idea as to how to get there, in practical terms, in a way that "normal" people can get on board with. Therefore the public just think of them as troublemaking idiots.

While I agree that in an ideal world we would take care of the planet and change our ways to save species etc but in reality that's not how humans work in general. I think the crisis will become horrific with major changes in climate, loads of animals and plants will be wiped out eventually and our ability to live will be hindered. Eventually, this will make us have to advance technology further to enable us to live but some parts of nature on this planet will be home forever. As always, it'll be the rich that live in comfort while the poor will live with the bad effects of ecological breakdown. There'll be a lot of migration worldwide away from places that become inhospitable and probably war. I think it's unavoidable ad its just the way it is. Unless the masses can do something, as it always comes down to the neverending problem of the ones at the top benefitting while the rest suffer.

The problem with action on climate is that most people (I'm including myself here!) are not willing to be inconvenienced in any way, not by protests, not by lifestyle changes that would make things better, and greatly resent any suggestion that they should accept personal inconvenience or discomfort for a greater purpose. Most of the responses in this thread are a great example of that mindset. We want to live our lives exactly as we are used to living them, and to occasionally make ourselves feel virtuous by giving up small things we didn't care about anyway and don't make a real difference, such as plastic drinking straws.

Any kind of climate action that would truly make a difference would require all of us, especially in the West, to change our lives to an unacceptable degree. No politician will commit to decisions to make this happen because they would be hugely unpopular. The comparison with suffrage protests etc doesn't work because giving women the right to vote didn't require everyone to downgrade their lifestyle to accommodate that.

Rishi got so much flack - from climate activists and the opposition parties - until he said ok

Makes perfect sense, Marsha; I've been in the US for weeks and had missed this if it was recent?

As said, if one highlights the fact that travelling to these jollies isn't really necessary that spoils things for others - and I wouldn't expect the "others" to appreciate that, any more than those with multiple children appreciate it being pointed out that often folk don't "discover" climate issues until after they've had them

I think you are correct about their being too many people for continued growth to be sustainable @glowtorch . However as I have said a couple of times now, low birth rate will not fix population and overcrowding in the UK as we already have a low birth rate and an ageing population. The birth rate is not the issue. So a one child policy would not work here and may actually cause a problem as there would not be enough working aged people here to keep the country going. If we were to do it, we would have to make up for the shortfall somehow; probably by increasing immigration.

I don't think it is a good idea. It was you who suggested it!

Superb post - I wish I could write like that

Also, population size alone is not the problem. Already said, but a large family in parts of Africa for example has a smaller carbon footprint than a single, childless westerner (statistically). So there is more to it. But population is an issue

Do it in stages. Ban all wood-burning stoves where houses also have gas and electric - could do that immediately.
In twelve months ban them for all houses that have close access to gas and electric suppliers.
Two years ban them for all who have houses with electricity.

Two years gives you enough time to sort out an alternative. Any house that does not have electricity is likely to be very remote and it is such a tiny number of houses it does not matter/

I see two narratives in this thread:

We are years away from a disaster

We are decades away from the impact from any measures

See the problem?

Of course the media and politicians with vested interests influenced the decision on Brexit, but what makes you think that those individuals won't be equally invested in influencing decisions on climate change? Ordinary citizens with jobs and lives to worry about don't typically have the time to immerse themselves in the research and evidence to the extent that they have a detailed understanding of the issues that will enable them to cut through the lies and propaganda promoted by politicians and the media. That's what our elected representatives are paid to do, and we should be pushing them to fulfil this responsibility properly.

I don't understand how a CA would be fairer or more representative. How would its members be appointed? What qualifications would they need? How much time would they have to give? Would they be compensated for this time? How would they be accountable to rest of us?

As for the votes that you propose, we need Parliament to legislate on these issues. A CA vote is meaningless withoutthe legislation to back it up. Also, are we even confident that a representative majority of the population would vote in favour of the changes that we are going to need to make? I'm not convinced that they would tbh. Banning private jets is an easy sell because it will never affect most of us. But would most people support a ban on the meat and dairy industries, I wonder? A one-child policy? Limits on flying? If the majority of people were really committed to making these tough decisions, wouldn't that be reflected in the politicians that they elected to govern us?

I think most people are burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it will go away to be honest. Most will readily agree to taxes on the rich, on big companies etc, but when it comes to making real changes in their own lives...I don't think the majority of people have accepted this yet and I don't think a CA would vote for anything really radical that would impact in any major way on their own lives. Everyone is looking for someone else to fix the problem/foot the bill. That's why the politicians are scared of taking action. I can't see how a CA would change that, personally.

The climate emergency is now. The impact is now. It will get worse.

Well said.