XR

[SmiledWtherisingsun]

Urrrgh! Completely agree we need to take action. But all this serves to do is piss people off. Honestly!

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CeoxK4wsGYZ/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

@SmiledWtherisingsun - it is disruptive but it's a fraction of the disruption that will be caused if we don't act to stop the worst effects of climate change.
It's also an act of desperation. We've known about climate change for decades (certainly since I was in school in late 80s/early 90s) and collectively We've not heeded the warnings. Increases in fires, floods, breaking temperature records and the real worst effects (sea levels, famine from crop failures, geopolitical insecurity are closer than we think).
If you're an individual worried about this and the general inaction going over decades (and the size and strength of the business interests that have engineered this inertia) would it be wise or rational to expect that a vote every 5 years or a petition or a strongly worded letter to you local politician will do the trick?
Maybe non-violent but disruptive protests at major events are the only way to make yourself heard and keep the pressure on....

Agreed that we need to do loads more about climate change. But I don't think these types of actions do any more than annoy most people & make them think XR are dicks.

What @Yeahreally said. I’m grateful to those who are willing to disrupt and risk their personal liberty in order to ensure that the necessary action is taken.

But that's my point, they are not going to do that by holding up a football match 🙈

The non violent protest tactics are proven to work. That’s why XR use them. Most protests are marches or actions are indirect!

Well, when our climate fully disintegrates and we are all scrabbling around bartering for the last shrivelled-up onion, we will all say 'at least we were cross with Extinction Rebellion for interrupting our football'.

Yep, in all seriousness though, a lot of people don’t realise the extent to which climate change puts our food supply under threat of disruption.

Tedious.
Have repeatedly said I agree that we need to change things.
I just don't think support is gained through flashing one's tits at the football 🤷🏻‍♀️

How are we measuring "work" exactly?

Work = achieving what movements set out to do.

For example nonviolent action was effective to bring peace in the: Balkan conflict

and Ghandi used it to end British rule in India.

It helped bring about the Rose revolution in Georgia and regime change in a number of other places.

i would imagine success for XR would be for the UK government to commit to net zero targets aligned with what science, says is needed to stop catastrophic warming. Policies that protect and restore biodiversity. Citizen’s assemblies - a more participation heavy form of democracy than is practised currently. All sounding more achievable than overthrowing governments!

XR is using civil disobedience.

They don't believe in violence.

They believe in truth.

They want to bring attention via the media to climate change. Which will be about a million times worse than interrupting a football game, believe me.

@GrowlingManchego let's hope so! Problem is it's worldwide action that's needed though isn't it? Not just our gov who need persuading.

Yes yes. But not really answering the question about, if holding up a football match, commuter train etc is actually achieving anything though 🤷‍♀️

@JasmineVioletRose - I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a direct positive outcome that can be linked to one disruptive action at a North American soccer game.
These actions are about keeping conversations going and keeping the issue (i.e. climate change) in the spotlight. The fact that we have a thread on MN discussing this shows that his has achieved this to some degree. Thousands of people will have watched that game do I doubt this thread is the only consequential discussion taking place.

Remember: it's not hyperbole to say that climate change is an inconvenient truth for some of the richest and most powerful interests in the world (fossil fuel industry for one) and for decades they've succeeded in limiting/burying the conversation for long periods. As an individual, regular civilian this is one of the few things you can do that is in your power to fight back.

Or there was other strategies at play, and those were just covers or people assumed x, was due to them

Like Romans having gladiator battles to increase favour with the gods for rain, then it rained and they presumed it was due to the gladiator battles.

P.s by "direct positive outcome" I meant a major one (e.g. a national policy change). That's never going to happen because of one disruptive action at a soccer game and the protester(s) at this event will not be so naive as to think otherwise

@Hawkins001 - taking your metaphor - if it "started raining", I don't think XR/CC protesters will mind whether or not it can be proven that their own disruptive actions brought about the desired action. They just want meaningful action that reflects the severity of the crisis.

True, but it then gives them false sense of their activities achieving their results, when instead they may need different approaches

@Hawkins001 - ah, I see your point and it's a fair point to raise and you're right that it shouldn't be the only strategy. As far as I know, I don't think disruptive actions are the only strategy: people in my local XR group are involved in these other approaches (e.g writing columns in local newspapers, meetin the local government pension scheme regularly to encourage divestmentinfossil fuels etc).
And that's before you look even further beyond XR at other organisations (WWF, Greenpeace, the Green Party) who are part of the same fight but on different fronts many of whom have actually been doing it longer).

That makes more sense, and hopefully better outcomes, although I think (I could be wrong) that it will be big technology industries and institutions like darpa, etc, that will be the main ones overall to save the planet.

The main action that would save us is keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Nothing I have read leads me to believe that we can carry on as usual, relying on tech to get us out of the shit.

That's the thing, if climate change is also part natural event, then even if we all stopped industry etc, we would be just slowing the process down more, so other than that, it seems better technology is the future.

How is going back to the stone age of technology suddenly going to save the planet ?

@Hawkins001 - I've not heard/read anyone advocating that approach.
I think the last post by @GrowlingManchego is a valid one and is more consistent with the views of the overwhelming majority of credible climate scientists. We need to be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels at a much faster and:
A) investing and deploying more of the alternative technologies for generating power (e.g in UK, unblock the current restrictions on onshore wi expansion) rather than rush to issue new licences for North Sea exploration. Interestingly, onshore both cheaper and quicker (takes only one year before it feeds into the grid) so as per my earlier post, it's difficult not to think that there are bigger forces at play around our current policy
B) become more energy efficient (which in some cases also helps ameliorate the cost of living crisis).

How are either of these approaches advocating cave-dwelling?
Ironically, argue that your approach of doing nothing and waiting for big tech to save us is more in keeping with the non-scientific thinking of our cave-dwelling ancestors.