Extinction Rebellion Ireland

Grayson · 25-04-2019 1:44pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Climate fear porn with religious overtones and hatred of the unbeliever heathens. All religions/cult use fear as their main lever, fear of death, sinning and sinners mainly. Extinction rebellion operates just like a religion, it even has its own prophets such as Miss Trunburg who repeat the simple slogans of the religion /cult. Most religions/cults are also are extremely patronising and dogmatic, just like extinction rebellion.

There is something to be afraid of! Climate change is real. 98% of scientists agree with that statement. They also agree that it's getting worse and that humans are to blame.

Of course you can't actually argue the evidence because the evidence is overwhelming in both quantity and quality. So you keep launching attacks on the people who are campaigning. A quick scan of your posts in this thread and I can't find a single post that's actually arguing with any evidence and nearly all involve name calling or attacks on the campaigners.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 2:10pm

Grayson wrote: »

The other analogy people use is the frog in the boiling water analogy. It's said that if you put a frog into hot water it will jump out. If you put it in cold water and raise the temp slowly, it won't because it doesn't realise what's happening.

The analogy is actually incorrect because frogs don't act like that. However the logic behind it is real. When it comes to risk humans are very bad at analysing risk in the future. For most people the natural reaction is to wait until something has to be done. People will go for short term gain over long term.

That's one of the reasons it's so hard to get people mobilised over climate change. The worst of it is in the future and it's years away. The problem is that we should have started acting years ago. We are already behind schedule. All we can do at this point is limit the damage and we can't do that.

So yes, we should act as if the house is on fire. The whole place isn't ablaze right now. We have time to stop it from getting worse but we have to do something right now.

Heres another analogy- you might like

https://spectator.us/greta-thunberg-modern-day-cassandra/

Grayson · 25-04-2019 2:23pm

gozunda wrote: »

Heres another analogy- you might like

https://spectator.us/greta-thunberg-modern-day-cassandra/

That article is just someone bitching about Emma Thompson. There's literally zero evidence about climate change or its effects. Literally nothing at all. It's just an attack on an actress.

It even has a lie where it states that Greta's said the world will end in 2-3 years. She hasn't.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 2:25pm

Grayson wrote: »

There is something to be afraid of! Climate change is real. 98% of scientists agree with that statement. They also agree that it's getting worse and that humans are to blame.
Of course you can't actually argue the evidence because the evidence is overwhelming in both quantity and quality. So you keep launching attacks on the people who are campaigning. A quick scan of your posts in this thread and I can't find a single post that's actually arguing with any evidence and nearly all involve name calling or attacks on the campaigners.

The thing is we are discussing extinction rebellion - which no matter how many times people conflate the two - it is not even remotely the same thing as peer reviewed scientific climate research.

It is perfectly valid to hold this movement up to scrutiny - they are ones claiming the world is about to end (12 years to save earth!" and that they want zero emissions in 10 years or whatever. That the movement is associated with a bunch of celebrity podium alarmists is also been held up to scrutiny.

That any and all scrutiny or criticism is held as attack is very telling. Are others not allowed to comment on this movement for some reason? Or does freedom of expression only work for select groups? That's a conundrum I can't figure out tbh.

WinnyThePoo · 25-04-2019 2:27pm

Grayson wrote: »

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Climate fear porn with religious overtones and hatred of the unbeliever heathens. All religions/cult use fear as their main lever, fear of death, sinning and sinners mainly. Extinction rebellion operates just like a religion, it even has its own prophets such as Miss Trunburg who repeat the simple slogans of the religion /cult. Most religions/cults are also are extremely patronising and dogmatic, just like extinction rebellion.

There is something to be afraid of! Climate change is real. 98% of scientists agree with that statement. They also agree that it's getting worse and that humans are to blame.

Of course you can't actually argue the evidence because the evidence is overwhelming in both quantity and quality. So you keep launching attacks on the people who are campaigning. A quick scan of your posts in this thread and I can't find a single post that's actually arguing with any evidence and nearly all involve name calling or attacks on the campaigners.

Also the let's do absolutely nothing crowd.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 2:31pm

Grayson wrote: »

That article is just someone bitching about Emma Thompson. There's literally zero evidence about climate change or its effects. Literally nothing at all. It's just an attack on an actress. It even has a lie where it states that Greta's said the world will end in 2-3 years. She hasn't.

It's an analogy of Ms Thungberg as Cassanda - and a person who prophesies doom and disaster. Its also a parody with an underlying message and I really don't believe I have to point that out.

Yeah and the writer does highlight Ms Thompson as a hypocrite etc and as detailed elsewhere by flying first class around the world to demonstrate at a protest calling for zero emissions and air travel to be banned. You couldn't make it up.

Grayson · 25-04-2019 2:35pm

gozunda wrote: »

The thing is we are discussing extinction rebellion - which no matter how many times people confate the two - it is not even remotely the same thing as peer reviewed scientific climate research.

It is perfectly valid to hold this movement up to scrutiny - they are ones claiming the world is about to end and that they want zero emissions in 10 years or whatever. That the movement is associated with a bunch of celebrity podium alarmists is also been held up to scrutiny.

That any and all scrutiny or criticism is held as attack is very telling. Are others not allowed to comment on this movement for some reason? Or does freedom of expression only work for select groups? That's a conundrum I can't figure out tbh.

They are protesting because the scientific consensus is that we need to so something and the government isn't doing anything. They are basing it on peer reviewed science. over 40,000 peer reviewed articles over the decades that agree with the IPCC's findings that climate change is real, it's getting worse, and it's man made.

They're not making the science up. It's not like they just turned up for a protest having heard nothing about climate change. The science is in. There's a consensus. It's real. They are saying that we need to do something about it.

Sure, workaway and scrutinise the movement, but that's not what's happening. It's a load of attacks and name calling. No-one has actually shown that climate change is not something we should be trying to stop. No-one has shown that climate change isn't bad or that it's not happening or that it's not man made.

As I said, the science is overwhelming in both quantity and quality. Climate change is a fact. It is something governments around the world need to take action on. campaigning/protesting for that isn't wrong and I haven't seen anyone here with any argument to show that it is.

It's all just name calling and personal attack with occasional whatabouttery.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 2:44pm

Grayson wrote: »

They are protesting because the scientific consensus is that we need to so something and the government isn't doing anything. They are basing it on peer reviewed science. over 40,000 peer reviewed articles over the decades that agree with the IPCC's findings that climate change is real, it's getting worse, and it's man made. They're not making the science up. It's not like they just turned up for a protest having heard nothing about climate change. The science is in. There's a consensus. It's real.* They are saying that we need to do something about it. Sure, workaway and scrutinise the movement, but that's not what's happening. It's a load of attacks and name calling. No-one has actually shown that climate change is not something we should be trying to stop. No-one has shown that climate change isn't bad or that it's not happening or that it's not man made. As I said, the science is overwhelming in both quantity and quality. Climate change is a fact. It is something governments around the world need to take action on. campaigning/protesting for that isn't wrong and I haven't seen anyone here with any argument to show that it is. It's all just name calling and personal attack with occasional whatabouttery.

So they are basing their claims that the world is to end shortly (12 years to save earth!) and calling for zero emissions in the next 10 years from which scientist now?

You can try and shut down opinion and counter opion all you like by making accusations and conflating the claims that this lot are making and actual scientific peer reviewed research. It doesn't wash.

Yeah criticism may sometimes not be nice but if you have an issue with any one post then report it - but dont pretend that telling others they shouldn't comment is anything but an attempt to shut down scrutiny and criticism of this movement and their figure heads.

Edit: "There's a consensus. It's real" - really?

There us NO such consensus as you are trying to claim - the truth is

As much as climate scientists see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, they do not agree on an imminent point of no return.The (IPCC) panel “did not say we have 12 years left to save the world.”...

“The hotter it gets, the worse it gets, but there is no cliff edge.”..

“This has been a persistent source of confusion,” agreed Kristie L. Ebi, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington in Seattle. “The report never said we only have 12 years left.”

https://www.apnews.com/fe7c9d4a9f8f458c827677d31230f594

Grayson · 25-04-2019 3:22pm

gozunda wrote: »

They are basing their claims that the world is to end shortly and calling for zero emissions in the next 10 years from which scientist now?

You can try and shut down opinion and counter opion all you like by making accusations and conflating the claims that this lot are making and actual scientific peer reviewed research. It doesn't wash.

Yeah criticism may sometimes not be nice but if you have an issue with any one post then report it - but dont pretend that telling others they shouldn't comment is anything but an attempt to shut down scrutiny and criticism of this movement and their figure heads.

Where do they say the world is going to end? And what do you mean by shortly?

I haven't told anyone that they shouldn't comment or can't comment. Point out where I did. I'm saying their comments are nothing but personal attacks and name calling. I'm saying that the comments don't actually provide any argument against climate change.

And once again, you haven't actually provided any argument against the claims that XR are making. rather you decided to claim that i was telling people they're not allowed comment.

BTW, the IPCC said in 2018 that we needed to reduce emissions significantly within 12 years to limit global warming to 1.5c. I assume that what you mean by 10 years

Here's a link to the report
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

91 authors from 44 citizenships and 40 countries of residence
– 14 Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs)
– 60 Lead authors (LAs)
– 17 Review Editors (REs)

133 Contributing authors (CAs)
Over 6,000 cited references
A total of 42,001 expert and government review comments

and here's a link to XR's site

https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/the-emergency/

You'll notice they provide loads of studies to back up what they're saying. Which is more than their critics do.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 4:08pm

Grayson wrote: »

Where do they say the world is going to end? And what do you mean by shortly?

It's all over the official banded xr banners declaring "12 years to save Earth" "There is no Planet B" This is the type of doomsday / end of world ****e I'm talking about

Grayson wrote: »

I haven't told anyone that they shouldn't comment or can't comment. Point out where I did. I'm saying their comments are nothing but personal attacks and name calling. I'm saying that the comments don't actually provide any argument against climate change. And once again, you haven't actually provided any argument against the claims that XR are making. rather you decided to claim that i was telling people they're not allowed comment.

You quite clearly called out and had a go at a poster for voicing their opinion and being critical of the movement. People are entitled to their opinion whether anyone likes it or not. End of story. When you say ""I'm saying that the comments don't actually provide any argument against climate change". please note that such scrutiny and / or criticism does not require that others need or have to "provide any argument against climate change." or justify themselves at your demand. The majority of posters imo are making comments on the movement not regarding specific scientific reports etc.

Grayson wrote: »

BTW, the IPCC said in 2018 that we needed to reduce emissions significantly within 12 years to limit global warming to 1.5c. I assume that what you mean by 10 years

The xr movement here have stated they want emissions reduced to zero by 2030 - so yeah 10 years approx. Interestingly you yourself point out that the IPCC do NOT call for zero emissions. They are calling for 'reduced emissions". Yet another example how the movement are presenting their own views on climate change and not that of peer reviewed science.

Yeah I'm aware of the bs on their website. I've also listened to a bunch of speeches and no I am not a converted to the deranged doomsday scenarios or demands. Thanks all the same.

Grayson · 25-04-2019 4:35pm

gozunda wrote: »

It's all over the official banded xr banners declaring [i-]"12 years to save Earth"[/i] "There is no Planet B" This is the type of doomsday / end of world ****e I'm talking about

You quite clearly called out and had a go at a poster for voicing their opinion and being critical of the movement. People are entitled to their opinion whether anyone likes it or not. End of story. When you say ""I'm saying that the comments don't actually provide any argument against climate change.- please note that such scrutiny and / or criticism does not require that others need or have to "provide any argument against climate change." or justify themselves at your demand. The majority of posters imo are making comments on the movement not regarding specific scientific reports etc.

The xr movement here have stated they want emissions reduced to zero by 2030 - so yeah 10 years approx. Interestingly you yourself point out that the IPCC do NOT call for zero emissions. They are calling for 'reduced emissions". Yet another example how the movement are presenting their own views on climate change and not that of peer reviewed science.

Yeah I'm aware of the bs on their website. I've also listened to a bunch of speeches and no I am not a converted to the deranged doomsday scenarios or demands. Thanks all the same.

So what you're saying is that they never said the end of the world, they never said shortly and that i never told anyone that they couldn't post. Just to be clear, you're admitting that all of your statements regarding those topics were incorrect.

BTW, XR have said that their target is closer than the IPCC and that's the only point they differ on. The reason it's closer is to give time to get it done. The fact is that most countries have missed previous targets. So by making them more stringent, if they're missed it won't be as bad. And if that's the only thing you've got on them, your argument is weak. BEcause you're saying that the IPCC is 100% right.

The reason XR are protesting is the IPCC report. That's the backbone of the protest. If you want to say they're wrong for protesting, then you'd better tackle the report.

Dakota Dan · 25-04-2019 4:53pm

Real Jazz Book wrote: »

I never said that. I do cycle to work though yes and have never owned a car.
How can wanton environmental exploitation and capitalism lead to anything but disaster? I'm all ears.

What disaster are you expecting to happen?

gozunda · 25-04-2019 5:02pm

Grayson wrote: »

So what you're saying is that they never said the end of the world, they never said shortly and that i never told anyone that they couldn't post. Just to be clear, you're admitting that all of your statements regarding those topics were incorrect. BTW, XR have said that their target is closer than the IPCC and that's the only point they differ on. The reason it's closer is to give time to get it done. The fact is that most countries have missed previous targets. So by making them more stringent, if they're missed it won't be as bad. And if that's the only thing you've got on them, your argument is weak. BEcause you're saying that the IPCC is 100% right. The reason XR are protesting is the IPCC report. That's the backbone of the protest. If you want to say they're wrong for protesting, then you'd better tackle the report*.

Lol - If you wish to engage in pedantism and self righteousness - then be my guest. The rest is mealy mouthed rubbish. Thanks.

Delighted that xr now knows better than the IPCC.:rolleyes:

It remains extermination rebellion are a bunch of doom merchants getting off on disruption and waving apocalyptic flags. Ohhh "only 12 years to save earth"

Not the first bunch to try that doomsday / 'end of the world' ****e

Thankfully I prefer to stick to the wording of peer reviewed research myself.

The fact that you are relatively newly arrived into this discussion and are strangely dictating who should post what* - is most enlightening btw. I also note you didnt bother replying when it was pointed out that contrary to what you claimed - the Arab spring was NOT reported to have definitely been "caused by crops failing due to climate change. Also interesting you have moved from having a go at the other poster to me now :pac:

Not going to engage with that type rubbish. Thanks all the same.

WinnyThePoo · 25-04-2019 5:53pm

Gozunda... I was just speaking to Gretna. She's delighted your engaging in climate change. She's delighted your so emotional about the subject. Your the exact person she is doing this for. So she's delighted to represent you going forward, we all are , including her parents. Nice people by the way.

The best thing, the best thing is you get to do what you've passionately talking about all thread. Sit on your hands and do absolutely nothing. Wow Hero. She's gonna want you up on stage. Imagine.. You and her on stage.. Her on the microphone and you sitting on your hands doing absolutely nothing. The crowd would go wild. You guys could headline Glastonbury.

We are on your side buddy. We won't stop.. Because we know you won't. That inspires.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 6:44pm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Gozunda... I was just speaking to Gretna. She's delighted your engaging in climate change. She's delighted your so emotional about the subject. Your the exact person she is doing this for. So she's delighted to represent you going forward, we all are , including her parents. Nice people by the way. The best thing, the best thing is you get to do what you've passionately talking about all thread. Sit on your hands and do absolutely nothing. Wow Hero. She's gonna want you up on stage. Imagine.. You and her on stage.. Her on the microphone and you sitting on your hands doing absolutely nothing. The crowd would go wild. You guys could headline Glastonbury.
We are on your side buddy. We won't stop.. Because we know you won't. That inspires.

Lol fairy stories and hyperbole were obviously your favourite subjects in school

. Logic or comprehension not so much. No worries though

I just love that some believe that screaming about doomsday scenarios and waving flags is 'doing something' lol.

I'll stick with the the science thanks

Here's an intersting article from the relevant lead author of the IPCC 2018 Special Report on Global Warming.

Why Protesters Should be Wary of ’12 Years to Climate Breakdown’ Rhetoric...

Where he explains just how protestors are getting the science wrong. No surprise there.

please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

See:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-04-23/why-protesters-should-be-wary-of-12-years-to-climate-breakdown-rhetoric/

You're welcome

WinnyThePoo · 25-04-2019 6:58pm

Ill happily agree with experts.

You go sit on your hands and do absolutely nothing. Like you've passionately preached all thread.

The Scientist aren't on your side. I'm afraid to say. They never were will.

Your on your own with the 10 minute YouTube videos.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 7:14pm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Ill happily agree with experts.You go sit on your hands and do absolutely nothing. Like you've passionately preached all thread. The Scientist aren't on your side. I'm afraid to say. They never were will.
Your on your own with the 10 minute YouTube videos.

Now do try and stick with the script. As you yourself clearly detailed you agree with the screamers of this movement. I note whenever supporters of this lot and similar start losing an argument - it usually gets personal and all kind of psychic assumptions are thrown about such that posters "are sitting on their hands do(ing) absolutely nothing" (sic). Btw I dont have a 'side'. And more importantly extinction rebellion has absolutely nothing to do with the 'scientists'.

What any poster is doing or not doing (and to be fair you've no idea) - is irrelevant to this discussion and the fact that this lot bear as much relevance to the science of climate change as say Leitrim does to growing Bananas .

AllForIt · 25-04-2019 8:15pm

There is something odd about these activists. No one wants the planet destroyed so what is it about those ppl that makes them so passionate? It seems to me that they are more motivated to go after people/business/politicians than they are conferenced about saving the planet. They are rather like Christian fundamentalists who go after people knowing full well that standing outside abortion clinics with placards isn't going to make any difference but they do it anyway in an attempt to show how good they are and how bad everyone else is. There is a kind of nastyness about them that I don't like.

Dakota Dan · 25-04-2019 8:45pm

Grayson wrote: »

That article is just someone bitching about Emma Thompson. There's literally zero evidence about climate change or its effects. Literally nothing at all. It's just an attack on an actress.

It even has a lie where it states that Greta's said the world will end in 2-3 years. She hasn't.

Do you believe that Greta Thunberg started the children’s climate protests all on her lonesome?

Harika · 25-04-2019 9:09pm

AllForIt wrote: »

There is something odd about these activists. No one wants the planet destroyed so what is it about those ppl that makes them so passionate? ke.

There is a old joke. Two planets meet, one says "you look bad, what is going on?" the planet answers "I have Homo sapiens", the first replies "don't worry they go away on their own"
While no one wants the planet destroyed, what humans are not capable to do anyway, the living circumstances are getting worse and will cause troubles for us humans. Here the sides clash, one thinks that is true, the other one denies it.
Back to the planet, earth has one billion years to go, before the sun gets too hot, for life here. Enough time to recover from us humans and let the ants rule the world.

gozunda · 25-04-2019 10:00pm

Harika wrote: »

There is a old joke. Two planets meet, one says "you look bad, what is going on?" the planet answers "I have Homo sapiens", the first replies "don't worry they go away on their own"
While no one wants the planet destroyed, what humans are not capable to do anyway, the living circumstances are getting worse and will cause troubles for us humans. Here the sides clash, one thinks that is true, the other one denies it.
Back to the planet, earth has one billion years to go, before the sun gets too hot, for life here. Enough time to recover from us humans and let the ants rule the world.

Or an alternative story as told by Douglas Adams.

In his series Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - where on a planet called Golgafrincham - located somewhere in far off space - a variety of reasons were thought up about the doom of the planet, such as blowing up, crashing into the sun or being eaten by a mutant star goat.

A ship designated 'B' was then filled with all the middlemen of Golgafrincham, such as the telephone sanitisers, account executives, hairdressers, tired TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public relations executives, and management consultants.

A separate group of ark Fleet ships A and C were supposed to carry the people who ruled, thought, or actually did useful work.These ships were of course fictional and only served as a backup of the story to get rid of the those who were less than useful.

The B ship was programmed to crash onto its designated planet, Earth. Where the survivors begin running the planet in accordance with their previous useless ways. The protagonists who had ended up on the ship - Arthur and Ford agree that this explains a lot about later Earth inhabitants...

gozunda · 26-04-2019 9:05am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Niv_rMtT7U

What extinction rebellion is telling us is pure fantasy and ... scaremongering

Jimmy Garlic · 26-04-2019 9:26am

AllForIt wrote: »

There is something odd about these activists. No one wants the planet destroyed so what is it about those ppl that makes them so passionate? It seems to me that they are more motivated to go after people/business/politicians than they are conferenced about saving the planet. They are rather like Christian fundamentalists who go after people knowing full well that standing outside abortion clinics with placards isn't going to make any difference but they do it anyway in an attempt to show how good they are and how bad everyone else is. There is a kind of nastyness about them that I don't like.

Watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside Good old fashioned communists really who use a veneer of "green" to throw people off and divert attention from their core ideology. After the fall of the iron curtain European communism rebranded itself. The desire to micromanage people's lives , order society into regimented lines and $hit all over free enterprise and every freedom imaginable is the same as it ever was. Austerity for everyone except the commisars.

s7ryf3925pivug · 26-04-2019 11:10am

It's not about saving the planet. The planet will still be here no matter what we do. It's about not making it into a place where our kids would struggle to survive.

26-04-2019 11:14am

Daxton Scrawny Plow wrote: »

It's not about saving the planet. The planet will still be here no matter what we do. It's about not making it into a place where our kids would struggle to survive.

people have always struggled to survive

life's become exponentially easier and softer the past few centuries in the western world (probably, relatively speaking, most places) and is each generation any happier or struggling less?

s7ryf3925pivug · 26-04-2019 11:18am

Deleted User wrote: »

people have always struggled to survive

life's become exponentially easier and softer the past few centuries in the western world (probably, relatively speaking, most places) and is each generation any happier or struggling less?

of course they are.

100 years ago I would be a cripple, my kid would be dead, my wife dead. Advances in knowledge and technology.

Bizarre and melodramatic suggestion.

Jimmy Garlic · 26-04-2019 11:57am

Daxton Scrawny Plow wrote: »

It's not about saving the planet. The planet will still be here no matter what we do. It's about not making it into a place where our kids would struggle to survive.

Climate change fanatics such as those involved with Extinction Rebellion think there are too many people on the planet. What does it matter if kids struggle to survive?

s7ryf3925pivug · 26-04-2019 12:03pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Climate change fanatics such as those involved with Extinction Rebellion think there are too many people on the planet. What does it matter if kids struggle to survive?

They're right. Having a kid results in an average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year.

You're equating advocating having fewer children with killing people. More melodramatic nonsense.

Grayson · 26-04-2019 12:08pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside Good old fashioned communists really who use a veneer of "green" to throw people off and divert attention from their core ideology. After the fall of the iron curtain European communism rebranded itself. The desire to micromanage people's lives , order society into regimented lines and $hit all over free enterprise and every freedom imaginable is the same as it ever was. Austerity for everyone except the commisars.

So you're saying that climate change is a conspiracy by communists to take over?

You do realise how stupid that sounds?

Grayson · 26-04-2019 12:14pm

gozunda wrote: »

Lol fairy stories and hyperbole were obviously your favourite subjects in school . Logic or comprehension not so much. No worries though

I just love that some believe that screaming about doomsday scenarios and waving flags is 'doing something' lol.

I'll stick with the the science thanks

Here's an intersting article from the relevant lead author of the IPCC 2018 Special Report on Global Warming.

Where he explains just how protestors are getting the science wrong. No surprise there.

See:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-04-23/why-protesters-should-be-wary-of-12-years-to-climate-breakdown-rhetoric/

You're welcome

Did you read that article?

What about the other interpretation of the IPCC’s 12 years: that we have 12 years to act? What our report said was, in scenarios with a one-in-two to two-in-three chance of keeping global warming below 1.5°C, emissions are reduced to around half their present level by 2030. That doesn’t mean we have 12 years to act: it means we have to act now, and even if we do, success is not guaranteed.

And if we don’t halve emissions by 2030, will we have lost the battle and just have to hunker down and survive? Of course not. The IPCC is clear that, even reducing emissions as fast as possible, we can barely keep temperatures below 1.5°C. So every year that goes by in which we aren’t reducing emissions is another 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ that we are expecting today’s teenagers to clean back out of the atmosphere in order to preserve warm water corals or Arctic ice.

Assuming people will still want to feed themselves and not turn the world over to biofuels, then scrubbing CO₂ out of the atmosphere currently costs £150-£500 per tonne, plus the cost of permanent disposal. So those 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ represent a clean-up liability accumulating at a cool £8 trillion per year, which is more or less what the world currently spends on energy.

So here is a conversation young activists could have with their parents: first work out what the parents’ CO₂ emissions were last year (there are various carbon calculators online – and the average is about seven tonnes of fossil CO₂ per person in Europe). Then multiply by £200 per tonne of CO₂, and suggest the parents pop that amount into a trust fund in case their kids have to clean up after them in the 2040s.

If the parents reply, “don’t worry, dear, that’s what we pay taxes for”, youngsters should ask them who they voted for in the last election and whether spending their taxes on solving climate change featured prominently in that party’s manifesto.

Get angry by all means, but get angry for the right reasons. Action is long overdue, but to a British public sunbathing in February, weird though that was, it doesn’t feel like an emergency. Middle-aged critics would much rather quibble over the scale of climate impacts (as if they have any right to say what climate young people should have to put up with) than talk about the clean-up bill.

Climate change is not so much an emergency as a festering injustice. Your ancestors did not end slavery by declaring an emergency and dreaming up artificial boundaries on “tolerable” slave numbers. They called it out for what it was: a spectacularly profitable industry, the basis of much prosperity at the time, founded on a fundamental injustice. It’s time to do the same on climate change.

He's saying that protest is right. He's saying that we have to act right now.

Extinction Rebellion Ireland

Comments