Extinction Rebellion

Posted on
Page
of 43
First Prev
/ 43
  • From outside the echo-chamber: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/an-e­nvironmentalist-s-apology-i-am-guilty-of­-alarmism-

    (while promoting his new book obvs)

  • third question related to a 2017 internal report from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) which said the institute, which represents the nuclear energy industry, had “engaged third parties to engage with media through interviews and op-eds” and named “environmentalist Michael Shellenberger” as one of those it had engaged.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/­2020/jul/04/the-environmentalists-apolog­y-how-michael-shellenberger-unsettled-so­me-of-his-prominent-supporters

  • Glad to see XR have rowed back on their "it's cool to be arrested" stance.

  • ^^ I'm less vexed with those sorts of ties, as I'm not against nuclear on principle and it's hard to work out which is the chicken and the egg in that relationship.

    Haven't read his book, but I'll put a fiver on it containing all sort of nuanced points underpinned by the overarching need to reduce climate change. The problem is climate skeptics (like the person who sent me the article) then cherrypick points as a gotcha.

  • The problem is climate skeptics (like the person who sent me the article) then cherrypick points as a gotcha.

    Yeah sigh. The "someone changed their mind so the whole thing is a sham" vibe is very strong. I'm sure lots of the points could be very carefully unpicked, but my initial reactions were:

    Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’ - That doesn't mean we're not wiping out huge numbers of species and harming our own wellbeing

    The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’ - so? It doesn't mean it doesn't have value in terms of biodiversity.

    Climate change is not definitively making natural disasters worse - Note that he says "not definitively", which is absolutely not the same as "definitively not"

    Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003 - Hmm... the trend does look quite upward since the 90s in the USA at least. Is that a bit selective in terms of a baseline?

    Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have declined in Britain, Germany, and France from the mid-1970s - Good, so?

    Netherlands is becoming richer, not poorer while adapting to life below sea level - Classic reactionary gotcha right there. It's a very rich nation, which might have done even better if it didn't have to maintain extensive sea defenses. How do we think places like Bangladesh will fare? Note that this does admit to the reality of sea level rises.

    We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter - In the places that need it?

    Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are potentially larger threats to species than climate change - Habitat loss is potentially linked to climate change. Also, why can't we address all of them. Again, note that climate changes is accepted here.

    Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels - Agreed.

    Preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture - That seems like a statement which will have much more detail in the book.

  • The Netherlands point especially irritated me. Of what relevance whatsoever is the example of a highly developed, phenomenally wealthy country with a unique historical/economic situation?

    I mean seriously what can say the Maldives learn from their experience? Go back in time and reposition themselves in a key geographical location to benefit economically from the expansion in European and global trade?

    (Again guessing) but the actual point is probably, "invest shitloads the right way into high risk locations and they don't have to get totally fucked something something."

  • On the face of it seems each of his weirdly cherry-picked ‘points’ is a half-truth.

    I guess it meets an audience requiring a low evidence threshold at The Spectator.

    No wonder it was pulled from Forbes.

  • It's less about our own views for or against Nuclear, seems to be more simply a case of follow the money.

    Imbw.

  • So much water is now being used that ground water levels in Helmand
    are estimated to be falling by 3m a year.

    The fear is that pretty soon the water will simply run out.

    "Maybe this boom will not last longer than 10 years," says Orzala
    Nemat, who runs the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, the
    country's biggest think tank.

    That won't just affect the people who have moved into the desert
    areas, she says. It will affect the entire region.

    More than 1.5 million people could be forced to migrate.

    Sounds wonderful. Reminds me of this that I read a week or two ago.

    We really need to look beyond small regions to recognise the absolute impact of actions and changes that people make

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qj4z9­p/green-economic-growth-is-a-myth

  • Anyone joining the rebellion on 1st September?

  • Yep. Me for sure.

  • What hapeened last night on the bridges?

  • The “critical mass” action was kettled and everyone on the bridge was arrested.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Extinction Rebellion

Posted by Avatar for Lebowski @Lebowski

Actions