Extinction Rebellion transport disruption from 17/04/2019

[reddragon]

The use of water-cannon vehicles would have been one way of disrupting those causing disruption and at the same time providing relief against the oppressive heat that has afflicted the capital over the last few days.

Quite apart from the fact it would be illegal to do so.

 

[LOL The Irony]

True but nobody in the UK dies of radiation poisoning, whereas 69,000 a year die from air pollution of which 45,000 a year just from diesel vehicle pollution.

And that makes it ok just because nobody in the UK has died?

 

[reddragon]

And that makes it ok just because nobody in the UK has died?

Risk is relative. You are at less risk flying to Australia than you are driving to the airport, a much shorter journey.
Nuclear Power kills significantly less people than air pollution. The total number of deaths from all nuclear accidents die each day due to air pollution. Simple statistical fact, whether you like nuclear or not!

 

[Esker-pades]

I assumed that you would have realised it was those causing the disruption in the highways of the capital to whom I alluded, not any DLR station...

Maybe stating it would have been helpful (random emoji: ).

Note that A: We don't have water cannon, and B: using water cannon to break up a peaceful protest is hardly proportionate.

 

[Geezertronic]

Maybe stating it would have been helpful (random emoji: ).

Note that A: We don't have water cannon, and B: using water cannon to break up a peaceful protest is hardly proportionate.

These protests have been anything but peaceful, their main objective has been to cause as much disruption (and ironically pollution) with the explicit aim of being arrested.

 

[Esker-pades]

These protests have been anything but peaceful, their main objective has been to cause as much disruption (and ironically pollution) with the explicit aim of being arrested.

My emphasis.
Are you sure about that?
https://www.indy100.com/article/ext...nge-protests-london-air-quality-study-8879861

A study by King's College London into the quality of the air in the capital during the Extinction Rebellion protests has found that nitrogen dioxide concentrations have dropped in several locations where protests are taking place.

The group is occupying sites such as Oxford Circus, Parliament Square and Waterloo Bridge in an attempt to convince the government to declare a 'climate emergency.'

London Air, a website by the London Air Quality Network, with the information provided by King's College, began monitoring the effects the demonstrations were having on the local air quality after the protests began on Monday.

As of Wednesday, they discovered that both The Strand and Oxford Street had experienced significant drops on concentrations and improvements in certain areas.

For instance, The Strand which is connected to Waterloo Bridge was considered to have lighter air pollution than normal and nitrogen dioxide concentrations were at around 91 per cent of the usual conditions for the location....

So, that part is wrong.


How have they not been peaceful? Their occupations have been peaceful. Their obstruction of transport has been peaceful. The only references I can find to any non-peaceful actions were 5 people who were arrested for criminal damage to Shell's headquarters. 5 out of 1000+ is less than 0.5% (IE: sod all). Further, some of the criminal damage was graffiti, which is hardly non-peaceful.


The conventional means of politics (petition signing, voting etc.) has not caused any significant action to prevent climate change. Therefore, other forms of engagement are required.

 

[Gooner18]

Other than the ones who need to have an 'emergency' holiday to warmer climates during the summer months

Although they could go on holiday to Eco-Land, a remote island off the coast of Scotland with no evil electricity other than what is generated by a little wind turbine

, they will have to row there

 

[duncanp]

A study by King's College London into the quality of the air in the capital during the Extinction Rebellion protests has found that nitrogen dioxide concentrations have dropped in several locations where protests are taking place.

Well of course nitrogen dioxide concentrations will drop in the locations where the protests are taking place, but what about concentrations in other locations, where the displaced traffic would have had to go?

Personally I wouldn't call it "peaceful" to willfully obstruct the public highway and prevent other people from going about their lawful business. You could have had a protest in Hyde Park or somewhere like that.

Still, it's going to be interesting hearing Greta Thunberg explain to the British politicians that she meets what action she has taken to reduce her own personal carbon footprint, including how she is going to offset the carbon emissions incurred by travelling from Sweden to the UK.

 

[Gooner18]

My emphasis.
Are you sure about that?
https://www.indy100.com/article/ext...nge-protests-london-air-quality-study-8879861

So, that part is wrong.


How have they not been peaceful? Their occupations have been peaceful. Their obstruction of transport has been peaceful. The only references I can find to any non-peaceful actions were 5 people who were arrested for criminal damage to Shell's headquarters. 5 out of 1000+ is less than 0.5% (IE: sod all). Further, some of the criminal damage was graffiti, which is hardly non-peaceful.


The conventional means of politics (petition signing, voting etc.) has not caused any significant action to prevent climate change. Therefore, other forms of engagement are required.

Are you saying over a 1000 arrests is a peaceful protest ?

 

[reddragon]

Well of course nitrogen dioxide concentrations will drop in the locations where the protests are taking place, but what about concentrations in other locations, where the displaced traffic would have had to go?

Still, it's going to be interesting hearing Greta Thunberg explain to the British politicians that she meets what action she has taken to reduce her own personal carbon footprint, including how she is going to offset the carbon emissions incurred by travelling from Sweden to the UK.

There was a huge switch to cycling due to safe & clean streets during the protests. Nobody lost out, its all spin by fossil junkies!

Greta refuses to fly and only uses trains, taking her 2 days to get to London from Italy. Would you do that?

 

[Mag_seven]

Greta refuses to fly and only uses trains, taking her 2 days to get to London from Italy. Would you do that?

Probably lots on here would - its a rail forum!

 

[duncanp]

There was a huge switch to cycling due to safe & clean streets during the protests. Nobody lost out, its all spin by fossil junkies!

There were considerable traffic jams in certain parts of London during the protests (eg Tottenham Court Road, where several bus routes were curtailed due to the inability to travel along Oxford Street) As for no-one losing out, shops in the Oxford Street area reported a loss of business, and bus passengers who couldn't get where they wanted to go were certainly inconvenienced.

Greta refuses to fly and only uses trains, taking her 2 days to get to London from Italy. Would you do that?

Perhaps Greta could have a word with Emma Thompson then. (who flew in from LA especially for the "protests")

 

[reddragon]

Perhaps Greta could have a word with Emma Thompson then. (who flew in from LA especially for the "protests")

Via the Atlantic tunnel maybe?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Via the Atlantic tunnel maybe?

She should've stayed in LA. There was no need for her to be there and a video expressing support would've done just fine.

 

[Esker-pades]

Well of course nitrogen dioxide concentrations will drop in the locations where the protests are taking place, but what about concentrations in other locations, where the displaced traffic would have had to go?

In which case, I cannot find evidence to prove or disprove your statement.

Personally I wouldn't call it "peaceful" to willfully obstruct the public highway and prevent other people from going about their lawful business. You could have had a protest in Hyde Park or somewhere like that.

In which case, we have to agree to disagree.

Still, it's going to be interesting hearing Greta Thunberg explain to the British politicians that she meets what action she has taken to reduce her own personal carbon footprint, including how she is going to offset the carbon emissions incurred by travelling from Sweden to the UK.

She doesn't eat meat. She travelled by train, not using areoplane or coach.

Are you saying over a 1000 arrests is a peaceful protest ?

Arrests are not always for violence. Good grief .

There was a huge switch to cycling due to safe & clean streets during the protests. Nobody lost out, its all spin by fossil junkies!

Greta refuses to fly and only uses trains, taking her 2 days to get to London from Italy. Would you do that?

Yes! And I have done it. In 1 day (not 2).

Perhaps Greta could have a word with Emma Thompson then. (who flew in from LA especially for the "protests")

Because she's got better things to do....




I question the premise of various statements in this thread (for example, @duncanp 's in posts #368 and #372). If her [Ms G Thuneburg's journey from Sweden to the UK used 1kg of Carbon Dioxide, would it invalidate the points she was making? Would the impending climate disaster cease to be relevent just because one teenager from Scandinavia ate a ham sandwich? Clearly not. "Oh my goodness! Some person who supported the protests used a plane! That must mean climate change isn't a problem!" Again, no.
Quite a lot of posts on the opposing side focus on visible personalities and frankly trivial sources (such as @Xenophon PCDGS ' comments about the emissions from wild ruminants - post #270) rather than engaging with the 97% of peer-reviewed (IE: proper) climate scientists who say that humans are at least accellerating climate change. Taking pot-shots at the fringes isn't an appropriate method of engagement.

Climate change protestors and activists have attempted to engage in politics using formal avenues for years (participating in elections), but have since been forced to move to more informal measures (petition signing, school strikes) and now more visible protests and action because the political establishment simply isn't listening. Action is not happening. When the school strikes started, our glorious Prime Minister said that the protesting school children should be in school. And, when a debate on the significant threat that climate change brings to this country finally happened, the turnout was awful. 10 MPs from the governing party turned out, and no more than 40 in total (this was March 2019). That is simply pathetic, but also shows a complete lack of respect.

What would you do? Climate change is clearly a threat, it is almost certainly caused by people (certainly exacerbated by our actions), and, unless action isn't taken within the next decade and a half, the world is royally screwed. As outlined above, conventional methods of engagement have already been tried, to no avail. Sometimes it has been met with outright disrespect (as Mrs May's response to the climate change school protestors showed). Given the above, what is the next step? Giving up is not an option (I quite like living on a habitable planet), so what do we do?

 

[reddragon]

XR and climate supporters intend to keep escalating this until something happens and I am 100% with them on that, whatever it takes, however unlawful / disruptive it needs to be until the knuckle draggers give in or are tried in the International Courts for ecoside & jailed (yes that is being prepared in law).

The next steps proposed are General Strikes and with 91% public support, you can be sure that will happen if nothing changes and very soon!

 

[deltic]

Over 1000 arrests and yet only 40 or so people charged highlights the generally peaceful nature of the protest.

The widespread coverage in the media and emergency questions raised in Parliament shows that it succeeded in its goal of raising awareness of the issue and that there are other things in the world besides Brexit with which the government needs to be concerned about.

The UK government has made great play of the reduction in our CO2 emissions but taking account of imports the picture is not so rosy. Domestic emissions fell 27% in the UK between 1990 and 2014, but once CO2 imports from trade are considered this drops to only an 11% reduction.

 

[Geezertronic]

Arrests are not always for violence. Good grief .

Arrests are not always for violence, correct. But for example, a breach of the peace, and criminal damage, and obstructing a police officer are offences that someone can be arrested for, and that alone negates any claims of the protests being peaceful since multiple instances of at least these three have been committed. Their cause, however honourable, has disappeared into thin air (polluted or not) given the methods they have employed

Whilst over 1000 arrests have been made and only 40 or so people charged is criminal in itself. I hope the police can charge considerably more people over the coming weeks/months/years as their behaviour has been nothing short of disgraceful.

 

[Esker-pades]

Arrests are not always for violence, correct. But for example, a breach of the peace, and criminal damage, and obstructing a police officer are offences that someone can be arrested for, and that alone negates any claims of the protests being peaceful since multiple instances of at least these three have been committed.

So, not peaceful, but not violent? I can agree with that.

Their cause, however honourable, has disappeared into thin air (polluted or not) given the methods they have employed.

Well, actually no. Urgent questions are being asked in parliament as we discuss this. It appreas that XR (the acronym for Extinction Rebellion) have managed to get it on the agenda.

Whilst over 1000 arrests have been made and only 40 or so people charged is criminal in itself. I hope the police can charge considerably more people over the coming weeks/months/years as their behaviour has been nothing short of disgraceful.

I disagree that their behaviour has been disgraceful. I think it is necessary given the previous inaction. I've outlined that in another part of the post that you quoted. I've put it just below for convenience:

Climate change protestors and activists have attempted to engage in politics using formal avenues for years (participating in elections), but have since been forced to move to more informal measures (petition signing, school strikes) and now more visible protests and action because the political establishment simply isn't listening. Action is not happening. When the school strikes started, our glorious Prime Minister said that the protesting school children should be in school. And, when a debate on the significant threat that climate change brings to this country finally happened, the turnout was awful. 10 MPs from the governing party turned out, and no more than 40 in total (this was March 2019). That is simply pathetic, but also shows a complete lack of respect.

What would you do? Climate change is clearly a threat, it is almost certainly caused by people (certainly exacerbated by our actions), and, unless action isn't taken within the next decade and a half, the world is royally screwed. As outlined above, conventional methods of engagement have already been tried, to no avail. Sometimes it has been met with outright disrespect (as Mrs May's response to the climate change school protestors showed). Given the above, what is the next step? Giving up is not an option (I quite like living on a habitable planet), so what do we do?

 

[eastdyke]

XR and climate supporters intend to keep escalating this until something happens and I am 100% with them on that, whatever it takes, however unlawful / disruptive it needs to be until the knuckle draggers give in or are tried in the International Courts for ecoside & jailed (yes that is being prepared in law).

The next steps proposed are General Strikes and with 91% public support, you can be sure that will happen if nothing changes and very soon!

Really? In a country that struggles to get over 50% support for anything at all, can you quote a source for your 91% please?
Perhaps the 91% is of a sub-set who would not be striking from paid employment (in which case you probably should have mentioned that in the first place).

 

[Greg Read]

Really? In a country that struggles to get over 50% support for anything at all, can you quote a source for your 91% please?
Perhaps the 91% is of a sub-set who would not be striking from paid employment (in which case you probably should have mentioned that in the first place).

Just taken a quick poll at my workplace, saying a 'strike' to support XR etc, (assuming it would be a 24 hr one), the decision was 100%...............to come to work ! seems they don't want to lose a days pay for starters

 

[reddragon]

Just taken a quick poll at my workplace, saying a 'strike' to support XR etc, (assuming it would be a 24 hr one), the decision was 100%...............to come to work ! seems they don't want to lose a days pay for starters

I didn't say 91% would strike, but 91% support their aims. Few will strike, I might take the day off, but many will support them, even if frustrated by their actions.

 

[eastdyke]

I didn't say 91% would strike, but 91% support their aims. Few will strike, I might take the day off, but many will support them, even if frustrated by their actions.

And a source for your 91% support please?
BTW taking a day off to avoid striking is pretty limp IMO.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Quite apart from the fact it would be illegal to do so.

When large bodied certain events occurred in 2011, did the Cameron-led Government give any consideration to this method of control? When did it become law that the use of this method was illegal?

What EC countries still reserve the right to use this method of crowd control?

 

[radamfi]

self-serving* child-haters as seems to be the solution offered by some posters.
* control births so there is an environmental capacity for them to continue to expand their lifestyle.

If the world population had only risen to one tenth of what we have now, in both developed countries and elsewhere, would climate emissions be lower or higher than they are now? Would climate change even be an issue?

There is a strong link between population and climate emissions:

https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/climate-change

Reducing the number of people being born cuts future carbon emissions – effectively, simply and permanently. While other measures are also essential – including technological solutions, personal lifestyle changes and policies to reduce fossil fuel use and develop alternative energy – the positive impact of each of those is reduced and may even be completely cancelled out by adding emissions from hundreds of millions of new people as our population increases.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Again, how exactly are you going to stop people having children? It's their choice at the end of the day.

 

[radamfi]

Again, how exactly are you going to stop people having children? It's their choice at the end of the day.

So people can choose to have fewer children, just like they can choose to go without a car or cut down on meat. It is up to the individual whether he wants to reduce his climate footprint and he do not need to wait for government to tell him what to do.

 

[Esker-pades]

When large bodied certain events occurred in 2011, did the Cameron-led Government give any consideration to this method of control? When did it become law that the use of this method was illegal?

What EC countries still reserve the right to use this method of crowd control?

The comparison between the XR protests and the 2011 riots across England and Wales is completely unjustified. Perhaps you could explain why it is suitable?

 

[AlterEgo]

Has anyone had any thoughts about Greta Thunberg?

I am impressed with her achievements but I’m not sure an awkward young girl with Asperger Syndrome and OCD is a good advocate for the climate change movement, and I’m a bit concerned for her well-being. I wonder how much her parents and other parties push her.

 

[Esker-pades]

Has anyone had any thoughts about Greta Thunberg?

I am impressed with her achievements but I’m not sure an awkward young girl with Asperger Syndrome and OCD is a good advocate for the climate change movement, and I’m a bit concerned for her well-being. I wonder how much her parents and other parties push her.

According to her, her parents generally weren't supportive when she originally went on climate strike. I'm not sure why having Asperger Syndrome and OCD precludes her from being a good advocate. I think she's doing pretty well.