Extinction Rebellion

[NineBerry]

Doctor: If you continue to smoke, it will most likely kill you. This is scientifically proven.
Patient: Okay, but can you tell me how many cigarettes exactly I am still allowed to smoke before it will kill me?
Doctor: m(

[pErvinalia]

Too complicated for Cunt to understand.

[Brian Peacock]

...
There is zero point in looking at anything you post about climate change, because by not accepting clear, uncontroversial and factual scientific evidence you are proving yourself to be wilfully ignorant.

There is, of course, room for debate on the possible responses to climate change, and its political dimensions, but there is simply no debate at all about the scientific evidence.

Evidence of what? What clear claim are you making, which can be tested?

Evidence of human impact on the atmosphere.

...
I said that there is no clear claim about where that point of no return is, because, like the second coming of Jesus, it isn't useful with a clear date - only as an ongoing and imminent threat.

It's an irrelevant question, especially when presented as an argument for maintaining business as usual.

...
Where IS the point of no return?

If we take mitigating action now we may see the benefits in 100 or 200 years time. If we make the planet unworkable for human societies to function at our current level of development then at some point the planet will return to a point of relative stasis.

The problem for those who so often declare they're sincerely motivated towards preserving Western civilisation is that they are forced to decided about taking action now for a future benefit they won't be around to accrue when really they're only interested in preserving what they already have for themselves, now.

Aside from ideologues and nutters with an overtly apocalyptic vision and/or agenda, resistance to changing global environmental practices predominantly comes from those invested (in both senses) in hoarding wealth and concentrating power in their own hands. Even they understand implicitly that preserving their way of life depends on changing the political, economic, and social dynamics that have brought us to this point. The idea of that kind of change is what Extinction Rebellion is actually about, and yet while the powerful might understand that it's necessary necessary to preserve our developing civilisation it is also exactly the kind of change they fear - they fear scarcity, not of resources or wealth but of influence and status, and by this they are marked out as small-minded people desperately trying to make themselves feel big and important. Consequently it's the kind of change they expend a lot of time and money to distract the masses with bogus scepticism and overblown whataboutism, deliberately flawed logic, and bad faith interpretations - and flat out denials -- of the basic facts.

One noticable tactics at the moment is the highly ironic claim that these powerful people and entities are on the side of ordinary people in a manufactured fight against so-called elites: but all they are doing by this is saying, "Look over there, not over here," and those 'elites' often turn out to be the one's criticising and challenging the status quo - funny that isn't it(?)

[Cunt]

Where IS the point of no return, pErvinalia? If you don't know where that point is, what else don't you know?

For people who have already been killed in the storms across the world, the increase in average intensity and frequency of which is directly linked to climate change, and the many more that have had to permanently abandon their homes due to flooding and droughts, the point of no return has already happened.

The longer we go on changing the climate and without taking mitigating action, the worse the eventual effects will be. The fact that we can't pinpoint exactly how or when this will effect particular critical aspects of our future lives doesn't undermine the overall trend.

People have been killed in storms and lost homes due to flooding and droughts for such a long time...maybe all these recent ones are different.

I think climate HAS been changing, probably due to increased human activity, but what I don't agree with is what should be done.

My town passed a 'no idling' law. Seemed like a good use of politician time. It sure did make them look glistening with virtue.

The fine is if you are caught idling for more than 15 minutes. It doesn't apply to trucking companies, the airlines or other commercial vehicles.

But for we consumers, it was a big change. Nevermind the fact that a Municipal Enforcement Officer would have to sit in his care (probably idling) for at LEAST 15 minutes to be sure of the offense, then write a ticket.

A few years later, I set my truck to idle for only 15 minutes, and stopped idling altogether (now I pre-heat the vehicle as long as I wish - no idling)

The utter failure is still described as a success, because though it didn't save a drop of fuel, it is making people 'aware' of the problem.

And there it is. Change people's minds, even if it means burning more fuel.

I resist having my mind changed by government. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Brian Peacock]

Take the example of plastic drinking straws. The sea is full of plastic straws we're told: something needs to be done. American use billions of plastic straws every year and the fish aren't thanking us for it. More precisely, scientists researching the floating islands of plastic in the Pacific highlighted the extent of the ocean pollution they were studying by bringing an example to the public attention we could all related to. We all use plastic drinking straws don't we, and even if we don't we've seen big piles of them in fast food outlets and road-side franchises etc. Now when we imagine those countless billions of plastic straws we might be imagining them all ending up in the ocean Something needs to be done about it, surely(?)

Politicians in the US and the EU ran with this idea: "We need to ban plastic drinking straws - for the environment." Not everyone was happy with that though. Metal and glass straws are expensive, and a child could have their eye out on one of those, or a terrorist could use them as a weapon. Paper straws go soggy and children might chew on them and choke. Disabled people with mobility issues rely on plastic straws to get enough fluid and banning their use outright will restrict some disabled people's independence and choices - it's a threat to their dignity.

Now, news organisations like to get both sides of an issue don't they - it creates a bit of human drama and apparently that's all part of exploring the issues of the day - so I wonder who might be sending out glossy press packs pointing these 'problems' out, and thus inspiring countless items at the back end of scheduled news broadcasts and relateable testimony from a mom whose kid nearly choked on a paper straw or the disabled veteran who takes all his meals through a tube; the same on the inside pages of newspapers and magazines; then there's the blog posts and YouTube videos from concerned citizens on both sides of the fence, all pointing why banning straws is/isn't quite as straightforward as we first thought. My money's on big-Straw for that one btw! Anyway, even given these 'concerns' we have to do something don't we? Things can't go on like this can they? We can't keep dumping our plastic straws in the ocean willy-nilly, can we? It's irresponsible.

Well yes, and no - and in there lies the rub.

'We' don't dump plastic straws in the ocean at all do we? We don't hoard them ready for our next day out at the beach, making sure to tip them over the wharf before we set off home. In fact, most of us don't even live on the coast, and we're not dumping them in rivers or tributaries either. 'We' put our plastic waste in the trash, and somebody takes it away and deals with it for us - for money. They might do something with some of the waste but they'll probably contract somebody else to take a large amount of it away and deal with it for them - for money. 'We' are not responsible for dumping plastic straws in the ocean, some contractor with a permit is the one who does that - for money.

So politicians trying to grab a few headlines with a bit of popular shaming about our purchasing choices, and then making noises about reducing the availability of plastic straws for consumers (with exemptions for nurseries and care homes or whatever) doesn't really address the problem. In fact it barely touches the problem. It's not what we do with our plastic straws which is the problem - it's the system that deals with them for profit after we've done the responsible thing and put them in the bin.

And all the time we're having this 'heated debate' about plastic straws, about how many is too many and who should and should not be able to use them, we haven't really noticed what those researchers in the Pacific were actually saying to us. The straws thing was just to get our attention but because of politicians and businesses being, well, politicians and businesses, we've ended up thinking it's like one of the main issues right? By volume plastic drinking straws account for less that half a percent of the plastic waste in those massive floating islands of junk. Over 40% of those islands are made up of discarded fishing nets alone, and around another 30% is made up of general food and other product packaging. The problem isn't plastic straws, it's a system that facilitates using the ocean as a venue for fly-tipping, for profit.


So I think Cunt is right !! Laws about car idling only defer the responsibility onto the consumer but the don't really address the broader, systemic problem. Cunt is not responsible for polluting the environment while trying not to freeze his balls off on the way to work, it's a system which virtually forces him to have a car in order to survive in circumstances where an integrated public transport system is simply a matter of political will addressing public need - but where's the profit in that for GM, or Nissan, or Ford, or whoever he drives: where's the profit for the hydro-carbon industry and the oil drilling, transport and processing conglomerates. The money and rampant fervour these guys bring to the 'discussion' on climate and environmental issues far out-weighs even that of big-Straw!

This is what Extinction Rebellion is all about. It's not about shaming us into taking individual responsibility, though that's not to say there's nothing we can do in our own lives or that it's somehow pointless to make changes in that direction, but it's about us coming together to collectively take responsibility for the future - and in order to do that we need to find ways to encourage politicians and businesses to take action now that really should have started a long time ago.

[Cunt]

So I think Cunt is right !!

Of course I'm right.

I ignored the rest because you are shit at writing your thoughts down, but this stood out.

Maybe this would explain my position better. My friend, a greenie, recycles. I told her that I wished she couldn't do so, because her 'drive' would then make the world better, instead of being wasted on meaningless efforts. (like recycling plastic drink bottles)

She did change, while she was visiting here. Because at the time, NWT did not recycle plastic drink bottles, she INSISTED on not using them.

When she moved here later, there was a government recycling program, and she has a lovely home, with a special bin for plastic bottles.

I think we were better off when she had to think for herself, but someone thought it was better to truck all that plastic south, and have it recycled. (P.E.I. had a different answer, where they simply banned plastic drink bottles from their island)

[JimC]

With the whole plastic in the ocean bit, a major part of the problem is very simple - littering, and/or the absence of efficient waste disposal series. In places like Australia, if nobody ever littered, and all plastic waste went into rubbish bins, whether they then went for land fill, or (preferably) recycling, then you would have no plastic entering stormwater drains or rivers, and then the sea.

A very high proportion of plastic waste comes from 3rd world countries, not because they are worse at littering, but because there is often only very rudimentary waste disposal services. So, although I support the elimination of single-use plastic products where practical, let's not miss the low-hanging fruit of eliminating littering, and helping the 3rd world to have more efficient waste processes.

[Cunt]

I think humans litter, and it's easy to hate them for it. What we ought to do is pay a bit extra to print the names of the litter producers DIRECTLY ON the litter. THEN everyone will learn who is destroying the earth, and heck, maybe instead of printing the names, we could use easy-to-recognize graphics for the largest offenders.

I know litter is 'bad', but I always feel funny when I see people picking up litter near the Giant Mine Site (most contaminated site in Canada)

If we could stop blaming humans for being creatures of habit (litter is one result) and instead focus on smarter litter, we would be better off.

Instead of the guy who tosses one bag of litter a day, blame the corporation who prints three hundred tons a day.

[JimC]

Excellent way to allow individuals to avoid responsibility for their own decisions to litter. If all bits of plastic rubbish were put in bins instead of left on the street to be washed into waterways, the ocean could be much cleaner. It is also true that reducing the amount produced is vital, but one issue does not foreclose on the other.

On a separate note, bearing in mind that some litter, unfortunately, will always be with us, a council in Western Australia has developed an innovative solution. Where the ends of large storm water drains reach rivers, the council attaches a large sock-like trap, made of mesh, which traps litter very effectively. It can be easily undone, emptied (with recycling) then replaced, and is much less expensive than trying to scoop out the litter once it's in the water.

[Cunt]

Excellent way to allow individuals to avoid responsibility for their own decisions to litter. If all bits of plastic rubbish were put in bins instead of left on the street to be washed into waterways, the ocean could be much cleaner. It is also true that reducing the amount produced is vital, but one issue does not foreclose on the other.

On a separate note, bearing in mind that some litter, unfortunately, will always be with us, a council in Western Australia has developed an innovative solution. Where the ends of large storm water drains reach rivers, the council attaches a large sock-like trap, made of mesh, which traps litter very effectively. It can be easily undone, emptied (with recycling) then replaced, and is much less expensive than trying to scoop out the litter once it's in the water.

It's not to avoid their individual responsibility, it's to examine the real problem, instead of moralizing.

See, the litter is being dropped. You can insist you will change hearts and minds, even do good work toward that end. Doesn't change the litter.

Doesn't change the ugly fact that McDonalds, who understand VERY well human litter behaviour, have used this opportunity to get their brand logo out there.

People are CHEERING. They shower McDonalds with commerce.

They have improved things drastically. I remember the styrofoam burger box days, and the paper is MUCH better for our human habits.

Litter was mentioned in an ultrarunning video, which gave me a slightly different view of it. The runner said that the route she was seeking was not a mapped route (some famous passage near Nepal) but a route which changed year to year, decade to decade, with the changing weather and slides etc. She would see lots of litter, usually beer cans or cigarette packs, and could, by the faded ink on the litter, get an idea whether she was on the right path or not.

The litter we drop should be stuff that's fine to drop. Like paper, that dissolves quickly, and has minimal ink/contaminants in it. If you ever manage to stop humans from littering, we could revisit, but for now, can we divide the responsibility fairly?

So we have a litterbug, call him 'Bunt', and a corporation, call it 'Frito-Lays'.

Bunt, the littering fucker, drops a full 10 pieces of litter on the ground each day. He has x responsibility for the resulting catastrophe.

Frito-Lays, the littering fucker, drops a full 100,000 pieces of litter into every city it serves, each day. It has y responsibility for the resulting catastrophe.

See, both have responsibility, but when you check the scale, someone is more damaging. It might even be the one with more money. Wouldn't it be hilarious if Frito-Lays chucked cash into a 'pick-up-litter' campaign ?

[pErvinalia]

instead of being wasted on meaningless efforts. (like recycling plastic drink bottles)

How's it meaningless?

[Cunt]

instead of being wasted on meaningless efforts. (like recycling plastic drink bottles)

How's it meaningless?

It shouldn't be used for something so wasteful. As I mentioned earlier, P.E.I., a Canadian island province, banned those plastic bottles from their island. You know what the corporations did? Provided glass containers.

Now, recycling plastic might sound good, but having done it, it ISN'T good. It's better than throwing it away, but it isn't 'good'.

[pErvinalia]

You said it was meaningless. Your reply doesn't even address that. Try again. Or not.

[Cunt]

You said it was meaningless. Your reply doesn't even address that. Try again. Or not.

It's meaningless to use less plastic (recycling) when the real answer is stop fucking wasting it on drink bottles.

Meaningless to take that (non-renewable) plastic and use it again and again, making it shittier and shittier, until it is good for fucking NOTHING, when you could use glass.

We live in the glass age. It's a fucking marvel. Why fucking waste plastic, then waste a bunch of energy reforming it to waste it again, and again and again, when glass has, lets say, a bit more going for it.

Like it doesn't poison oceans as easily.

[Cunt]

Let me put it another way. When I stopped drinking soda out of plastic bottles, and switched to cans, it saved a lot of room in the recycle bin.

But when I stopped buying small drinks, and drank the fucking beautiful water I have on tap, all that effort became meaningless.

You see?