Extinction Rebellion

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

What's the tl;dw summary?

[Brian Peacock]

XR: we need governments to be honest and take drastic action now in order to secure the existence of a biosphere in which humanity can survive.
Interviewer: So you want to destroy our way of life then, you terrorist!

[Joe]

What a biased interviewer. In this were a US media outlet, I say he was protecting his owners from criticism.

Who owns the BBC, anyway?

[Brian Peacock]

What a biased interviewer. In this were a US media outlet, I say he was protecting his owners from criticism.

Who owns the BBC, anyway?

The program format is supposed to be confrontational, it's just that the opponents of XR only have silly strawmen and ad homs - and so that's what the interviewer repeated. The other problem is probably down to the fact that the show usually deals with people who are strenuously avoiding saying anything of substance - and many minutes of 'compelling tv' can be generated by chasing them round the fountain. When somebody appears and tries to answer the questions in good faith the questions, and the format, are exposed to something they're not really prepared for.

As for the BBC, the Cameron government rewrote the BBC's charter and now the board of governors, the body responsible for the organisation's output, are entirely appointed by the government. The UK Labour party has committed to change this if they ever gain power.

[JimC]

What a biased interviewer. In this were a US media outlet, I say he was protecting his owners from criticism.

Who owns the BBC, anyway?

The program format is supposed to be confrontational, it's just that the opponents of XR only have silly strawmen and ad homs - and so that's what the interviewer repeated. The other problem is probably down to the fact that the show usually deals with people who are strenuously avoiding saying anything of substance - and many minutes of 'compelling tv' can be generated by chasing them round the fountain. When somebody appears and tries to answer the questions in good faith the questions, and the format, are exposed to something they're not really prepared for.

As for the BBC, the Cameron government rewrote the BBC's charter and now the board of governors, the body responsible for the organisation's output, are entirely appointed by the government. The UK Labour party has committed to change this if they ever gain power.

Surely it is possible to have some rational criticism of the Extinction Rebellion movement - they are not automatically correct. The majority of people who understand climate change would agree that current government action is inadequate, and that a more rapid change to renewables, particularly away from coal is advisable. However, the question becomes one of how rapidly the change can occur, without having severe effects on the lives of everyday people. Some proponents of ER seem to want the immediate closure of coal-fired power stations right now, whether or not alternative sources of electricity are ready. To really achieve long term change, one needs the majority of the population along for the ride. If they were faced with constant power blackouts and other major disruptions, they will simply rebel against the changes themselves. We need the maximum rate of change that can occur without creating such problems. I'm sure that is a lot faster than the current rate, BTW...

[Joe]

What a biased interviewer. In this were a US media outlet, I say he was protecting his owners from criticism.

Who owns the BBC, anyway?

The program format is supposed to be confrontational, it's just that the opponents of XR only have silly strawmen and ad homs - and so that's what the interviewer repeated. The other problem is probably down to the fact that the show usually deals with people who are strenuously avoiding saying anything of substance - and many minutes of 'compelling tv' can be generated by chasing them round the fountain. When somebody appears and tries to answer the questions in good faith the questions, and the format, are exposed to something they're not really prepared for.

As for the BBC, the Cameron government rewrote the BBC's charter and now the board of governors, the body responsible for the organisation's output, are entirely appointed by the government. The UK Labour party has committed to change this if they ever gain power.

That's the disappointing thing. Hallam made significant claims about food supply, among other things, and had the interviewer pushed him on those, there would have been plenty of drama, and the conversation would have been significantly more useful. Instead, he tried to paint the man as a fringe radical, and looked like a government tool in the process.

Alas, that interview was typical of TV news: too much heat and not enough light.

[laklak]

We're doomed.

[Brian Peacock]

What a biased interviewer. In this were a US media outlet, I say he was protecting his owners from criticism.

Who owns the BBC, anyway?

The program format is supposed to be confrontational, it's just that the opponents of XR only have silly strawmen and ad homs - and so that's what the interviewer repeated. The other problem is probably down to the fact that the show usually deals with people who are strenuously avoiding saying anything of substance - and many minutes of 'compelling tv' can be generated by chasing them round the fountain. When somebody appears and tries to answer the questions in good faith the questions, and the format, are exposed to something they're not really prepared for.

As for the BBC, the Cameron government rewrote the BBC's charter and now the board of governors, the body responsible for the organisation's output, are entirely appointed by the government. The UK Labour party has committed to change this if they ever gain power.

Surely it is possible to have some rational criticism of the Extinction Rebellion movement - they are not automatically correct. The majority of people who understand climate change would agree that current government action is inadequate, and that a more rapid change to renewables, particularly away from coal is advisable. However, the question becomes one of how rapidly the change can occur, without having severe effects on the lives of everyday people. Some proponents of ER seem to want the immediate closure of coal-fired power stations right now, whether or not alternative sources of electricity are ready. To really achieve long term change, one needs the majority of the population along for the ride. If they were faced with constant power blackouts and other major disruptions, they will simply rebel against the changes themselves. We need the maximum rate of change that can occur without creating such problems. I'm sure that is a lot faster than the current rate, BTW...

The point being that if scientist are to be believed then based on current models we need to cut CO2 emissions to zero in the next 10 years to limit global warming to 2°C and avoid the upswing in severe and extreme climate events that would result in. XR is calling for those measure to be completed by 2024. The implication of the XR argument is that rapid and significant changes to the global economy need to be brought about - basically pouring resources into renewables and alternative forms of agriculture. I think the first nation to propose a 20 year plan to achieve this will probably start the dominoes falling - but really international effort is required. The front wheels of the bus are over the edge of the cliff and someone has to start throwing the grappling hooks out the back window now.

[Hermit]

5:33 Stephen Sackur "It's not possible within the framework of our capitalist economy [to reach zero net emission target by 2025]..."

Well spotted, Sherlock.

And now for a massive poisoning of the well:

5:38 Stephen Sackur "...without causing unimaginable [interviewer's emphasis] damage to people's lives."

Sackur then proceeds to quote the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, an outfit that describes itself as "a non-profit organisation that supports informed debate on energy and climate change issues in the UK", which asserts that the target is "technically, economically and politically impossible." Sackur concludes: "has absolutely no chance [interviewer's emphasis] of being fulfilled.

I had a look at who sits on the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit's advisory board. Among its 21 members are 3 MPs, 5 Lords, 1 Earl, 1 Knight, 1 Rear Admiral, and 1 Bishop. Establishment establishment much? I can see in which direction the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit wants to steer "informed debate". Also, where Stephen Sackur is heading.

Seven minutes into the hatchet job I was sufficiently disheartened by this episode of Hardtalk to give up. I might listen to the rest some time later, just to hear what the interviewee, Roger Hallam, who is one of XR's founders, has to say.

[JimC]

While it is certain that the world could and should move faster in installing renewables and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is not necessarily wrong to say that a target of zero emissions in 5 years time may simply be an unreachable target. Perhaps the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has got it wrong, perhaps they are even in league with the big end of town and indulging in spin for political purposes. The only way to answer that question would be a meticulous analysis of the whole issue, with absolutely transparent reasoning about the conclusions.

There is a spectrum here, with climate deniers at one end, and fanatical idealists at the other. We should be a hell of a lot closer to one end than the other, but naive idealism cannot wish the real world away...

[Hermit]

While it is certain that the world could and should move faster in installing renewables and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is not necessarily wrong to say that a target of zero emissions in 5 years time may simply be an unreachable target. Perhaps the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has got it wrong, perhaps they are even in league with the big end of town and indulging in spin for political purposes. The only way to answer that question would be a meticulous analysis of the whole issue, with absolutely transparent reasoning about the conclusions.

There is a spectrum here, with climate deniers at one end, and fanatical idealists at the other. We should be a hell of a lot closer to one end than the other, but naive idealism cannot wish the real world away...

If zero net emission can be reached at all by 2025 it certainly will not happen without rapid and major social and economic disruption. What annoys me about the interviewer is that he parrots the platitudes emanating from the mouthpieces of centrists who assert that the target cannot be reached before 2050. What they mean to say is "Not in my lifetime, thanks. I like the status quo."

While zero net emission by 2025 is simply not doable without great upheavals, it may also well be true that reaching that target by 2050 means having missed the bus. We may find ourselves in an unstoppable warming loop, akin to a Diesel engine runaway before then. What will prevent reaching the zero net emission by 2025 are not technical or logistic limitations. Societies have managed to overcome those in spectacular fashion in an emergency even when all seemed lost. The battle of Britain comes to mind. What will throw the spanner in the works are inertia and the fact that the effort needs to be a global rather than a national one. Many Brits don't even see the urgency yet, and many more will not be willing to do the hard yards while the other nations don't.

The recommendation to hasten slowly in order to avoid "unimaginable damage to people's lives" may just be bad advice. Said damage will probably be mere discomfort in comparison to the effects global warming will have on the next generation, and all generations thereafter. I suspect that outfits like the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit are knowingly attempting to preserve our own comfort levels at the expense of those of our descendants.

[pErvinalia]

It's intergenerational theft. We are stealing from future generations. Normally conservatives are all morally outraged by theft. Not in this instance, though.

[JimC]

We definitely need to speed things up, but it simply may not be possible to speed up the change as fast as wanted by ER...

[Hermit]

We definitely need to speed things up, but it simply may not be possible to speed up the change as fast as wanted by ER...

Not without *sound of dread, horror and foreboding* "causing unimaginable damage to people's lives" *sound of dread, horror and foreboding*, Lord Jim.