“Extinction Rebellion blanket ban chilling and unlawful”

Written By: - Date published: 7:10 am, October 16th, 2019 - 74 comments
Categories: activism, climate change, police - Tags: , , ,

On Monday, midway through their fortnight of direct action to force the UK government to act on climate change, Extinction Rebellion focused their day on London’s financial district. XR blocked major roads into the area and access to institutions including the Bank of England and the stock exchange, with some activists gluing themselves to buildings and many pushing the police into arresting them.

By the end of day the police had implemented a ban on all XR protests across London, saying that anyone protesting would be arrested irrespective of what they are doing.

From the BBC,

Speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire programme, Extinction Rebellion campaigner and former Met Police officer Paul Stephens said: “Police are being really sloppy with the law, and it won’t stand up in court.”

He added that “there will be a judicial review”.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has said he is “seeking further information” about the decision to impose the ban and why it was necessary.

“I believe the right to peaceful and lawful protest must always be upheld,” he said.

…

Anti-Brexit barrister Jo Maugham QC said the move was “a huge overreach” of police powers, while human rights lawyer Adam Wagner described it as “draconian and extremely heavy-handed”.

Mr Wagner added in a tweet: “”We have a right to free speech under article 10 and to free assembly under article 11 of the (annex to the) Human Rights Act. These can only be interfered with if the interference is lawful and proportionate. I think the police may have gone too far here.”

The BBC’s explanation of police powers is at the bottom of that link.

Amnesty International UK’s press release,

On Monday evening, the Metropolitan Police issued a revised section 14 order saying demonstrators protesting in London after 21:00 BST could be arrested.

Allan Hogarth, Head of Advocacy and Programmes at Amnesty International UK, said:

“Imposing a blanket ban on Extinction Rebellion protests is an unlawful restriction on the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Under UK and international human rights law, the Government has an obligation to facilitate the exercise of these rights. 

“The majority of those protesting have been doing so peacefully, removing and prosecuting activists for engaging in non-violent direct action to raise their voice is deeply worrying. Overly harsh and disproportionate charges will have a chilling effect on rights.

The Guardian reports that XR protests have continued,

However, by 8am on Tuesday it was clear the climate campaigners had no intention of backing down as one of the organisation’s founders, Gail Bradbrook, led a protest at the Department for Transport in London.

Standing on top of the entrance of the building before she was arrested, Bradbrook called on ministers to explain how their continued expansion of roads and airports fitted with a net-zero emissions target. “I do this for the beautiful pear tree at Cubbington Woods, 250 years old – they have no rights. I do this in fierce love of the 108 ancient woodlands threatened by HS2, this climate crime of a project. I do this in the spirit of what Emmeline Pankhurst called the noble art of window smashing.”

National spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion, Rupert Read,

Extinction Rebellion arose out of the UK white middle class activist community, which explains something important about their strategy of intentional arrests. Their actions are designed to overload the police and justice system as part of wider disruptions to the governance of the United Kingdom in order to force the government to act on climate change.

XR has been criticised for this approach because of the large disparity between how white, middle class people will be treated by police compared to everyone else. There’s also been concern about how XR’s actions will change the safety and function of other climate activism. While there are important issues here for XR and other activist movements to work through, there is also great value in white middle class people finally standing up and doing the right thing by putting their own wellbeing at risk.

If the police don’t back down on the ban I suspect we are about to see XR put their money where their mouth is, with increased resolve for the cause. This is consistent with their approach which is based on successful historic  social movements that used sustained disruption to force change.

It’s not surprising that the police would eventually crack down, nor that they would do so once financial institutions were targeted. While XR has been serious in their campaign and extremely well organised, watching from the outside the feeling up until now has often been carnivalesque and big theatre. The actions of the police this week are sobering, and there is risk here for XR, both for individuals, and also with the chaotic nature of fast social change and who will be blamed if things go badly. But the rebellion cause is deadly serious and I can’t see XR backing off given the depth of feeling and thought about the coming climate crises.

Ironically, on Sunday the The Guardian reported this from the financial sector,

Companies and industries that are not moving towards zero-carbon emissions will be punished by investors and go bankrupt, the governor of the Bank of England has warned.

Mark Carney also told the Guardian it was possible that the global transition needed to tackle the climate crisis could result in an abrupt financial collapse. He said the longer action to reverse emissions was delayed, the more the risk of collapse would grow.

Shit is getting real with increasingly widespread acceptance of the climate emergency and the urgent need to change. At some point the government will have to step up and make a decision about whether to meet with XR over their demands or to double down as a repressive state.

Moderation note: no climate denial comments under my posts, thanks.

74 comments on ““Extinction Rebellion blanket ban chilling and unlawful” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    16 October 2019 at 7:59 am

    Section 14 of the Public Order Act has been around since the act was passed in 1986, and it was explicitly designed to crush political dissent in the wake of London riots and the especially the miners strike. While I might feel a certain schadenfreude in watching terribly nice middle class people suddenly being outraged at a weapon that has been used to crush working class protest for over three decades I guess it is a case of better late than never.

    But yes – I do not believe it should ever be in the police’s power to issue orders to people, that way lies a police state. The police should only ever investigate crime and to make arrests of those who commit crimes.

    • greywarshark 1.1
      16 October 2019 at 9:54 am

      I have been thinking about police in NZ and their powers of freedom of action – who sets the rules and demands

      This idea of stand-alone groups making their own 'deemed' laws, regulation and rules is unsatisfactory for a really democratic country and the elected pollies should have a great s

      There are too many agencies like transport, that basically run themselves with the politicians and elections being a passing cloud – that way leads to the breakdown of society and economy, distribution and reasonable taxation spread that we see in NZ.

    • weka 1.2
      16 October 2019 at 10:50 am

      Schadenfreude seems understandable.

      For the state too. They're going to be hard pressed to crack down on the bastions of English middle class culture: elderly, grandparents, ex bankers, women academics, well known journalists getting arrested is one thing, what happens if they keep going back?

      • WILD KATIPO 1.2.1
        16 October 2019 at 5:18 pm

        Always nice to see these elderly making such bold stands,… and the sincerity of those many younger ones…

        Its good people are ready and willing to challenge city hall, political systems that are so air tight and unyielding,…

        Yet I think the solution is not so much a political one in legislation…. but a holistic one… the answer is trees, uncountable acres and hectares of revegetation… coupled with a more scrutinizing look at modern industry practice…

        The joke always was, ' if in doubt , follow the hippies'… well, to a point. But their clean green mantra of revege the forests remains the same and is in accordance with creation… if you wreck your environment… you will only reap the whirlwind…

        When all the trees have been cut down,
        when all the animals have been hunted,
        when all the waters are polluted,
        when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
        only then will you discover you cannot eat money.

        —Cree Prophecy

        • weka 1.2.1.1
          16 October 2019 at 6:20 pm

          Reforestation is critical, but without solid political and social change, this advantage will just be wasted as carbon offsetting for people to keep polluting.

          • WILD KATIPO 1.2.1.1.1
            16 October 2019 at 6:50 pm

            Not necessarily.

            The governmental and legislative involvement plus the sheer redirection of capitol to enact such a global revegatation would be immense. I think you would find the same sort of obstacles that the carbon tax fiasco in France encountered. That is, no one govt willing to take the lead , and hence, a failure of even that basic and rudimentary measure.

            We are dealing with humans in all their self centered and vested interested glory , here.

            Not a hypothetical hive like , pheromone led alien race that puts the welfare of the many above the few.

            THAT,… is your core problem.

            Humanity.

            US.

            • WILD KATIPO 1.2.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2019 at 7:00 pm

              But as for logical direction and pragmatic undertaking, I'm sure many among the western nations ( and the East ) would have no such qualms in agreeing with large scale revegetation , as it holds less of a 'conspiracy theory' and directionless amalgam of people 'who just want to protest', than simply doing something so practical as ' planting a tree'.

              Not only that, it would also provide employment… which could capture the minds of those so inclined towards Entrepreneurialism…. play em at their own game , so to speak….

  2. Gosman 2
    16 October 2019 at 10:28 am

    This is a brilliant interview by Nigel Farage with one of the organisers of Extinction Rebellion in the UK. Farage gets to the heart of the matter.



    • Siobhan 2.1
      16 October 2019 at 11:22 am

      Moderation note: no climate denial comments under my posts, thanks

      Does this extend to clips of Climate Change deniers?

      Nigel’s kids
      “My boys, who were spoonfed climate change all through school, used to think it was hilarious when I ranted at the Six O’Clock News about that bloody iceberg and that bloody polar bear HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.”

      Climate science
      “I haven’t got a clue whether climate change is being driven by carbon-dioxide emissions.”

      UK carbon cuts
      “We are a nation that produces 1.8 per cent of global carbon dioxide, so I do not get closing down our aluminium smelters, most of our steel production, and now our refining industry, and all that production being moved to India, and therefore the steel-based products made in India then having to be shipped back to Britain! This to me makes no sense at all.”

      UK Greens
      “If Natalie Bennett won the election, we’d all be living in caves… the whole thing is based on a fallacy: that our fossil fuels are going to run out and therefore we have to adapt the way we live.”

      Wind energy
      “I think wind energy is the biggest collective economic insanity I’ve seen in my entire life. I’ve never seen anything more stupid, more illogical, or more irrational.”

      An Italian physicist
      “We’re almost back to Galileo. Whether it’s Galileo or Darwin, you challenge consensus, whether it’s in science, whether it’s in politics, and you are demonised for doing it.”

      • Gosman 2.1.1
        16 October 2019 at 11:25 am

        The interview was not about Climate Change denial. It was about asking the Extinction Rebellion person what they actually wanted. He actually made that point very well and she floundered quite badly. This idea of a "Citizens assembly" is so unformed it is essentially meaningless. You may as well state you want people to come together and fix Climate change.

        • Siobhan 2.1.1.1
          16 October 2019 at 12:04 pm

          The point is Farage is a Climate change denier..as such he has no credibility, and anything he does say that might strike you as noteworthy needs to be viewed in that context.

          https://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/03/11/nigel-farage-on-climate-change-in-his-own-words/

          • Gosman 2.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2019 at 1:05 pm

            He is interviewing one of the organisers of the Extinction Rebellion movement. That is what is being discussed here. Her views not his.

            • left_forward 2.1.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2019 at 1:19 pm

              To the contrary, each question was prefaced by Nigel's view, including as Siobhan notes, his climate change denial. This is as far from 'brilliant' as it is gets Goz! If this is your starting point, you're hardly going to appreciate what XR is all about.

              • Gosman …
                16 October 2019 at 1:38 pm

                It is his questions to her that are pertinent not his views on Climate change. She couldn't explain how a people's assembly would work and how it would be set up exactly. Who would choose the representatives for example?

        • Incognito 2.1.1.2
          16 October 2019 at 12:24 pm

          An “Extinction Rebellion person … floundered quite badly”. Well, that settled the climate crisis then. Your invaluable contribution to the debate has been noted and I will personally nominate you for a Prize at the end of the year.

          • Gosman 2.1.1.2.1
            16 October 2019 at 1:06 pm

            Pointing out the fundamental flaw in the Extinction Rebellion movement is VERY pertinent to this discussion.

            • Incognito 2.1.1.2.1.1
              16 October 2019 at 3:07 pm

              An “Extinction Rebellion person … floundered quite badly” proves “the fundamental flaw in the Extinction Rebellion movement”. Absolutely! Given that the Prize nominees are ranked using STV, I think you are almost guaranteed one.

        • WILD KATIPO 2.1.1.3
          16 October 2019 at 4:45 pm

          The thing is Gosman, that in times past, it was often civil disruption that forced change.

          I seem to remember the Poll Taxes of the 17th century as one. Also , after the Great Plague, which ran from the 13th to the 17th,…there was a new power enabled by the peasantry of England in which they were able to demand higher wages as there were less workers available, – to which the King of England at that time after the initial aftermath of the Plague … passed a law which enabled the remaining law enforcement to make sweeping arrests on the working populations , to inhibit local travel , to accept substandard wages….

          In essence, a totalitarian type of answer which benefited only the elites…

          It was not long before that was overturned by successive Kings through sheer weight of numbers.

          That in turn , ushered in a new era of creativity, scholastic advances for the commoner and eventually , …the Renaissance was born. And from that came global travel , new technology's , new trade links etc… so what started off as a punitive move ended up in benefiting England immensely… in power and in wealth.

          Not all public protest is to be viewed a a mere anarchy and challenge to the established order to be put down as some common violent peasant revolt.

  3. esoteric pineapples 3
    16 October 2019 at 10:35 am

    "Moderation note: no climate denial comments under my posts, thanks."

    That will deprive a lot of older white males of the opportunity to share their opinion on anthropogenic climate change

    • Formerly Ross 3.1
      16 October 2019 at 10:38 am

      Ageist, racist and sexist all in the same sentence. That is quite some feat!

      • Adrian Thornton 3.1.1
        16 October 2019 at 10:56 am

        @Formerly Ross…True that, it seems that as long as you attack the right people you're OK…I guess that this is a natural progression of the fanatical anti Trump (and believe me I am no fan of him) carry on that has infected the liberal left..just smoke and mirrors for lazy thinkers.

      • marty mars 3.1.2
        16 October 2019 at 11:04 am

        It is actually none of those things mr strugglestreet

        • Adrian Thornton 3.1.2.1
          16 October 2019 at 11:16 am

          Well as you are so deeply embedded down that track, I can see why you would not be able to see past your own nose..so no surprised there.

      • greywarshark 3.1.3
        16 October 2019 at 4:24 pm

        Yes succinct and right to the point of the situation. Good on you ep.

    • weka 3.2
      16 October 2019 at 10:51 am

      A small number I think 🙂

  4. Adrian Thornton 4
    16 October 2019 at 10:50 am

    I am not sure why anyone would be surprised at this turn of events, at least now people will start seeing and maybe understanding that there are no answers for battling climate change in a meaningful way that will or can from within the framework of any country that operates under the Liberal Capitalist freemarket framework (centre Right or centre 'Left') which by the very core of it's ideology, demands endless growth, endless extraction endless trading of goods and foods that are often not of any real value to the countries they are being shipped to…half way around the world.

    Time for a real change, Capitalist Liberalism has proved time and again it can't save us..so therefore Labour NZ can't either…a sad but true fact.

    Turn Labour Left!

  5. Dukeofurl 5
    16 October 2019 at 10:51 am

    "Anti-Brexit barrister Jo Maugham QC said the move was “a huge overreach” of police powers"

    Jolyon Toby Dennis Maugham QC is a British barrister, as of 2019 practising in tax law at Devereux Chambers. Wikipedia

    Tax law . probably has never had a case dealing with the police and the public. BBC link seems to have dropped off

    [this is why I get grumpy about people not linking. You obviously copy and pasted from wiki so why not put the link in so people can see if you are speaking truth or manipulating the conversation? Linking improves the quality of debate – weka]

    • weka 5.1
      16 October 2019 at 11:18 am

      Lol, you couldn't even be bothered reading past the first sentence on the Wikipedia page? You only had to read the second sentence.

      Jolyon Toby Dennis Maugham QC (born 1 July 1971)[1] is a British barrister, as of 2019 practising in tax law at Devereux Chambers.[2] He is the founder and director of the Good Law Project, through which he has played a key role in bringing to court a number of legal challenges to the Brexit process, which he opposes.[3]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolyon_Maugham

      The Good Law Project,

      We use the law to deliver a progressive society.

      We fight cases to defend, define or change the law in the following areas:

      Brexit – we think Brexit’s a terrible idea. And if the people agree we think they should be able to stop it.
      Tax – we all need what our taxes buy. We all have to pay our share.
      Workers’ Rights – no one should get rich exploiting the vulnerable. Where Government policy lets workers down, we will step in.

      https://goodlawproject.org/about/

      • Dukeofurl 5.1.1
        16 October 2019 at 11:34 am

        I gave the name of the Source. Thats the part Google search gave up. Its not a big deal. Same as the BBC link that wasnt there, I was easily able to find BBC UK news.

        Devereux Chambers ?

        Devereux has a "strong reputation as a leading set for tax law." The set advises wealthy individuals on tax and estate planning matters, including pensions, offshore trusts and Capital Gains Tax…..

        Barristers with this Expertise :Jolyon Maugham QC

        Yes hes worked on the Brexit legal cases but his own link gives this as his area of expertise

        Rich Pricks Tax lawyer in other words.
        Which is what the Wikipedia snippet said

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          16 October 2019 at 11:41 am

          Your comment implied that Maugham had no experience outside of tax law, presumably you were saying that as a way negating their commentary on the XR ban. Your comment was misleading.

          • Dukeofurl 5.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2019 at 12:54 pm

            yes it was saying hes not experienced with civil rights and the Police. Its not misleading

            His own specialist expertise claims back that up.

            This person has the right civil liberties expertise, Helen Mountfield QC , but maybe because shes a highly qualified woman its harder to get into news stories even if she worked on Brexits cases too.

    • weka 5.2
      16 October 2019 at 11:20 am

      mod note for you.

  6. Dukeofurl 6
    16 October 2019 at 11:21 am

    The London Police have a press release

    • weka 6.1
      16 October 2019 at 11:37 am

      The Metropolitan Police Service has not banned protests or protests by Extinction Rebellion across London.

      The MPS has imposed conditions under Section 14 of the Public order Act 1986 upon the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’ demonstrations which have been taking place for nine days.

      The conditions state: “Any assembly linked to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’… must now cease their protest(s) within London (Metropolitan Police Service, and City of London areas) by 21:00hrs [on Monday] 14th October 2019”.

      Protestors have been notified and were given the opportunity to leave the site. Anyone who fails to comply with the condition is liable for arrest and prosecution.

      Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 is legislation used by a senior officer to impose conditions on a public assembly where it is believed serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to life of the community may result, or it is believed the organisers of that assembly will intimidate or compel others to do unlawful acts.

      Under Section 14, a senior officer can specify the location, duration and number of participants of an assembly. The use of this legislation is not unusual, and has been used as recently as last week in order to prevent static assemblies causing serious disruption or serious harm.

      This condition will remain in place until the activities of Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’ cease.

      So XR protests/actions haven't been banned in London, they're just no allowed to do them in London?

      • Dukeofurl 6.1.1
        16 October 2019 at 12:58 pm

        Thats probably how the Met are working it , give an official explanation from their lawyers and make it public. But the Police on the streets just get told to block everyone and arrest as usual.

        We have it in NZ , policies and procedures are ignored and the Inspector in charge just does what he/she likes

  7. weka 7
    16 October 2019 at 11:23 am

    Interesting convo here on police now stopping people on Lambeth Bridge (which has been one of the XR sites).

    https://twitter.com/alexjarmitage/status/1184086007379103744

    https://twitter.com/ZackPolanski/status/1184155877500248068

  8. Climaction 8
    16 October 2019 at 12:07 pm

    Watch the middle class wokies fold like newspaper when their arrests affect their ability to travel after Brexit.

    • Incognito 8.1
      16 October 2019 at 12:11 pm

      Speaking from experience, are you?

    • weka 8.2
      16 October 2019 at 12:17 pm

      yeah, because traveling overseas is high on the personal agenda of people who are trying to prevent immanent climate catastrophe 🙄

      • Incognito 8.2.1
        16 October 2019 at 12:18 pm

        devil

      • Siobhan 8.2.2
        16 October 2019 at 12:38 pm

        You mean like the time Gail Bradbrook co-founder of Extinction Rebellion flew 11,000 miles to Costa Rica for holidays?.

        Which is actually fine with me, like Bradbrook says, “this is not about not flying or not eating meat, it’s a blend of many different things that need to happen, and the British people must be involved.”.

        Thats the point, lets not pretend we don't fly etc etc..we should all drop the false virtue signaling..which is like a free pass for mocking from the likes of Climaction, and start moving away from Climate Change all being blamed on Individual's and direct it at the real problems..and those with the power to bring real change, like our Governments.

        [if you are going to quote you have to link. Please provide a link now. – weka]

        • Gosman 8.2.2.1
          16 October 2019 at 1:04 pm

          Your response highlights the weakness of the Extinction rebellion movement. There is no real substance behind what you are calling for beside some vague idea that we have to have "Urgent systematic change".

          • marty mars 8.2.2.1.1
            16 October 2019 at 1:12 pm

            nah – whatever is said you will say it is not doable, affordable or that something needs to be done first or some other distract from doing anything. You are a waste of time.

            • Gosman 8.2.2.1.1.1
              16 October 2019 at 1:40 pm

              I may well do that. However my views don't really matter. The point is unless you are willing to present a concrete proposal you are not going to be able to get people onboard. You may not like Farage personally or his politics but he at least did something concrete. There is a lesson to be learnt from that.

              • AB …
                16 October 2019 at 5:22 pm

                It's unreasonable to expect mass popular movements to have fully developed plans. Requiring them to do so is normally just a surreptitious means of discrediting them or shutting them down. I'm not at all impressed by Farage pulling this trick. However it's in the nature of such movements to transmute quickly, and sometimes disappear altogether. Therefore it could change into something that does have an operating framework of some sort. XR is not a corporation with top-down management where some honcho says "bring me a proposal by Friday." So let's wait and see – if you crave certainty and authority and a sense of being in control, then these times are not for you.

                The main problem with a people's assembly is how you constitute it. What it might do is pretty clear – create a broad CC response framework that binds future governments. It might mandate reaching the targets in the Paris accords (or more aggressive targets). And it probably should say something about how these targets are achieved – that the implementation must not increase inequality, must not increase economic insecurity for some and increase profits for others. That nobody is left behind, a just transition and all that. Things are fluid and nobody knows where this will go. If I had to pick I'd say it will be like Occupy – driven underground by police action. Then pop up again later in some new form.

                • Dukeofurl …
                  16 October 2019 at 5:56 pm

                  Thats not correct, XR have a clear position

                  "We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making."

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

                  None of its true 'as they are presenting it'. There is no emergency or mass extinction. This is why we have IPCC who dont say anything like that.

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2019 at 6:14 pm

                    The scientific consensus in the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is that:

                    A large fraction of both terrestrial and freshwater species faces increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors, such as habitat modification, over-exploitation, pollution, and invasive species (high confidence). Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing with both magnitude and rate of climate change. Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of climate change (i.e., RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) during the 21st century (medium confidence). Lower rates of change (i.e., RCP2.6) will pose fewer problems.

                    — IPCC, 2014

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_risk_from_global_warming

                    • Poission …
                      16 October 2019 at 6:37 pm

                      The emergent scientific opinion is Hallam and the cast from central casting have a weak grasp of the science .

                      https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira/status/1165329106201788416.

                    • weka []
                      16 October 2019 at 6:47 pm

                      “Mr. Hallam’s claim that “the science predicts” that six billion people are headed for slaughter and starvation by 2100 is simply not correct. No mainstream prediction indicates anywhere near this level of climate-change-induced human mortality, for any reason. The effects of war, disease, and weather disasters are somewhat harder to anticipate (and outside of my core expertise), so I will focus the remainder of my reply on food supply issues.”

                      Hardly a useful comparison then.

                      Edit: in other words, we’d need to see what Hallam was basing his assertion on, and consider it in the light of his role compared to the role of climate scientists.

                    • Poission …
                      16 October 2019 at 6:54 pm

                      How about the promulgation of climate emergency politics is dangerous.

                      Declarations of emergencies create “states of exception,” often justified by governments under conditions of war, insurrection, or terrorist threat. Emergencies promise the mass mobilization of a jurisdiction’s full economic, social, and technical capacities to ward off an existential threat. Yet at the same time emergencies can threaten constitutional rights and justify the suspension of normal politics.

                      https://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Hulme-Climate-Emergency-Politics-Is-Dangerous-Fall-2019.pdf

                      The irony is mass arrests and internment would be justified under emergency powers.

                    • weka []
                      16 October 2019 at 6:59 pm

                      I agree this is an issue, and that how we frame and talk about the situation matters in terms of finding best solutions. I suspect this is some of the critique aimed at XR, that they may cause damage at the social level (beyond daily disruption). The solution to that is to build better framing, not deny the problem exists.

                      I’ve argued hard against Guy McPherson’s ‘we’re all going to die’ rhetoric, in part because he misuses science to say that it’s too late. But XR are presenting solutions, not a dead end. Hallam’s figure may well be hyperbole, but to know that we’d have to see the context. I had to do that with McPerson’s work when I decided to critique it, it wasn’t enough to just react against it.

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2019 at 6:16 pm

                    For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation will negativelyimpact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locationsmay benefit (mediumconfidence). {7.4, Figure 7-4} Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios,with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10% and about 10% of projectionsshowing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. {Figure 7-5} After 2050, the risk of more severeimpacts increases. {Figure 7-5} Regional Chapters 22 (Africa), 23 (Europe), 24 (Asia), 27 (Central and South America), and Box 7-1show crop production to be consistently and negatively affected by climate change in the future in low-latitude countries, whileclimate change may have positive or negative effects in northern latitudes (highconfidence).

                    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FINAL.pdf

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2019 at 6:18 pm

                    Afaik, IPCC projections are still based on mitigation that involves CCS tech that doesn't exist yet. You may be ok with banking the world on that, many of us are not.

                    The reasons why the IPCC hasn't been talking about the catastrophe until recently are interesting, but scientists, including ecology and climate scientists are definitely talking about climate change as an emergency.

                    But even the IPCC is now too,

                    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

                  • AB …
                    16 October 2019 at 6:43 pm

                    Gosman was critical of their lack of concrete action plans, not their lack of a clear position. Position and plan are different obviously.

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2019 at 6:50 pm

                      Not sure what you mean there. XR's plans are clear (force the govt to meet their three demands). They have solid and evolving strategy on how to achieve that. What more is needed? It's not XR's job to solve climate change, that's for the government to do.

                    • Incognito []
                      16 October 2019 at 7:01 pm

                      One way of looking at is that XR is the conduit between the science/scientists and the policy/policy-makers. By attacking the conduit, some hope to sever the link and so avoid meaningful connection and action.

                    • weka []
                      16 October 2019 at 7:34 pm

                      Nice metaphor!

        • weka 8.2.2.2
          16 October 2019 at 6:28 pm

          Singling out a 3 year old holiday trip strikes me as anti-virtue signalling 😉

          The reason that XR exists is because the government *isn't acting. It's individuals out there on the streets, individuals that vote, individuals that also have to change their minds and their lifestyles and their values if we want t avert catastrophe. I'm not sure why people think governments will act without people actually forcing them, but this is primary to what XR are doing.

          Individuals are also MPs, journalists, civil servants, police, who have kids and grandkids, and whose minds are being changed.

          Climaction's comments are easily countered because they're just trolling.

          • Climaction 8.2.2.2.1
            17 October 2019 at 9:40 am

            And XR’s actions are frustrating and don’t advance cause towards the aims XR pursues because “direct action” is too often countered by its own activists lack of any meaningful action except slogans and protests.

            Real climate people, like Robert guyton and boyan slat, walk the talk. Unlike al gore et al who seem to arrive miraculously in some new location to talk to everyone more. Their carbon use is ok right? Because their spreading the anti carbon message.

            this basic hypocrisy is at the heart of the antipathy towards the movements, when real people are doing real things but aren’t given the same validation as they aren’t climate celebrities.

            • weka 8.2.2.2.1.1
              17 October 2019 at 9:50 am

              There's plenty of critique of using carbon to prevent climate change and the reasons why that is complex. Al Gore was never going to save the world, but he was still useful in waking people up.

              My suggestion is you take the time to look at the founders of XR and see what they've been doing. Because it's not sitting around yelling slogans. You are way off base there.

              Not sure what your point is beyond that. I get that you personally don't like XR for some reason, but vague assertions of direct action being flawed don't really tell us much.

        • weka 8.2.2.3
          16 October 2019 at 6:30 pm

          mod note for you Siobhan.

      • Climaction 8.2.3
        16 October 2019 at 2:06 pm

        It seems to be very high. I've never met a climate protestor who didn't like a conference in a semi exotic location. like politicians in that respect.

        The real hard yards on climate change are being done by the unsung hero's like boyan slat. https://theoceancleanup.com/ and the farmers cleaning up there waterways with native plantings and.

        Not the attention seeking pseudo socialists getting misty eyed about another opportunity to prove their dedication to a cause via "Direct Action"

        But quiet, effective workers don't get cool headlines.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 8.2.3.1
          16 October 2019 at 7:25 pm

          Climaction, how many climate protestors have you met?

          And how do you know that all or any of those you have met "like a conference in a semi exotic location"? Might you be projecting?

          Just curious – seems to be a rather absolute claim/stance.

  9. Aaron 9
    16 October 2019 at 12:55 pm

    So what you are saying is that the police have decided to help XR with their aim of clogging up the court system. Now where's I put the popcorn?

    • Dukeofurl 9.1
      16 October 2019 at 1:12 pm

      The previous protesters have been 'catch and release' for later minor court hearings.

      This is now more complicated

      "A total of 92 people connected to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’ protests have been charged with offences including failing to comply with a condition imposed under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, criminal damage, and obstruction of a highway.'

      Section 14 offences are much harsher punishment

      'A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both.

      (9)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

      (10)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both .'

    • weka 9.2
      16 October 2019 at 6:25 pm

      "So what you are saying is that the police have decided to help XR with their aim of clogging up the court system. Now where's I put the popcorn?"

      Indeed. Whether the UK goes authoritarian or decides to uphold civil liberties will be interesting to watch for sure. Not so much fun if they actually crack down and set a new precedent for controlling citizens' right to assemble.

  10. WILD KATIPO 10
    16 October 2019 at 4:15 pm

    Yeah, seems way too hamfisted.

    You take away the right to peaceful demonstrations , you take away the voice of the people and their right to register their displeasure.

    Wrong, wrong , wrong.

    In my humble opinion, I believe the premise of the causes of global changes has been misrepresented,… owing to other causative effects, however,… you do NOT shut down honest debate by blanket , all sweeping powers that are unwarranted.

    This latest Police gesture needs to be put under scrutiny.

    We do not support an official line that leads to the undemocratic and unwarranted arrests of those with a differing view to elected officials , nor their use of the tax payer funded national policing force to enforce those arrests that betrays the very legal foundations upon which a democracy is foundered on.

    We do not support totalitarianism.

  12. weka 12
    16 October 2019 at 11:56 pm

    Judicial review in court to see if the police ban was actually legal.

    https://twitter.com/damiengayle/status/1184408015530844160