User:Annanoon/Sandbox/Extinction Rebellion

Extinction Rebellion (XR) is an environmentalist activist movement founded in the United Kingdom in May 2018 which wants to prevent further climate change from anthropogenic global warming by calling for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas production, as well as opposing other environmental threats such as biodiversity losses and pollution. It focuses on non-violent direct action, such as street protests, blocking traffic, and chaining or gluing themselves to things: they aim to create disruption, attract public attention, and get members arrested to overwhelm the police and justice system, hoping that such disruption will force the government to take action.

It emerged from a new wave of environmentalism motivated by things like Greta Thunberg's school strikes movement, which led to students in several country taking the day off school and call for action and education about climate change. XR is in some ways the adult version of this. XR is critical of representative democracy (as reflecting vested interests not people's wishes) and wants a different way of doing things, although members don't seem entirely sure of what that should be. XR has called for a very rapid transition to zero-carbon emissions, which has thrown up debates about the practicality and social effects of such a transition.

Actions in UK

 * 17 October 2018: sit-in at Greenpeace's London offices
 * 31 October 2018: assembly in Parliament Square, London
 * Nov 2018: blockaded Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
 * 17 November 2018: blocking bridges over river Thames in London
 * 25 January 2019: occupied Scottish parliament building
 * February 2019: disruption of London Fashion Week
 * 1 April 2019: stripped naked in House of Commons viewing gallery
 * 15 April 2019: a large-scale demonstration in London with protests at several city-centre sites and parallel actions in Edinburgh. This also included protests on the Docklands Light Railway, near Heathrow Airport, and outside Jeremy Corbyn's house.
 * June 2019: protests against air pollution in Lewisham

Australia
In March 2019 there were protests in several Australian cities.

Elsewhere
There have been smaller protests in several European cities.

Political effects
It was condemned by right-wing politicians and the right-wing press, while left-wingers were notably more sympathetic.

Organisation
It is loosely structured with no overall authority or leaders and local groups conducting individual actions. This is in contrast to traditional environmentalist campaigners such as Greenpeace, which have a hierarchy, governing bodies deciding direction, etc.

Demands
The movement has advanced three demands, one very specific and two very vague; they are expressed in various ways but can be summarised:
 * 1) "Tell the truth": The government must tell the truth about climate change
 * 2) "Act now": Reduce emissions to zero by 2025 (and preserve biodiversity)
 * 3) "Beyond politics": Set up a citizens' assembly to oversee the changes required to reduce emissions

Telling the truth
It's not clear that the government has been lying; it funds environmental research, and information is easily available for those who look for it. At the same time, most people are only vaguely aware of the issues and don't think about them a lot, which is part of the reason why so much pollution still takes place. The government could spend more money on environmental measures. Yet it's not clear how much effect that would have. In itself it probably wouldn't have much effect on people's actions, with factors such as "why should I change if others aren't" coming into play.

You could also argue that XR are failing to tell the truth, either by not stating what will be required to combat climate change, or by advancing only vague proposals that may not be feasible. They have also misled on specific topics, such as conditions in British jails.

Reduce emissions to zero by 2025
This is a clearly stated aim: it doesn't require stopping all emissions, just that carbon dioxide and other gases are absorbed in sufficient quantities (e.g. by growing vegetation or carbon capture) to balance emissions. Questions exist about whether it is achievable, or how drastic a societal change would be required to achieve it. And there is no specific proposal on how it should be done.

Various organisations have proposed different target dates for zero emissions. The UK government's Committee on Climate Change (CCC) proposed 2050 (replacing a previous government commitment for 80% reduction by 2050); Friends of the Earth and other environmentalist groups have said 2045; the Swedish government has set a binding target of 2045.

There are various minor complications to "zero emissions": Sweden's zero emissions target excludes international aviation; and other schemes allow countries to buy carbon credits from overseas.

Citizens' assembly
Citizens' assemblies are bodies, a cross between a jury and a public inquiry, where citizens weigh up evidence, possibly direct further evidence-gathering, and hopefully come to a conclusion about future actions. They have not been widely used, and have tended to focus on issues which either have comparatively low importance (electoral reform), or where the choice is fairly simple (abortion law reform). In this case they state the assembly should "create a roadmap". It isn't clear how much it should be involved on drafting specific proposals.

XR's position here reflects a frustration with representative democracy, which tends to be slow and based on consensus or at least the ability of certain sectors of society to slow down change. However, it's not clear the citizens' assembly would be any more decisive or effective: this seems to go against the urgency of their other demands. They say, "This process can take from months to years", which doesn't leave much time afterwards for implementing the decisions. Perhaps they see the assembly having more of an oversight role, judging progress, rather than a policymaking one, while a strong leader is empowered to quickly enforce their demands.

It also isn't clear what would happen if you held a citizen's assembly and they decided it wasn't worth the effort to fight climate change.

Exaggeration
Climate change poses a risk to many animals and threatens to seriously disrupt human societies through disruption to agriculture and food supplies, flooding, deaths from excessive heat, and other mechanisms, but it is debatable whether as claimed by XR, it truly poses an existential threat to the human race.

Vagueness
While their goal is clear, they are very vague about how to achieve it. This contrasts with other organisations' specific plans such green new deal proposals, and ideas such as banning/phasing out petrol and diesel motor vehicles: such schemes wouldn't be sufficient for net zero emissions by 2025, but they are comparatively specific and can be analysed, assessed, and implemented.

Feasibility
Cutting net emissions to zero in 6 years would require an enormous change. Emissions sources include food production, construction, and many industries, as well as more obvious burning of fossil fuels, so the actions required are vast. Huge swathes of human activity would have to be more or less entirely decarbonised: no more internal combustion engined vehicles; almost no flying; no more heating using gas, coal or oil; all electricity generation by renewables or nuclear power; a vast program of energy efficiency, home insulation, etc; and much more.

The CCC's proposals for zero emissions by 2050 required "the end of petrol and diesel cars and gas boilers, less meat on plates, quadrupling clean electricity generation and planting an estimated 1.5bn trees. It will require tens of billions of pounds of investment every year, the CCC said – about 1-2% of Britain’s GDP." Reductions in a shorter time limit would require greater per-year spending.

Given enough time, it would be possible to replace power generation with lower-emission versions, polluting transport with improved public transport and electric cars where necessary, etc. Whether people are willing to move to a vegan diet is another question, and how to handle things like long-distance travel is a problem, and reductions in polluting materials such as plastics and concrete. Many people would also lose their jobs or at least have to change job. Some may no longer be able to stay in homes that are remote or far from carers or relatives. None of this is an insuperable barrier, but does require time, organisation, and taking public opinion along with you.

Lack of focus on individual responsibility
Their proposals are all aimed at getting the government to take action, not at calling on individuals to change their own lifestyles. This arguably reflects the failure of calls for people to reduce their emissions and the acceptance that voluntary action would have only a small effect. However it also leads to allegations of hypocrisy, as when actor Emma Thompson took a transatlantic flight to participate in protests.

One of their aims is to avoid blaming individuals. However it seems to be part of a trend in environmentalism where activists call for changes that will not inconvenience them personally: ranging from bans on trivial items such as plastic drinking straws and drinks stirrers, to calls for institutional investors to disinvest from fossil fuel producers.

Lack of focus on political structures
Some environmentalists believe we need an end to capitalism and a new socialist structure to tackle climate change. In contrast, not only does XR fail to specify a new, more egalitarian political system, but XR's proposals suggest a need for a strong government to take decisive action. This risks falling into totalitarianism. ER has some sort of vague interest in greater democracy but it is not focussing on new political structures or political issues such as how resources should be allocated in a resource-scarce world. A Citizen's Assembly is a different way of providing guidance or making decisions, but it is not sufficient to govern a country. A lack of attention to such issues could mean that we emerge with a solution to climate change where the rich 1% can continue to pollute and the 99% are greatly restricted.

"They don't support my scheme"
XR doesn't call on people to embrace veganism, or to reduce the number of children they have, or any other specific. This annoys proponents of veganism and other causes. But it reflects their wider refusal to say how climate change should be tackled, or to blame or single out individuals.

Targets
They have often pursued a strategy of general disruption, sometimes targetting bad actors such as fossil fuel companies, but often not. This included blockading public transport (the London Docklands Railway), despite the fact that public transport is generally seen as a solution to fighting climate change. They claim they are seeking to cause "economic disruption" rather than targetting specific polluters.

Quality of life
It is argued that the changes required would have a drastic negative effect on people's lives. It's clear that if implemented very rapidly they would result in a lot of change and upset, with people's homes, diets, jobs, personal transport, leisure activities, opportunities to visit distant relatives, and much more, disrupted. At the same time, there would be benefits with cleaner air, reduced pollution, and improved health, as well as new job opportunities.

There is a direct relationship between the rapidity of change and the degree of disruption. Former Conservative environment secretary John Gummer said of the proposals for zero emissions by 2050: "We are not asking people to lead a miserable life, we are looking to have as fulfilled a life as today, but to do it in a way that takes responsibility for the future by respecting the planet which gives us life. We would have cleaner air and we would live in a better society."

International
Even if the UK cuts emissions to zero, that will have little effect unless other nations do likewise.

Arrests
They have been criticised for their plans to have large numbers of activists be arrested and jailed. In particular they have promoted jail as a fun experience where you can read or do yoga. This does not accord with reality. Their plans for large numbers of activists to be arrested at once will make it impossible to provide legal support to them; it also ignores the fact that jail is particularly dangerous for black people, even if middle-class, middle-aged white activists might have it easier.