What do *you* think of Extinction Rebellion? Could it make a difference? Are you tempted to take part? There are so many sides to these protests that I didn't get a chance to discuss, but can't wait to hear all your thoughts!
I have been involved in civil disobedience, and my wife, Claire, was in fact arrested at a protest against a new national gas pipeline. (See 667-per-cm.net/2016/06/30/climate-lamentation-call-response-west-roxbury-ma-spectraalgonquin-explosive-pipeline/.) It did help to succeed. (See 667-per-cm.net/2016/08/23/eversource-withdraws-from-the-spectra-algonquin-access-northeast-pipeline-project/.) Currently, proposals for natural gas pipelines and related infrastructure are considered the "third rail of Massachusetts politics". Good. However, there could be a strong and unhealthy NIMBY factor, too. The same makes neighborhoods oppose wind turbines, even if they are not right next door. Or peaceful solar farms, even if they aren't next door. So, I don't know. I've often suggested that opposition to natural gas pipelines ought to be followed by a campaign to encourage people and businesses to switch off natural gas and onto things like air source heat pumps. No takers from local environmental groups there. I also think (and, to credit, it was my older son who thought of this ) that a great deal more could be accomplished if environmental organizations simply devoted a substantial portion of their membership fees to buying solar PV to put on homes, and businesses, and apartment houses, especially for economically poorer peoples. The clout from having PV seems to be a direct and substantial benefit. On the people's assemblies ideas, these are present in the USA, and in Massachusetts, for example, in Cambridge, MA, and in Falmouth. But the membership is selective, and the members need to be credentialed, such as having expertise in science or engineering or health or something. Fortunately, we are lucky and have a rich pool of candidates. See, for example, www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/climateandenergy/climatechangeplanning So, I don't know. I think that unless there are actionable suggestions, protests are self-limiting. And to increase appeal, many of the proponents of, for example, the Green New Deal, lash on social justice and other ambitions such as jobs and universal healthcare to these projects. Now, I can see a need for increasing jobs in the face of a hypothetical crash program to convert to zero Carbon energy, and I can see a need for transitioning people employed by Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) industry and secondary industries to something else. But I also see that it is hard enough to get action on climate, and asking these other objectives be met, too, makes the former less probable. We don't need that, as worthy as these other objectives may be on their own. The most egregious problem with XR and GND I have is, as suggested, putting out there the hope that something can be accomplished by, say, 2030. In GND's case, that's worthwhile, but I fear -- and have stated publicly -- that people think if their stated objective of cutting GHG emissions in half by 2030 in the USA, everything will be fine. That's misleading, and I think even dishonest. People need to understand that we need to get to zero, somehow, and we need to figure out how to offset or otherwise mediate global agriculture emissions as well as energy. This is a massive engineering problem, and the way any such problem gets done is to break it up into pieces and swat one piece at a time, or at least have a group that each is trying to swat a separate piece. And it needs coordination, whether from government, or from corporations, or from some other entity. While involved with these groups that kind of deliberate focus and organization does not appear to be their forte or what they want. To paraphrase Greta Thunberg -- and she might not agree with this at all -- I am concerned that having a bunch of people who understand some of this protesting might make them feel better, and make others feel better, but that's not where we need to be. And it's true, I may not be as good a communicator as Climate Adam, but when I try to broach the subject of the complexity of what's needed, audiences, even by ones and twos, sometime just get exhausted and want to stop thinking about it. So, sure, XR and GND as a wake-up is fine. But to think it can be solved by a wave of a magic social political wand is intellectually dishonest. We need a deliberate, decidedly un-fun, massive project to fix this.
The keys, as you said, are to stir things up such that people are taken out of their routines (the stick) combined with useful information and structures through which people are provided topics for discussion with each other and ways to do something about it (the carrot). This is a delicate balance, as Ghandi, Martin Luther King, the women's movement, the disabilities rights movement and other social change movements can easily attest. Nobody likes when mistakes are made, but when they are, the leadership needs to refocus on the original intent to remind folks that, in this case, the purpose is to break through so people begin to talk about the climate change challenges and how to come up with ways to make the big changes we need to make to head off potentially catastrophic events in the future. For me, personally, these events provide a useful way to move the conversation ahead with my friends and at public events. One of the things that can happen (and I'm talking locally in the US) is to use this as a tool to re-engage young people and others who have distanced themselves from involvement in political activity and perhaps even more importantly, begin to move local and state policies that can either facilitate or hinder change. Every individual is uniquely placed to make a difference where they are at: at home, with social circles, at work and in the communities where they live. Nobody else can do as much as you can about these places: what are you waiting for?
tweezerjam34 I don’t get the psychedelic stupid intro. Give some real information to this dumbasses. Or should they just keep on watching dumb Trump or Kim Dumbdashian or the next Burger comercial!! I had never realized how brainwashed, uneducated and probabily also stupid most of the “masses” are until now. I see most don’t do their research and have as their only source of information the “regular media”. That’s NOT REAL REPORTING!!!!!!! The dumb ones who don’t research and keep up to date with scientific reports will be screaming one they realize they are going to die. Will it be from diseases carried by insects? Will it be from fire spread from the forests? Will it be from killing each other over food after animals and agriculture are gone? Will it be from flooding, earthquakes or tornadoes? Or will it be because “America” won’t have any money left to deal with any more disasters!?????? WAAAAAAAKEEEEE UPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!
Meanwhile in Mozambique: "Cyclone Kenneth arrived late on Thursday, just six weeks after Cyclone Idai ripped into central Mozambique and killed more than 600 people. This was the first time in recorded history that the southern African nation has been hit by two cyclones in one season, highlighting concerns about climate change.”
@@cuppacoffee8961 oh they've moved from "global warming" mantra and are now peddling "climate change". dare to have a view on it, you'll soon be labeled a climate denialist lol Furthermore, if you're a scientist daring to publicly air your scepticism, be prepared to say goodbye to your career. We are indeed doomed and nothing to do with climate.
I agree I remember the sixties every house had coal fires vehicles spewed out real pollution and they say pollution is worse carbon tax electricity bills up gas bills up petrol bills up this taxes the poor pensioners like me and working class and end capitalism they use mobile phones made by fossil fuels and everything made of metal yes stop using fossil fuels and get our resources from China good solution
When they first formed Extinction Rebellion and blocked the bridges a while ago, I wasn’t really a fan. But even though I personally don’t want to get arrested, I am now fully supporting them because I feel like there is no other solution left. The government ignore petitions and other things like that. Direct action seems to be the best choice. Although it seems as if the government are offering to talk with the school strikers but not ER. But anyway, both are fairly interlinked so it’s all positive.
Please, pretty pretty please Govern me better, please. Do you know what Government means? Did you know that the XR movement is part of a corporate agenda to financialise nature and loot pensions. XR amounts to an idiot march in which many gullible people's emotions have been exploited for something they simply do not understand.
@@ChrisInToon I've seen this idea pop up in a few places, not once have I seen it backed up with evidence. So you think that people should be able to take from nature willy nilly?
@@realvssocialmedia Who are you Cathy Newmans brother with your deductive reasoning? " So you think that people should be able to take from nature willy nilly?" Err have I ever said that in this comment? or any comment for that matter. Here is a tip stop being ideologically bound to the point you become like Cathy Newmans brother.
Regarding the 2nd demand from XR it's always better to start a negotiation with a big unreasonable/unrealistic demand than it is to start from the middle of your opponents position. Much better to demand zero emissions by 2025 than it is to ask "can we please have a 10% reduction over the next 5 years?"
Exactly! This is totally true. If we demand something unreasonable we might get something reasonable. If we demand something reasonable we will get a symbolic gesture
In a country that happily steps over people in doorways sleeping rough, thinks food banks are normal and accepts 5 per cent unemployment, then of course we need a rebellion. But... Your film did not point out the errors and misguided statements made by some of the protesters in regards to climate and consequences. You lost more people with what you did - you should have tried to win the argument with rational and clear statements. True, irrefutable statements. But.. what did we get. "The world will have no food in 5 years time ". "97 per cent of all people on earth agree with us" and best of all " lets get rid of carbon dioxide all together".
Great round-up, I agree that while the aims might at first seem unrealistic it's a case of shoot for the moon and even if you miss you'll land among the stars. Can't wait to see what happens next!
check the decline in arctic sea ice volume. Decline in insect numbers worldwide. Decline in plankton. Loss of coral reefs. Decline in bees and other pollinators. Then consider the impact of these and other factors combined on food production....with over 250,000 extra people to feed every day. These are adding up to a critical loss of habitat.
A lot of people are more concerned with feeding & clothing their kids & keeping a roof over their heads. By design. Then when they get home for their tea they get bombarded with fake news on bbc/itv about terror & war & knife crime & boatloads of immigrants swarming through Europe & brexit & the price of cabbage is going up again cause a study says its harmful but they've got a vaccine for it so don't worry here's the weather. That we made earlier... On&on.. Meanwhile back at the mansion the puppet masters are sipping claret & playing chess with the devil.
We are in the mist of Abrupt irreversible climate change, to many positive feedback loops have been triggered!! In many diffrent forms, the artic ice is going at a alarming rate, once that goes we go!! Simple!! Trees don’t make it we do not make it, sea does not make we do not make it!! We can’t fix 40 years of abuse to the planet! We’re not rebelling the earth is rebelling trying to get us off! Few months maybe 1-3 years at the most!! Look around it’s buisness as usual man! There’s no stopping this. At the edge of extinction only love remains
@@stan1050 *Extinction Rebellion / Global Warming > The Headless Cab Driver:* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TlLICGgX7TA.html *Quantum of Conscience. The Concept of the **_"Reality Flush"_*
@Kevan Valentine-platt The IPCC 97% Consensus? Global Warming Unmasked! 41 papers out 12,000 to 13,000 so lets say 12,500 that is about 0.04% not 97%** It’s been claimed that ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and incredibly dangerous. But where does this ninety-seven percent claim come from, and more importantly - is it true? The claim is taken from a paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland. However, the paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it only counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yTTaXqVEGkU.html
@@aaronhall1257 The train has already left the station, and its left them behind ! Agreed, these featherless bipeds think they can make a difference. They are delusional ! The 'genie' has already been let out of the bottle ! What they should focus on is how to live on future 'Arakus' 'Dune-like Earth'. .....and not get caught up in Terra forming Mars or the Moon but focus/plan on Terra forming our future Venus-like Earth ! We are about to enter into a 6th Extinction Level Event...so they can lower their heads, put them between their legs and kiss their..... you know what goodbye ! Game Over !
A citizens’ assembly is needed to have a political discourse of how to tackle climate crisis. Every country needs to have its own Green New Deal (inspired by new dealers of the 30s and a massive economic boost) to transform their economy and way of life. It has to be the scale of WW2. It’s feasible for Britain to spend hundreds of billions to have a green transition sapping money from London’s financial sector (90% money flows doesn’t get into the real economy anyway). It won’t be a pouring money into a black hole because it’s going to be massive economic upswing and might help the Brexit heartlands too.
So let's look at climate change as a bus bearing down on us at 50km/h. Net zero (the date is largely irrelevant) simply means that, at very best, the bus hits us at....50km/h. Which means WAIS and Greenland's ice disappear, which....gives us sea level rise way above the 1m or so that, by inundating the world's deltas, will wipe out about 25% of our food production capacity. The analogous 50 km/h also means that CO2 levels will continue to be expressed through C3 plants (and phytoplankton) undergoing a nutritional collapse...which in turn is leading to insect numbers and bird numbers dropping off the proverbial cliff. In short, we can't afford the luxury of XR's demands. We need to have absolute zero emissions from bio fuels, fossil fuels and cement as soon as possible. Then (taking 'today' as a base line) we need to have net negative emissions from remaining land use sources. I see Greta Thunberg has joined the call for a Global General Strike. That might do it, as long as the slogan is "Never Going Back". I've seen 27th of September of this year being touted as the date to "down tools" and walk away (for good?).
@@cuppacoffee8961 “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources. If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.” thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html
@@DerpBearGamingUK There is a difference between appealing to authority and deferring to a consensus of experts. Just a reminder: a consensus is not part of doing science, it’s a consequence of doing it right.
@@Nhoj737 But there's been a 'consensus' of what was right for almost all of science, yet most of it has been overwritten or proven to be wrong at some point.
We can not do without XR, it is the most hopeful social response to the emergency and is setting a great path of coherent pro peace values for an upcoming scenario that is extremely violent. If it is not for justice and peace it will not be worth it so it has to be in the values of XR ! Thanks for your work !
30,000 have joined XR and as far as I know that’s in the UK alone. The last time any such grass roots movement took root in Western Europe was the early peace movement. Up to recently a lot of people have been very worried about climate change, nearly as many think urgent action is necessary but many activists (at the heart of XR and elsewhere) have felt previous attempts to build a mass movement, force governments to act and educate the public have ended up failing. The Paris Accord is a voluntary accord for example. XR as well as the Fridays for Future movement must not and cannot be allowed to fade away or disappear. A labor government in the UK could get a Citizens Assembly up and running. It is a world and national 🚨 emergency. XR has put the issue of the future of the human race centre stage. 🌷✊🌎🔥
Jacob, I think what they've put centre stage is laying the groundwork for big hikes in fuel prices (which will be crushing to the poorest in society) and carbon taxes.
Humans arent endangered by climate change, we would adapt. Extinction rebellion and this ideology basically justifies genocides... Which is why its concerning. There are tons of ppl around now that put the world and animals over the well being of humans. The basic argument is: the world would be better off without us and we are the problem. Its like many other theories rooted in marxism or these socialist ideas where ppl convince themselves that they need to suppress freedoms and infringe on ppls rights bcs of some bigger issue. Bigger issues that often fizzled out or never have been as big a problem to begin with. Most being solved by simple innovation. The solution is simple. Make tons of cheap electricity that can be produced locally. But instead you have almost no investment into nuclear energy, countries like china and india or turkey building new coal mines and not willing to agree to international treaties on emissions. So what are we even doing? Industry was already leaving and will only leave faster now, simply emitting carbon etc elsewhere while the west deindustrializes and grows dependent on these industrialized countries. Like corona has shown us all. Tax back the industry and life standards will plumit. And its just another one of these modern movements that call for humans to live as if they don’t exist, idealizing a world and nature without human influence/impact. If you can reduce carbon emissions while actually improving lives and raising life standards, it will work. If you go about it like a marxist, you will end up murdering millions and throwing many millions more into poverty and starvation. The fact is that these "green ideologies" just have a problem with humans and human consumption and impact.
Just look at the forests they have cut down in Australia it's causing massive droughts over there the only way it to start replanting trees that will be a start
We should begin to green the deserts on a massive scale, using techniquies that are currently available and in use around the world......Billions of trees, not millions...Trees also cause evapo transperation that causes more rain...
Martin Australia is naturally a drought prone country...the majority of it is desert and has been for a m,illion years...tree cutting is not causing droughts there..every tears forest fires rip across australia,,the natural trees that grow there, need the fire to germinate their seeds.so maybe you could get your facts right.
@@bobbobbly7900 some areas of Australia require fire and some plants need them to reproduce. But these fires are catastrophic and they are far stronger and more damaging than our usual fire. We have wet forests that should never burn. These fires are not normal and they are causing irreparable damage to some of our ecosystems and pushing some species right to the brink of extinction.
Forgot to add, tree clearing is causing desertification in previously green areas and reducing rain fall- we are causing droughts here. It wasn't always like this. It's a lot harder to replant in a drought than to just leave trees that are already there to keep growing. I know a woman who has had a number of 400yo trees die on her property from drought.
In Canada Alberta we have the tarsands I want to start a slow moving convoy on the highway from Edmonton to Fort Mac. Renewable energy cars should be used to drive as slow as the law allows. Get arrested with out breaking any laws.
Share, recycle and repair make one of two buy never new Don' use a plane travel by train And drive your car with Methane......... hurts them more than protest! Twindling profits are the best Alarm !
I definitely agree with XR's approach. Lack of action from our elected officials leaves us with one option, civil disobedience. I am definitely looking at what I can do in support, though being a wage slave sets up it's own challenges, I started at a young age, teaching my children about civil disobedience and to question (not disregard) authority. We are all responsible for our own actions, no "authority" other than yourself exists. If we could all agree to not be an a$$hole, the world would be a better place. Just be nice, It's simple.
Whats a wage slave? Someone who earns money instead of having some authority steal from other ppl and giving it to you? If you block roads, you simply hurt other ppl. Others that simply want to live their lives. What do you want elected officials to do? End individual rights in order to push through some "green ideal"?
Firstly while your video did explain very well a lot of aspects of the lack of movement on climate change, one of the most devastating issues of our time, it wasn't completely correct. The main point of Extinction Rebellion wasn't to annoy the police (albeit this was a necessary byproduct) it was to raise the alarm on this subject which it has successfully done. The point is that whether 6 years seems a short time to overhaul our use of fossil fuels, we don't have another option, unless slow painful death is one on your list. Yes, it's dramatic, but we knew the science and the ways to overcome it many many years ago and didn't act. If there was a war we would change the economy and all our production of goods, in a short time. It was done in war time. It can be done, but it needs the will and the policies, and the recognition that there is no other option.
As an environmental scientist my concerns are that a serious scientific discipline (environmental science) has become, via the Extinction Rebellion movement and similar prior, conflated with a socialist political agenda and other movements such as 'occupy' anti-capitalist notions and vegan extremists. Scientists should only consider the facts and research. We have 'representatives' for ER who have zero environmental science experience (worse still have no intention to garner experience) and are majoring in 'Gender Studies' and 'Music Theory'... the politicisation of the cause is a shame to the science and hugely damaging.
As an "Inviromental Scientist" you are already a part of politics. A serious scientific discipline would be Physics. And Physics allows us to use renewable energy for individual transport. It's Politics not science we are still burning stinky Oil for greasy Money for a crooket Banking System and a few filthy rich Oligarchs in order to sell Weapons to fight wars for Oil. "Don't be insane, drive with Methane" HYDROGEN METHANISATION (since 1913)
Environmental science is inextricably entwined with politics and business, whether to get declarations condemning "invasive species" and supporting eradication measures, or supporting use of herbicides and their sale by underscoring local codes eradicating them, or by acting as experts for environmental engineering firms which are hired to review impacts and do stormwater management. Yes, activists need to learn more climate science. I offered a free online course this Summer, "Climate Science for Climate Activists". I'm not a climate scientist, nor a practicing scientist. I'm a statistician and quantitative engineer, but my Bachelor's is in Physics and I've studied some Oceanography, Ecology, Geology, and Geophysics. The basics of climate science really aren't that hard. "Facts and research": That's done. It's been done for >50 years. Science needs to support engineering, both actual, and social.
The Citizens' Assembly was useful in Ireland because the issues at hand were social, abortion and same sex marriage respectively. Not sure if a Citizens' Assembly on low carbon economy would be as effective. Those with an economic interest in carbon intensive economy would conspire to keep the remit of any Citizens' Assembly as narrow as possible. Tbh, I'm not sure how Citizens' Assemblies work, but what would stop Parliament from honouring the recommendations of a Citizens' Assmebly? Recent history has shown that when economic interests are seriously threatened, all pretense of democracy goes with it.
IMO...we're going to sail past 2 degrees C like there's no tomorrow...glad to be an older person. Seems to me it's getting to be time to decide if you want to die on your terms, or wait for some kind of societal collapse as we continue 'business as usual'. Nothing wrong with protesting to educate people... unless you think doing so will actually change the reality that we're way past the point of being able to go green enough to correct the fact that we've raped the place blind, killed off half of all life... and won't be content until everything left has been turned into profit. Sustainability is not one of capitalism's goals... glad to be an older person.
I think each decade is going to get warmer. I also think it doesn't matter, we passed the point of no return a long time ago. It's a finite planet... someday we will figure that out... maybe...lol...
Forget protesting, you know they are not listening, dont crip9your countries infrastructure but do what you can to strive for greener efficiency, use your back garden as a food oasis, forget your pretty lawns & patios, work for yourselves your families your neighbours & without viewing your brethren as a foe be prepared to look out for them, dont panic, be strong, alert & just know your loved so lovingly know you have each others back, dont be stupid & underestimate anything in this world & share the right advice, dont spread what you dont know & add to confusion. One undeniable fact about the human spirit is the outstanding ability to rise especially in distress, your gut instinct is there so you don't have to rely on protection elsewhere but it shares the same values.
I believe it will be Human Rights, that will suffer, already, and with increasing drama as civilization fails to cope with expanding tragedy. With such huge numbers of us alive today, the infrastructure that supports us all must fail a fairly long time period before the last of us succumb. Human Rights will be respected only when convenient as our numbers become fewer.
I like Extinction Rebellion so much I joined last week. XR South Australia is up & running - though I think if we're going to shut anything down, we'll have to focus on Sydney, as that's where the money is.
There absolutely fantastic! We need them right now, even if you don’t like their tactics you have to appreciate that at this moment in time we need action to inspire action
I feel like we are stuck. While everybody signals to support action on climate change when we look at polls it seems like people are not actually walking the walk, and this has been the case for many years if not at least a decade at this point. I believe that these type of slightly more 'aggressive'/'offensive' actions are forcing people to reveal what they actually support. If you give up your support, because you had to wait in your car for 30 minutes or you feel inconvenienced then I don't believe that person ever truly was in favour of climate action. An appropriate response to climate change will be much more radical than the inconveniences caused by 30 minutes of additional traffic. And by 'forcing' people to actually pick the side of history they want to stand on we create political clarity.
everything can help at our stage, support them, copy them, suggest them, join them, I thing we have no time anymore to talk about it just move on, action!
The hilarious thing is is that all these people protesting are wrapped up all nice and cozy in a bubble, their rights for voting and protesting given to them by our ancestors who fought and spilt blood for what we have today, yet you don’t see a climate of vegan activist post a video remembering or respecting for those fallen, something seriously needs doing to sort the crisis we face but the destruction that these these activists cause are beyond
I think they are great and if I didn't have a 9 year old to look after who would have got totally overwhelmed, I'd be getting arrested too. We shall keep on with the school strikes for climate though.
Projected impacts (high confidence of higher): according to the IPCC report's Executive Summary. Yeah, I am with you. 1. Extreme temperatures in many regions. 2. Increases in frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions. 3. Temperature extremes on land are expected to warm up the Earth surface, cause extreme hot days in mid-latitudes would warm up by about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes would warm by up to about 6°C at 2°C 4. The number of hot days is projected to increase in most land regions, with highest increases in the tropics. 5. Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 even if we keep to 1.5°C in the 21st century. 6. Greater exposure of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas to risks associated with sea level rise for many human and ecological systems (greater saltwater intrusion, flooding and damage to infrastructure). 7. Increase in forest fires and the spread of invasive species. 8. High-latitude tundra and boreal forests are particularly at risk of climate change-induced degradation and loss, with woody shrubs already encroaching into the tundra. 10. Increased probability of ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer. 11. 99% of coral reef gone at 2°C. 12. Increased risk of irreversible loss of many marine and coastal ecosystems. 13. Increased levels of ocean acidification due to increasing CO2 concentrations would amplify the effects of warming, impacting the survival of many species, including algae and fish. 14. Disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, some indigenous peoples, and local communities dependent on agricultural or coastal livelihoods will be affected first. 15. Regions at disproportionately higher risk include Arctic ecosystems, dryland regions, small island developing states, and Least Developed Countries. 16. Increase in heat-related morbidity and mortality (the same for ozone-related mortality). 17. Greater risk vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, including potential shifts in their geographical range. 18. Reductions in yields of maize, rice, wheat and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America 19. Reductions in CO2-dependent nutritional quality of rice and wheat. 20. Livestock would be affected with rising temperatures, dependent on the extent of changes in feed quality, spread of diseases and water availability. 21. Greater proportions of people exposed and susceptible to poverty in Africa and Asia. 22. Some vulnerable regions, including small islands and Least Developed Countries, are projected to experience high multiple interrelated climate risks even at global warming of 1.5°C.
Thank you for explaining what XR want cause I can’t find a clear word from them. Personally, rather than sitting on my arse blocking a road for a few days I think it’s more constructive to do. Like, cycle to work. Use glass or metal over plastic when I shop. Only buy UK produced products rather the stuff shipped from China. Reuse Recycle ♻️
I'm a concerned about how XR fails to address the intersections between the climate crisis and other social questions. They have this strategy of having activists arrested for propaganda, but they don't addresses how going to prison can be a radically different experience for blacks. I'm afraid the fear tactics can lead to authoritarian solutions to the climate crisis. As Naomi Klein said, the only thing worse than right wing climate denial is right wing climate solutions. In France, fascist cadidate Marine Le Pen has an ambitious econationalist agenda for the climate.
If you include Intersectionality into your science, global capitalism, white supremacy, patriarch, climate change, are all the same fight. Indigenous voices have the best wisdom and should be lifted into the spotlight.
We have a Climate Emergency in name only. There is no climate action plan. Given the scale of the problem, and the reluctance of people to change, I doubt there is enough time or imperative to prevent the extinction we caused. I saw Extinction Rebellion with the same placards I held aloft over 50 years ago. We might have had a chance had we started when it was first positively identified, in the early '70s. But no, the wealth of the few has made sure that the people have been rendered impotent by misinformation and lies in the endless pursuit of growth. Their wealth will soon be worthless on a dying planet and our children will suffer the horrors of a collapsing civilisation. Or we actually do something...
That's an important question. So the point is to reach *net* zero emissions of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). That way the processes that add to it are offset by processes that remove it.
I'm XR. I love the actions where we block the streets. It's how we stop people from simply going about their daily lives, telling them the problem is still here and it won't go away. (some of those drivers get really fucking angry tho lol)
GARY LAMBERT the only way we can save the planet is to build a high tech world that is the only green thing to do for example have you heard of A.I that is to automate all the low wage jobs that depends on the car and to close down all the shops which not only depend on fuel plus pays low wages so in this case all shops should turn to websites which would create new opportunities with lower cost and higher wages and lower cost plus give up the dependence on the car so in short GIVE THE LOW PAID AN OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK IN THE HIGH TECH INDUSTRY giving then a chance of higher pay and no more dependence on welfare
XR is one of the least efficient and most hated advocacy group when it come to climate change. I understand it's important to keep pushing in the right direction, but treating it as an "emergency" is counterproductive, as proven by Germany, and their irrationally fast energetic transition which ended-up making things worse. You would be surprised how much has actually been done over the last decades, it was done well and slowly, that's why people do not pay attention, but it's still being done. Additionally, one should never trust those who push for fear or hatred, as it is never a solution, just an excuse to enact totalitarian reforms.
@ClimateAdam . You said you wanted to know what we thought . Please read and answer my reply to you below , because it provides an essential critique that needs to be considered and taken seriously. Thanks John ;-)
@nikto nic It must have been removed. We are talking about 2 years ago now. The point was and is still the case that climate scientists are anti science when it comes to the question of transforming society inorder to fight climate change . Climate change and the fight against it has always been a question of socialist revolution and ' not' a case of 'asking' the capitalist system to be what it cannot be. It's idealism . Imposing subjective images on an objective entity. George Monbiot being the worst advocate. A man who now backs the US proxy war against Russia . By what logic does backing a capitalist war get us closer to resolving climate change ??? This is insanity.
@nikto nic Well that's because The Russian Revolution was betrayed by Stalin. Socialism and communism have never existed. However what the world faces now is the collapse of capitalism, and it is the US that has provoked this war for its own agenda.
@nikto nic Interesting reply nikto, because in it you reveal a couple of implicit assumptions that dictate your thinking. One , that communism has already existed , and that socialism can be different types of socialism . This is an idealist view of the development of history. A materialist Marxist view is that history is 'a process ' of development, and 'not' a set of 'idealised' states . Hence the Russian Revolution is a response to the crisis of world capitalism as it manifested in 1914. What it achieved and proved, was that the working class could take power and that the working class has no need for war as a solution to its needs. That this revolution was betrayed by Stalinism , does not negate it, it merely proved that the isolation of the revolution in the midst of otherwise world capitalism could not be advanced. Rather it would tend to degenerate under the influence of imperialism as an ongoing external force. So communism has never existed, nor has socialism , for the simple fact that communism is an evolutionary stage further on from socialism , where the state 'falls away', as people generally experience the real benefit of co operating as opposed to competing for profit. Socialism has never existed, so communism 'cannot exist' anywhere , because socialism itself has to be a world system first, and that has never existed. Only 'embryonic ' states have emerged that became deformed or were deformed already ie North Korea etc .because they took the road of Stalinism , which has nothing to do with Marxism and socialism. Now second , on the question of the Ukraine's right to self determination on the question of membership of NATO, this is a fraud, because in the game of great power politics lesser satellite states are essentially buffer states between the great states . This goes for all 3 of the great powers , the US, China and Russia. When this unstated rule is broken , whoever breaks it is attempting a power move on the other. This is well understood in the geostrategic lingo of power politics . As long as the world is divided on the nation state system of rival nation states, then this rule applies. This is why we need international socialism , because it ends 2 things . The antagonistic nation state, and the laws inherent within capitalism that lead to periodic world wars. We are on our 3rd as we speak and will not survive it if it kicks off. Hope that helps.
Spot on explanation - and most of it isn't climate science, per se. 8-) Net carbon zero 2025 would be somewhere close to possible. It would take a massive tree planting / rewilding project as a stop gap measure (with involvement of all able citizens) plus rapid changes to all sectors of the economy & society over a longer time frame.
Asking? Asking polititians to do the right thingh? Hm. That is like asking an enemy for a mercy. It is like someone is brutally abuse you for every day for years, and you go and say "hey, you have six years to fix yourselve or else!" Hahaha... You expect they say "ok,ok...I'll do it"? Hahaha... The truth is that population in capitalist regime have no true power to bring laws (capitalism is not direct democracy), and asking of government to change their behavior which brings them profit is like asking Hitler "please,will you stop?". I do not know what laws are there concerning referendum in UK, but the right way to make your enemy (government) to obey and produce law on protection of environment right now, is to make referendum. So those people in charge of this movement should act more responsible, othervise this protest means nothing in practice. I am sorry.
I would love if their wish came true and the government would tell the truth about the climate-warming scare haha i wonder how that would go down with the "woolf woolf"" scientists" !
I hope extinction rebellion is going to pick up the £10million bill for policing this protest... The climate is changing anyway .. Live with it and change with it ... Targeting the politicians won't help you need to get respect of the public... Yes it's one of the richest economies but with child poverty and 1000's of homeless we need to help these first..
Has anyone from Extinction Rebellion looked at a map of the globe lately to get their inflated idea of the tiny little speck that is the UK and its significance into some kind of perspective? I doubt it!
Climate scientist explains Extinction Rebellion without using any science to explain anything but its important you know hes a climate scientist so we put it in the title becuase hes very clever and he did a Phd.
He's talking about Extinction Rebellion, not the science behind it. That's not the goal of this video as everyone understands the science already. If you don't, there are many educational resources you can use already out there.
@IIWII If anything you have made my point more clear, that being the video could be titled differently if the science is not relevant to the video and Adam maybe not introduce himself as a scientist within the first minute when he is synopsising how the video is about to proceed. Anyway im doing a video tomorrow "Economic Expert discusses Local Church Gathering"
Technology will by default solve man-made climate issues. But it won’t do anything to the non-man-made climate change problem, which is also happening. The world is bankrupt at this time and the climate change proponents are asking for changes the world doesn’t have the finances to afford. So, it’s impossible to put in place in a manner that will be feasible. Impossible to meet those targets. I’m not saying we don’t work at it, but the reason you get a mortgage on your house is because you just plain don’t have the cash on hand to buy the house outright. Same with climate change costs.
ei, Can you separate the need for the climate-related changes we need to make in our energy use, housing, business and transportation sectors from the so-called Agenda 21 conspiracy? I can. If you can't, then that's your work.
Have you ever actually read through the text of Agenda 21, or have you just had it interpreted for you by hysterical right-wing commentators such as Glenn Beck (I recall it was a boogieman for the Tea Party...)? Just about anyone who isn't a complete nutcase would find its provisions uncontroversial and difficult to disagree with, had they read it.
@@stan1050, I'll ask you the same question as I asked Ei: can you separate the need for climate-related changes we need to make in our energy use, housing, business and transportation sectors in order to avoid the consequences of climate change, from the so-called Agenda 21 conspiracy? If you can't then that's your work, too. You can't just label all ends as supposedly tainted by your conspiracy of the means. There are many means to an end, and if you don't like that particular means, then come up with a different one to get to the desired end, which in this case is a low carbon economy. Use your imagination to come up with your own means and share it with us while you're at it.
@@kenlassman3725 Agenda 21 Conspiracy - WTF - you can download the full UN AGENDA 21 Document from the UN Website plus UN 2030, UN 2040 and UN 2063 The African Union.UN Agenda 2063 - by 2063 - 54 African countries are to merged into a single sovereign-less state and the AU population is to be mobilised and resettled into resettlement zones.The EU being a resettlement zone and NEOM city which Saudi Arabia and Israel are constructing as a joint venture right now - NEOM is a Mega City 33 times bigger than NYC - a completely walled stack and pact future city (NEOM City = New Future City). UN Wildlands Project - being implemented globally at grassroots via I.C.L.E.I. (Africa to be a very large game park for the 0.01%).
@IIWII He says he has a PhD in atmospheric science. So I asked a searching question to see if he really knows about atmospheric science. If he cant answer my question immediately and without checking I'd call him a quack scientist.
Yeah Extinction Rebellion are a bit half baked,however the urgency of the situation is daunting as you must be aware being as a climatologist,on our current trajectory by 2033 we shall hit some 450 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentrations added with the main 4 other factors,you will know what further temperatures that will mean,by the way your impressions are diabolical.
There should be more pushback on this 'disrupting people' lives' accusation. Anyone making a journey can run into disruption - ask Mr Grayling and his executive chums in the privatised rail companies, for example or the bus companies that very often just pull a bus from the schedule. So profit or cost-savings motives for disruption are tolerated with irritation, while disruption directly planned for causes is an aggressive infringement of a human right of free access to the street on preferred terms. Of course, protesters target larger population centres, by their nature already busy. People who live and work in London are in fierce competition for space and time and they choose to enter that environment. London profits and functions on a high concentration of people. But just as the impact of road closures or car crashes or public transport shortfalls will have a greater effect, so will a street protest. All the while Extinction Rebellion remain non-violent and are not disrupting people's lives in their homes or in hospitals or in other private and personal settings, there's no convincing case for stopping their activities.
Stephen Paul I disagree. I think there is ample case against Extinction Rebellion's activities without even going down the road of the disruption factor in city's. Spraying blood onto streets is a biohazard and as such could be classed as an act of terrorism wouldn't you agree? Criminal damage? Wouldn't you also agree that damaging people's property because your not getting your own way is wrong? Also that that's the wrong message or example to set for young children or young adults? Wouldn't you also agree that putting the fear of God into children about the world ending in 12 yrs and indoctrinating them with a doom and gloom humans are bad if they don't agree with us philosophy is a very negative way for any child to grow up seeing the world and could even be argued to be a form of child abuse? They should be exposed to Climate science information from all sides of the argument. Then left to make their own minds up as they grow up. Not told what to think. Because they are children. Wouldn't you agree? That's all more important I think than the disruption factor in city's. Then their is the question of why Extinction Rebellion get treated to a Police man's ball when they peacefully protest. Yet if the anti Fracking protesters whom are trying to protest peacefully , they not only get virtually no mainstream media coverage but get set on by an aggressive police force. Arguably with so much force and disregard by the police it could be argued as misuse of police powers. All this before we can get to the disruption part. As for me it's as simple as this. If someone disrupts me when I have done nothing wrong to them then I have the right to disrupt them back. If some one is breaking the law of their own free will by blocking my path when I have done nothing wrong to them (except if they are mentally ill or on booze or drugs) then it is perfectly fine for me to chose to break the law of my own free will if I so choose to and just keep going.
I am not promoting criminal activity. However, the people who volunteer for these protests are informed that they have to be willing to be arrested. If they don't want to take that risk, they are not forced into doing anything they don't want to. If they are non-violent but willing to face arrest and punishment for relatively trivial misdemeanours, that's up to them. I'd rather see motorcyclists doing 60 or 70 in 30 and 40 zones arrested or those I see screaming along at 120+ on the motorways. But I suppose those hit and run methods of breaking the law are a bit harder to enforce. Your only other point I'd like to address is 'Should we show footage in the classrooms of the Great Floating Garbage Patch and then ask the young to discuss pros and cons and come to their considered conclusion on whether anything should be urgently done about it?'
Stephen Paul I agree with you in some ways Stephen. I don't think for one minute the representatives and official media spokespeople of extinction rebellion asking the people to get arrested would put themselves in the same position. I agree that children should be educated about what constitutes pollution and waste but to ask them to understand the complexities of climate change and then make a decision on it is I think quite ridiculous. I believe as you seem to in not speeding or driving dangerously too. My previous comment's point was realy that if it's alright to break the law then it must by definition be alright for everyone to break the law. Therefore who gives extinction rebellion the power say on how far to break the law , what pass to break & when to break them? I say this in the view of the police party atmosphere when other environmental groups get treated disgracefully and are left unreported on. I also have my suspicions that extinction rebellion are a sudo political organisation known to only by their very high members. Put there by the establishment to give the impression of fighting against said establishment while actually and for their most party members unwhitingly carrying out the plans and agenda of the establishment while the people's of extinction rebellion are left believing the opposite.
@@frankblack1185: most adults and certainly most MPs don't understand the complexities of climate change. MP John Redwood, a climate change denier, recently made himself look a right prat muttering some incoherent point in the HoC debate. When I quoted motorcyclists as an example, I should have been clearer on the point that their illegal activities are also disruptive of the norm. The noise of these bikes can be literally alarming and intimidating. If someone subjected you to the same shock and decibel level by shouting in your ear you'd feel you'd been assaulted. Not to mention the spectacles they like to display to the world including darting in and out, tailgating, wobbling and swerving and even high speed wheelies. All intended to impose upon and disrupt anyone's mood who happens to be their involuntary audience. When I quote the Garbage Patch, I mean if something is obvious you do something about it. The cliched arguments of climate change deniers sound ever more hollow and anti-evidence. it doesn't matter to me what the motive is if you're heading towards the right outcome. A basic principle motivating Extinction Rebellion is the precautionary principle. If the Establishment and via it the police are contributing in some way, to that philosophy, good. Let me finish with one analogy that you may find persuasive. If you knew that the man next door was slowly poisoning his elderly relative and was the primary beneficiary of the will, would you want to act to stop him or would you invite him round for a discussion to give his side of the story first? Whatever, I hope anyone looking in on our exchange will have been given food for thought. If so, fair enough.
A conscious change in personal perspective about the value of MONEY/WEALTH.Today an extreme superficial ego trip.Reduce,resist and get physical.Put the device down and enhance social intercourse.Learn about your environment and connect to preserve it's natural beauty with you as a representative guardian.
Late to the commenting, but recently rewatched. Moved to do so because I was approached by a Stateside XR organizer this evening, asking me to join a Zoom call. I was generally supportive of their purpose and indicated my (667-per-cm.net) long time advocacy for mitigating climate disruption, but I took exception to some of their "end of times" language, with its doom-after-2030 narrative. I agreed the problem is very serious, but misrepresented here. Also, with the generally conservative mood (on average) in the United States, I'm not sure this kind of action will be received to the point of taking constructive action. I'm concerned about XR's lack of quantitative approaches and seeking what Unitarian Universalist minister and climate activist Rev Fred Small has described as a seeking after ideological purity. After all, if, as scientist-engineer-educator Bill Nye says, "We have work to do", this is a matter of rolling up the proverbial sleeves and getting to it, getting off fossil fuels and onto zero Carbon, as quickly as possible. And, frankly, given the lateness of the time, I'm not going to refuse anyone's help in the matter, even if they are well heeled and have the surname "Musk". I also think that, perhaps, the XR approach is dissipating energy that could be focussed on more specific things. In my local world, we are struggling to get more and more zero Carbon energy sources adopted, trying to justify it out of (a) necessity for preventing additional climate disruption, (b) pointing out it is going to come anyway and we'll be better off if we take local control of it rather than being bulldozed in 10 years when the Amazons of the world demand zero Carbon energy and storage because of its low cost, and can offer counties hundreds of millions of dollars to make it happen, quickly, and (c) it's about time people of means started generating the electricity they consume in their own neighborhoods rather than putting it on communities of low income and of color. Nevertheless, it's a incredible lift. We have a 13.5 kW PV array on the roof, air source heat pumps, and an EV, but we could use more PV, but are effectively prohibited from putting up ground mount PV because of zoning bylaws and because of a sense that neighbors don't like how it looks. Two local utility scale PV arrays have run into significant opposition for fear that some trees might be cut, and favorite walking paths eliminated in favor of the array. One of these projects is dead. The other is precarious. This is in an area where there are plenty of alternative walking paths, where it's been shown the PV array will make little incidental environmental impact and, with the Carbon intensity of the electrical grid, wins out over a new growth stand of unhealthy trees in a few week per annum. In fact, the sense is that opposition stems from either aesthetics or a sense that having an "ugly industrial energy generator" will reduce community house prices. This are towns where million dollar homes are quite regular. This is the problem that the late German legislator, Hermann Scheer, warned about: How the wealthy states and neighborhoods could shut down zero Carbon energy because of their parochial interests. So, I would say, sure, there's plenty to do to advance solutions for zero Carbon energy. I'm not sure focussing on the federal scene in the United States with actions that basically get people angry or irritated is the best way. All that energy could be used to help us move public opinion concretely and locally. We need to convince people PV arrays and wind turbines are beautiful, marvelous engineering feats, not the dirty smelly railroads which which cause dairy cows to abort.
