6 ms·

It may well be an emergency, but inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to w

It may well be an emergency, but inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to work. In my opinion it will make them deaf to the underlying message (Although, I can provide no suggestions for strategies that might work!). [1] e.g. preventing them getting to work or flying to a holiday [2] Extinction Rebellion Protests: What happened? - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-48051776 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-48051776

c1sc0 7y ago
Revolutions have worked in the past. Even non-violent ones. But those are rare.
crispinb 7y ago
The ER founders chose nonviolent civil disobedience (which of necessity 'inconveniences' people) following decades of empirical research (eg. http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820 http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780...) claiming to show that it's the most effective strategy for effecting fast & large-scale social change. I don't know the research well enough to assess it, but I'd trust it over lay guesswork (my own included!). The only further point I'd make is that less 'inconvenient' strategies (organising, lobbying, campaigning) have already failed. They've been tried relentlessly for 3 decades, and it's a done deal: they didn't work. Our civilisation is accelerating its path to global destruction (of which climate change is only one component). Emergency last-ditch strategies are all that's left.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to work Funny. Seems like it's working, remarkably quickly, to me: Michael Gove, the current Environment Minister, met with the protesters and accepted the need for urgent action, and other points. Far more than might be expected from the rather extremist position of today's Tory party. The opposition have acknowledged all their points, and pledged to make climate emergency policy. They are currently trying to force a vote on calling a climate emergency in the Commons. The organisers have turned up for interview on most of the UK's serious news outlets, including, I think, twice on the Today programme. Even those who've studiously avoided the topic are now talking about it. Oh, and public opinion of ER appears to have risen since the Easter protests. On that basis, I sincerely hope ER continue, and can step up their actions to more locations and companies too.
- roenxi 7y ago
  If your first point of success is getting the Environment Minister to publicly commit to being pro-environment, you're working to a very low bar. It sounds like a problem that might be heading for a government committee rather than actual action. This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held since the industrial revolution in the late 18th century. Exploiting the environment for the benefit of the people. This strategy has worked out quite well so far - cities are more far popular places to live than jungles and fields. Protesting can work - but there have been environmental protests for the last 20 years or so and have achieved much less than (1) big research spending on renewables and (2) using nuclear reactors. This is because apart from those two approaches, the environmentalists have proposed no solutions that don't involve committing the poor and middle class to reduced living standards. I'll spell it out even though I think it is self evident - we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    It's the current extreme right Tory party. One would normally expect their Environment Minister to pretend the protests and environment don't exist. Any admission is remarkable - but useless. For action we need a change of government. We've already had a select committee on climate that was unequivocal about what action and urgency was needed. > This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held No, that really isn't true. The extremist position is continuing regardless in the face of overwhelming evidence. Not acting back in the 19th before there was any knowledge or evidence is not really comparable. It was Thatcher and Reagan that did so much to get the agreement for world phase out of CFCs in 1987. A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. Thatcher was remarkably well informed in the earliest days of climate science. Also one of the first to call for global action on climate. So despite being of an anti-regulation mindset she was happy to promote and implement strong regulation to save our skins. From her speech to the UN in 1989: "What we are now doing to the world … is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. "The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not." She lost interest, or time, for the environment later in her premiership as it became ever more inept on most issues, caught up with in-party fighting (often EU related), and stupid ideas like poll tax. Yet her early and mid term record on climate and pollution is better than any since. > we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option. The poor will be more severely affected by climate changes than anyone.
uxcolumbo 7y ago
Wouldn't you agree that the disruption caused was a 'good investment' for bringing up the climate crisis higher up the political agenda? Wales has declared a climate emergency and so has the First Minister of Scotland. Labour are going to launch a bid this Weds to do the same. “Blaming Extinction Rebellion for causing disruption is like blaming a fire alarm for waking you up in the middle of the night” XR's strategy seemed to work pretty well so far I would say.
mempko 7y ago
Extinction Rebellion chose non-violent civil disobedience after looking at lots of research around the subject of social change. They are being scientific about this and I think many people who are claiming it won't change minds haven't done the research as they did. This is a very very smart and focussed rebellion. They aren't just guessing their tactics will work, they base them on what actually did work. Listen to Roger Hallam talk about it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c2f_JmzoWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c2f_JmzoWU

c1sc0 7y ago

Revolutions have worked in the past. Even non-violent ones. But those are rare.

crispinb 7y ago

The ER founders chose nonviolent civil disobedience (which of necessity 'inconveniences' people) following decades of empirical research (eg. http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820 http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780...) claiming to show that it's the most effective strategy for effecting fast & large-scale social change. I don't know the research well enough to assess it, but I'd trust it over lay guesswork (my own included!). The only further point I'd make is that less 'inconvenient' strategies (organising, lobbying, campaigning) have already failed. They've been tried relentlessly for 3 decades, and it's a done deal: they didn't work. Our civilisation is accelerating its path to global destruction (of which climate change is only one component). Emergency last-ditch strategies are all that's left.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

> inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to work Funny. Seems like it's working, remarkably quickly, to me: Michael Gove, the current Environment Minister, met with the protesters and accepted the need for urgent action, and other points. Far more than might be expected from the rather extremist position of today's Tory party. The opposition have acknowledged all their points, and pledged to make climate emergency policy. They are currently trying to force a vote on calling a climate emergency in the Commons. The organisers have turned up for interview on most of the UK's serious news outlets, including, I think, twice on the Today programme. Even those who've studiously avoided the topic are now talking about it. Oh, and public opinion of ER appears to have risen since the Easter protests. On that basis, I sincerely hope ER continue, and can step up their actions to more locations and companies too.

roenxi 7y ago
If your first point of success is getting the Environment Minister to publicly commit to being pro-environment, you're working to a very low bar. It sounds like a problem that might be heading for a government committee rather than actual action. This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held since the industrial revolution in the late 18th century. Exploiting the environment for the benefit of the people. This strategy has worked out quite well so far - cities are more far popular places to live than jungles and fields. Protesting can work - but there have been environmental protests for the last 20 years or so and have achieved much less than (1) big research spending on renewables and (2) using nuclear reactors. This is because apart from those two approaches, the environmentalists have proposed no solutions that don't involve committing the poor and middle class to reduced living standards. I'll spell it out even though I think it is self evident - we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It's the current extreme right Tory party. One would normally expect their Environment Minister to pretend the protests and environment don't exist. Any admission is remarkable - but useless. For action we need a change of government. We've already had a select committee on climate that was unequivocal about what action and urgency was needed. > This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional position industrial societies have held No, that really isn't true. The extremist position is continuing regardless in the face of overwhelming evidence. Not acting back in the 19th before there was any knowledge or evidence is not really comparable. It was Thatcher and Reagan that did so much to get the agreement for world phase out of CFCs in 1987. A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. Thatcher was remarkably well informed in the earliest days of climate science. Also one of the first to call for global action on climate. So despite being of an anti-regulation mindset she was happy to promote and implement strong regulation to save our skins. From her speech to the UN in 1989: "What we are now doing to the world … is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. "The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not." She lost interest, or time, for the environment later in her premiership as it became ever more inept on most issues, caught up with in-party fighting (often EU related), and stupid ideas like poll tax. Yet her early and mid term record on climate and pollution is better than any since. > we shouldn't put the environment ahead of the poor until we've exhausted every other option. The poor will be more severely affected by climate changes than anyone.

uxcolumbo 7y ago

Wouldn't you agree that the disruption caused was a 'good investment' for bringing up the climate crisis higher up the political agenda? Wales has declared a climate emergency and so has the First Minister of Scotland. Labour are going to launch a bid this Weds to do the same. “Blaming Extinction Rebellion for causing disruption is like blaming a fire alarm for waking you up in the middle of the night” XR's strategy seemed to work pretty well so far I would say.

mempko 7y ago

Extinction Rebellion chose non-violent civil disobedience after looking at lots of research around the subject of social change. They are being scientific about this and I think many people who are claiming it won't change minds haven't done the research as they did. This is a very very smart and focussed rebellion. They aren't just guessing their tactics will work, they base them on what actually did work. Listen to Roger Hallam talk about it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c2f_JmzoWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c2f_JmzoWU