13 ms·
Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow
- exabrial 7y agoThat's a funny way to spell terrorists.
- vorpalhex 7y agoThere's a difference between trying to destroy ships or blow up power plants and shutting down an airport. Still not great, probably worth heavy fines and some jail time, but not exactly terrorism under the common definition.
- savant_penguin 7y agoHow about risking bringing down a plane with 200+ people inside
- montalbano 7y agoI would suggest reading about the recent putative drone incident at Gatwick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatwick_Airport_drone_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatwick_Airport_drone_incident The safety precautions taken were so strenuous that i find it hard to muster any fear that any injury to life will occur during this planned protest.
- frereubu 7y agoYou seem to be wilfully misunderstanding. The point of naming a day is that it won't come as a surprise, and the airport will be on high alert for any drone sightings. Activists will no doubt fly the first drones somewhere very obvious, but well away from planes, at which point Heathrow will close to planes and they'll have the runways to themselves. If they take the threat seriously, Heathrow may even close to flights in advance to avoid last-minute disruption.
- roenxi 7y agoWhat, so if an activist does something it is going to go exactly to plan and everyone will figure it out as they go, safely and cheerfully? This attitude to passenger safety is completely unacceptable. Protesting is acceptable. Doing anything that disrupts airline safety and the control of the airlines over their airspace is not. The reason air flight is so safe is because they understand that that is not an acceptable way to manage threats. We want engineering control over flights, not the clowns in Extinction Rebellion.
- zmmmmm 7y agoIt's hyperbole to suggest that risk exists when the protestors are telling everyone the exact date, time and location they will fly the drones. If the airport still chooses to fly airplanes during that time and people still choose to get on them, then I think you can't say the risk was introduced by the protestors. Which is not to say I agree or disagree with the protestors, but please don't dilute the meaning of terrorism.
- roywiggins 7y agoThe Provisional IRA did the same thing with bombings, and they were definitely terrorists. Not that I think these people are terrorists, but "telling everyone ahead of time" isn't an inoculation.
- peteretep 7y ago> The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and mainland Europe, caused the deaths of approximately 1,800 people I mean I feel like that's a difference? What's Extinction Rebellion's body count?
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThe IRA generally only gave hours warning. The Manchester bombing got 90 minutes, Birmingham pub bombings about ten minutes.
- zmmmmm 7y agoI know this is a "slippery slope" type argument, but if you are going equate "mild inconvenience of your flight delayed" with death and destruction, you are opening up a huge invitation for authorities to apply some pretty frightening laws to anybody who wants to protest about something. Protests have traditionally obstructed traffic or caused other inconvenience and often when notified in advance the police even help them by directing traffic or doing crowd control etc. This isn't that much different and in some ways is better because aviation is actually one of the huge unsolvable contributors to climate change, so this protest is highly targeted to the people who are contributing to that.
- exabrial 7y agoMy apologies for implying that _directly threatening_ the lives of 200+ people does not qualify as a terrorist act.
- NotPaidToPost 7y agoFirst result on Google: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Isn't this unlawful intimidation in the pursuit of political aims?
- cardiffspaceman 7y agoSince the intent is political I am not far from agreeing with you. But pragmatically when we see an act and decide someone needs to go to jail for it, the "international community" stays away from that word[0]. The acts themselves can be sanctioned without having to put the word 'terrorism' in any given law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
- exabrial 7y agoMy motivation is preservation of every human life, starting with the present. I fully distrust all political organizations to accomplish this.
- perfunctory 7y agoOff topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings, private company.
- farisjarrah 7y agoYou aren't wrong to be getting that cognitive dissonance. The more you think about it the worse it gets. The British Government spends loads of money on security and maintenance on the airport as well. If you talk about American Airports it gets even weirder. We have like private security companies that work with the TSA and Airports. So we have the public funding a private airport, which is a part of the national infrastructure, which hires private companies to run the things, which are defended and secured by public tax payer dollars.
- peteretep 7y ago> So we have the public funding a private airport, which is a part of the national infrastructure, which hires private companies to run the things, which are defended and secured by public tax payer dollars. In an ideal world, this is because the Government decided it would be cheaper to subsidise a private company doing it, rather than doing it itself. Whether or not this is true -- or indeed was entered into in good faith -- is a case-by-case sorta thing.
- dTal 7y agoPrivatize the profits, subsidize the liabilities. Standard playbook.
- roywiggins 7y agoNational infrastructure and nationalized infrastructure are not the same thing. Just because the airport was privatized in the 80s doesn't mean that it's not still part of the national infrastructure.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
- DominikPeters 7y agoThe article seems to suggest appealing to activists' compassion to avoid the risk of causing an accident. But it seems this can be much reduced by an announcement when the drones are planned to be flown (as in this case) and making the drones highly visible.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago>"Protesters plan a return to the airport—and there is very little the authorities can do" This line is curious. When was the first one? I mean there was the shenanigans where nobody was sure if there was even a drone, but there was in that case, as far as I am aware, no evidence for any activism beyond people saying that it might be activists. I am dubious about this reporting. If someone can show me something from people representing the organisation, that is one thing, but so far I have seen this in the Evening Standard and The Economist, who are both quite capable of pushing a load of utter bullshit dressed up as news.
- frereubu 7y agoNothing huge, but it did happen: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/19/extinction-rebellion-stages-youth-protest-at-heathrow-airport https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/19/extincti...
- inflatableDodo 7y agoThat example is just the same kind of protest that Heathrow has contended with since being built though. It doesn't say anything about drones.
- frereubu 7y agoThe article is unclear - but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The subhead in the Economist article doesn't say anything about drones either.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoWhat impression do you think someone might receive from that byline should they have not been keeping track? Especially given the headlines from last year pointing the finger at eco-protestors before that random guy got arrested? For added comedy points, there has still been no evidence presented that there ever was a drone in that case, but our press still ran headlines about who the culprits were.
- gok 7y agoIf the goal is simply to disrupt air travel, why not just call in a bomb threat?
- frereubu 7y agoThat would likely lead to a much more serious criminal charge because it's more closely related to terrorism. People who are arrested for making jokes about having a bomb in their suitcase when going through customs at an airport find out very quickly how seriously those kinds of things are taken, particularly in a country with a relatively recent history of terrorist bombings and a high state of alert for terrorist activity.
- gok 7y agoSo they're just taking advantage of the current legal loophole that bombs and drones are treated differently, despite the fact that they can be similarly dangerous to airplanes?
- frereubu 7y agoYou're being obtuse. The aim of a bomb is to destroy lives and property. The aim of this protest is to stop planes flying, and to do so by flagging what they're going to do weeks in advance. Just the fact that they're talking about a mass of drones might be enough to close Heathrow for the day. The fuss about the recent drone-that-wasn't shows that you may not even need to fly them for this to have an effect, and if they do they're going to be damn well sure that they're nowhere near flight paths.
- gok 7y agoI said "bomb threat", not bomb. A false bomb threat is a way to disrupt and annoy an adversary. Like a mass droning.
- dang 7y ago> You're being obtuse. Please edit personal swipes out of your comments here. Your comment would be just fine and much better without that bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- iteriteratedone 7y agoI see a lot of comments about the governments responsibility. There are two main ideas to approach. 1. It is in the govs interest to protect this private entity for tax rev and ability to anex it in war time. (we need some extra oil and a landing strip , this place looks good, your airport/farm is now the militarys till the war is over) 2. A private entity is protected by the gov no matter how big or small. As long as it doesnt break the law. This position is not about calculating current value of this one entity but of the general value of portection. This airport foesnt function not only are these tax/tourist revs lost but maybe others.
- freebear 7y agoAir travel is such a non issue, for any person flying it will of course be a large part of their carbon footprint, but the atmosphere does not care where the CO2 came from. https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn_centered_medium/public/Fossil-Fuel-Emissions-Pie-Chart-529px.png https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn...
- landon32 7y agoSide note: I just launched a web app for offsetting the emissions you havent been able to reduce— I’d love to hear what you think of it projectwren.com Email is in profile if you have feedback, the goal is to get more people involved with reversing climate change
- dev_dull 7y agoThis is largely my problem with climate activism. It seems largely based on what's fashionable. For example, ban straws in SF even though all of the ones in the ocean come from another continent[1]. Also stop offering glasses of water because there's a drought (strangely enough the drought ended but of course the laws stick around)[2]. Now a new deal which, even if 100% effective, would only reduce global CO2 emissions by... 15%?!?[3]. To make matters worse, we're 12 years away from point of no return, but we're stubbornly refusing to build a new nuclear power plant even though things are so dire? It strikes me as unserious, happening only for show or other reasons. 1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti... 2. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article211333594.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler... 3. https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/top2014.tot https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/top2014.tot
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoWhat does this have to do with fashion? It makes sense to ban single use plastics. What are your suggestions? 15% is leaps and bounds better than what anyone but Jay Inslee has suggested. Anyway that’s goddamn AMAZING for a single country. Also, 12 years is the best case estimate. The worst case is in the past, and I’ve seen good qualified arguments for at most ~4 years before irreversible climate collapse with current technology (the figure I am citing is from speculation that high CO2 levels inhibit cloud formation, but I can’t find the source at the moment, so I encourage your own research to clarify my numbers). We need to try anything and everything in some reasonable order.
- deevolution 7y agoSurely there must be other less annoying ways to get people excited about helping the environment...
- quadrangle 7y agoYou'll gain a lot of perspective if you listen to this interview: https://teamhuman.fm/episodes/ep-127-extinction-rebellion/ https://teamhuman.fm/episodes/ep-127-extinction-rebellion/ Some tidbits: your comment is like saying "there surely must be less painful ways for your body to tell you to be more careful with a hammer" In a trivial sense, it's true. But real pain and annoyance is exactly what it takes for people to prioritize dealing with a problem. These sorts of things are a healthy immune-system flare-up showing that we're not totally doomed. The way to avoid such annoyance is to not have let the problem get as bad as it is in the first place.
- sl1ck731 7y agoI'd be curious if there is any correlation to people's daily routines being disrupted and then having any sympathy for the protester's cause. I mean, who is going to get stuck in the air for an extra hour, land, and say "man, those guys are right". At worst, it would just make me feel contempt for them. At best it just invigorates the people who already were on their side.
- quadrangle 7y agoThe very podcast I linked describes a pattern common in previous protests like blocking a bridge: people say "this is annoying, but actually thank you, this is important". Lots of people ARE thankful for those doing something more aggressive than they are willing to do themselves. Others complain a lot but this makes the topic of the protest become a topic of discussion, much as you think and talk a lot about the issue around the pain you have when your immune system flares up. Really, listen to the podcast. There are indeed lots of questions about the right way to do this. When your body flares up like crazy over an allergy, many people indeed get contemptuous about their own immune system rather than just hate pollen. So, it's not like just any and all mayhem in the name of a cause is helpful…
- neonate 7y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20190614230149/https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/06/15/drones-piloted-by-climate-change-activists-target-heathrow https://web.archive.org/web/20190614230149/https://www.econo...
- aaron695 7y agoThe IRA chose not to use mortars that could hurt anyone, so let's not say they couldn't, they planned not destroy anything it was a statement not an attack. But given we know no existent drones at Gatwick could close a airport and create hysteria, real ones might be able to. But ironically it will be much harder. Real drones can be found and neutralised very quickly. Hysterical drones are a contagious meme and are hard to contain.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- see-ya-99 7y agoIt should be treated as a serious crime.
- samcday 7y agoThe level of negativity and hostility in the comments here is really disappointing to me. I agree that XR are definitely pushing the envelope on what we consider to be reasonable activism and protest. However, I also think that the old adage "desperate times call for desperate measures" applies here. Yes, there are plenty of actions being taken to combat the damage we're inflicting to this little wet rock we all call home. But it seems obvious to me that there are enough people who think we're not doing enough that they are organizing and mobilizing in extraordinary ways. Maybe some of those extraordinary ways cross the line. But who decides what the line is anyway? The people who are sitting at home typing out angry comments about how we should and shouldn't deal with the existential threat to our species? I hope not, or we're all doomed!
- stubish 7y agoLooking at this from another country, I would expect nothing else except blow back. My first thought is are we dealing with idiots, a false flag, or trolls. If this is where 'desperate measures' has led too, they are better off doing nothing. This sort of strike action isn't going to get the general population to vote green, but vote fascist.
- wiz21c 7y agomaybe it's time for eco-fascism ?
- slim 7y agoecological concerns are still too technical to be popular. populists are not interested. so it's still not time. maybe when climate change becomes obvious to everybody
- adamcharnock 7y agoNeil Asher’s Owner Trilogy actually uses this as (part of) the basis of its plot.
- orbifold 7y ago
- ArtDev 7y agoThis is the exact type of short-sighted activism that steps the movement back; not forward. If you treat regular people like the enemy, expect to be treated as such. However, if you go into it calling attention to an issue using humor and goodwill, more people might join your cause. These people are idiots and remind me of PETA.
- lsd5you 7y agoYou don't seem very convinced about your own alternative though do you? More people might join your cause? And maybe they won't. Yet you may be right that they are setting their cause back. In which case there are no answers. We carry on, destined to be governed by crisis.
- alan-crowe 7y agoThere is a great analysis of the issue you raise in the essay The Toxoplasma of Rage at https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
- perfunctory 7y agoOne thing must be pretty obvious but reading the comments it seems like it's not. XR is very explicit about being non violent. I don't believe they would do anything that would endanger the safety of the passengers.
- brokenkebab 7y agoFlying drones close to busy airport is endangering the safety of passengers.
- alpaca128 7y agoIs it? The airport is forced to block all flights, which in turn prevents danger to passengers. That's the whole purpose behind the drones.
- JustSomeNobody 7y agoThis causes disruption to not just one airport but many. Diverting planes and generally making a mess of flight plans is most definitely putting lives in danger.
- JBReefer 7y agoIt also causes more people to drive, which will cause more people to die. When’s the last time a person was killed on an airplane in the UK - Lockerbie?
- CrazyStat 7y agoIs planning a bomb ok if you phone in a warning before hand so that the building gets evacuated?
- samcday 7y agoI think the problem here is many people have heard that statement, but are choosing not to believe it. Instead they're reaching for UK legislation and straw mans to paint XR as a bunch of eco-fascist terrorists. The only thing that gives me some hope is that generally when someone does something that provokes a ferocious response, it means they've really struck a nerve and gotten people's attention.
- magwa101 7y ago"Very little they can do", really?
- averros 7y agoI'm a pilot - flying both manned a/c and UAS (under part 107), and here's my informed opinion: this form of "protests" is terrorism, plain and simple. It can kill people (including people on the ground) or do serious damage. The "activists" doing that belong to jail, no matter how good their intentions are. Charged with attempted murder.
- perfunctory 7y agoFWIW https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1140269676989231106 https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1140269676989231106