It was great to see the hard hitting UK interviewer Andrew Neil challenge the Extinction Rebellion. We have had several interviews with people like her on TV but this is the first one I've seen with someone challenging them. Good for him!
It’s been frustrating for someone who cares about global warming and biodiversity loss to have so much screen time on the UK TV about the demands of the Extinction Rebellion, while what the IPCC say is hardly ever mentioned, or at least, not accurately.
First if you are scared and want some good news right away take a look at my
(click to watch on Youtube)
This is the first time I’ve seen any of them challenged on TV here. Usually it’s just them being asked to explain their ideas and the only dialog is about the way their protests obstruct hospitals and commuters.
He had done his homework too and was able to challenge her with the science. He made it clear that he agreed that the situation is serious and that we need to do something about it - but asked her to explain why they are saying billions will die, and why they are saying that we have to reduce to zero emissions by 2025 in only six years.
She had nothing to answer. No explanation for their 2025 zero emissions target and nothing to offer by way of evidence to support their claim that billinos would die.
As Andrew Neil rightly said there is nothing in the report about 2025. They say that the easiest way to target 1.5 C in their P1 path is to cut emissions in half (45% reduction) by 2030 and reduce to zero emissions by 2050.
Also, there is nothing in the report about billions of people dying on any scenario even if we do nothing about climate change.
On this basis of no logical reasoning, she was yet willing to say to him in the interview that we should stop just about all plane flights to achieve their goals. Even though, as he correctly said, plane flights are only a tiny percentage of global emissions.
At the same time she was saying that we have to listen to the scientists - when she is clearly not doing this herself.
You might think perhaps that she was badly prepared. But in interviews I’ve seen and the lectures they give, none of them are able to answer these questions. She has likely been asked questions like this many times before. These are her answers.
They talk amongst themselves in an echo chmaber, and agree with each other, but have nothing to say to those outside their echo chamber.
They are very organized but it is all about the show, not the substance of what hey are doing.
The process is also very undemocratic.
They are trying to force a democratic government to pass a law with three demands without it going through any vote, referendum or even discussion in parliament.
This is not their stated aim, to change how government is done in the UK, but if they succeeded in their aim to force this bill through by direct action by gluing themselves to lorries and stopping flights etc - then others could too, with maybe other aims they themsleves do not approve of, by similar forms of direct action.
They are trying to propel us into a future where groups of activists make decisions about future government policy through private discussion amongst themselves, and then require the government to follow those policies by direct public action.
they are requiring a democratic governemnt to bypass votes, referendums, elections, and even discussion in parliament and to bring out new legislation just in order for traffic to be able to resume in central london.
The problem is they have put a lot of work into understanding the social engineering that leads to a successful protest. They have become expert on this, through protests on other topics. They have learnt how to do that with smaller protests and they are succeeding in getting heard and interviews on TV.
This very TV interivew for them will count as a major success.
It is all show, no substance.
We have had several interviews with people like her on TV but usually just saying what she said there and the interviewer not challenging them. This is the first one Iv'e seen with someone challenging them.
This is another article I'm writing to support people we help in the Facebook Doomsday Debunked group, that find us because they get scared, sometimes to the point of feeling suicidal about it, by such stories.
Do share this with your friends if you find it useful, as they may be panicking too.
Their three demands are all problematical.
If we really did have only six years then we would need to use emergency powers and a war like approach. But that would then inevitably lead to a huge mess and a need to try to pick up all the pieces.
But since we do not have only six years, then to try to do everything so quickly will likely cause far more problems than it solves. Of course if we can find a way to do it in 6 years that would be brilliant. But to say that we HAVE to do that - as a demand - whether or not the science says it is possible, and with little thought about how this is going to dovetail into our future after 2025 - that’s where it goes wrong.
This is a bit like, say, forcing proportional representation on us (something we have attempted to do in referendums but they did not succeed), or forcing Switzerland style direct democracy.
We have a style of government that was developed over many centuries, and to override it with a citizen assembly - even if just for one topic, climate change but with far reaching consequences since this is seen as a reason to restructure the whole of our society - will it be a better approach? Without even a vote about it? Just because some activists decided, again in private meetings, that this is what we as a country need?
Also they have no control over such an assembly. What if the ciitzen assembly decides not to do anything about global warming? Or decides to try to solve it in an eccentric way against advice of experts?
This could happen. That experts look on in despair, unable to do anything, and so do the more experienced politicians, as a group of randomly chosen citizens lead our country into whatever future they think is best.
Andrew Neil didn’t ask that question but I have heard others do so and they don’t have any answer to that either.
This is a heart warming story about how activists saved the Great Barrier Reef. At one point there was a plan to mine the reefs for limestone to export for cement.
(click to watch on Youtube)
In 1965, there were plans to mine 80% of the Barrier reef. At that time there were no full time scientists studying the reef, and little was known about it. The world was unaware that such a diverse ecosystem existed there. A local company wanted to mine one of the reefs for limestone claiming that most of it was dead (as indeed it is, the main body of the reef is made of the skeletons of long dead corals, but of course covered in a layer of living vibrant coral reef colonies). Others wanted to extract the oil, and gas, and they wanted to level the nearby rainforests for sugarcane plantations.
This activism which lasted for a decade, eventually lead to it being declared a marine park in 1975.
For more details see
I hope the activists will increase the momentum to act on climate change. But I think it is sad that they have such unrealistic requirements such as to go carbon zero by 2025. This seems to be based on junk science blogs as it is not part of the IPCC report.
I also think it is awful what this message is doing for the scared people I help support. For some of the personal stories see Share your Doomsday Fear story.
The UK reduced emissions by 22% from 1994 to 2017. It is on track to meet its 2020 target
Progress made in cutting emissions - Climate Action - European Commission
It’s long term strategy is zero emissions by 2050, and if it achieves that, it makes it 1.5 °C compatible.
Our emissions are now the lowest since 1920.
There are many measures the extinction rebellion could push for, that are science based and make much more sense than its impossible zero emissions by 2025.
See How might ministers win over climate protesters?
Amongst the top ones:
Note though, it’s not just trees. For instance allotments take up more carbon dioxide, soil improvement, permaculture, well managed meadows also. Also not just wild trees. Orchards as well. Indeed it is good to do agriculture that takes up more CO2. Rewilding is good but only one way to do it.
Also, rewilding doesn’t have to mean trees either. For instance, we have lots of ancient meadows in the UK and they should not be turned to forests but rather managed as they are. Peat bogs also. They may be better left “as is” rather than any attempt to turn them into forests.
I'd also add
Note, all the UK parties support climate action, except the DUP. A few rebel MP’s vote against it.
The Tories are in support of climate action, not opposed to it. As I said, their policy is to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 and they are looking at how to make that target a reduction to zero emissions. They are agreed with the opposition on the aim, the disagreements are about how to achieve it.
By and large the main difference is that the Tories want it to be achieved using market forces mainly and Labour want it to involve government subsidies involved much more.
The Tories are also keen on nuclear power as part of the mix, Labour are divided on how much of a contribution nuclear power should be.
Labour want carbon capture and storage to be a strong part of it, the Tories also support CCS but not so strongly as Labour.
Both are agreed that renewables and Wind and solar need to be a component but have differing ideas on how to do that
It is not like the US. It is not a political debate here about whether to take action on climate change. Though the DUP are opposed they have other pre-occupations in parliament and are not vocal on this matter. For most politicians here and most of the general public too, the debate was over years ago.
The situation for the world as a whole is positive too.
.China and India are often criticized because their emissions are still increasing. But they start off with much lower emissions per person, especially India with only 1.8 tons per capita well below world average of 4.2 tons per capita. They are rapidly industrializing, yes but they aim to achieve this without increasing emissions, indeed, to reduce emissions. It takes a while to turn around the energy use of a population of over a billion people so you can’t expect this to happen in just two years.
India remains on track to overachieve on its 2 C compatible target and 1.5 C is within reach India | Climate Action Tracker, see also Guest post: Why India’s CO2 emissions grew strongly in 2017 | Carbon Brief
China faces the biggest challenge of all, it is expected to meet its commitments which include 20% non fossil fuel by 2030 and to peak emissions before 2030 but it has to increase its commitments for us to have a chance to say within 1.5 C. China | Climate Action Tracker
Although it has not released details yet, China is expected to increase its pledges when the countries meet in 2020 for the second of their meetings every five years to increase on the pledges in the Paris agreement
For more background see my
It’s a shame he didn’t have the background to challenge what she said about BECCS
This is not required for the 2050 zero emissions. Only changes in land use and reafforestation is needed on that path, the P1 path in the IPCC summary for policy makers in 2018.
Also that he didn’t have the background to challenge her for saying that it is untested technology or that there is only a 50:50 chance of staying within 1.5 C.
It’s actually tested and in use at an industrial scale already, as the two halves.
Burning biofuels is industrial scale for instance with the Drax power station in the UK
The same is true for capturing and storing CO2 emissions from the power station - it is not captured from the air. It is captured from the flu gases which have CO2 at very high levels already and the main thing needed is to dry them out of water vapour. They can then be pumped into old gas fields and will eventually turn to limestone in the damp conditionsthere.
This is already in industrial use too, both small pilots and at an industrial scale, for instance a steel plant in Abu Dhabi pumps 800,000 tons of CO2 a year into old oil reserves used for enhanced oil recovery. They plan to expand to capture 2.3 million tonnes per year by 2025 and 5 million tonnes per year before 2030. They say they are commercially self-sustaining, with no government subsidies.
With the infrastructure all in place they can then later on use it for storage without recovery.
We do not need this for zero emissions by 2050 if we choose the easiest P1 path. We only need it for overshoot.
Also it is not easy to do BECCS while preserving biodiversity - all that land grown for biofuels has to come from somewhere. This is an interesting talk on the topic if you want to find out more in detail.
(click to watch on Youtube)
Our best plan is to stay within 1.5 C rather than overshoot and try to come back again.
But it is industrially feasible to do this.
Although we only need it for overshoot, our path to zero emissions by 2050 will have some element of BECCS because we will do it anyway.
For instance a lot of agricultural waste is generated far from the fields where the crops were grown and currently it rots and produces methane. This can be burnt and the CO2 captured and then the end result is net carbon negative since the crops took up CO2 from the atmosphere.
As for the 50:50 chance it is actually a 2/3 chance and the aim is for an average of 1.5°C for 30 years, individual years may well be over that, or under that. That’s because there are many long term cycles, especially the multi-decadal oscillations where warmth is transferred from the sea to the atmosphere and back again in the Atlantic and the Pacific. You have to look at temperatures over a period of around 30 years to average them out.
But there is no cliff edge of 1.5°C. The report was about the difference half a degree makes from 1.5 to 2°C. The main thing about it was that half a degree matters, which nobody was sure about before the report. The details of whether we manage to stop exactly at 1.5°C or, say, 1.75°C are not so important. The main thing is we need to reduce CO2 emissions rapidly and if we do so then this is worth doing because every half degree matters and is very significant for our world.
Glad to see that Andrew Neil challenges the Extinction Rebellion Their intentions may be good, they want to save the planet, and I wouldn't say they are really anti-science so much as "science blind". It is all show with no substance. Her answers show that they have no science behind the 2025 date or the claim that there is a risk of billions dying from climate change. It's not just her - none of them explain this.
They are also democracy blind, don't seem to understand how their approach is seriously anti-democratic, to try to force a democratically adopted government to pass a bill that was writen by a group of activists in private discussion without even any imput from scientists without a referendum, election campaign or even a vote in parliament but just as a way to restore traffic access to Westminster.
Why not put their weight behind the IPCC and the Paris agreement and the proper democratic processes?
Also their terrifying exaggerations are not without consequences. With my work helping people scared of climate change, I am constantly doing what I can to help people who got terrified by this sort of thing. I see first hand the terrible effects this has on their mental health. Especially for young people, parents with young children, autistic people and people who are very empathic / creative / imaginative.
We help these people and counter it with the true information of our situation. No sugar coating of anything, just tell things as they are. It is very important for them to hear the truth, they often say to me that they just want to know the true situation and that they can then come to terms with it, whatever it is.
However neither are we trying to help people come to terms with existential grief based on stories that are false. Our role is to help them find out the truth.
Do you think you are well read on climate change? Read all the media stories?
If you are worried or scared about these things, this article may surprise you in a positive way:
Also many feel helpless, that there is nothing they can do in their lives about global warming. Governments seem to be doing nothing (not true, just that the negative stories about them hit the news and are shared more). There seems nothing they can do personally and the whole thing seems hopeless.
This is so far from true. Though one person can’t do so much by themselves, collectively through our life choices we can make enormous changes that will help transform the planet. This is part of the transformative change that the experts say is needed at all levels in our society to combat climate change and biodiversity loss.
One thing that’s come out of recent research is the enormous impact our diets have on the world.
We can feed everyone through to 2100 on all scenarios. However eating less meat can help to reduce loss of biodiversity as well as help reduce the amount of climate change. Scientists say that eating 20% less meat e.g. meatless mondays can help us to get down to zero emissions by 2050.
It is actually included in the plan for the UK by the Committeee for Climate Change. They think that for the UK to eat 20% less meat by 2050 is feasible and socially possible to do. And already many in Europe especially Scandinavian countries are eating less meat partly motivated by climate change and partly by health reasons.
You do not have to do all of this, but these are all things you can do that will help the planet:
For more on this, expanding on the details in that bulleted list, see:
back to top
If you are scared: Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears which also talks about health professionals and how they can help.
If in the middle of a panic attack, see
Tip, bookmark those links to search for debunks more easily. Here is a screenshot of my bookmarks
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked has been set up to help anyone who is scared by these fake doomsdays.
Do message me on Quora or PM me on Facebook if you need help.
There are many others in the group who are available to support scared people via PM and who can also debunk fake Doomsday “news” for you if you get scared of a story and are not sure if it is true. See our debunkers list
If you are suicidal don’t forget there’s always help a phone call away with the List of suicide crisis lines - Wikipedia
