The extraordinary din enveloped a tube station during rush hour. Commuters are usually quiet and passive, barely even mustering the energy to make eye contact with each other. This day they were a united front up against a group of Extinction Rebellion (XR) climate change protestors who were parading on the roof of a tram, preventing it from moving. This caused huge delays to commuters, going about their errands and trying to get to work. The very people who should have been commended for choosing to use relatively eco-friendly public transport over their carbon-intensive cars were made feel ashamed and annoyed by climate change protestors. This irony wasn't lost on most people. They got loads of publicity for their cause, say the XR defenders. Well for sure they did, but I think the media narrative portrayed them as villains, not heroes in this story. Also, for the last week we haven't been having conversations about the substantive issue of climate change, instead about the actions of the protestors and protests in general. This is poor form by the news media, trying to sculpt every news story into a Shakesperean play complete with warring protagonist and antagonist.
Two things: if you're protesting, the act that you do should have a close connection to the thing that you're protesting against. For instance, sitting in the middle of roads to block cars - however disruptive it is - aggressively reminds motorists that their cars are part of the problem. Secondly, you've got to somewhat attempt to gain public support if you are seeking the public's assistance in this change. Extinction Rebellion are calling for governments to "tell the truth" regarding climate change and get net zero climate emissions by 2025 (I'll return to this). To do these, they're going to need cooperation from the general public in how people change the way they live their lives - from the means of transport we use, to the food we eat, to how we heat our homes.
This action certainly didn't appease any eco-ambivalents. These are the ones who don't usually protest or get involved in activism; have watched the David Attenborough docs and been blown-away by Greta's speeches but still aren't sure how exactly they can fight climate change or how we as a society should go about it. So they plod along as innocent bystanders, aware but complicit, knowing that they cannot halt their lives for the prospect of a currently invisible future catastrophe. This movement should not be about galvanising the extremes, instead about convincing the eco-ambivilents to get on board. These eco-ambivilents are exactly the people who were commuting to work on the days that XR decided to hold their stunts.
Eco-Ambivilents
Two things: if you're protesting, the act that you do should have a close connection to the thing that you're protesting against. For instance, sitting in the middle of roads to block cars - however disruptive it is - aggressively reminds motorists that their cars are part of the problem. Secondly, you've got to somewhat attempt to gain public support if you are seeking the public's assistance in this change. Extinction Rebellion are calling for governments to "tell the truth" regarding climate change and get net zero climate emissions by 2025 (I'll return to this). To do these, they're going to need cooperation from the general public in how people change the way they live their lives - from the means of transport we use, to the food we eat, to how we heat our homes.
This action certainly didn't appease any eco-ambivalents. These are the ones who don't usually protest or get involved in activism; have watched the David Attenborough docs and been blown-away by Greta's speeches but still aren't sure how exactly they can fight climate change or how we as a society should go about it. So they plod along as innocent bystanders, aware but complicit, knowing that they cannot halt their lives for the prospect of a currently invisible future catastrophe. This movement should not be about galvanising the extremes, instead about convincing the eco-ambivilents to get on board. These eco-ambivilents are exactly the people who were commuting to work on the days that XR decided to hold their stunts.
Rebels with a Cause
Extinction Rebellion is a case study for management. What appears to be a de-centralised and leaderless vessel charts a clear and defined course. The Economist wrote about this recently. It can only be of benefit to the organisation that there is no designated leader or supreme spokesperson. If XR had one, the naysayers would likely ridicule or attempt to de-legitimise them or call them out for their contradictions. It would also give a central point of attack to begrudgers, if you will. How the organisation manifests itself in public is by putting forward activists who it would appear do not have extensive media training the likes of which would be common for those going on the primetime slots that they are being invited on. Because they are seen as well-intentioned do-gooders, I think they get a bit of leeway and sympathy from the public and are not expected to have an answer to everything vis-a-vis climate change. The below interview started with a trademark Andrew Neil interrogation, but the interviewee eventually steadied herself and made some compelling points.
Credit Where it's Due
I think elements in Extinction Rebellion are a tad alarmist for their own good (see the above video). It is disingenuous for instance to suggest that the government are doing nothing to tackle climate change. Credit where it's due - some ambitious targets have been set by the Ireland Climate Action Plan:
- 70% of electricity generated by renewable sourced by 2030
- 1 million electric vehicles through increased charging points
- Engaging communities through the national dialogue on climate action
- Co operating with businesses to launch low carbon centres of excellence in different regions
- Establishing a Just Transition review group
- A 5-year carbon budget which will be overseen by an Independent Climate Action Council
Extinction Rebellion will of course tell us that these are insufficient. Consider their second aim - to have net zero emissions by 2025 (which is in 5 years time). A recent UK government report stated that 2050 is the "earliest credible time" by which to have net zero emissions. Even Friends of the Earth are only campaigning to have net zero emissions by 2040. The political system cannot move that fast. Having net zero carbon emissions requires a rethink and reorganisation of key aspects of the economy. That change does not happen overnight. Certainly a just transition is not possible before 2025.
The third aim of XR has already been achieved by the Irish government. We had a Citizen's Assembly in 2017 on the topic of climate change. We also have a constitutional right to an environment, though what exactly that will mean in practice is unclear. We also have vowed to plant a helluvalot more trees, about 100 for every person in the republic. Good job, Ireland. I should mention this embarrassment which emerged this week, with Ireland overshooting its EU target on emissions, but I hope that the climate action plan can attack this.
Without a doubt, just as immigration was the focal point of European political discourse for 6 years, climate change will become the next political battleground. The media must be responsible in not giving airtime to people whose views about global warming are misinformed or at the very least, ignorant. The Healy-Raes should not be given validation by our national broadcaster proclaiming that "The man above (God) controls the weather". However, it is clear that there will be an ongoing debate between conservatives and liberals on how much resources should be devoted to tackle climate change and how just a just transition should be on certain groups in society. Some people will suffer more than others.
I salute Extinction Rebellion and their ends, but I question their means if they are alienating the very people they are trying to preach to.
The third aim of XR has already been achieved by the Irish government. We had a Citizen's Assembly in 2017 on the topic of climate change. We also have a constitutional right to an environment, though what exactly that will mean in practice is unclear. We also have vowed to plant a helluvalot more trees, about 100 for every person in the republic. Good job, Ireland. I should mention this embarrassment which emerged this week, with Ireland overshooting its EU target on emissions, but I hope that the climate action plan can attack this.
Without a doubt, just as immigration was the focal point of European political discourse for 6 years, climate change will become the next political battleground. The media must be responsible in not giving airtime to people whose views about global warming are misinformed or at the very least, ignorant. The Healy-Raes should not be given validation by our national broadcaster proclaiming that "The man above (God) controls the weather". However, it is clear that there will be an ongoing debate between conservatives and liberals on how much resources should be devoted to tackle climate change and how just a just transition should be on certain groups in society. Some people will suffer more than others.
I salute Extinction Rebellion and their ends, but I question their means if they are alienating the very people they are trying to preach to.
Comments
Post a Comment