The climate change movement for 30 years focused on a small frame, like this problem needs to be fixed. NGOs, letters to politicians, and marches from point A to point B worked somewhat for these small issues. <sigh> However 30 years of such activism has completely failed to stop emissions rising, and we have only about a decade to transform economics and politics to prevent human self-extermination.
Consider two approaches to understand our situation.
Roger Hallan explains how Extinction Rebellion arose from academics and activists studying this 30 year failure. They studied psychology, political science, political theory, the sociology of revolution, etc. to figure out why traditional activism failed, and what the best option for action would be.
Traditional campaigning, the emailing, sending a check to Greenpeace, all that sort of stuff, A to B marches, great if you’ve got a little issue, but it’s not going to do the business when you’re dealing with entrenched power. Basically means the rich and powerful are making too much money out of sending the next generation to their death and so they’re not going to stop unless something dramatic happens. [emphasis mine]
They found there are only three options for large scale change:
(1) Traditional campaigning (which failed),
(2) Violence (which destroys democracy, leads to civil war and is “beyond bad”), and
(3) Mass participation civil disobedience.
That means thousands of people peacefully breaking the law. Many different people, different backgrounds, young and old, many different cultures, come together with a single cause in mind. They go out and break the law together in civil disobedience to make sure that change actually happens.
The goals of Extinction Rebellion are: disrupt the public, have this debate, and let’s see some major transformation.
Everything in this video does not make sense unless you understand the science emotionally, and worked through the science. Not like some superficial, “Yeah yeah climate change is a problem.” It’s more like, “I am shitting myself.” There’s going to be massive starvation in a couple of years and it’s fucking scary. So there’s an emergency. Bear in mind how serious this is, it’s off the scale.
Recall that the UN predicted massive starvation would begin in 2024. We’re not talking about the kind of food crises we’ve had in the past. Humanity faces the beginning of a permanent new global regime where global food resources continually dwindle - acidified overheated oceans without coral reef fish nurseries, drought and flood in crop regions, wild swings of weather killing livestock and crops, etc.
“The other thing is respectfulness.” We’re not here to judge the public. We’re saying this is physics and biology. If you don’t stop using fossil fuels you are going to suffer and die. This isn’t left wing or right wing politics, our entire countries are at risk. “Is the legacy of this generation going to be the destruction of the next generation?”
… no one should be shocked when Extinction Rebellion activists engage in mass civil disobedience. No one should be annoyed when school kids start leaving class en masse. No one should be surprised that Green New Deal advocates are now calling for dramatic overhaul of American society. In fact we should be deeply grateful: these activists, and the scientists producing these reports, are the only people on the planet who seem to understand the scale of the problem.
The respectable have punted; so now it’s up to the scruffy, the young, the marginal, the angry to do the necessary work. Their discipline and good humor and profound nonviolence are remarkable, from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Greta Thunberg. They are what’s left of our fighting chance. [emphasis mine]
image sources: AOC (the Guardian article), Hallam, text from article
Note: Quotes from Hallam videos may have minor transcription errors
We’re saying this is physics and biology.
Which the average person doesn't understand because they haven't been taught what those things are or mean. We have either failed to educate most of the population of this country or people simply cannot be bothered with such details because they are too much wrapped up in their own lives to be bothered. By the time it takes e. e. cummings "bit of the old sixth avenue el" upside their heads to get them to believe it, it will be too late.
Radical situations require radical solutions ... and pardon my bluntness, but I don't think we're up to the task.
Ruth, natural selection will go on doing its thing ! ! !
A new study suggests that a Blue Ocean Event (loss of Arctic sea ice in Summer) could raise Greenland's average temperature 16° C in less than 10 years. Most predict the first Blue Ocean Even around 2030. It looks as if sea level rise will ratchet up at that time, even if methane doesn't gush out of the East Siberian Shelf.
... found “major reductions in sea ice in the Arctic” cranked up (temperature amplification as a result of no Arctic sea ice) Greenland regional temperatures “by 16° C in less than a decade.”
... if the “Impact of Abrupt Sea Ice Loss on Greenland” scenario were to recur, it would create havoc, and panic within a decade.
As for Greenland replacing the North Pole as our cold pole, around which jet streams would circle, I've already noticed Greenland often distorting the 10 hpa wind pattern at Earthnullschool.
We're getting a clearer picture of our timeframes for irreversible climate regime changes associated with the Arctic. While most scientists are still say the Arctic is heating twice as fast or 2 1/2 times as fast as the rest of the planet,
Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned interview with Dr. Peter Wadhams: Currently, the Arctic is heating up about 4xs faster than the rest of the planet…
I trust Wadhams. He's a field researcher, uncowed by the usual tendencies to downplay to avoid scaring funders.
The cliff edge is in sight, folks!
After reading Impact of abrupt sea ice loss on Greenland water isotopes during th... myself, my impression is that Robert Hunziker over-reacted a bit. He give me the impression that the 16°C rise was expected to impact all of Greenland when Arctic sea ice melts in Summer. My read was that L.C. Sime, Peter O. Hopcroft, and Rachael H. Rhodes meant mostly Greenland's Southwest. Where he read, ... “by 16° C in less than a decade.” I saw "... This work indicates jumps in temperature over Greenland of up to 16.5 ±3 K within a few decades ...". I do agree with Hunziker that a Dansgaard-Oeschger (abrupt warming) event in Greenland would create panic within a decade, possibly sooner if the public pays attention to climate science and understands what's going on.