Is there evidence this has an effect? I’ve certainly seen none recently, but maybe that’s just because the cases where it does get forgotten.
It may be more effective than getting the backs up of ‘ordinary’ people, who take umbrage and may deliberately choose non-environmentally options out of spite. The various groups (I’m not seeing all the conversation here) are getting a lot of publicity, but aren’t winning hearts and minds, and may well be setting their cause back through generation of opposition.
If we want to change the way we consume and pollute it needs to be through both legislation and individual choices. Legislation happens through parliament, and individual choice by convincing people. Get the people onside & leaning on their MPs for change (opinion that affects votes affects policies too) rather than p155ed off and wishing the police to arrest more of them.
@rendi60 - you (and others) are assuming that the objective is to gain support from the general public’ - but this is NOT the primary objective - the main point is to keep the issue in the public eye.
To be honest, I’m amazed by the naivety of some posters here, who seem to believe that ‘public opinion’ translates neatly via responsive democratic representatives into positive action. There is, you know, absolutely no evidence for this cosy illusion. The evidence does, indeed, tend precisely to the opposite: politicians are little affected by public opinion, but generally do follow the recommendations of big business lobbyists.
It’s also worrying that some posters obviously don’t actually get climate/ecological breakdown - some posts relate to it as if it’s like other political issues, as if these protests are in any way comparable to other protests - marches against brexit, say. But those issues, even wars - even the Second World War in which maybe 60 million people died - are all small compared with climate/ecological breakdown - which could not only mean far more disruption and death than humanity has ever known, but the end of the continuous history of civilisation itself.
We’ll all be affected, Tim.
If Downing Street or the H of C were blockaded for weeks then it would stay in the news but the protesters are taking the easier option in my view and effectively targeting the general public.
I’m assuming the protesters are intelligent so find it strange that just like the Colston statue lot they would rather disrupt and destroy rather than educate which ultimately is the way out of this.
In the end, perhaps the protestors aren’t that smart after all, and feel that by raising awareness they have ‘justified’ themselves in the face of the coming crisis. “What did you do in the time of global warming daddy?” etc. While it certainly puts the issue in the spotlight, in terms of swinging public opinion it doesn’t seem to be winning over the people that weren’t already firmly on board, at least among those I talk to.
We know that politics is influenced, at least to a degree, by issues that will swing votes, and even the most cynical politicians in a democracy will follow the the votes that keep them in power. If it were seen as the hot-button issue that it should be then you can bet it would be getting more than lip-service.
edit
Considering this a little further, our behaviour in this is like a religion. Although we like to think people are rational and guided by facts, when it comes down to it they really just go with what their faith says. If the majority really believed that a civilisation-ending apocalyptic even could be avoided or at least partially mitigated by a massive change in behaviour then it might start to happen. There would be differences of opinion about how to do it, but people would consume less, have fewer trips, eat differently etc.
But instead we see they have faith in other things. Perhaps that science or technology may provide a solution, perhaps that the scientists have it wrong and things won’t be so bad, or maybe that they are simply doomed and may as well eat drink & be merry before the end arrives. For some, like theology, it’s all just too big and complicated and they would do whatever they’re told, if only there was a consistent voice they could follow.
How do you win over those who don’t believe? Super-gluing yourself to Tower Bridge isn’t going to do it.
I think the very fact that folks are discussing the tactics of the protesters proves their success, doesn’t it?
Whether people agree with the tactics or not - whether they would like a bell or a buzzer as their fire alarm - is pretty irrelevant. The point is that it wakes you up - and the protesters clearly have brought the crisis to the front of people’s minds.
And the idea that in a fit of pique at some minor inconvenience people will reject scientific conclusions, or deliberately turn to favouring millions of deaths over sensible risk-management - well I have to say I find that ridiculous.
The majority of the public are fully aware of the need to move away from fossil fuels so I don’t think we need ‘waking up’.
I actually doubt that they are - or, to be more accurate, I think they have a vague idea that it might be a generally good thing but no true appreciation of how urgent it is.
3 Likes
This may sound dreadful, but I wonder if that is what this world needs if it (and some part of modern humanity) is to survive? I find it heartrending that Neanderthals existed on this earth just under 400,000 years. Modern humans are wreaking havoc in a fraction of that time. Seems to me it’s time our species went - a very tough comment I know for those of you who have children and grandchildren. If we really want to make a difference in the face of climate change - don’t have children.
1 Like
But we’ve been told different things over the years - 1976 really hot it’s global warming, early 80’s cold winter it’s the return of the ice age! How can anyone be absolutely sure that the scientists are right this time? Are the extreme weather events nature’s way of redressing the balance? I agree with Sue that population growth needs to be limited but the main thing is tell us what we should do not what we shouldn’t. If it is at all possible is there anything simple and affordable that we can all do?
1 Like
There is, and we’re all going to do it
1 Like
This is where the media is currently failing us. We need really good docu-drama like Peter Watkins’ 1960s film The War Game, that actually communicates the horror of what will happen if we fail to curtail climate/ecological breakdown (though interestingly the BBC failed to broadcast that at the time, because (they said) they thought it would be too upsetting - thankfully lots of teachers etc - including my own - arranged showings - just as awareness now is being driven by activists despite political and mass media failure).
This is not true Sue. As Danny Dorling sets out in his immensely detailed evidenced book Slowdown, population is not a problem - indeed having a child you raise to become a climate activist is a much better contribution than not having children. He shows that the Earth - sensibly treated - could easily sustain its current population, which has already started to decline naturally anyway.
By every measure, the key problem lies in the economies and lifestyles of the privileged. For example, the richest 10% of the world produce about half of all the CO2, the poorest 50% only about 10%. This difference is even greater for other measures (energy consumption, plastic waste, etc).
Moreover, the attempt to focus on population is dangerously complicit with environmental irresponsibility: it enables the worst polluters, to say ‘it’s not us, it’s the others’.
1 Like
Interesting, optimistic account here of how climate activism is really working…
Although there were, indeed, reports of a possible “little ice age” (or even a full blown one) in the 70’s and 80’s even then the majority of climate scientists were more worried about warming - see eg https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Besides what, exactly, is the consequence of being wrong about CO2 driven global warming - that we wind up living in a cleaner environment enjoying the benefits of technological spin-offs from research into low CO2 power generation and lower power, more efficient appliances earlier than we would be driven to it by running out of fossil fuels.
Set that against the consequences of getting it wrong and it becomes a no-brainer.
1 Like
Sorry Geoff, I disagree. My carbon footprint will continue to be smaller than yours to infinity because my gene pool stops with me. However well-meaning you might be, your future generations may include the greedy, the ignorant, the indolent. And they will continue to damage and pollute this world for as long as they continue to procreate.
Which is you and I along with everyone else on SF. 
I may live in a country of that nature but thats about it.
In the UK the subsidies applied to gas will be taken away and given to electricity (probably at a lower level) this is around 2028 so not having a heat pump will be expensive but will up the decarbonisation a lot I would imagine. Any news on what France has planned?
Bloody hell, what a statement!
Didn’t realise parenting included this, must try harder.
Presumably if your children are not climate activists then both you and them are a waste of space.
Not only that they’ve also got to be politically active/aware but if they are centre or right of centre then they need re-training.
None of this was in any parenting manual I’ve read and as parents we are clearly complete failures despite all four of our kids contributing to society with the youngest two willing to cut people out of cars and enter burning buildings.
We’re seeing the middle two next weekend so have a week to prepare our apologies for not bringing them up correctly.
1 Like