Extinction Rebellion: Much Protest About Nothing?

Now a 16 year old girl has the knowledge, wisdom and experience to endorse the actions of a “Climate Activist” group called The Extinction Rebellion, and everyone takes notice. Not a scientist, nor even a TV presenter with saint-like standing (see below), but a teenage girl.

Yes, she’s smart, she’s cute, and critisising a youngster is never going to be popular. But I guess that’s why they chose her for the role. Only the brave dare suggest she’s got it wrong. But, she’s got it wrong. Not her fault. She is young and naïve, and she’s been placed on a pedestal and told she’s right. Truth be told, she is a victim of political manipulation.

“Thunberg’s solution to ‘just say no’ is not only naive and impossible. Trying to attain it will incur tens or even hundreds of trillions of dollars of net costs.” Those costs would have a dramatic impact on the way of life these protesting schoolchildren presently take for granted. Lomborg argues that instead of ploughing more money into inefficient solar and wind power, more should be invested in innovating green energy to make it so cheap it eventually undercuts fossil fuels and halts climate change for good. The climate debate is a complicated one. It requires the careful weighing of interests and trade-offs, not the uncompromising fanaticism of an absolutist. A sixteen-year-old should not be expected to see all the nuances, but as adults, we should expose her ideas for what they are: undemocratic, fatalistic, and bereft of the hope and optimism needed to effect consequential change. Thunberg’s speeches and Manichean worldview do not offer realistic answers to the problems we face. Even if her most alarming predictions turn out to be true, solutions will have to rely upon innovation and a realistic assessment of what is possible. Activism might be driven by passionate conviction and founded on good intentions, but as Saul Alinsky, the radical American writer and community organiser, once observed: “Young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, ‘Burn the system down!’ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world.”

Bjorn Lomborg, author of Cool It and The Skeptical Environmentalist,

So, it’s about protesting in support of an illusion. The world isn’t ending. The North Pole isn’t melting. The oceans aren’t about to overwhelm the land. Very little is occurring in Earth’s climate that cannot be accounted for by the weakening magnetosphere: A natural process. So are they protesting the Sun? The Earth? The lie concocted by the IPCC that 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW as the prime driver of Climate Change? Or are these people protesting simply because they have been given a cause to protest for, and gives them focus and purpose?

Who gave these people this “purpose”? Same old same-old. We have eleven years left? that brings us to, well, 2030. Starting to wear a bit thin, this 2030 thing. Spot the agenda…again.

And when it gets to the point when one can’t even question the word of Sir David Attenborough without it being declared “an insult”, there is something deeply wrong.

The furore occurred when Dr Gail Bradbrook — the co-founder of the Extinction Rebellion protest that led to 290 arrests this week — was invited to appear on morning TV program Good Morning Britain…Speaking with presenter Richard Madeley, she made the emotional claim that a catastrophic environmental crisis was looming. “I have two boys, 10 and 13, and they won’t have enough food to eat in a few years time,” she said. “Sir David Attenborough said the collapse of this civilisation could happen soon.” But Mr Madeley wasn’t convinced — and seemed to question Sir David’s credibility “He’s not a saint you know. He’s just a broadcaster,” he said. Within moments, the Twittersphere was flooded with fans leaping to the nature veteran’s defence and slamming Mr Madeley. Some even called on him to issue a “public apology” for insulting the living legend.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12223954

Not that there isn’t something to protest about behind all the smoke and mirrors and agendas: Yes, big business should be held accountable for environmental pollution. Yes, we should be taking responsibility to keep our planet clean, and yes we should do our utmost to live in harmony with nature. But let’s utilize sensible means of protest, (as opposed to gluing oneslf to the ground and hindering traffic),embrace sensible solutions to real problems and challenges, and have the discernment to know truth from political spin.

Martin Harris, 22/4/19