Extinction Rebellion planning to disrupt commuters in Lewisham

image1920×1000 231 KB

What do you think?

Slightly off topic, but similar to the discussion in hand. I was watching the BBC’s show about plastics and got into a debate with some green activists on Twitter about using bottled water.

Now I have no issues with them doing the recent campaign in London recently which correctly raised issues surrounding the planet which directed their attention on the big corporations, but to dare to critisise people for using bottled water or disrupting people’s day to day lives when they’re trying to earn a living isn’t the right way of doing things to get people on board.

Frustrates me too.

David Attenborough, for example, created global public sympathy for the environment and wildlife – without inconveniencing a single person.

I wish XR could find a similarly positive way to draw attention to the cause. The way they’re going, they risk destroying public sympathy. They threatened to use drones to shut down airports. That would cross the line for a lot of fellow environmentalists.

Linking environmentalism with civil disobedience casts environmentalism in a negative light. Civil obedience might be dull, but it keeps society safe, friendly and co-operative.

Sky News also had an excellent strand called Ocean Rescue which exposed the use of single use plastics which used the power of television to get people to listen which led in the end to larger social awareness and the likes of McDonalds and co banning plastic straws for paper ones for example.

XR, Greenpeace and co need to really redirect their efforts into reaching the common person without being patronising and being borderline religious in their methods of persuading people to be more green as I experienced this evening, they can be as patronising without really getting anywhere to make my opinion different to theirs. Listening to people who aren’t in that bubble would be a start instead of patronising them for being different.

A more sensible solution will be when cars are either hybrid or fully electric. Uber, the private hire cab app have regulations on the type of cars that can be used which are mainly hybrid cars such as Toyota Priuses for example.

There will be a point when diesel, followed by petrol will eventually be phased out. Electric vehicles are getting better at covering more mileage compared to 20 years ago.

Buses have become more of a hindrance than a help, yes they’re cutting emissions from diesel guzzling vehicles and introducing hybrids. Forest Hill’s double decker routes will be fully hybrid from the end of August when the 197 replaces their diesel polluters with hybrids, yet with reduced speed limits and traffic jams have made them less reliable than before, which drives passengers back into petrol and diesel cars.

If this action takes place, what’s not to say that it’ll drive those commuters onto using their car or another form of polluting transport instead? On the other hand the XR protest in London did cut pollution down when they closed Waterloo Bridge and Marble Arch.

Interestingly, there are possibly divisions within XR; this doctor was against the drone plan:
Evening Standard - Founder of Doctors for Extinction Rebellion group ‘draws the line’ at sending drones above Heathrow

Its the old “lets annoy the people who want support from”. Then express surprise when it goes wrong.

I do have some sympathy. The South Circular is awful and the pollution is actively damaging the health of people in this area. Many Londoners do not need to make many of the short car journeys they take - so maybe it takes a shock or disruption for people to really consider changing the way they behave.

Very true, many people do not need to make long journeys, but some do. What about those on busses, alternative fuel vehicles and bicycles who will get caught up in this?

Well it’s not a perfect solution but what is? I am coming round to the idea that people are not going to curtail their car use easily so some headline grabbing activity is maybe needed.

Cars and traffic really is blight on our health and urban environment but any tiny action to try and nudge people in a different direction is met with howls of protest or excuses as to why THEIR car journey is completely necessary it is just other people who are the problem.

Who would drive in Lewisham by choice at rush hour?

I’m a big fan of pool riding. The cab app ViaVan offers this service, along with Uber Pool where you can share a ride in a hybrid vehicle and share the cost which brings the price down compared to using a normal cab.

Sharing a ride to work with a colleague is also a great idea, it cuts down on the amount of cars on the road. I’ve done it in the past and has worked out well for me in the past. It reduces the stress of travelling on public transport and helps the car owner with their fuel costs.

If Extinction Rebellion walked the length of the everyday gridlocked traffic, posting leaflets for Uber Pool to idling drivers, that would be a very positive action - helping people, rather than inconveniencing them.

The future is electric vehicles and efficiently-allocated ride sharing via mobile app. Uber is pushing both.

I don’t disagree in principle, and support the actions generally. However, they’ve yet to learn what the trade union movement (mostly) and Poll Tax movement learned decades ago: don’t hit the public where it hurts, hit the government.
Persuading the public is barely a task. They are mostly persuaded. And these events don’t persuade anyone anyway.
Hit the government in votes or income.

Good job there aren’t any hospitals or A&E departments nearby this disruption.

Well clearly some people do - we have pretty good public transport by the standard of the rest of the country or even other cities. Most of can also walk a lot more than we do.

At least make a start with using the bus and remove a 5 seater car thats often filled with one person?

Well there is the Ambulance Station behind Sainsbury’s so they need to get out either on a back rat run or onto the South Circular.

I support this action. It is annoying and it wouldn’t be necessary if governments were acting responsibly, but they’re not, so we are where we are.

UK emissions were 43% below 1990 levels in 2017. The first carbon budget (2008-12) has been met and the UK is currently on track to outperform the second (2013-17) and third (2018-22) carbon budgets

The UK now has more offshore wind turbines than any nation on Earth, and in the space of just six years, coal power has gone from 40% of our power mix to nearly zero.

Whilst our domestic record is very good, it’s fair to say we import some consumer goods from China (which is a massive polluter), and so perhaps we should follow America’s lead and implement some Trumponomics?

I agree with highlighting the appalling pollution caused by traffic in these areas and welcome stopping it. However, I do not agree with blocking buses and other means of public transport and emergency service vehicles.

Some creative carbon accounting you’ve got there

Much as I don’t like interventions to cause people inconvenience - I think ER have done an excellent job at raising the profile of greener issues.
Such is the politics of rebellion - you don’t get press by handing out stickers. You need to do something grittier.

And by this strategy, you have to be edgier and edgier to keep peoples’ attention. I worry what they might do next.

Also I worry that they’ll never be satisfied with the government’s response, and they’ll never stop the activism, even if the UK achieves XR’s target (net zero greenhouse emissions by 2025).

As demonstrated above, some people define UK emissions by what China’s doing!

And where in XR’s banners and placards are they upfront about the financial cost of all this environmental progress? Changing the UK’s power mix to 50%+ zero carbon did not come for free. We all paid for it, including low-income households, via our energy bills. What XR call for is effectively a radical new form of austerity.

And of course the government will then be attacked for this, because they’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

Well that is partly because climate change does not respect national borders. We need to show leadership but also work with other countries.

How will we work with China? Do you think China cares?

We already do lead the way, particularly with our current government:

So when the Greta Thunberg roadshow came to the UK I was disappointed that she attacked the UK’s record.

But then again, she is a 16 year old privileged daughter of a European celebrity, and not a climate scientist, so we can’t expect her to be fully informed.

What would happen if Thunberg did a roadshow in China and India criticising their governments and demanding their children walk out of school? Because that’s what the world needs right now.

“I worry what they might do next.”
In that case - they are winning … staying present in people’s mind.

They are also doing inspiring some lovely things especially with children … they delivered 1000s of letters signed by children to the Queen dressed in bee costumes.

They also helped inspired the climate change protests such as the St Barts => https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/17664680.youth-strike-4-climate-st-bartholomews-school-in-sydenham-marches-down-sydenham-high-street/

The children are the ones that are losing by the inaction on climate change by the stuck-in-the-muds and the fat-cats. So great to see them learn + get involved.

That is something Lewisham Council should know, but the research has not been done so we don’t have the data. My own observations lead me to believe that there is a huge amount of commuting through the borough i.e. journeys that neither begin nor end in in Lewisham.

Quite a lot of people it would appear, or there wouldn’t be a problem. People have other options.

Do you have stats on how many rush hour car journeys are “unnecessary” (and we must, of course, define “unnecessary”)?

My point is that the rush hour grind is hell for drivers. Surely people wouldn’t drive through congested streets at 7:30am for fun? Or maybe I’m wrong, and they do? Let’s see the stats, if you have them.

The cycle from Lewisham to the far side of london is 90 minutes for an unfit, unskilled person. (The cycle to Victoria is about 40 minutes.) The public transport commute is 90 - 120 minutes, more expensive, more tiring (subjectively but also exercise is shown to increase energy levels), has worse health outcomes, is worse for the planet. Same for the drive.

My bike cost £150, learning the route was immediate with citymapper and a phone holder. Going from terrified and wobbly to basically competent took a week, making the decision took a fair chunk of motivation.

So relevant stats would be:
How many people travel from Lewisham to central London or a shorter distance,
How many people have a disability that prevents them cycling but not driving, or are pregnant? (Not counting physical ill health that would obviously be improved by regular exercise)

I don’t have those to hand, do you think it would be a large percentage of commuters that travel further than Lewisham to central London or have a significant disability?

Feeling the other options would be less comfortable is not the same as not having options.

I would caution anybody who is planning to attend this type of event not to declare it on any open internet forum these days.

Why not? Bottled water is one of the most environmentally damaging consumer items. The transport alone! HGV trucks of plastic bottles full of water!

I support this action in the hope that it might make a few people consider their life choices. If a few who can easily use greener forms of transport get nudged into doing that thing, then all the better.

It’s all very well saying that more traffic disruption is annoying, but the artefacts of climate change on our country are several orders more severe (and expensive) than that. For those of us in less fortunate countries the effects are literally the erasure of homes and communities, and loss of life. Our fellow species on earth are becoming extinct because not enough action has happened to date.

Hopefully that adds some much needed perspective.

Or just try and turn the lights off after you leave the room and keep complaining about your commute, whatever…

Hi Chris, there were reports about this last year - yes UK emissions are down but I think its because we now get all our stuff made in china / india / indonesia etc. It means that the emissions data for our consumption gets tagged onto those country’s figures as does all the pollution resulting from their manufacture. UK ends up smelling like roses despite our consumer culture. Same for coal - most of our coal comes from abroad since our pits were closed. We still use it but other countries get the emission stats as theirs. UK gov also massively subsidise fossil fuel extraction by uk companies abroad so we dont get that on our record either. Things aren’t always as straight forward as they seem! Ì find it quite sad that anyone critisises Greta. What she is doing - effectively giving up her personal life to try to change the terrible crisis we are all facing is truly admirable in my opinion. She’s trying to give a future to everyone on the planet. Thanks for doing the poll Chris, and I’m heartened to see that the majority of the responses are positive for this action!

Is that a phenomenon of the last decade? I thought we’d been buying stuff from the Far East since the 80s (and earlier)? UK environmental progress is massively superseding our peer nations. I find it hard to believe this is because we’re suddenly consuming lots of stuff from the Far East, while our peers aren’t?

I follow http://gridwatch.co.uk/ to track our coal usage - it’s showing zero/negligible. Which coal power stations are currently burning coal but are not included in the figures provided by OFGEM / gridwatch etc?

She’s not much different from any other celebrity in the sense that she’s on tour, standing up in front of crowds etc. Her new-found fame will generate a lucrative career, so I don’t think we should canonise her quite yet. I’ll drop the skepticism when she makes a difference where it’s most needed: in China and India.

I’m aware I have a strong pro-technology / pro-capitalism slant to my thinking and this puts me at odds with others here. Below is an interesting podcast that contrasts two totally opposite approaches to saving the planet:

I’m in the “wizard” camp. There are a lot of “prophets” commenting here. Both camps are probably too polarising and the best thinking probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I wonder what sort of reception the protesters will get if the start to hack off local residents. Possibly a bit different from Central London.

Coverage from the Evening Standard:

I think it’s pretty churlish to criticise Greta Thunberg when she has done so much to raise awareness of environmental issues, particularly among the younger generation. You will find that many young people are aware of her and her campaign, so it is great that they are engaged, as after all they are the ones who will be left to sort out this mess. So what if she has a career out of it? So does David Attenborough, who you complimented earlier. I also think it’s a bit much to expect a 16 year old to be able to solve environmental issues in India and China…

Indeed - and i am not sure how much of a lucrative career she is getting out of it TBH. The point is we all have to do something and that will mean having to give up or limit activity we take for granted or as our right.

London is one of the best served and cheapest places in the country for public transport. I have managed to live here for nearly 20 years and never once felt the need to own a car. So I am not convinced that a lot of car journeys in London are necessary by any means.

It is unfortunate that a lot of the traffic locally is due to the young. I was cycling down Dartmouth Road and there was a traffic congestion as people tried to drive up Thorpewood Avenue. This seems to be a common occurrence and seems to be mainly parents taking their kids to school or to the Pools. This seems to me penalize the people who walk and local residents, many of whom are children who are no doubt breathing in the exhaust and brake particles from these cars. I think the kids would be perfectly justified in blocking traffic as a gesture to show that they don’t like being poisoned by traffic.

Many of the car drivers are parents dropping their children at school before going onto their work.

Forest Hill has got great public transport, do all these parents who live in the very small catchment areas for these schools drive their kids to school and then drive off to work and not use public transport? I would echo Hannah, I am not convinced that a lot of car journeys in Forest Hill are necessary.

It not really an excuse is it - when I was young , in an area with very very poor public transport, we walk over two miles or lift shared to get to primary school and then at secondary school (over 8 miles away) we all got the bus or train.

I think part of the problem is that school hours are so short, that even if you can afford the breakfast club and after school care (AKA wrap-around care), there is so little time for commuting that driving directly between waypoints can become one of few options, especially if you have a second child going either to a nursery or different secondary school. The small catchment areas also mean there isn’t always much scope for choosing a school based on convenience of commute.

Of course it is very easy to judge others, but if you haven’t had children yourself or experienced the difficulties of managing work and child care or education, I appreciate it is difficult to empathise with those that do.

I do have children going to both primary and secondary schools so I think I can empathise with those that do, who decide to drive and those who walk or take public transport. I would expect most secondary school kids to take public transport. It is free and really benefits kids as they become independent rather than relying on being driven everywhere.

I have taken my kids to nursery on public transport and walked as well. The small catchment areas means if you live in them you will be close to the great public transport facilities that Forest Hill offers and the local schools both primary and secondary schools that kids can walk to. There will always be exceptions but the majority could take public transport or walk if they wanted to. I am sure if we introduced parking charges outside schools, you would see a drop in people driving. People make the car choice because it is free and easy.

Finding alternative ways of structuring our lives is hard but i think it’s necessary to put our time, energy, and resources into finding creative solutions. Things that are possible now as well as in the future (for those solutions that require government policy and funding).

Given all the loss heavily associated with air pollution: of health (stroke, cancer, asthma, heart disease, dementia, psychosis), of biodiversity, of a safe and stable future for our kids (via current trends of climate impacting food production).

In Hampstead parents have crowd funded school buses. That seems like a creative solution, but I’m sure there are other possibilities.

I agree with this, secondary school age children shouldn’t need to be driven to school.

You are lucky that this works out for you and your commute. Personally there is no direct bus for the route I take, and while the nursery is open from 8am, that still gives little time to dash back up to the overground. I know some nurseries open at 7am, but the location is even worse and availability is an issue. Breakfast club starts at 7:45 and needing to be in work for 9 makes it all a mad rush.

A car adds some convenience and makes it about possible, without taking more extreme measures such as moving house or job, both of which are not entirely a free choice either.

That’s probably true. 5p carrier bags show just how the difference between free and a few pence can motivate human behaviour.

Owning a car is far from free, and driving on and around London is anything but easy.

Anyway, back to my original point, if school hours were longer, public transport may be a more viable way to get to the school. I was thinking mainly of primaries, not secondaries, and interestingly enough I understand the wrap around care at Haseltine Primary, is free. I’m not sure if this is an attempt to ease pollution there, though from the Mayor of London’s report we still see 28% of journeys to/from school by car.

I don’t think I am lucky that I was able to take my kids to nursery on public transport. I made a conscious decision to take them to nursery which involved 2 buses or walking. I could have used our car and I accept that it costs money to run a car but once you have it then the cost of driving to nursery is minimal as there was free parking and it would have been easier than dealing with 2 buses and occasional pushchair space issues with drivers. A lot of people make the choice to drive to school/nursery as parking is free and it is easy.

It does sound like you do have a difficult routine but I wonder if it is the norm and there aren’t parents who could walk to school with their kids and contribute to cleaner air for residents and kids around schools to breathe. I think these parents will continue unless some external forces nudge them towards more inclusive behaviour.

I think “inclusive behaviour,” in the context of this topic, would be for us all to accept everyone has their own personal situation, and everyone has the right to choose the method of transport that best suits their situation.

Yes, we want people to drive electric cars / clean forms of public transport, and we want to get polluting cars, busses and taxis off the road. But there are changes that have to take place before this can happen (e.g. free market competition to drive down prices), and councils, mayors and government will need to play their part, too, putting viable public transport in place, and EV chargers. It’s not all down to the “behaviour” of drivers.

Chris, you’re obviously a person who takes personal responsibility and community extremely seriously. From what I can tell you’ve put, and continue to put, an immense amount of time and energy into creating and sustaining a community forum accessible to a whole spectrum of people to talk in a respectful way, even those that don’t agree with you. Conversely, everyone in this community needs to take personal responsibility to meet the standards you’ve set up.

Given all the thousands of people who say mass social communication companies need to do more, governments need to do more, the market needs to do more, nothing has really changed in social media. But you’ve changed our community. You’re a modern day superhero in our small SE23 space.

I cannot believe that action and change on any other issue would operate any differently. Saying it’s government or businesses or bus companies responsibilty is not going to lead to the changes we want to see. We all need to do our best, which is not easy. But it’s the only option if we want change.

Given the evidence links pollution with cancer, asthma, dementia, psychosis and given the IPCC indicates climate change might cause food shortages as early as 2040 if we don’t reduce emissions to zero by 2030, I think it’s a change that needs to be taken seriously.

Thanks for the kind words @Mjohnstone

It’s everyone’s responsibility, agreed - but some individuals are achieving more than a million protest marches can achieve.

image1200×800 72.9 KB

Leadership means finding positive ways to enact change. Inspiring people. Giving people appealing clean options, as opposed to hectoring people and simply banning dirty options.

Forming a mob and shouting at other people in the street is not the way forward IMO. Protests are zero-sum thinking.

As with all major societal leaps forward, technology will provide the solutions. We need to create the business-friendly regulatory environment that allows this to happen.

And we need to celebrate the individuals who are making it happen, not the individuals who are simply demanding that it happens.

So we have to wait for our billionaire overlords to see they’ll make more billions before they act on our behalf to stem carbon emissions? Capitalism is such a lol. What a hostage situation we are in.

For what it’s worth, I think young people seeing these protests and learning about climate change will create many more Elon Musk-esque innovators in the future - hopefully ones who won’t flagrantly manipulate markets and who have some manners.

The great thing about capitalism is it gives us all the opportunity to be an Elon Musk type, and for the smartest among us to make a positive difference to the world at massive scale.

I won’t go any further down the capitalism vs socialism / communism etc debate route as that’s not really appropriate for the main forum and should be in the opt-in general politics category.

While many, many others are left behind. Capitalism is far from a panacea and in the case of the climate emergency, it’s effects on the poorest and developing countries will be devastating.

Free market capitalism is benefiting too few at this time, I feel.