The Hourglass; Extinction Rebellion’s free newspaper

Dropped through my letterbox recently.
Anyone else received it?
Who funds it and is it the best way of using their money to achieve their objectives?

A lot of their cause is about raising awareness I’d have thought, so an information drop would work.

Paper Junk mail does seem rather at odds with their mission

Paper Junk mail does seem rather at odds with their mission

Their mission is to raise awareness and make ignoring climate change commercially nonviable among a load of other things. e.g. bringing London to a standstill doesn’t do much to change things on it’s own, but the losses incurred by companies as a result might prompt them to do something about climate change to make ER stop disrupting them. More akin to “bullying” than direct action in that sense. They don’t glue themselves to trains because they don’t like trains, they do it in the hope that those commuters will go onto do something about climate change so that ER won’t do it again.

Although it does seem pretty much on message for them. Even if the carbon footprint of a bit of unsolicited mail upsets you, it’ll probably be offset if a fraction of the recipients walk to the shops for milk rather than drive.

Printed on recycled paper, distributed around the UK by rebels from Extinction Rebellion’s regional groups across the UK and aimed to reach people who are not necessarily on social media, and who still read and trust traditional press. Amazing what google can turn up.

What DJ Spoony said.

The long-term need is to make us change our behaviour and attitudes by any means necessary. If that costs some paper, so be it; it’s an investment.

Straight in the bin.

Not even remotely interested.

^^ didn’t know Trump had an account on STW

I’m much more Rees-Mogg in my outlook.

Not sure I appwove, but I admire your honesty

Straight in the bin.

Not even remotely interested.

Hopefully the general rubbish bin to really show them.

Hopefully the general rubbish bin to really show them.

Fight the power panda

I am of course joking about Rees-Mogg But I did bin it.

I resent being ‘guilt-ed’ into opinions, which seems to be the rhetoric, these groups employ.

Same with the sugar tax – what happened to being personally responsible for my own actions and opinions?

what happened to being personally responsible for my own actions and opinions?

<pulls up armchair, opens packet of McVities Digestives>

I would love to know the carbon footprint of er. There protest in london, thousands travelling to the capital to participate. The carbon emitted policing it and as a result of the disruption it caused. It must be huge especially for an organisation that want to force everyone else to reduce their footprint

what happened to being personally responsible for my own actions and opinions?

Yeah… ’cause that’s always worked out alright eh!!

:o)

Junior signed up to Bund magazine from friend’s of the earth Germany (why it’s delivered to me not him I have no idea). It’s delivered in a plastic covered wrapper having travelled 2000km. It’s a good read.

My issue with these groups is that I don’t think they understand the scale of the problem. If you think that an imminent (~10 years) climate catastrophe needs averting by an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions to essentially pre-Industrial Revolution levels, your only choice really is a global return to the Stone Age. Or an immediate global change to nuclear power.

opens packet of McVities Digestives

Hopefully you’ll take the wrapper to a local drop-off point? http://www.sustainabilityguide.co.uk/2018/03/05/recycling-biscuit-wrappers/

Same with the sugar tax – what happened to being personally responsible for my own actions and opinions?

Yeah, right? I hope you’ve at least doubled your sugar consumption to show them they’re not the boss of you.

I hope you’ve at least doubled your sugar consumption to show them they’re not the boss of you.

Giving yourself diabetes to show the woke how unwoke you are.

You know it makes sense.

Same with the sugar tax – what happened to being personally responsible for my own actions and opinions?

Yeah, right? I hope you’ve at least doubled your sugar consumption to show them they’re not the boss of you.

It didn’t change my Behaviour one bit, still on 1-3 cans of full sugar pop a week.

It didn’t change my Behaviour one bit, still on 1-3 cans of full sugar pop a week.

Go on Wolfe.

Same with the sugar tax – what happened to being personally responsible for my own actions and opinions?

😂😂😂 take a look around at your fellow UK citizens. ‘Taking personal responsibility’ CLEARLY is not working, for a variety of obvious and more subtle reasons.

Still, feel free to stick it to the man with your full fat coke protest. Your teeth, your islets of langerhans. Your dentist will love you 😎👍🏼

My issue with these groups is that I don’t think they understand the scale of the problem

Daughter number one trains participants, organises and participates in non-violent ER protests and is prepared to be and has been arrested. She’s a scientist. She really, really does understand the scale of the problem (and has resorted to this approach because other approaches haven’t worked)

My issue with these groups is that I don’t think they understand the scale of the problem. If you think that an imminent (~10 years) climate catastrophe needs averting by an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions to essentially pre-Industrial Revolution levels, your only choice really is a global return to the Stone Age. Or an immediate global change to nuclear power.

Surely what you’re saying means they do understand the scale of the problem?

Or are you saying the problem isn’t that big?

She really, really does understand the scale of the problem (and has resorted to this approach because other approaches haven’t worked)

I’d be curious to know what she would consider a successful outcome, in a practical sense.

Surely what you’re saying means they do understand the scale of the problem?

Or are you saying the problem isn’t that big?

If they do, then they are campaigning for an immediate stop to all modern industrial activity, globally. They might be right, but can’t see that gaining much traction.

My issue with these groups is that I don’t think they understand the scale of the problem. If you think that an imminent (~10 years) climate catastrophe needs averting by an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions to essentially pre-Industrial Revolution levels, your only choice really is a global return to the Stone Age. Or an immediate global change to nuclear power.

I think they really do understand and know that whatever is done is a damage limitation exercise. Drive into a big tree at 75kmh and you might walk away but doing it at 150 will cause serious injury and probably kill you.

From the Extinction Rebellion website:

Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.

I agree with your 150kmh vs 75kmh scenario – realistically, what we can do is limited. I do everything I can to reduce consumption amd energy usage, but declaring this a climate emergency and thus demanding the end to all CO2 emissions in 6 years is beyond unrealistic and will cause most people to tune out.

Daft bunch of clever people acting like morons. As has been said before, they don’t seem to understand that getting anywhere near their targets would result in a global economic meltdown that would make the start of the Dark Ages look like the f***ing Age of Aquarius.

So, let’s have less self-flagellation and self righteous asceticism and more focus on how technology can solve problems.

JP

The science is unequivocal that climate change and biodiversity loss are significant and already close to or passing global tipping points.

ER’s approach is about trying to make people realise that it is OUR problem, NOW to deal with.

Focusing on objectives for 2025 is about focusing on what we can each do, RIGHT NOW. People stay in jobs / positions of influence for a few years at time. If you set the target for 2030 or 2035 it is your successors problem – out of sight, out of mind. If the target is in the next 5 years, it is your responsibility, get on with it. You may not get all the way, but get started, right now.

And that is what we need to do. Have you ever looked at an image of earth from space? How thin the atmosphere is?

You can’t rely on people to do what they need to do. They’ll always do less. Eat five fruit and veg a day – they’ll maybe manage 2-3. Speed limit at 20? – 25’s slow enough for me. It needs immediate and draconian action and asking people to be a bit better won’t get the results we need.

Same with the sugar tax – what happened to being personally responsible for my own actions and opinions?

That’s kind of the point. You are being given the opportunity to take responsibility to be responsible by paying a tax that covers the cost that your action causes. Rather than externalising it – someone else paying for it.

So, let’s have less self-flagellation and self righteous asceticism and more focus on how technology can solve problems.

Or better still have a bit of both. Hoping that technology can solve it is dream world stuff and it will be too little too late.

Daft bunch of clever people acting like morons. As has been said before, they don’t seem to understand that getting anywhere near their targets would result in a global economic meltdown that would make the start of the Dark Ages look like the f***ing Age of Aquarius.

When the crops have failed and you’re up to your arse in polluted sea water, you’ll be looking back with nostalgia on warnings about “global economic melt down”

So, let’s have less self-flagellation and self righteous asceticism and more focus on how technology can solve problems.

JP

Yup, Kevin Costner had a really cool boat in Waterworld!

Really though, there are solutions that businesses and individuals could take today.

Offset whatever emissions you make by planting trees for example. Buying an Oak sapling costs about £1, one a few years old (i.e. likely to survive) is about £10, and will hold onto your carbon emissions for hundred(s) of years. 3 trees a year is IIRC the average uk carbon footprint? Hardly likely to bring on an economic dark age.

The only problem is where do you find the space for ~200 trees per person. But we have to start, as people get used to the idea, the price of “carbon credits” will rise (as the cost of offsetting goes up) and things will actually get done about renewable energy etc.

The problem with things like renewable energy suppliers is they cost the same as the normal ones, this is simply because the cost of buying a certificate that says you household energy for the year has been offset or sourced from renewable is about £1.50. Until people get a grip and start generating real demand for those certificates the system isn’t going to function effectively.

So, let’s have less self-flagellation and self righteous asceticism and more focus on how technology can solve problems.

Right – and how do you suggest that we get people working on that technology? A letter to The Times?

Everyone with half a brain can see that we’ve **** and raped the planet. Reversing this in time would cause so much upheaval that people couldn’t cope.

There is a sense of apathy. The problem is almost too big comprehend and the solutions too inconvenient.

I think there are 2  big issues.

1. It’s hard to see how individuals can make a difference to a global problem. What difference does my little bit actually make

2. It assumes the planet should stay in a state fit for human life indefinitely when the reality is human life has only been possible for a tiny fraction of the earth’s life. Humans are the anomaly not the norm

The only problem is where do you find the space for ~200 trees per person. But we have to start, as people get used to the idea, the price of “carbon credits” will rise (as the cost of offsetting goes up) and things will actually get done about renewable energy etc.

A mature tree absorbs about 20Kg of CO2 per year. The annual UK CO2 output divided by the population gives around 18 million tonnes of CO2 per person – this would take more than a few hundred trees each to offset.

I also really dislike the carbon credit economy. Any company that does any environmental good can then sell that to offset another company’s actions – what’s the point? There has been no actual change in CO2 output, but some money has been spread around and some people feel better. The CO2 economy is also why we ship millions of tonnes of wood from the US every year to burn at Drax power station – this situation is clearly ludicrous, but because the carbon credit / CO2 maths checks out, it’s all good and environmentally friendly.