XR listed on same list as terrorist organisations Watch

Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by Joinedup)
Depends on the list IMO

1. I wouldn't say they XR are dangerous terrorists but they clearly are doing somewhat similar things to terrorist groups of the past

The IRA was phoning in motorway bomb threats in '97 disrupting the transport infrastructure to further their ideological agenda
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/moto...alerts-1.58721

XR attempt to disrupt the transport infrastructure to further their ideological agenda by climbing on top of trains

if you've got a list of organisations that have a track record of disrupting transport infrastructure for ideological reasons they'd both belong on it.

2. You get people taking it to far - a common response of environmental groups to not getting their own way is to increase the amount of alarming exaggeration in their propaganda... and some people take it too seriously.
e.g. During the Brent Spar dumping controversy '95 Greenpeace was telling people in Germany and the Netherlands that Brent Spar was dangerously radioactive and Shell was about to cause an unprecedented environmental disaster. Greenpeace encouraged a boycott of Shell filling stations - some bubble dwellers didn't think that was enough and started shooting firearms at Shell petrol stations.

Greenpeace didn't ask people to shoot petrol stations - but it's likely that people were inspired to shoot petrol stations because they were scared by Greenpeace's over the top propaganda... probably you'd want greenpeace on a list of organisations where you'd want to keep an eye on what they were campaigning about.
You are talking about something that happened in Germany in 1995 and had nothing to do with Greenpeace. Knowing the way the oil companies behave globally, I wouldn't have put it past Shell to have arranged that particular incident. Indeed, it would be more appropriate to treat the oil giants as terrorist organisations, since they have in the past sponsored everything from political manipulation to military coups and from thuggish violence to mass murder whenever people in poor countries got in the way of their programmes.
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Note that the list only included the groups that are actually effective, like XR, Greenpeace and Peta.
XR arent effective, they don't even understand what there preaching. Ill never forget when one of XR's organisers went on GMB and didnt even understand the difference between localised air pollutants such as PM-HCs, NOx etc. and greenhouse gas emissions yet has decided he wanted to be the spokesperson for climate change and he doesn't even know what it is. A complete moron.

These groups are causing civil disruption, none of them have any real solutions or work towards real solutions. Far better off listening to the science as outlined from the IPCC as a global plan to ensure temperatures dont rise 1.5C above those of global avg temperatures in 2000. (The UK is not only meeting the targets to do this, but ahead of schedule). The major problems with Global warmingare not in the UK, until the likes of China, US, India, Mexico etc. improve standards global warming wont stop, we need practical scalable solutions that scale and enable people to live normal lives.

For example airlines should move to blended-fuels, partially produced from waste bio-material (which wont increase specific fuel consumption), road transport should move to M-HEV on large vehicles on P-HEV in medium cars, and EV on light and localised travel. The grid needs to change over the next 30 years to a wider portfolio of energy inputs and carbon based sources to be coupled to CCS. Things like this on a global scale will make a huge impact, but notice XR dont actual campaign for any of this, there goal is attention & disruption.
2
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by mnot)
XR arent effective, they don't even understand what there preaching. Ill never forget when one of XR's organisers went on GMB and didnt even understand the difference between localised air pollutants such as PM-HCs, NOx etc. and greenhouse gas emissions yet has decided he wanted to be the spokesperson for climate change and he doesn't even know what it is. A complete moron.

These groups are causing civil disruption, none of them have any real solutions or work towards real solutions. Far better off listening to the science as outlined from the IPCC as a global plan to ensure temperatures dont rise 1.5C above those of global avg temperatures in 2000. (The UK is not only meeting the targets to do this, but ahead of schedule). The major problems with Global warming are not in the UK, until the likes of China, US, India, Mexico etc. improve standards global warming wont stop, we need practical scalable solutions that scale and enable people to live normal lives.

For example airlines should move to blended-fuels, partially produced from waste bio-material (which wont increase specific fuel consumption), road transport should move to M-HEV on large vehicles on P-HEV in medium cars, and EV on light and localised travel. The grid needs to change over the next 30 years to a wider portfolio of energy inputs and carbon based sources to be coupled to CCS. Things like this on a global scale will make a huge impact, but notice XR dont actual campaign for any of this, there goal is attention & disruption.
XR have been highly effective in keeping the issue before the public. Highlighting the odd mistake that some member or other makes is just pointless smearing.

You raise the usual defensive "we shouldn't bother doing anything because it's all up to other countries" argument. This is nonsense. Much of global emissions are caused by our consumer patterns. The UK, along with Europe and the US, have simply exported their CO2 emissions along with manufacturing to other locations such as China. That doesn't mean we have no responsibility. In addition, the UK sits at the centre of a global web of capitalist infrastructure and controls a good slice of it.

Of course we need good technical solutions and a host of other things. XR representatives have tried to promote the reality of the climate crisis. Saying there is no crisis now is just burying heads in sands. Pretending it's all someone else's responsibility is what everyone tries to do.
1
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
XR have been highly effective in keeping the issue before the public. Highlighting the odd mistake that some member or other makes is just pointless smearing.

You raise the usual defensive "we shouldn't bother doing anything because it's all up to other countries" argument. This is nonsense. Much of global emissions are caused by our consumer patterns. The UK, along with Europe and the US, have simply exported their CO2 emissions along with manufacturing to other locations such as China. That doesn't mean we have no responsibility. In addition, the UK sits at the centre of a global web of capitalist infrastructure and controls a good slice of it.

Of course we need good technical solutions and a host of other things. XR representatives have tried to promote the reality of the climate crisis. Saying there is no crisis now is just burying heads in sands. Pretending it's all someone else's responsibility is what everyone tries to do.
Its not highlighting the odd mistake, the bloke didn't understand the fundamental difference between localised air pollution & greenhouse gases, he doesn't actually understand what climate change is, yet imposes himself as the preacher.

I didnt say we shouldn't bother doing anything, the UK is already at the heart of next-generation with many wide scale international collaborations, and we have an excellent record of making much of the knowledge freely publicly available so everyone can work towards net-decarbonisation. Its simply fact, that unless regulators in China, US, Mexico, India change their enforcement policies action we take is pretty futile, I also highlighted the UK is already ahead of the UN targets. The UK government is certainly not burying their heads in the sand, the amount of resources we throw at climate change is a lot, its time the media actually go highlight some of the excellent technologies being developed rather then put these morons on the telly.

I find it really frustrating watch people such as XR who don't know (or care to understand) the actual science, yet go on TV and lecture everyone about it, yet they themselves have spent zero time working toward solutions but just try to disrupt everyones day to day lives. - This last section is my real gripe with XR and why I keep hounding their position.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
Ah those freedom loving Tories showing how much they love freedom.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by mnot)
I find it really frustrating watch people such as XR who don't know (or care to understand) the actual science, yet go on TV and lecture everyone about it, yet they themselves have spent zero time working toward solutions but just try to disrupt everyones day to day lives. - This last section is my real gripe with XR and why I keep hounding their position.
Bunch of loons suffering from an attention deficit in their lives, not one of them does Science and what is food for thought is that they swim their way up the network to TV studios and the Today programme. How many of them have converted their motors to LPG, to begin with? They don't even know what that is or why they ought to do it, put their money where their mouths are.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
Name:  explore-through-the-lens-polar-bear-og.ngsversion.1532577681975.adapt.1900.1.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  156.4 KB

National Geographic used this bear to 'show the impact of climate change', it was paraded all over the world and every media outlet as such.

That was a lie, they had to issue a statement retracting it but the children were all in tears already and being prescribed anti-depressants.

It is a sick bear dying.

The people being paid by NG deny there was anything they could have done to help him but that's another lie.

Sinister stuff, all this.
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by z-hog)
Bunch of loons suffering from an attention deficit in their lives, not one of them does Science and what is food for thought is that they swim their way up the network to TV studios and the Today programme. How many of them have converted their motors to LPG, to begin with? They don't even know what that is or why they ought to do it, put their money where their mouths are.
(Original post by z-hog)
Name:  explore-through-the-lens-polar-bear-og.ngsversion.1532577681975.adapt.1900.1.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  156.4 KB

National Geographic used this bear to 'show the impact of climate change', it was paraded all over the world and every media outlet as such.

That was a lie, they had to issue a statement retracting it but the children were all in tears already and being prescribed anti-depressants.

It is a sick bear dying.

The people being paid by NG deny there was anything they could have done to help him but that's another lie.

Sinister stuff, all this.
So im less concerned that they don't know or operate alternative fuels such as LPG or varient, as there isnt a clear consensus yet on the best next generation fuelling strategy within research or industry so I wouldn't expect them to be fully up to speed on this (but I would expect them to have some context of transports relative impact on GHGs).

Im more concerned that they are preaching about climate science and don't understand the basics, they should understand and differentiate between different environmental issues and know what is climate change & what isnt. This boils down to the problem for me, they dont know what they are talking about yet so arrogantly tell everyone what "we" need to do. They are not up to speed with any information put in journals in the 90s yet here they are preaching "the science".
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by mnot)
So im less concerned that they don't know or operate alternative fuels such as LPG or varient, as there isnt a clear consensus yet on the best next generation fuelling strategy within research or industry so I wouldn't expect them to be fully up to speed on this (but I would expect them to have some context of transports relative impact on GHGs).
LPG is virtually emission-free, for that reason LPG vehicles were exempt from the Congestion Charge for years in London. That has now been done away with because it's always about money and nothing else, there is no reasonable explanation for it. Everyone driving a petrol vehicle can have them converted, why aren't XR activists doing it to help save the planet? Not asking, just saying.
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
Dont care much for XR, but appreciate that they are raising more awareness, we’ve known about climate change for a few decades, but last year was when the penny really dropped, due to large scale protests and people like Greta Thunberg (which gammons dont seem to like lol)

Governments across the world need to step up to the plate and recognise the dangers of continuing as we are doing now instead of reckless short term profits at the expense of future generations
1
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by z-hog)
LPG is virtually emission-free, for that reason LPG vehicles were exempt from the Congestion Charge for years in London. That has now been done away with because it's always about money and nothing else, there is no reasonable explanation for it. Everyone driving a petrol vehicle can have them converted, why aren't XR activists doing it to help save the planet? Not asking, just saying.
This isnt quite right.
LPG is much cleaner with respect to localised air quality pollutants far less PM's & NOx and in some vehicle types has marginally better tailpipe GHG emissions.
It is generally much cheaper then petrol to operate. For these reasons its often a good alternative for localised environments in densely populated areas.

But by the time you consider lifecycle GHGs including in manufacturing and in the production, distribution and storage of LPG its very similar level of GHGs to traditional petrol, hence is useful for air quality (which is more a problem high density populations such as city centres) but not a real benefit to climate change.

Additionally LPG is not a suitable fuel for all transport types particularly certain vehicle classes or commercial operation.

The next generation of fuelling strategies will likely be a mixture of alternatives, including: EVs, HEVs, alternative fuel ICE and some high efficiency petrol/diesel-ICE (with minimum coupling to a P2 hybrid system), Hydrogen may also have a role but I suspect will be limited to heavy-duty commercial vehicles.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
XR deserve to be on such list not because they are a bunch of nutjobs but because their tactics are extremist, what else can you say when they set out to paralise daily life in London and demand the world changes to their tune? We don't even get that from any other organization in that list. Of course they were swiftly removed the moment their sympathisers kicked into action (Guardian leading the way, BBC following suit as ever) but that's not the point. They are extremists in more ways than one.
1
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by z-hog)
XR deserve to be on such list not because they are a bunch of nutjobs but because their tactics are extremist, what else can you say when they set out to paralise daily life in London and demand the world changes to their tune? We don't even get that from any other organization in that list. Of course they were swiftly removed the moment their sympathisers kicked into action (Guardian leading the way, BBC following suit as ever) but that's not the point. They are extremists in more ways than one.
Literally all protests follow the same pattern - if your protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, if it just walks down a set path agreed with the police while chanting slogans then it's a parade. The simple question is why would a group that simply doesn't want us all to die in a climate apocalypse (and it's already here, millions in the global south are already dying or having their livelihoods destroyed by climate change) belong on a list of groups to be monitored and an indication of extremism for those required to enforce Prevent (also featuring an avowedly anti-fascist German football club, and a pacifist organisation)?

The answer is because the state considers those people a threat to it, because we are barreling towards fascism, the inevitable backlash of capitalism when capitalism has done what it's meant to do too well, to have made people so poor and downtrodden that they start to consider yeeting the rich into the sun where they belong. The government are gearing up to silence all those that oppose them, because they know there will be massive opposition as it becomes clear they are betraying people in favour of capital.
Last edited by Stiff Little Fingers; 1 month ago
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
The simple question is why would a group that simply doesn't want us all to die in a climate apocalypse (and it's already here, millions in the global south are already dying or having their livelihoods destroyed by climate change) belong on a list of groups to be monitored and an indication of extremism for those required to enforce Prevent (also featuring an avowedly anti-fascist German football club, and a pacifist organisation)?
That's what makes you an extremist, all that jazz about people dying in their billions and all the rest. You're all off your rocker and don't even know what you're protesting about, it's all about yourselves and nothing else. That's what makes you extremists and shouldn't be tolerated in the streets.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by z-hog)
That's what makes you an extremist, all that jazz about people dying in their billions and all the rest. You're all off your rocker and don't even know what you're protesting about, it's all about yourselves and nothing else. That's what makes you extremists and shouldn't be tolerated in the streets.
Yet more anti-intellectual crap from you - do you never tire of being wrong? We are talking quarter of a million people each year dying as a result of climate change this decade, and that's a conservative estimate: https://www.livescience.com/64535-cl...th-deaths.html

If thinking we shouldn't kill ourselves and a lot of life on this planet (we're in a 6th mass extinction event and it's anthropogenic) is extreme then there is no excuse for not being extreme. Being moderate in the face of those conditions is a moral failing.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Yet more anti-intellectual crap from you - do you never tire of being wrong? We are talking quarter of a million people each year dying as a result of climate change this decade, and that's a conservative estimate: https://www.livescience.com/64535-cl...th-deaths.html

If thinking we shouldn't kill ourselves and a lot of life on this planet (we're in a 6th mass extinction event and it's anthropogenic) is extreme then there is no excuse for not being extreme. Being moderate in the face of those conditions is a moral failing.
In fairness, in the grand scheme of things, 250,000 a year due to the rather nebulous (and dubious) bracket of climate change is little more than a rounding error.
I'm not saying climate change isnt happening but merely pointing out that isnt the best metric to use.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by Napp)
In fairness, in the grand scheme of things, 250,000 a year due to the rather nebulous (and dubious) bracket of climate change is little more than a rounding error.
I'm not saying climate change isnt happening but merely pointing out that isnt the best metric to use.
Those deaths are the low end estimate from heat stress, malnutrition and a greater active range for malaria, directly linked to increased global temperatures. It doesn't factor in reduced food yields from land destruction, it doesn't factor in reduced output because of unsafe working conditions, it doesn't factor in the spread of exotic diseases, or the impact of climate change induced poverty (for those who simply won't be able to work safely as much as they currently do - outside labour for instance). We're actually talking death and devastation on a much larger scale once you consider that, and that's without considering the public health impacts of the causes of climate change (for instance the amount of deaths from respiratory issues caused by air pollution). Denying the mass deaths of the population as this gets worse (worst case estimates are now as much as 7 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100) is absurd
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Yet more anti-intellectual crap from you - do you never tire of being wrong? We are talking quarter of a million people each year dying as a result of climate change this decade, and that's a conservative estimate: https://www.livescience.com/64535-cl...th-deaths.html

If thinking we shouldn't kill ourselves and a lot of life on this planet (we're in a 6th mass extinction event and it's anthropogenic) is extreme then there is no excuse for not being extreme. Being moderate in the face of those conditions is a moral failing.
Ive just had a look at the assessment done by the World Health Organisation, and whilst its true we'll see increased deaths id take the figure with a huge pinch of salt (even tho, it doesn't seem unrealistic when compared to other world health epidemics).

-lack of peer-review
-3 references (non from 0-4 years of being written)
-IPCC 2014 report (this was produced in 2018, and the IPCC report is annual so why not use the latest one...)?
-The impact of china was based on 2008 stats, the EU stats from 2003... the world has moved along way from then
-lack of methodology, I know theres a very brief explanation but no clear method for reproducibility shown

regardless non of this really changes that XR arent protesting in China or USA or Mexico there demanding action from a government which already exceeds it target laid out from the IPCC
Last edited by mnot; 1 month ago
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Those deaths are the low end estimate from heat stress, malnutrition and a greater active range for malaria, directly linked to increased global temperatures. It doesn't factor in reduced food yields from land destruction, it doesn't factor in reduced output because of unsafe working conditions, it doesn't factor in the spread of exotic diseases, or the impact of climate change induced poverty (for those who simply won't be able to work safely as much as they currently do - outside labour for instance). We're actually talking death and devastation on a much larger scale once you consider that, and that's without considering the public health impacts of the causes of climate change (for instance the amount of deaths from respiratory issues caused by air pollution). Denying the mass deaths of the population as this gets worse (worst case estimates are now as much as 7 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100) is absurd
That doesnt detract from the point that attributing these deaths to global warming is, at best, a reach and at worst downright dishonest. Whilst climate change is undoubtedly happening it is rather tricky to be able to draw a conclusive link between death a due to event b and attribute them specifically to man made global warming.
It moight well be absurb but then again i made no comment on it, simply that it is hard to draw a definitive link between these two extremely specific events. Especially when, to use your example, a crop failure that could be down to global warming or could be down to another factor. The point being life is inherently complex and anything but black and white thus making the practice of trying to make it as such utterly absurd.
0
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
They aren't terrorists, they are vandals though. Saw some absolutely huge XR graffiti on this previously nice old bridge. How green are solvents and defacing the countryside :rolleyes:
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (481)
59.46%
Yes- I don't like it (43)
5.32%
No- I want it (231)
28.55%
No- I don't want it (54)
6.67%

Watched Threads

View All