As I noted yesterday, I am sympathetic to the overall purpose of the XR movement. How can you not be? I'm not quite sold on their aims, though. These are:
– 1. The Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.
– 2. The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.
– 3. A national citizens assembly to oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.
It seems to me that:
[1] is vital, and as I've mentioned before, the UK has a reasonably good story to tell (so far) compared to most.
[2] is madness as it would wreck the economy and plunge millions into penury and cold.
[3] sounds like a gimmick to me, and the last people in the room will always be the SWP.
The current UK government policy for [2] is 80% reduction by 2050 which ought to be achievable. Some who say they know about such things say 100% is achievable. The Times interviewed Dr Gail Bradbrook, co-founder of XR, last Saturday who (acknowledging that a 2025 deadline means replacing 26 million gas boilers) asked why it would not be possible to replace these by electric ones by 2025. "We will pull it off if we believe in ourselves", she said. Whether it would or not, it also means shutting all the gas-fired power stations as well (as there is no working CCS system in place). So where is all the electricity to come from (by 2025) to run these boilers on cloudy windless days? NB, as I write this (on April 23rd) it's a cloudy and calm morning and gas is contributing 38% of UK electricity, and coal 4%.
Convincing answers come there none because, I guess, the 2025 date is meant to shock rather than to inform. It's not the date that matters, you see, but the idea.
Respond