Activism Climate Change environment Extinction Extinction Rebellion protests Fake News Fossil Fuel Emissions global warming Jeremy Corbyn Media Oceans/Seas Planet Earth protests United Kingdom

The London Climate Protests: Raising The Alarm

The feeling is usually there at night time, in fact, in the wee small hours. But it could possibly arise at virtually any time – taking a look at somebody we care about, listening to birdsong on an unusually warm spring morning, buying.

It is like being trapped on a sinking ship, with the captain and crew refusing to admit that anything is fallacious. The passengers are principally oblivious, planning their journeys and lives forward. Every thing appears ‘normal’, but we know that every thing will quickly be on the backside of the ocean. Every part appears unusual, familiar, permanent, however will quickly be gone. It feels as if our happiness, our every second spent with the individuals and places we love, is irradiated by the worry of impending local weather collapse.

Final month, the Extinction Insurrection protests in London (and globally) finally challenged some features of this waking nightmare – finally, a way that human beings usually are not utterly insane, that we’re capable of responding with some rationality and dignity. In the long run, 1,100 individuals allowed themselves to be arrested, with 70 charged, for all our sakes.

Whereas many people thrill to the prospect of pouring milkshake over political opponents, Extinction Riot proved, conclusively, once and for all, that non-violent protest is the superpower of democratic change. And this was not just non-violent protest; it was non-hating, rooted in love of the planet, love of people, love of life. The mystic Lao-Tzu wrote:

‘Nothing on the planet
is as mushy and yielding as water.
But for dissolving the onerous and rigid,
nothing can surpass it.

‘The soft overcomes the hard;
the gentle overcomes the rigid.’

The particular forces in this compassionate revolution are the 83-year-old grandfather who spoke so eloquently atop a blocked practice in Canary Wharf. They’re the little youngsters sitting quietly in the midst of Oxford Road, the mums with toddlers, and, in fact, the extraordinary Greta Thunberg whose perception and intelligence have surprised many veteran climate activists. Where the adults have been cautioning for years that we shouldn’t be too ‘alarmist’, too ‘pessimistic’ for worry of upsetting a lily-livered public, Thunberg has stated simply:

‘I want you to panic. I want you to act as if the house was on fire… To panic, unless you have to, is a terrible idea. But when your house is on fire and you want to keep your house from burning to the ground then that does require some level of panic.’

She is strictly right. In his current BBC documentary, ‘Climate Change: The Facts’, 91-year-old David Attenborough missed 16-year-old Thunberg’s point. The first half of Attenborough’s movie did a superb job of drawing consideration to the threats, but the second half was much too constructive on the prospects for particular person and collective motion. It ended on a hopeful, reassuring notice. It should have ended on a notice of deep alarm and, sure, panic.

When governments search to mobilise the public for motion, they terrify us with tales of Huns bayonetting babies, of weapons of mass destruction ready to destroy us within 45 minutes. They do this because it works – individuals are prepared to kill and be killed, if they assume their very own lives and people of the individuals they love are at stake.

We now have all the time argued that climate scientists and activists also needs to emphasise the terrifying prospects – not in the dishonest, hyped method of state cynics, however truthfully, sticking to the information. When the science is punching great holes within the blind conceit of commercial ‘progress’ we should always not pull our punches. Once more, the Extinction Rebel protests – the identify makes the purpose – have powerfully vindicated this strategy. An opinion poll after the protests found:

‘Two-thirds of people in the UK recognise there is a climate emergency and 76% say that they would cast their vote differently to protect the planet.’

John Sauven, government director of Greenpeace UK, stated the talk around environmentalism had been basically altered:

‘Climate activists, young and old, have put the UK government under enormous pressure to officially recognise the climate emergency we are facing. There is a real feeling of hope in the air that after several decades of climate campaigning the message is beginning to sink in. What we need now is to translate that feeling into action.’

Because of this strain, the UK final week turned the primary parliament to declare a climate emergency – previously unthinkable. Leading local weather scientist, Professor Michael Mann, tweeted of the declaration:

‘Yeah, there’s quite a bit happening in the current news cycle. However this is undoubtedly an important improvement of all’

Mild-years beyond his Conservative opponents on this concern, Labour chief Jeremy Corbyn commented:

‘We have now no time to waste. We are living in a local weather crisis that may spiral dangerously out of control until we take speedy and dramatic motion now.

‘This is no longer about a distant future we’re speaking about nothing lower than the irreversible destruction of the surroundings inside our lifetimes of members of this home. Young individuals know this. They’ve probably the most to lose.’

Against this, the voting document of Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Setting, Food and Rural Affairs, indicates that he ‘Generally voted against measures to prevent climate change.’ Prime Minister Theresa Might has maintained a studied, shameful silence, clearly hoping the difficulty and the protests will go away. Motion is clearly not on her agenda.

As if the climate crisis was not dangerous enough, a new UN report reveals that a million animal and plant species at the moment are threatened with extinction. The world is experiencing a price of destruction tens to tons of of occasions larger than the typical over the previous 10 million years. Dr Kate Brauman, from the University of Minnesota, a lead writer of the assessment, commented:

‘We have documented a really unprecedented decline in biodiversity and nature, this is completely different than anything we’ve seen in human history when it comes to the rate of decline and the size of the menace.’

The following day, only two UK newspapers, (Guardian and that i) led with the UN report on species extinction, most preferring to give attention to a royal start. The BBC News website featured a minimum of six tales concerning the royal child earlier than the headline, ‘Humans “threaten 1m species with extinction”.’ This was a basic example of why Erich Fromm warned in his e-book ‘The Sane Society’, that it really is feasible for a whole society to be, in impact, insane.

Manufactured Dissent?

And not using a sense of alarm, we’ll probably proceed to be stifled by the large marketing campaign of company disinformation and outright lies designed to stop profit-unfriendly actions. The key to the strategy to take care of public indifference was defined by Phil Lesley, writer of a handbook on public relations:

‘Individuals usually do not favour motion on a non-alarming state of affairs when arguments seem to be balanced on each side and there’s a clear doubt. The weight of impressions on the public have to be balanced so individuals may have doubts and lack motivation to take motion. Accordingly, means are needed to get balancing info into the stream from sources that the public will find credible. There isn’t a want for a clear-cut “victory”. … Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this isn’t a clear-cut state of affairs in help of the opponents often is all that is essential.’

Given the necessity for a really clear alarm to counter this propaganda, it is disturbing, however not shocking, that critics on the left have joined with the likes of Lesly to assault the messengers making an attempt to boost the alarm (unsurprising as a result of the left has a particularly poor report on climate change. See our Cogitation.)

In her article, ‘The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex’ – which is intended to remind of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s basic work, Manufacturing Consent – The Political Financial system of the Mass Media – unbiased investigative journalist and environmental activist Cory Morningstar headlines a key claim on the prime of the piece and all through the very lengthy, virtually impenetrable mixture of text and screenshots that follows:

‘In ACT I, I disclose that Greta Thunberg, the current child prodigy and face of the youth movement to combat climate change, serves as special youth advisor and trustee to the burgeoning mainstream tech start-up We Don’t Have Time.’

The declare is that Thunberg was concerned in launching new business opportunities to capitalise on green considerations. Morningstar mentions the ‘We Don’t Have Time’ organisation concerned in ‘tech start-up’ dozens of occasions in Act I of her piece alone. And but, as Thunberg responded on Fb in February:

‘I was briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non revenue foundation “We don’t have time”. It seems they used my identify as a part of another department of their organisation that may be a begin up enterprise. They’ve admitted clearly that they did so with out the information of me or my household [Our emphasis]. I not have any connection to “We don’t have time”. Nor does anyone in my family. They have deeply apologised for what has occurred and I have accepted their apology.’

Thunberg did not, in truth, ‘serve as a trustee’ for the start-up enterprise department; her identify was added with out her information or permission and she or he not has any links to the organisation. Three months after they have been revealed on Fb, Morningstar has still not added an addendum to her article responding and linking to Thunberg’s comments.

Morningstar wrote:

‘Greta Thunberg and [teenage climate activist] Jamie Margolin who each have profitable futures in the branding of “sustainable” industries and products, in the event that they want to pursue this path in utilizing their present movie star for personal achieve (an indicator of the “grassroots” NGO movement).’

Thunberg again:

‘I’m not part of any organization. I typically help and cooperate with a number of NGOs that work with the climate and setting. But I’m completely unbiased and I only symbolize myself. And I do what I do utterly free of charge, I’ve not acquired any cash or any promise of future funds in any type at all. And nor has anybody linked to me or my family finished so.

‘And naturally it is going to stay this manner. I have not met one single local weather activist who’s preventing for the climate for money. That idea is completely absurd.

‘Furthermore I only travel with permission from my school and my parents pay for tickets and accommodations.’

Every thing we’ve seen suggests that Thunberg is completely honest and by no means minded to take advantage of her movie star for money. Contemplating her age, the suggestion, in the absence of evidence, is ugly indeed.

Morningstar’s primary theme is that local weather activists are being exploited by the identical previous cynical pursuits who will determine who and what is going to ‘save the planet’ in a means that makes them rich. And who will these individuals be?

‘we know full well the answer: the same Western white male saviours and the capitalist economic system they have implemented globally that has been the cause of our planetary ecological nightmare. This crisis continues unabated as they appoint themselves (yet again) as the saviours for all humanity – a recurring problem for centuries’.

On Twitter, ‘polirealm’ commented on Morningstar’s piece:

‘It looks at the establishment bodies, NGOs, their main characters, their connections, their main influences, networks, but it doesn’t take a look at the actual individuals on the ground in any respect, except as defenseless victims of social engineering.’


‘The truth is, many of the activists are 100% aware of the goal of their usurpation, they’re aware that capitalism has nothing to lose and will take no prisoners on this battle, in reality, many are remarkably nicely knowledgeable.’

Certainly, the protests are being joined and supported by literally hundreds of thousands of intelligent, motivated, frightened individuals around the globe, who will completely not be content material with yet extra corporate dissembling, profiteering and greenwash. Not solely that, as evidence continues to mount of approaching disaster – and it’ll improve, dramatically – corporate executives, journalists and political executives will themselves more and more reject these cynical machinations. ‘Polirealm’s’ concluding point:

‘So whoever believes the agenda and outcome of the climate movement are predetermined today simply has no idea what they’re speaking about. The organizational buildings are still quite chaotic, however there are numerous very motivated individuals with excellent ideas, who’ve only simply began.’

Morningstar is clearly sincere and well-intentioned, and her argument, in fact, has some benefit. We’ve been documenting for decades, in media alerts, articles and books, how company interests have been working all-out to co-opt Inexperienced concern. The drawback with Morningstar’s focus is that it performs into the arms of corporate local weather deniers and delayers whose technique we’ve already described:

‘The weight of impressions on the public must be balanced so people will have doubts and lack motivation to take action.’

After thirty years of mortifying indifference and inaction, now isn’t the time to advertise the assumption that the essential alarm that is eventually being raised by Thunberg and Extinction Riot has been cynically ‘manufactured’. It’s our job to ring the alarm and make sure that one thing is completed. However first we should ring the alarm!

Even when corporate interests have been crazed sufficient to assume they might promote mass public dissent on this scale in the reason for revenue, they might haven’t any approach of controlling the result. Within the spring of 1968, with greater than half one million troops in Vietnam, with army leaders asking for 200,000 more, President Johnson was suggested by a Pentagon research group to not escalate the conflict, making this remark:

‘The growing disaffection accompanied, as it certainly will be, by increased defiance of the draft and growing unrest in the cities because of the belief that we are neglecting domestic problems, runs great risks of provoking a domestic crisis of unprecedented proportions.’

If that was true of mere anti-war sentiment based mostly on concern for human rights, how rather more is it true of sentiment based mostly on concern for literal human survival – the prospect that we, and every final individual we love, might soon be lifeless?

The Propaganda Model – Going Extinct?

Herman and Chomsky’s ‘propaganda model’ describes how state-corporate priorities – power and profit – are likely to shape media efficiency in a approach that supports the status quo. Through the Extinction Insurrection protests, there was a transparent sense that fewer and fewer commentators might think of good reasons for opposing what was occurring. Even ‘mainstream’ politicians lined as much as give their help; even ‘centrist’ liberal journalists, reflexively against all progressive politics, applauded. Guardian columnist George Monbiot went much further than he ever has earlier than in scorning the media:

‘When you requested me: “which industry presents the greatest environmental threat, oil or media?”, I might say “the media”. Every single day it misdirects us. Every single day it tells us that problems with mind-numbing irrelevance are extra essential than the collapse of our life help techniques.’

If we like, we will interpret all of this as an indication that the protests are seen as innocent, or as evidence that they’ve been captured by corporate pursuits pulling the strings behind the scenes. However there’s an alternate interpretation, which we favour.

When famously sober, conservative, anti-alarmist climate scientists are warning that human beings will turn out to be extinct until drastic action is taken inside the subsequent decade, so that even prime-time BBC TV options the venerable David Attenborough warning that ‘the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon’, then we have now entered unknown territory. As Attenborough stated:

‘The world’s individuals have spoken, their message is obvious – time is operating out. They need you, the decision-makers, to act now.’

Herman and Chomsky’s ‘propaganda model’ was not designed for this state of affairs. When individual corporate media editors, journalists, advertising and political executives realise that they and their households are genuinely dealing with demise, it isn’t in any respect certain that they’ll proceed to help the subordination of individuals and planet to profit to no function. At this point – the point where the mortally-threatened company lions lie down with the mortally-threatened activist lambs – the propaganda model might start to break down. Both approach, it is our job to proceed pressuring company media and, extra importantly, changing them with trustworthy, non-corporate options pushing for real change.

The protests should continue, should escalate, and governments have to be made to adopt a type of war-footing subordinating every thing – especially profit – to the survival of our own and all other species.