Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 260 posts

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#221

Post by helkafen »

dev_dull wrote: post #74
freebear wrote: post #47

Air travel is such a non issue, for any person flying it will of course be a large part of their carbon footprint, but the atmosphere does not care where the CO2 came from. https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn...

This is largely my problem with climate activism. It seems largely based on what's fashionable. For example, ban straws in SF even though all of the ones in the ocean come from another continent[1]. Also stop offering glasses of water because there's a drought (strangely enough the drought ended but of course the laws stick around)[2]. Now a new deal which, even if 100% effective, would only reduce global CO2 emissio…

The plastic straw ban had almost nothing to do with climate activism, it's just a low priority measure to fight plastic pollution. These two issues are barely related.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#223

Post by helkafen »

jeandejean wrote: post #149
dagss wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly like saying that I only account for a billionth of the earths cO2 emissions, so there is no reason for me to cut emissions in any way. The vast majority of the worlds population has never set foot in an airplane. You have to calculate per capita. 2.5% is HUGE when divided by the number of people that make use of airplanes.

No that's not the same, because air travel is a different industry than agriculture for instance. And it would be a lot more efficient for mitigating carbon emissions that everybody on earth reduce their meat consumption, rather than banning air travel, that would definitely have little impact overall, and impair a lot our ability to meet, explore, make business. Just take the very scientific that do research on clim…

Yes, it would be more effective to reduce meat consumption globally. But we need to do both because time is running out. See the Drawdown project for an exhaustive list of policies.

I'd argue that people who actively work on climate change mitigation should keep flying if it really helps them be more effective. One of my friends does that: she helps urban planners save millions of tons of CO2, while emitting a few tons by herself. Overall, it's a good investment.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#224

Post by tomohawk »

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #101
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on. Civil disobedience is a cornerstone of peaceful, democratic protest. Every black American who sat at a white lunch counter or in the white seats on a bus was breaking the law and "causing a public nuisance." As for putting aircraft at risk, the Economist won't actually let me read the article (I wish people would stop posting links to sites like this), but I doubt they actually put anyone in danger. It's lik…

This is not civil disobedience. Flying drones to shut down an airport is nothing like sitting in the white seats of a bus. That's a ludicrous comparison. Such drone attacks are dangerous (they do put aircrafts at risk), affect thousands of people, cause millions in damage, and, simply put, are lightweight terrorism. It is quite right that the article open with a reference to the IRA attacking Heathrow airport with em…

Quite right. Disobedience is being told by an immoral law to do something immoral. Such as to turn in a fugitive slave, etc, and then not complying.

This action is actively committing acts to interfere with people who are engaged in exercising their rights as free human beings.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#225

Post by tomohawk »

samcday wrote: post #109

The level of negativity and hostility in the comments here is really disappointing to me. I agree that XR are definitely pushing the envelope on what we consider to be reasonable activism and protest. However, I also think that the old adage "desperate times call for desperate measures" applies here. Yes, there are plenty of actions being taken to combat the damage we're inflicting to this little wet rock we all call…

Whenever a group seeks to get their way by interfering with the rights of others, because what they are trying to achieve is "too important" to worry about such "petty" concerns as people's right to freely travel, engage in commerce, and generally pursue happiness - it's time to watch out. Recent (past 200 years) history is filled with example after example of how tragically this ends.

This is not civil disobedience. This is actively attacking other people and putting their lives at risk.

Groups such as this are not doing anything noble, and they do not deserve any admiration, respect, or protection.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#226

Post by _b8r0 »

samcday wrote: post #89
Lendal wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree. It makes no sense. If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint (manufacturing, distribution) and that will only serve to politically damage the cause you purport to care about? What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered pas…

> If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? You seem to be suggesting that there's a "right" way to participate in democracy. Instead of passing down armchair judgements about which forms are the wrong way to participate, could you perhaps suggest what you think would be a better alternative to what XR has planne…

> Instead of passing down armchair judgements about which forms are the wrong way to participate, could you perhaps suggest what you think would be a better alternative to what XR has planned here?

Disrupting highly polluting businesses are probably the way to go. Many people don't care long term if there's some minor disruption to their workday, but if it involves them missing their daughter's wedding, or not being able to see a sick relative before they die then you lose that person along with a ton of other people forever.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#227

Post by Faark »

wtdata wrote: post #216
rhblake wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per capita , which seems like a more fair comparison, plenty of Western countries produce more CO2 than China; the US and Canada each produce about twice as much.

I disagree. It's certainly not a fair comparison to look at these issues per capita. I should not be morally responsible for people that have way to many childrten with no regard for sustainability (be it environmental or economical). Each country should be responsible to make their territory carbon neutral. If they have an high or low population density should be an irrelevant point.

> It's certainly not a fair comparison to look at these issues per capita. [..] Each country should be responsible to make their territory carbon neutral

You want to shift the goal post to territory instead of population? Sure, lets do this. Wikipedia already has a nice sortable list ready for us [0], with the UK at 1,564, nearly 50% worse than China at 1,133 t CO2/km²/yr.

So, how do we want to define a next target, that allows us to keep telling ourselves someone else is the actual cause of the problem instead of us? GDP/Co2? Scientific papers / Co2? Top 10 watched movies/Co2? Options are unlimited, so I'm sure we'll find something in the end. But maybe we should actually verify whatever we propose doesn't also make us look like the bad guys, since constantly shifting the goal post kinda makes us look like fools.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#228

Post by taffer »

cik2e wrote: post #220
samcday wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think they made many friends. I don't think they're interested in making friends. They're interested in trying to persuade more people to stop eating the flesh of sentient creatures when our diets don't even require it. > It's really hard getting someone to change their mind or their thinking about an issue. I agree. > But I firmly believe actively making enemies is probably not the way to go about things.…

> They're interested in trying to persuade more people to stop eating the flesh of sentient creatures when our diets don't even require it. In a strict sense, you’re right, our diets don’t require meat. But most people wouldn’t consider it practical to take the 5-10 different supplements needed to replace all of the benefits of eating meat, fish, eggs and dairy. And that approach is almost certainly suboptimal to who…

> But most people wouldn’t consider it practical to take the 5-10 different supplements needed to replace all of the benefits of eating meat, fish, eggs and dairy.

You need B12, that's all. Pretty much everyone in the first world supplements iodine, I don't know why some people have such reservations with B12.

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#229

Post by notahacker »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #144
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe some of those extraordinary ways cross the line. But who decides what the line is anyway? Probably the people you inconvenience. A bunch of vegans disrupted traffic in Melbourne, Australia recently. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-08/melbourne-vegan-prote... I don't think they made many friends. It's really hard getting someone to change their mind or their thinking about an issue. But I firmly believe ac…

The interesting thing to me is since the long Easter weekend of XR protests in the UK, opinion polls have shown them rising in popularity and environment polling higher too. XR are not interested in making friends, but causing enough disruption to get government to treat the issue seriously, in the manner of civil rights and universal suffrage actions. They've certainly increased awareness and discussion. That they a…

The polls I've seen put the public at 52% broadly opposed to their actions (36% broadly supportive) back in May, and I have trouble believing droning Heathrow will improve that. Sure, they have succeeded in pushing climate change higher in the news cycle, but the secular trend was in that direction anyway, "awareness" of anthropogenic climate change was at ~95% and the government already had a Net Zero strategy that was less insubstantial than the symbolic declaration of emergency, and a backdrop of emissions having fallen steadily in the UK for a very long time. Not all news is good news either: if our most-likely next PM needs an excuse to renege on his old "I'll lie in front of the bulldozer" pledge to do everything in his power to block Heathrow expansion, it's difficult to think of better cover than arguing that he's not going to let protestors set his legislative agenda...

(Also hard to imagine that legislators in more climatically-significant countries like China are likely to see climate anarchists shutting down British airports as a sign that more action needs to be taken on emissions and not a sign that certain parts of the West have lost their minds over the subject of climate change.)

Re: Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow

#230

Post by wtdata »

Faark wrote: post #227
wtdata wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It's certainly not a fair comparison to look at these issues per capita. I should not be morally responsible for people that have way to many childrten with no regard for sustainability (be it environmental or economical). Each country should be responsible to make their territory carbon neutral. If they have an high or low population density should be an irrelevant point.

> It's certainly not a fair comparison to look at these issues per capita. [..] Each country should be responsible to make their territory carbon neutral You want to shift the goal post to territory instead of population? Sure, lets do this. Wikipedia already has a nice sortable list ready for us [0], with the UK at 1,564, nearly 50% worse than China at 1,133 t CO2/km²/yr. So, how do we want to define a next target,…

UK is already diminishing their CO2 emissions for 30 years now and is set to continue decreasing them.

China increased them by 300% in 30 years and is set to continue increasing then.

All in all, UK seting their emissions at 0% wouldn't do anything for global warming. But China decreasing them by 50% would probably save us all. Yet, these so called environmentalists, keep finding excuses for letting China go on with their business as usual, which makes it really clear they are not interested in the well being off the planet but in social upveal and some kind of revolution in Europe to install their ideology (which has very little of environmentalism) in power.

Post reply on HN