AN INTERVIEW OF EXTINCTION REBELLION BY ANDREW NEIL sadly with repeated interruptions by Neil that muddled some segments of the conversation.

[HOME PAGE]

[RELATED POST]

BRIEF TRANSCRIPT OF THE ANDREW NEIL INTERVIEW

1. Andrew Neil: I’ve seen some of your activists claims on TV that billions of people are going to die in quite short order. One of your founders Roger Hallam said “Our children are going to die in the next ten to twenty years. What’s the scientific basis for these claims?
2. Extinction Rebellion: So, these claims have been disputed, admittedly. There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying they’re simply not true but the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen. We don’t know exactly the numbers and it’s a little bit concerning to focus on just how many deaths. There will be deaths and mass suffering and any amount is enough as far as we are concerned.
3. Andrew Neil: But most scientists don’t agree with this. Climate change scientists, those who know and say there is a problem and it has to be tackled, things have to be done, and more has to be done that is being done. I looked through the IPCC AR5 and SR15 and I see no reference to billions of people are going to die. or children are going to die in under 20 years.
4. Extinction Rebellion: We don’t claim that what we said was derived from the IPCC AR5 or the SR15
5. Andrew Neil: Then where does the scientific validity of that claim come from? The billions of people that will die, how will they die?
6. Extinction Rebellion: Mass migration around the world is already taking place due to prolonged drought in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rain forest, Siberia, and the Arctic.
7. Andrew Neil: These are all really important problems and they can cause fatalities but they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t imply that our young people will all be dead in 20 years, as your co-founder Roger Hallam claims.
8. Extinction Rebellion: Perhaps not in 20 years, but I can’t speak to what Roger was meaning with that. He is indeed one of the members of Extinction Rebellion.
9. Andrew Neil: You talk about weather related disasters, and people die from them but a hundred years ago,  weather related disasters killed 500,000 people a year on average. Today that figure is 20,000 a year, a reduction of 96%. These numbers don’t support the Extinction Rebellion claim about the death of billions of people by climate change.
10. Extinction Rebellion: I think there is a danger of scaring people simply because we’re not taking it seriously enough and people are feeling desperately that we are heard on this and it is unfortunate that this language works which is why we are discussing it right now.
11. Andrew Neil: It doesn’t work. I have seen school strike young girls on TV crying because they think they are going to die in 5 or 6 years. Crying because they don’t think they will ever see adulthood. And yet there is no scientific basis for the claims your organization is making.
12. Extinction Rebellion: The young people I have spoken with aren’t  crying because they are going to die in a few years; it’s because they don’t see their generation as having a future and they worry about coastal regions going under water, entire countries, island nations going under water, the Maldives going under water, the mass displacement that is happening, the weather extremes, which may be on a downward trajectory but climate scientists ARE telling us that they will be on the increase,
13. Andrew Neil: As for rising seas, yes, sea levels are rising. The IPCC makes that quite clear. The IPCC says that its median projection is for sea level rise of half a meter by the year 2100 and that will surely create problems from Miami to Bangladesh but half a meter of sea level rise will not result in the apocalyptic predictions your organization claims.
14. Extinction Rebellion: These are very conservative numbers. I am not criticizing scientists. They do an incredible job. But a lot of their data are using pre-industrial levels of data. They are looking at carbon emissions but nor factoring in feedback loops. Things like that. All climate scientists are saying now that they think it’s a lo worse. James Hansen, ex NASA scientist is saying we are in a planetary emergency. So we’re using that language. We are not trying to use alarmist language. We are listening to what scientists are saying and using language that we feel is appropriate to the situation.
15. Andrew Neil: You ARE using alarmist language. A person from your organization has said that nearly everybody could be dead within several decades. 97% was the figure she put on it. The IPCC wants emissions to be cut in half by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. But your organization wants net zero emissions by 2025, only six years away. What would that require?
16. Extinction Rebellion: I am not here to give you solutions and to tell you what we should be doing. That’s not …. (interrupted by Neil)
17. Andrew Neil: But you went to Westminster to preach and demand climate policy!
18. Extinction Rebellion: We are saying, listen to the experts. Listen to what their ideas are, what they are saying, and at the moment we are not putting those plans in place, we are not creating policies that reflect what these scientists are saying. This is why we are protesting.
19. Andrew Neil: The experts have consensus on getting to net zero emissions by 2050. But you’re saying 2025.
20. Extinction Rebellion: There has been some interesting research into the IPCC reports that is more recent. This research was carried out by Professor Michael Mann who looked at where they come up with the 2050 figure and actually they are relying on carbon capture by gas energy storage. There is a problem with that. It is an untested technology and by relying on that there is a 50-50 chance that we will fail with the 50-50 target. 
21. Andrew Neil: So you are relying on an individual against the main body of climate science represented by the IPCC. In any case, one scenario of your 2025 plan is that it will require the confiscation of all petrol cars, state rationing of meat, and limiting families to one flight every 5 years. Do you agree with that?
22. Extinction Rebellion: I agree that we need to do whatever it takes to bring emissions down, to allow young people to have a future, to be able to have some hope for the future. I am not saying that because we are alarmists. I am listening to what they are saying. They are learning about the consequences of climate change at school and they are worrying about …. (interrupted by Neil).
23. Andrew Neil: I am not arguing about the consequences of climate change at all. But to reach your target you would have to stop all flights. Aviation will come to an end.
24. Extinction Rebellion: Possibly. This is something we need to look at. We need to look at the aviation industry. We need to do an analysis of what needs to happen. In all industries; agriculture, energy, everything. I don’t claim to be an expert in these areas.
25. Andrew Neil: If we stopped all flights it would global temperature by 0.03C. And you would stop all flights for that?
26. Extinction Rebellion: But what you just said was the IPCC report we both are in agreement we listen to that 99% consensus science. That’s great. We agree with that. That report is saying that if we don’t bring emissions down …. (interrupted by Neil)
27. Andrew Neil: Most homes are heated by gas. Most people cook with gas. All of that would have to go in 6 years for a 2025 target.
28. Extinction Rebellion: We put a man on the moon before we had the internet and mobile phones. We made and international space station. Sixteen countries worked together to make it happen, and send the parts into space independently using math and assemble it in space. With Dr. James Hansen, an ex NASA scientist, calling it a planetary emergency, if we really want to tackle this emergency, we can do it just like we could put a man on the moon and build the space station. We had 30 years to tackle this emergency and we didn’t do it. We are now out of time. We no longer have time to do this the comfortable way. We must do it the hard way.

CONCLUSION

We had 30 years to tackle the climate emergency and we didn’t do it. We are now out of time for climate action. We must now opt for climate adaptation. We put a man on the moon before we had the internet and mobile phones. We made and international space station. Sixteen countries worked together to make it happen, and send the parts into space independently using math and assemble it in space. With Dr. James Hansen, an ex NASA scientist on our side, if we really want to adapt to climate change instead of fighting it, we can do it just like we could put a man on the moon and build the space station.

[HOME PAGE]

SOME PROPOSED TRANSLATIONS OF EXTINCTION REBELLION LANGUAGE

1. QUESTION: What’s the scientific basis for these claim that billions of people are going to die? ANSWER:  We don’t have a scientific basis nor do we need a scientific basis. Just take my word word for it. People are going to die. Exactly how many doesn’t matter.
2. QUESTION: I looked through the IPCC AR5 and SR15 and I see no reference to billions of people are going to die or that children are going to die in under 20 years. ANSWER: We don’t like the IPCC AR5 or the SR15.
3. QUESTION: Then where does the scientific validity of that claim come from? The billions of people that will die, how will they die?  ANSWER: Validity derives from how scary it is and the alarmist media provides plenty of that as for example mass migrations, drought, and wildfires all over the world from Indonesia to the Amazon an even Siberia and the Arctic.
4. QUESTION: These are all really important problems and they can cause fatalities but they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t imply that our young people will all be dead in 20 years, as your co-founder Roger Hallam claims. ANSWER: OK so maybe it isn’t exactly 20 years but they will die. Trust me on this. Humans are mortal after all.
5. QUESTION: You talk about weather related disasters, and people die from them but a hundred years ago, weather related disasters killed 500,000 people a year on average. Today that figure is 20,000 a year, a reduction of 96%. These numbers don’t support the Extinction Rebellion claim about the death of billions of people by climate change. ANSWER: You’re hung up on scientific validity and whether what we say is factually correct and ignoring the bigger picture of what we need to say to get people to take climate change seriously when they not taking it seriously enough. It is a desperate situation and we must do what it takes instead of getting all hung up on scientific validity and whether things are factual. The truth is that scaring people works.
6. QUESTION: It doesn’t work. I have seen school strike young girls on TV crying because they think they are going to die in 5 or 6 years. Crying because they don’t think they will ever see adulthood. And yet there is no scientific basis for the claims your organization is making. ANSWER: You’re dead wrong. The school strike children don’t worry that they will die 5 or 6 years from now. They worry about coastal regions going under water, entire countries, island nations going under water, the Maldives going under water, the mass displacement that is happening, the weather extremes.
7. QUESTION: The IPCC says that its median projection is for sea level rise of half a meter by the year 2100. Half a meter of sea level rise will not result in the apocalyptic predictions your organization claims. ANSWER: These are very conservative numbers because IPCC projections are from pre-industrial data. They are looking only at carbon emissions but nor factoring in feedback loops. The IPCC does not understand climate science as well as alarmists like Michael Mann and James Hansen do. We are not using alarmist language.
8. QUESTION: You ARE using alarmist language. A person from your organization has said that nearly everybody could be dead within several decades. 97% was the figure she put on it. The IPCC wants emissions to be cut in half by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. But your organization wants net zero emissions by 2025, only six years away. What would that require? ANSWER: I have no idea.
9. QUESTION: And yet you went to Westminster to preach and demand climate policy???  ANSWER: Well, the experts DO have an idea and we are saying, listen to the experts. Policy makers are not listening to the experts. We know what the experts are saying although, as I said previously, I have no idea what if anything they are saying about what it would take to get to zero net emissions by 2025.
10. QUESTION: The experts have consensus on getting to net zero emissions by 2050. But you’re saying 2025. That doesn’t sound like you are “listening to the experts”. ANSWER: Our expert is Professor Michael Mann, He says that the 2050 figure relies on unreliable carbon capture by gas energy storage. I have no idea what that means but Michael Mann doesn’t like that so we protest against it.
11. QUESTION: One scenario of your 2025 plan is that it will require the confiscation of all petrol cars, state rationing of meat, and limiting families to one flight every 5 years. Do you agree with that? ANSWER: We need to do whatever it takes to bring emissions down. Whether the action needed is practical or doable is not the issue.
12. QUESTION: I am not arguing about the consequences of climate change at all. But to reach your target you would have to stop all flights. Aviation will come to an end. ANSWER:  If aviation needs to go it must go. We must look at all aspects of the economy and whatever needs to go for the climate has to go.
13. QUESTION: If we stopped all flights it would global temperature by 0.03C. And you would stop all flights for that?  ANSWER: That’s just a number. The 99% consensus science says that if we don’t bring emissions down we will descend into climate hell.
14. QUESTION: Most homes are heated by gas. Most people cook with gas. All of that would have to go in 6 years for a 2025 target.  ANSWER:  It may sound impossible but for us humans, nothing is impossible and the proof of that is that we put a man on the moon and built the space station.