This article is intended to initiate an honest and constructive conversation about what Extinction Rebellion really stands for, and where it is heading. I have friends involved in the movement at every level from the grassroots all the way up to the co-founders, and I know that many disciplined, sincere, and courageous people are currently operating under the XR banner.
I have had strong reservations about XR from the beginning, and my reservations have only grown as I have researched the campaign's background and stated demands. XR has developed an astonishing momentum from its launch in October 2018. While PR mishaps such as the idiotic attempt to stop a London Underground train in rush hour, or the Bristol roadblock which caused a man to miss his dying father's last few hours, have compromised this momentum to some degree, XR's campaigners have retained their impressive persistence. Even in the face of the lockdown, last May saw “socially distanced” protesters standing 2 meters apart from one another.
This undeniable momentum may have given a boost to many important local and national campaigns. However, this assistance may come at a price when one starts to consider the realities of what XR is actually demanding of the UK government.
XR's three demands are as follows: for the government to declare climate and ecological emergency, to commit to net-zero greenhouse gases by 2025, and to hold a legally-binding citizens assembly to decide on how to achieve the latter goal. Even experienced campaigners have been signing up to support these demands without really looking at their implications. The devil is, after all, adept at hiding in the details.
The two key terms to consider in our reading of the fine print are “net zero” and “citizens assembly”. First of all, as journalist Cory Morningstar has pointed out, “net zero” greenhouse gases does not mean "no emissions" – it means that there are enough "negative emissions" to 'cancel out' the actual emissions and bring the calculation to net zero. This is a task of doubtful viability, as we will shortly come to realise.
From the XR website:
We must radically and immediately begin reducing emissions and improving carbon absorption, drawing it down and locking it up again. (emphasis added)
Text which has since disappeared from the website uses the phrase “negative emissions”:
The graph is still present, but without the explanatory text. It is interesting that they have removed the phrase “negative emissions”, a phrase that specifically refers to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques. CDR is one of the two main forms of geoengineering, alongside solar radiation management (SRM).
Campaign group BiofuelWatch produced the above infographic, and have been highlighting the problems with CDR techniques for a number of years now. These are the "technologies that barely exist" to which Greta Thunberg referred at the UN's Climate Action Summit in 2019. Thunberg is almost right; in actual, the technologies do not exist. As Kim Hill puts it:
Net-zero emissions is Not a Thing. There is no way to un-burn fossil fuels. This demand is not for the extraction and burning to stop, but for the oil and gas industry to continue, while powering some non-existent technology that makes it all okay. XR doesn’t specify how they plan to reach the goal.
CDR is an ineffective method of reducing emissions, and it could actually make the situation considerably worse: in 2019, Clean Technica reported that the "best carbon capture facility in the world emits 25 times more CO2 than sequestered". Unsurprisingly, though, these technologies are popular with industry advocates as they offer the prospect of a license to emit. According to the ETC Group, the IPCC has been
chosen by the pro-geoengineering lobby as one of the main points of entry for the “normalization of geoengineering” at the international level – a place where geoengineering can be included as just “another option” along with mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
The current Chair of the IPCC, Hoesung Lee, is a former ExxonMobil employee who has expressed support for geoengineering, as is Haroon Kheshgi, author of a number of IPCC reports including its Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Grassroots XR campaigners involved with the AxeDrax campaign would do well to think long and hard about the implications of “net zero” emissions, while anti-fracking activists operating under the XR banner might be interested to note that pro-fracking “ecomodernist” think tank the Breakthrough Institute are still listed as providing "more information about the possible solutions" on the XR website:
Other consequences of XR's demand for “net zero by 2025” would most likely include: corrupt “carbon markets” dominated by criminal gangs, as warned by Interpol; monoculture tree plantations (“green deserts”); and land-grabbing in the name of inept “rewilding” projects. No wonder Stephen Corry of Survival International has referred to “net zero” as a “con trick” and a “total cop out" of a demand.
If the official XR response would be that all of these issues would be sorted out in a “legally binding citizens assembly”, then I'm afraid I find that prospect to be highly questionable.1 The XR website used to claim that the citizens assembly was first used in ancient Athens; environmentalist writer Elaine Graham-Leigh explains in her article 'The problem with citizens' assemblies' that "the [Athenian] council members chosen by lot represented those who were not chosen in a direct way that members of a modern citizens’ assembly would not", making the analogy somewhat less than secure.
Moreover, the Athenian system also unsurprisingly allowed a wealthy elite to secure their interests over those of the poorer citizens, something that Graham-Leigh fears could also happen with the modern citizens' assembly:
Neoliberal ideology holds that politics can somehow be separated from questions about how society is run and for whose benefit... The citizens’ assemblies' claims to be a way of moving beyond politics are an indication of whose interests they would really be serving.
For an idea of how this might happen, one need look no further than XR's Guide to Citizens' Assemblies. The Guide explains that the structure of the citizens' assembly is comprised of a number of different elements: Citizens, Coordinating Group, Advisory Board, Expert/Stakeholder Panel, Facilitation Team, and Oversight Panel. This rather byzantine structure may already be worrying to anyone familiar with large-scale bureaucracies, but let's take a look at what these elements are intended to do. The Coordinating Group runs the citizens' assembly and is comprised of
a team of coordinators whose impartiality is essential. Their independence from those funding the process is safeguarded by a series of checks and balances, such as the oversight panel. These coordinators are responsible for conducting the process of random selection and inviting experts, stakeholders and facilitators.
For an idea of who might be responsible for ensuring the impartiality of the coordinators, let's now take a look at who might comprise the oversight panel:
citizens, representatives of government, rights-holders (representatives of those whose rights are under threat, such as grassroots campaigns), technical experts in deliberative processes and other stakeholders such as NGOs and corporations. (emphasis added)
How XR propose such an Oversight Panel would effectively safeguard the integrity of the entire process is, as far as I know, still unclear. Nor is it immediately obvious which "NGOs and corporations" would be represented in the oversight panel. Also unclear is exactly which "stakeholders" would be invited to participate in the Expert/Stakeholder Panel. While the presumably impartial and entirely independent Coordinating Group are responsible for inviting "experts, stakeholders, and facilitators", who is responsible for establishing the Advisory Group is not made clear. According to the Guide, the
advisory board develops key criteria for the selection of the expert/stakeholder panel. It also ensures, with the help of the oversight panel, that the background material and evidence presented to a citizens’ assembly is balanced.
So let's recap:
Extinction Rebellion are proposing a citizens' assembly overseen by a group of coordinators whose impartiality is ensured by an Oversight Panel that includes representatives of corporate interests. They have not made it clear how the overseeing panellists are chosen, and therefore the accountability of the Oversight Panel may be questionable.
These coordinators will invite experts and stakeholders to "brief the assembly on their perspective". These panellists will be "invited by the coordinating group based on criteria set by the advisory board to ensure fair and broad representation of opinion".
The Advisory Board will ensure, alongside the Oversight Panel (including representatives of stakeholders such as corporations), that "that the background material and evidence presented to a citizens’ assembly is balanced". It is also unclear how the Advisory Board would be chosen. From the information XR have given us so far, the coordination of the assembly, as well as the information presented to the assembly, would be determined by two factions whose public accountability could be at the very least questionable.
The (thankfully legally non-binding) citizens assembly currently being held in the UK to reach “net-zero greenhouse gases” by 2050 gives us a clear, real-world example of how this Kafkaesque bureaucracy would inevitably work for the benefit of technocratic corporate interests. There is not a single agricultural, conservation or ecology specialist in the “Expert Lead” panel. Instead, we have Jim Watson, a UCL professor of energy policy who has contributed to research on “realising the potential” of CCS and the “Nuffield Council on Bioethics working party on new approaches to biofuels”; Lorraine Whitmarsh, an environmental psychologist at Cardiff who has published work on how to persuade the public to accept fracking and CCS; Chris Stark, CE of the Committee for Climate Change, known for dropping pithy words of wisdom like “when you drive a Tesla it’s nothing to do with climate change, you think, my goodness, this thing goes fast”; and Rebecca Willis, a professor of “Practice” at Lancaster whose work covers the usual ground of “carbon-budgeting” and other miraculous climate-solutions, such as “hydrogen boilers”. I dread to think what these 'experts' would help to unleash upon this country were they to be given free rein over a “legally binding” citizens assembly.
There is an irresolvable paradox at the heart of XR, highlighted by blogger and academic Karen Goaman:
The imagery of death and the slogans of extinction ferment a sense of panic that younger people seem especially susceptible to. This in turn feeds a sense of despair and desperation: hence the fervour and the mobilization (but is this not a military term?) of large demonstrations. People are exhorted to protest, and even to risk arrest in doing so. Yet never before has a protest movement asked for so little, and instead demanded so much more of the same system that is creating the problem.
This hits the nail on the head as to why I have been wary of the campaign from the very moment I heard about it. The rhetoric of XR is irresponsibly alarmist, while the actual demands are insubstantial. We have people asking if we are the "last generation" and talking quite seriously of human extinction; we have Roger Hallam maniacally proclaiming "we're all going to die" on the BBC; we have Gail Bradbrook suggesting that young activists should be "prepared to die"; but for what? For a bunch of bureaucratic carbon-accountants to write-off their annual emissions budget by investing in snake-oil technologies?
I empathise with the sense of grief and loss that many of these activists are expressing, but I am not sure that this emphasis is helpful, especially if it is being channelled towards goals of questionable value or relevance. There is also something affected and contrived, even strangely macabre, about the emotional tone I perceive in many XR events. The next few generations will undoubtedly see many drastic upheavals, and we are beginning to see those upheavals already. The kind of attitude we need to cultivate will not involve over-dramatised public displays of grief and mourning, but Stoic determination, grounded pragmatism, and strong community values.
To those activists who have made it this far, and share the concerns I have raised about XR's demands, I want to end on a note of encouragement. You have the option to issue your own demands to the UK government.2 You have the option to issue your own demands to XR. You have the option to decide whether you wish to continue marching under the XR banner, or not. The feeling of being part of a global movement with a logo that gets spray-painted everywhere must be quite thrilling, but the real work of activism is done by decentralized networks operating on a local level. The astonishing success of the anti-fracking movement in the UK was accomplished by hundreds of small groups of local activists, not by glossy mass movements benefiting from wealthy benefactors, BBC headlines, or Whoopi Goldberg voiceovers.
However, I would like to go a little further than that, if I may.
Let's be perfectly blunt here - if the 'climate-emergency' is really as bad as "twenty Hitlers" or worse, there really is no point in attempting to stop it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but whatever you're planning is not going to work. The forward momentum of industrial civilization is not going to be halted by yelling demands for more carbon-accountancy on the part of our inept governors. The only thing to do is prepare as best one can, and come to terms with one's mortality. Everything is transient. The acceptance of that is the goal of all worthwhile spiritual and philosophical traditions.
However, I have some good news for you. I don't think the situation is quite as drastic as we are being encouraged to believe by the catastrophists. Whether the Earth gets warmer, or colder, or just weirder, the result probably won't be like some Hollywood apocalypse. I've lived to see a few over-confident predictions fall flat already - fifteen years ago, I would be surprised to know that there was still ice in the North Pole, let alone that Norway just experienced its snowiest winter for 62 years. I'm not pitching climate-skepticism here - I have no doubt that climate instability could severely compromise industrial civilization in the next few decades. Like Charles Eisenstein, however, I don't think it is necessary or advisable to make predictions about devastating cataclysms happening within 12 years, or 3 months, or whatever the time frame given. As many would-be prophets have found out, making an unwise guess about the End of Days is a pretty easy way to lose credibility.
Civilizations expand and contract just like everything else in this world. This contraction, as John Michael Greer points out in The Long Descent, can take up to 300 years to play out fully. Greer's theory of 'catabolic collapse' shows how crises are staggered by periods of partial recovery, as adaptations to the new situation pay off and the predicament appears to subside, until the new round of crises hits and the world again appears to be falling apart.
In the meantime, the likelihood is that we will not simply wake up to a an entire world that has instantly turned into an icebox, or a scarred desert. Certain regions will experience greater devastation than others, so take a look at where you're living and consider relocating if it's wise to do so. The likely scenario is that we will simply watch our civilization continue its slow process of decline, as global food supply chains are interrupted, political instability worsens, investments in overcomplexity contine to bring diminshing returns,3 and life gradually returns to a localised, agrarian economy powered directly by elemental forces and raw muscle-power. The kind of economy your great-great-grandparents grew up in is pretty similar to the kind of economy that your great-great-grandchildren will probably grow up in too.
It may not be quite as exciting as lying down in front of oncoming traffic to save humanity from imminent extinction, but I would venture to suggest that preparing for this kind of future is not only a better investment of your time, it may be more satisfying as well.
Thanks for reading this far. If you'll excuse me, my ride is here.
ADDENDUM:
A contact in XR has informed me that the Breakthrough Institute was listed on the XR website by mistake, and that the link actually takes you to the similarly named Breakthrough Online. BO do not appear to make any mention of fracking on their website, and my contact informed me that XR would not want to be associated with the Institute. Nonetheless, BO have a similarly delusional attitude to the role of business in climate policy; Paul Gilding, in a report named Climate Contagion: 2020-2025, asks: "What if it became accepted that strong climate policy would reduce economic loss and even increase economic gain?"
Further reading:
Unpacking Extinction Rebellion by Kim Hill
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg - For Consent by Cory Morningstar
Climate Capitalists by Winter Oak
Astroturfing the Fourth Industrial Revolution by UN-Extinction
The citizens assembly is being hyped as a means of breaking political deadlock, with the Irish assembly on abortion used as an example, but once again the reality may be rather more complex. As journalist and academic Roslyn Fuller writes:
…one of the more grievous errors with this understanding is that it confuses electoral gridlock (which is pretty much the status quo on most things) with citizen gridlock, which per definition is only possible if you have an even number of voters who are exactly divided on a topic – a circumstance that I have no example of ever occurring in real life.
As Fuller goes on to explain, there was a clear majority of the population who favoured legalisation of abortion, but the two main parties in Parliament were unwilling to alienate the 10% of voters who were fervently opposed to abortion and thereby lose their majority. The citizens assembly was actually engineered by the pro-life lobby hoping to utilise the electoral gridlock to their favour, and in fact delayed the referendum by a few years. The simplification of an undeniably complex political situation for propaganda purposes does not inspire confidence in XR’s insistent support for the citizens’ assembly.
Furthermore, XR’s wide-eyed enthusiasm for the citizens’ assembly model glosses over some serious inherent issues with representation. XR claims that
Random selection treats everyone equally. All citizens are threatened by the emergency. This process gives all citizens an equal chance to help make the big decisions as we try to address the crisis. (emphasis added)
The wording is deceptive here. Giving citizens an “equal chance to help make the big decisions” is a very different matter to giving citizens an equal say. The smaller the ‘representative’ sample, the less chance any individual citizen has in having any influence over the decision whatsoever. A 100-member citizens’ assembly would involve roughly 0.0002% of Britain’s voting population. As Fuller writes:
Proponents of citizens’ assemblies will tell you that the number of participants involved don’t matter, because those who are selected are ‘representative’ of the society as a whole, but that’s some funny maths at best, not to mention quite crude identity politics.
Given that supply chains are already being disrupted by the “Covid pandemic”, a situation that would be drastically intensified by climate instability, it may be more prudent to demand that governments invest in agroecology as a means of achieving resilient food systems.
At the time of writing, the World Economic Forum is pushing for a "Great Reset" of the world economy. Don't expect it to end well.