The Sylvan Extinction Rebellion debate considered the following motion:
This house is in full approval of the Extinction Rebellion climate protest movement.
The debate took place on Monday, 3rd February. It was proposed by Gokul Ganga-Nair and opposed by John Akers.
The proposition supporting the Extinction Rebellion movement
The proposer made a strong case for taking action on climate change now, clearly outlining the impact of a changing climate on individuals across Britain and the globe. He also cited the significant increase in awareness of the issue among the British public, reaching joint top position with voters in December’s election. While individual members of Extinction Rebellion (ER) had on a few occasions used unacceptable tactics, they had apologised and the proposer supported the group as one that can deliver real change. The 95% of scientists who support climate change are correct, and even if it is not man-made, we should not simply let it happen. He cited the success of CFC reduction to protect the ozone layer as a model to take action on climate change.
The opposition against the motion
The opposer did not question the premise of man-made climate change, but did strongly challenge Extinction Rebellion, arguing that they have a deeper agenda than climate change against today’s societies, and that the approach they are taking is alienating the public. He put forth that ER aim for the overthrow of liberal democracy, based on anarchism and radical eco-socialism. He questioned how ER’s proposed citizens’ assemblies would work, and how they would represent the broader public. He also attacked ER’s tactics which were costly to the police service and local businesses, as well as commuters.
Floor speeches from the audience of the Extinction Rebellion debate
Floor speeches ranged across the spectrum regarding views on climate change, from those who argued that the climate, if changing, is part of earth’s natural cycle between ice ages, to the general consensus that man-made climate change is a major threat to society. Several speakers with knowledge of Extinction Rebellion directly challenged the group’s credibility, criticising their efficacy and claiming that they have been infiltrated by the police – in other words that they are not anarchists. Charges of hypocrisy were leveled against climate change activists including Greta Thunberg, though ER and Greta were credited by some with materially raising awareness of climate issues. Australian kite birds were posited as an alternative source of ‘arson’ in this year’s fires, rather than climate change!
Result: in the final vote, the Extinction Rebellion debate motion was defeated
The Sylvans concluded through the debate that they do not support the Extinction Rebellion climate protest movement.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.