
Drones piloted by climate-change activists target Heathrow - prostoalex
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/06/15/drones-piloted-by-climate-change-activists-target-heathrow
======
inflatableDodo
>"Protesters plan a return to the airport—and there is very little the
authorities can do"

This line is curious.

When was the first one? I mean there was the shenanigans where nobody was sure
if there was even a drone, but there was in that case, as far as I am aware,
no evidence for any activism beyond people saying that it might be activists.

I am dubious about this reporting. If someone can show me something from
people representing the organisation, that is one thing, but so far I have
seen this in the Evening Standard and The Economist, who are both quite
capable of pushing a load of utter bullshit dressed up as news.

~~~
Lendal
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 passenger airlines? They don't exist. A
climate change activist should know this.

~~~
samcday
> 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 planned here?

> Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint ...

I'm curious as to what point you're actually trying to make here. Why do
people chain themselves to bulldozers to protest mass deforestation? Why do
people perform acts of civil disobedience to protest nations fighting wars?
Most of the time the people who are involved in those movements are
fundamentally morally compromised. For example if you're protesting the
Vietnam war and the general US war mongering as an American, you're doing this
from a place of extreme privilege - much of which was afforded to you
precisely _because_ of the great success the US has in previous wars.

> What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered passenger airlines?

This is a bad faith interpretation of what the activists are trying to do.
They're not protesting commercial air travel (although I'm sure many of them
have strong opinions against our frivolous use of it). They're trying to wake
people up to the fact that, while somewhat contentious, there's a pretty large
(and growing!) consensus that we're utterly trashing our planet and hurtling
headlong into catastrophe.

~~~
NotPaidToPost
There certainly are wrong and undemocratic ways to "participate".

Breaking the law, causing public nuisance (to say the least), putting
aircrafts are risk are not acceptable.

~~~
adrianN
Without breaking laws and causing public nuisance India would still be part of
the British Empire and African Americans would still be second class citizens.
Climate change is a vastly more serious problem than either of those two.

~~~
navigatesol
> _Without breaking laws and causing public nuisance India would still be part
> of the British Empire and African Americans would still be second class
> citizens._

Every protest isn't the equivalent of India fighting for independence.

> _Climate change is a vastly more serious problem than either of those two._

Fortunately, you don't get to decide which issues are "most important" to
other people.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
So, you're saying global extinction isn't important?

It's a tough line to swallow from the GP, but I wasn't expecting anyone to
disagree that human effected climate change was important. Surely it's the
most important issue humans have faced, ever?

~~~
tomhoward
Problems can be profoundly serious and important in their own right, without
needing to be ranked against one another.

Doing that just leads to emotion-charged-but-pointless arguments.

------
DominikPeters
The article seems to suggest appealing to activists' compassion to avoid the
risk of causing an accident. But it seems this can be much reduced by an
announcement when the drones are planned to be flown (as in this case) and
making the drones highly visible.

------
deevolution
Surely there must be other less annoying ways to get people excited about
helping the environment...

~~~
quadrangle
You'll gain a lot of perspective if you listen to this interview:
[https://teamhuman.fm/episodes/ep-127-extinction-
rebellion/](https://teamhuman.fm/episodes/ep-127-extinction-rebellion/)

Some tidbits: your comment is like saying "there surely must be less painful
ways for your body to tell you to be more careful with a hammer"

In a trivial sense, it's true. But real pain and annoyance is _exactly_ what
it takes for people to prioritize dealing with a problem. These sorts of
things are a _healthy_ immune-system flare-up showing that we're not totally
doomed.

The way to avoid such annoyance is to not have let the problem get as bad as
it is in the first place.

~~~
sl1ck731
I'd be curious if there is any correlation to people's daily routines being
disrupted and then having any sympathy for the protester's cause.

I mean, who is going to get stuck in the air for an extra hour, land, and say
"man, those guys are right".

At worst, it would just make me feel contempt for them. At best it just
invigorates the people who already were on their side.

~~~
quadrangle
The very podcast I linked describes a pattern common in previous protests like
blocking a bridge: people say "this is annoying, but actually thank you, this
is important". Lots of people ARE thankful for those doing something more
aggressive than they are willing to do themselves. Others complain a lot but
this makes the topic of the protest become a topic of discussion, much as you
think and talk a lot about the issue around the pain you have when your immune
system flares up.

Really, listen to the podcast.

There are indeed lots of questions about the right way to do this.

When your body flares up like crazy over an allergy, many people indeed get
contemptuous about their own immune system rather than just hate pollen. So,
it's not like just any and all mayhem in the name of a cause is helpful…

------
see-ya-99
It should be treated as a serious crime.

~~~
vixen99
One serious accident and the activists will be hunted to extinction
themselves.

~~~
leereeves
Yes, Britain would surely consider causing a plane crash sufficient reason to
declare them terrorists.

------
gok
If the goal is simply to disrupt air travel, why not just call in a bomb
threat?

~~~
teachrdan
Because they're not terrorists. Terrorists use violence (and credible threats
of violence) against civilians to achieve political ends.

Instead, the activists here are disrupting air traffic using nonviolent means.

~~~
gok
They are most certainly terrorists. How is "I'm going to blow up an airplane
unless you don't fly it" different from "I'm going to fly a robot into an
airplane, potentially causing loss of life unless you don't fly it"?

How about "I'm going to aim blinding lasers at pilot flying a plane unless you
don't fly the plane?"

~~~
AnimalMuppet
"With advance warning, I'm going to fly a robot into an area where your rules
will require you to not fly airplanes into the airport" is quite a bit weaker
(note the absence of any actual threat to the airplanes).

~~~
henryfjordan
How is that any different from calling in a fake bomb threat?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
It's different from "I'm going to fly a robot into an airplane". My point is
that gok's summary of _this_ threat is rather off the mark. As for gok's
analogy to a bomb threat... enough has probably already been said about that.

------
ArtDev
This is the exact type of short-sighted activism that steps the movement back;
not forward.

If you treat regular people like the enemy, expect to be treated as such.

However, if you go into it calling attention to an issue using humor and
goodwill, more people might join your cause.

These people are idiots and remind me of PETA.

~~~
lsd5you
You don't seem very convinced about your own alternative though do you? More
people might join your cause? And maybe they won't. Yet you may be right that
they are setting their cause back. In which case there are no answers. We
carry on, destined to be governed by crisis.

------
samcday
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 home.
But it seems obvious to me that there are enough people who think we're not
doing enough that they are organizing and mobilizing in extraordinary ways.

Maybe some of those extraordinary ways cross the line. But who decides what
the line is anyway? The people who are sitting at home typing out angry
comments about how we should and shouldn't deal with the existential threat to
our species? I hope not, or we're all doomed!

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
> _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...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-08/melbourne-vegan-protest-
blocks-trams-traffic-causes-chaos/10980056)

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 actively making enemies is probably not the way
to go about things.

If I worked in Melbourne on that day, I would have eaten a revenge steak.

~~~
samcday
> 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.

I disagree. Pretty sure there was lots of enemies made when women demanded the
right to vote. Or when African Americans demanded to stop being segregated. We
take a lot of things for granted as "obvious" now, but they're only obvious
because enough people stood up and said they don't really care for your
feelings.

> If I worked in Melbourne on that day, I would have eaten a revenge steak.

I think that says more about you than it does about the vegan activists.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
> 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.

And first making those people your enemies is a good way to persuade them to
do it?

~~~
Xylakant
First of all, you need to make sure that the cause is known. Every
demonstration, every strike, has the primary goal of raising attention. Yet,
every strike, every demonstration inconveniences people and as such may make
enemies.

------
freebear
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...](https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn_centered_medium/public/Fossil-
Fuel-Emissions-Pie-Chart-529px.png)

~~~
macinjosh
What's your point? According to your link aviation emits twice as much CO2
than long distance road travel. Clearly limiting long distance travel would
have an impact. Doubly so if aviation was reduced.

Yet many global elites (Obama, Macron, et. al) agree to impose heavy
restrictions on vehicle emissions used to feed, transport, and employ the
average citizens of their countries. Meanwhile those who can afford it take
needless trips across the globe to entertain themselves.

Air travel should be limited to those that have a reason to fly that out
weighs the damage it causes to the environment.

~~~
nrb
Absolutely not... who gets to decide what reason is good enough to fly? How
about instead of reducing freedom we stop externalizing these costs, no matter
their purpose or industry?

~~~
adrianN
Just set up a carbon tax that is tied to the cost of removing carbon from the
atmosphere and everybody can decide for themselves whether they want to pay or
not.

------
perfunctory
One thing must be pretty obvious but reading the comments it seems like it's
not. XR is _very_ explicit about being non violent. I don't believe they would
do anything that would endanger the safety of the passengers.

~~~
brokenkebab
Flying drones close to busy airport _is_ endangering the safety of passengers.

~~~
alpaca128
Is it? The airport is forced to block all flights, which in turn prevents
danger to passengers. That's the whole purpose behind the drones.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
This causes disruption to not just one airport but many. Diverting planes and
generally making a mess of flight plans is most definitely putting lives in
danger.

~~~
JBReefer
It also causes more people to drive, which will cause more people to die.
When’s the last time a person was killed on an airplane in the UK - Lockerbie?

------
neonate
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190614230149/https://www.econo...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190614230149/https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/06/15/drones-
piloted-by-climate-change-activists-target-heathrow)

------
perfunctory
FWIW
[https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1140269676989231106](https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1140269676989231106)

------
magwa101
"Very little they can do", really?

------
perfunctory
Off topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The
airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by
Heathrow Airport Holdings, private company.

~~~
farisjarrah
You aren't wrong to be getting that cognitive dissonance. The more you think
about it the worse it gets. The British Government spends loads of money on
security and maintenance on the airport as well. If you talk about American
Airports it gets even weirder. We have like private security companies that
work with the TSA and Airports. So we have the public funding a private
airport, which is a part of the national infrastructure, which hires private
companies to run the things, which are defended and secured by public tax
payer dollars.

~~~
peteretep
> So we have the public funding a private airport, which is a part of the
> national infrastructure, which hires private companies to run the things,
> which are defended and secured by public tax payer dollars.

In an ideal world, this is because the Government decided it would be cheaper
to subsidise a private company doing it, rather than doing it itself. Whether
or not this is true -- or indeed was entered into in good faith -- is a case-
by-case sorta thing.

