Home | About | Donate

With Over 6 Million People Worldwide, Climate Strikes Largest Coordinated Global Uprising Since Iraq War Protests

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/27/over-6-million-people-worldwide-climate-strikes-largest-coordinated-global-uprising

The beatings will continue until “Political Advocacy Improves.”


Only 500,00 for the US is a pitiful showing.


Just goes to show you the pathetic brainwashing that goes for “leadership”. We must keep on however.


Greta Thunberg meets Justin Trudeau amid climate strikes: ‘He is not doing enough’

My old home town, Ville Marie.

Today is the 57th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”.


Monday, October 7 with Extinction Rebellion: Time for massive, total, non cooperation and General Strikes!


1 Like

What is the message here? You want change…

Ok so if the US Government transitions all fossil fuels to CCS and HELE systems you will be happy right? That’s change after all… In fact CO2 emissions would in fact decrease…

Or do you have any actual direction you want the government to change to, but for some moronic reason refuse to ever talk about it?

The goal is very clear. Off of petro-fuels as soon as possible. The scientists have been talking and warning for years. Governments have been denying and ignoring. Let’s get behind a massive work program, create green jobs and green energy, akin to previous national and international efforts. Cut the military budget by 50% and tax the ultra rich, for funding. Let’s talk.


"The goal is very clear"
Really? Because so far none of the climate strikes have talked about a plan to transition our energy sector…

"The scientists have been talking and warning for years."
Yes they have been talking about climate change, but they have also been talking about carbon capture sequestration, high efficiency low emission, and carbon taxes; which are not moratorium plans on fossil fuels.

Now I don’t believe that CCS should be used to keep natural gas as a primary energy soruce, but if you think that the majority of scientists believe we should eradicate fossil fuels, you haven’t been doing your research.

"Governments have been denying and ignoring"
To this I would say sort of… You have you blatant dishonesty and ridiculous policy under the Trump administration, but these actions are devoid of logic to begin with. Then you have current government action, where we see a significant increase in renewable technology and for most developed nations a continued decrease in CO2 emissions.

Now none of our governments (at least for large countries) have necessarily taken the approach of massive historically unprecedented action, but one of the major reasons why is that transitioning the energy sector is extremely complicated and not handling it correctly can stagnate benefits even if your plan is to reduce CO2.

In the US we currently have 5 states who have submitted major energy transition plans to renewables, but in the process of doing so they have also elected to allow nuclear plants to close. You want more renewables this isn’t necessarily a problem, however these nuclear plants generate an absurd amount of energy to such an extent that the current projections for renewables cannot replace the lost generation. So this leads to problem#1: A. Continue pursuing only renewables and allow your states to become deficient on electricity leading to brownouts and blackouts, B. Replace the remaining energy loses with fossil fuels.

Given the economic repercussions and the potential for lost energy investment in renewables due to Option A, these states will likely elect for Option B, but this leads to Problem #2: Nuclear emits significantly less lifecycle CO2 than natural gas. Even if you do eventually get to more renewables this transition will have increased CO2 emissions for these states.

Ok so take door #3 and keep the reactors. Well these reactors have been used for the last 40 years and are relatively inefficient by nuclear standards, additionally many of them require government assistance, which draws funding from other energy sources.

Starting to see why this isn’t always a black and white decision to make? This is just one example, and there thousands of examples with a large and varied amount of variables depending on the particular scenario. In other cases you may have issues due to the other industries. Introducing a larger concentration of intermittent energy on a grid that has been upgraded in 50 years may lead to more efficiency drops requiring greater use fossil fuel backups, thus stagnating your decline of emissions even though youre transitioning to lower emission energy.

In other scenarios you may cause a economic decline, thus leading consumers to buying less energy and having your society more reliant on fossil fuels as investments in other sources also decline.

The problem we have is incredibly complicated and requires thorough discussion, which these climate strikes are not providing (which is why their effect is very minimal in my opinion).

" Let’s get behind a massive work program, create green jobs and green energy, akin to previous national and international efforts"
What does any of this mean? What is green energy - that’s not a scientific term. This is why in scientific studies they specify what exact techonologies they are talking about. You don’t just say renewable, because depending on the study renewable doesn’t always mean the same thing:

  • WWS Jacobson & Delucchi: Hydro, tidal, geothermal, solar and wind are renewable (biomass and biofuel are not)
  • LUT & EWG 100% Energy Plan: Hydro, tidal, geothermal, solar, wind, biofuel, biomass and CCS with CAES Natural gas are renewable
  • Sierra Club Climate Plan: Tidal, geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass are renewable (Large scale hydro and biofuel are not)

This is why distinctions are important…

Additionally, with green jobs what do you mean exactly? We need to build lots of wind farms and solar farms right? Ok well that’s construction, which according to the EPA is the 4th most pollutant heavy industry in the country - green might be a little misleading. This creates another problem. We need a massive amount of infrastructure, whose processes are very carbon intensive. So what effect would a massive infrastructure mobilization have on CO2 emissions - keep in mind during the 1940s CO2 emissions significantly increased due to mobilization and continued to significantly increase as industry grew.

Now this is likely a case where we have to suck it up and power through with a massive build out, but this goes back to governments making decisions, because if our objectives include penalties for not meeting targets, but then we proceed with a massive industrialization then our government has to pay penalties for not thinking things through.

"Cut the military budget by 50% and tax the ultra rich, for funding."
Great, but not even remotely enough. The US discretionary spending on the military is approximately $680 billion, so lets make it an even $1 trillion, and take $500 billion out of it per year. in the USA according to Forbes there are 585 people with $1billion. Lets say all of them have $100 billion (only 1 of them actually does fyi). Lets take 50% of all their wealth, so now we have $2.93 trillion and $500 billion per year.

In Jacobson & Delucchi WWS, which is a 100% renewable electricity study their cost estimate is $13.54 trillion by 2050. Using the $500 billion from the military in addition to half of the wealth from all our billionaires we would be able to pay for the WWS plan by 2041 (So the GND is widely out of the question).

But that plan is just for electricity and doesn’t include the costs of transmission infrastructure.

Probably not a good comparison to the anti-Iraq invasion protests of 2002-'03, since they had NO effect on the U. S. and Great Britain in proceeding with the illegal aggressive war against weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. It is absolutely clear that unless the real power in the world (the big money) want something to happen or not happen of significance, all of the protest in the world will not change things.


“Let’s Talk”

Thank you. You are officially the smartest person Ive seen on here and arguably smarter than anyone in the climate strikes. This is the #1 thing we need. To talk about what we need to do.

That’s all ive ever wanted.

It’s interesting that this headline uses the Iraq war protest as an example of the only protest larger than this one. It’s interesting because of the results of that protest - the longest war in American history, and with no possibility of an end ever in sight. Perhaps its Ironic that the end of the Iraq war will come about by climate change. An extinct species does not fight among themselves.

The thing is, were shooting the wrong terrorists, they are all in Washington. As for climate, first we must collectively agree upon a course of action - the definition of political theory. To do that the leaders we support, would in turn support us. Of course we would have to end the discussion of climate change. There is no need for discussion.The two sides are, simply put, Life and Death. Those who side with death should instantly realize their goal, and the rest of us in turn can realize our own.


Well I do hope some of that 600000 protesting In Canada translates to some Votes for the Green party. Getting 15+ seats in the next election would be great.


‘The largest Global Uprising since the Iraq War Protests’ And look how effective that was. Do I sound bitter? That Bush was so in your face obnoxious with his ‘shock and awe’ glee told me just how much respect he had for those protests. It took me two years to go back out to protest that war. We’re still out there but most people who see us have no idea what war we are talking about. ALL of our wars! We are a very sick country. I’m supporting Bernie. Some people think he sounds angry. That’s what I’m looking for! Somebody who doesn’t think we’re so great.


6 million, less than 1% or whatever, I am not awake enough for math but 6 million ain’t enough with almost 8 billion faces to look at, faces to feed, teach and shelter. We may see a great dying and then maybe we’ll see people in the streets. Go Big or Go Extinct doesn’t even matter, our lives are not in our control. Mother Nature is pissed and there is no place to hide. Sorry for the doom and gloom but I have read enough science to know better.

1 Like

The good news is so many people want to do this. The bad news is billions of starving migrants will flood our communities long before the high tides of global warming, driven there by the loss of Phytoplankton and pollinators both due to toxins.

Paul. The items you researched and outlined are important to understand.
It is a daunting task. When JFK said a person on the moon within the decade, that was daunting. When the USSR defeated the Nazis on the Western Front, that was beyond daunting and a matter of life or death for a civilization.
The first realization is there is a crisis and an existential threat to almost all life on earth.
Organizations like Exon Mobile that have spent tens of millions dollars toward a global warming denial campaign need to cease such activity. The purposefully lying deniers have betrayed us and should be charged with crimes against humanity and nature.
The best climate scientists and social engineers and industrial minds in the world, from all countries, need to meet immediately and outline specific details, region by region, of a plan forward. Expand on the Paris Agreements. Governments must come together to listen, discuss and act. Plans for a fix by 30 to 50 years is probably too late. We have already wasted decades since the warnings were given.
Yes. It is a daunting task. But instead of focusing on such projects as space exploration, let’s do this. Instead of focusing on militarism, let’s do this. Otherwise we can all kiss our asses goodbye. It has to be a global effort, with all on board.
Will the youth movement and other action groups spur the world’s leaders into acting now, I certainly hope so. We need strong committed leaders. The climate devastations occurring will eventually awaken all. I certainly do not have all the answers, but I am committed.


Please don’t erase Québec. The size of the demo here also reflects the high level of social mobilisation here, as shown by the huge antiwar and student movement marches here. You wouldn’t title a march in Glasgow or Edinburgh as simply UK, would you? Huge march in Montréal, Québec (add Canada for those who don’t know where Québec is). Huge and exhausting march, but a beautiful day.


“Industrial Civilization is a Heat Engine”…study by Tim Garrett …atmospheric physicist…What does this tell you???

1 Like

Two disturbing things from the Toronto march when it arrived at Queens Park. The first was all the uniformed police officers taking pictures of protesters from the windows of the provincial legislature. The second was that everyone’s cell service appeared to be jammed so that they could not upload pictures and videos of what was happening.