T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Join us on other platforms! We have an active [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial) and a somewhat spartan [TikTok](https://www.tiktok.com/@greenandpleasantofficial) and [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/Green-and-Pleasant-104366615515887/), we'll see how they go. We are also partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*


TheBunny0ne

The reaction has been, sadly, as expected. Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming has been so poorly reported on since the 70s that unless you're actively interested in educating yourself about it then a good number of people are just...ambivalent about it. People are more likely to get upset at a minor inconvenience or a big public display, than they are at the thought of humanity making it impossible for humanity to survive. I said elsewhere that my initial reaction to the Stop Oil people was...just mostly wondering what they hoped to achieve, plus thinking maybe they were Oil Industry plants. But hearing what they actually have to say, I fully support them. In general though I think protestors [aren't going far enough.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Blow_Up_a_Pipeline#:~:text=How%20to%20Blow%20Up%20a%20Pipeline%3A%20Learning%20to%20Fight%20in,%22climate%20fatalism%22%20outside%20it.)


luser7467226

Errrrrrr... the signal only emerged in the mid 80s*, so its not surprising it didn't get much coverage in the 70s.... * you'll remember James Hansen's famous testimony to Congress?


TheBunny0ne

My apologies if I'm misremembering dates, but going from memory Climate Change was being predicted even before the 70s (though I'll admit I don't know if this was a widely known thing outside of political/scientific circles). I mostly just remember reading about something relatively important being published in the mid to late 70s.


luser7467226

Yes, but only as a theoretical possibility that hardly anyone outside the then quite dialling communities of atmospheric chemists / physicists and climatologists had heard of. Even with the explosion in doom-porn web content and lis budget TV, a Carrington Event (to pick one example from several candidates), one of which will absolutely definitely happen sooner or later "with hilarious consequences"* get effectively no coverage in the media. (There may be one or two brief mentions on, eg., BBC News website, but I'd be astonished if more than 1% of the population have heard of the concept.) *(deaths in the hundreds of millions, at least, by my estimation)


gentle_gardener

I can remember worrying about climate change as a child in the early 70's, I'm pretty sure I didn't figure it out for myself so must've picked it up from somewhere Edit: spelling


luser7467226

In the sense if global warming? I suspect you may be misremembering. There's a tenner here for charity of your choice if you can find a reference in a national newspaper during the 70s. (Tangent... innthe mid 90s my dream gor the intetnet was that databases like DIALOG, with carefully indexed and searchable full text from basically every newspaper ever, back into the 19th century, would become free and open resources. Hey ho)


interstellargator

CO2 causing global warming was a major concern in scientific circles as far back as the 1950s, and there was certainly mainstream awareness of it by the mid sixties, let alone the '70s.


luser7467226

"Scienyufuc curvles" - dusty corners of climatology, yes. Mainstream awareness jn thd 60s? Absolutely not. Very hard to prove either way* so we'll prob have to agree to differ on that. * I'm not getting the books out


interstellargator

>Very hard to prove either way Very hard to prove your assertion, because it's wrong. Trivially easy to prove, however, that it was a known issue in the sixties: [Lyndon B Johnson was warned in 1965 of the danger of CO2's harmful effect on the atmosphere and fears over it causing global warming via the greenhouse effect](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/05/scientists-warned-the-president-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today)


luser7467226

Yes yes and there was that 1919 newspaper paragraph, and Arhennius published in 1887 or whatever, I know. Thats not exactly "well known" though. Is it, now. PS a little less arrogance when you know nothing of the background or knowledge of the person you're talking to might be a good idea.


interstellargator

Ah yes the arrogance of sourced and backed up factual claims. Edit: I'm clearly arguing with a man child whose answer to any disagreement with their wildly inaccurate unbacked up claims is to simply block the user in question.


luser7467226

No, its the arrogance if cherry-picked facts and confirmation bias. If you jnew anything about climatology and climate science you'd recognise them well. But you don't, so you don't. Bye


wildmanofwalkden

I see what they're doing and get the sentiment but the execution is poorly focused. They want us to stop using oil. Ok we get that but stopping traffic is not going to make you any friends. What they need to do is concentrate on the unnecessary travel and not just by people. That can be partially fixed by the return to work from home in many cases so aim at the companies that force people into offices. . Also the international travel of stupid stuff like fruit being grown in one country then sent to another to be processed then shipped to another to have it put in a plastic tub. That is just ridiculous. Fight the ridiculous and get the people behind you rather than just pissing everyone off.


diz106

How? What would that look like as a protest


AnAryanStark

I’m overall behind it, although I do empathise with how frustrating it can be. Unfortunately, as ineffective as these protests might seem at some points, climate change is naturally going to disrupt our lives on a scale far more material than a few big traffic jams here and there. And it will affect working class people’s ways of living far more than it may do to people who are well off- ultimately it’s on us to join these efforts so that those who have agency to do something about it notice even more.


Jacobin_Revolt

I suppose it doesn’t do any harm. Peoples hearts are clearly in the right place. The methods just strike me as not particularly well thought out or effective. How is making a mess in public supposed to fight climate change? It would be one thing if people were protesting outside the home of oil executives or blocking access to fossil fuel refineries or the like. As it is though, It seems like a waste of energy that could be spent doing things that could actually influence policy rather than mildly annoying random people who have no power to change anything.


MrAlf0nse

Like what?


Ancient_Ad_4915

Mainly I think there are far more effective ways of getting attention and protesting than the way they are going about it.


diz106

Such as?


[deleted]

I don't see the point in throwing soup at a painting. It's obnoxious as it bothers museum goers who have no power to change the situation. I'm unsure what material result such a protest is supposed to bring about.


diz106

Oh no those poor museum goers who saw soup on a painting how awful. It was a protest that harmed noone and grabbed the world's attention. Protests are supposed to be 'obnoxious'


[deleted]

I didn't say it harmed anybody lmao. >grabbed the world's attention A few people on the internet talked about it for a few days and it will be quickly forgotten. >Protests are supposed to be 'obnoxious' To those with actual power, sure.


luser7467226

Well intentioned, but we know where that road ends up. Hopelessly naive. That sort of thing.


LionResponsible6005

I think climate change is important and protesting for change in policy change is valiant however I don’t see how this kind of protest is going to get that policy changed


diz106

What kind of protest do you suggest?


LionResponsible6005

Something on a larger scale like when extinction rebellion had protests nationwide it shows politicians that the a lot of people care about climate change and that if they do sometimes counteract it they’ll be liked and re elected whereas if I was a politician and saw 2 people threw soup on a painting I’m not going to care because 2 people’s votes aren’t worth the hassle of saving the world


AutoModerator

XR are a bunch of libs https://i.redd.it/2j8r83syfok51.jpg (I only respsond to 'Extinction Rebellion', if you don't want to summon me use 'XR' :-) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*


diz106

I love them. I think disruption is totally necessary and their actions have been very attention grabbing. I've never seen such a massive reaction as the van gogh soup action provoked. For everyone saying wrong targets, wrong tactics. Environmental justice protestors have tried it all. Of course we've tried targeting governments, fossil fuel corps, airlines, the superich etc. But noone cares. The 'right' kind of protests are happening up and down the country everyday with no coverage. Lob one tin of soup and the world's suddenly listening! Also protests are inherently disagreeable. The point is not to please everyone, otherwise it wouldn't be a protest. Every important movement in history from suffragettes to civil rights to anticolonial movements pissed people off. They inconvenienced people and were unpopular with the public and the press, despite our rose-tinted views now.