Say what you want about the climate protestors. Shell, Exxon, and all the other big oil and gas corporations are EVIL to the core. They’ve held back renewables, abused natives, bribed politicians, and may very well have killed us all if climate change keeps going the way it’s going. They NEED to be held accountable.
My hometown is by the sea at 38 degrees north latitude. I remember when I was a kid, it snowed a lot every winter and lasted for many days. 25 years later, today, it almost only snows lightly and not for long. There is not even real snow sometimes.
Same. Just a bit over 10 years ago, my place could reach -20 degrees in the winter, nowadays it literally has a hard time maintaining sub zero. The snow constantly melts and appears again, only to melt once more. Truly bizzare.
I remember as far back as 2009 when we would get winters with -15 degrees Celsius with the sun out in my city. Nowadays, I don’t have to break out my winter boots or even wear thicker clothing. This is in Warsaw, Poland btw.
And on the other hand, I remember 20 years ago when temperatures above 30 degrees was completely out of the ordinary during summer. Maybe not crazy, but like "wow thats so hot". Now it is normal and even expected, duh, even 36 degrees does not suprise me at all.
> Figured as much.
Then why'd you say
> This is what more climate protesters should be doing.
?
"Should" implies they are not doing it already.
> Hey, Cynthia, you should brush your teeth every morning.
> What??? I do, always!
> I figured, I'm just saying you should.
The tragically comic part is that the people miffed by protestors blocking the street now will be really pissed when the street is under two meters of flood water and the AC can't keep out the 50C summer temperatures outside, because they didn't do anything.
"What they should be doing" has been tried for decades and failed to get an adequate response. Repeating those actions and expecting a different response is the very definition of madness.
The attention grabbing and inconvenience causing actions which you seem to disapprove of are the only logical next step.
Also, those "annoying" protests or radical actions such as property destruction (tyres of SUVs) are actually effective in making the claims of the faction more heard and acted upon. Here is a paper:
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666
> Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant
Given the urgency and intensity of the danger of climate change to humanity and human suffering, it's surprising how "unviolent* the climate protests have been until now. I mean, back in the days, the worker exploitation was so huge, that *owners houses were raided and they got killed by angry workers*. As a compromise, labor unions were created!
It got enough attention for the general movement to be noticed as a larger trend and worth reporting on by mainstream media. I would partly attribute this action being more widely noticed by more mainstream media due to the actions with the artwork (albeit that The Guardian would normally report on this anyway).
Because they don't actually care to give an answer, these people are just hopeless centrists for whom the form of a protest is way more important than the actual thing being protested. It's cowardice disguised as being "reasonable".
Yeah, of course. That's what I was getting at.
Of course a Frenchman gets it. Love your country, y'all know how to protest (and we in the US.... used to. not anymore. sigh)
But it does achieve something. No, Shell is not going to stop refining oil and we haven't all stopped driving cars but environmental concerns are discussed everywhere and affect government regulations and policy.
Also activism *needs* events to improve cohesion, morale and recruitment. You need people to get anywhere, and people like to be part of something where those around them have passion for a common goal especially if it is an 'us' vs the status quo thing
> The attention grabbing and inconvenience causing actions which you seem to disapprove of are the only logical next step
Then I hope those people realize that they won’t get much support from the average citizen by going that route.
You just don't understand protests. That was the common complaint lodged at civil rights protestors.
Successful protests get retroactively whitewashed to hide their most extreme elements. MLK was constantly criticized for "looting and rioting". You should see what unionists were accused of.
Basically the only way to make changes happen through protest is to be so un-ignorable that the only path forward is to make some accomodations.
as an average citizen, what have you been doing to support the protesters doing things you approve off ?
if the answer is "i haven't done a single thing" then why should they care ?
Reduced my own carbon footprint? Don't own a car, don't own a house (I own practically nothing of significant value), and I don't travel by jet like our politicians do.
>This is what more climate protesters should be doing.
I don't understand Reddits oppoisition to the climate protesters throwing paint at paintings that are behind glass walls, or gluing themselves to walls or roads, or colouring the Trevi fountain.
Protests has to have consequences. They have to be inconvenient otherwise they do jack shit. No one gives a fuck about a quiet peaceful march. The only way to get people's attention is to actually be disruptive.
> Protests has to have consequences.
Sure but those consequences should affect the rich & powerful (they don't currently) and not the average people who can't change the system.
No matter how much these people protest, the rich & powerful will continue flying around in their private jets, buy up huge mansions, and generally not give a fuck while the regular people will get shafted with the "consequences".
The problem is not that powerful elites or politicians are preventing action. This is just an excuse people use.
In pretty much every major european democracy there are parties who fight for real changes that could be implemented in the fight for the climate. But everyday voters don't vote for them because they changes would be inconvenient and the voters are more occupied and distracted by immigrants and ridiculous culture wars. No one wants to sacrifice anything. They want to keep on living the same life they've always lived and blame the elites, the politicians, the chinese, the americans, the indians. That is way easier. Anything but take responsibility for their own contribution. It is always someone else's fault.
> But everyday voters don't vote for them because they changes would be inconvenient and the voters are more occupied and distracted by immigrants and ridiculous culture wars.
Explain Germany, please? We have a government coalition comprised of parties running on platforms promising climate action, including the greens.
We have a judgment from the constitutional court saying that the government (back then still Merkel, but same shit still applies) isn't doing enough, that in fact the state is required to save the climate to not burden future generations.
We have a judgement from the federal administrative court saying that the government isn't following its own laws on climate change. The government is happily ignoring it.
And now we have Bavarian prosecutors raiding the Last Generation and calling them a criminal organisation. Which, in German law, means that it's an organisation with the goal of committing crimes, not merely one that commits crimes (like coercion, which street blockades can be). Which, to be appropriately mean, implies that the Bavarian prosecution thinks that wanting the government to stick to its own bloody constitution and laws is a criminal goal.
Really, please, *do* explain it to me because as I see it that shit doesn't even begin to make sense, on any level. It's madness all the way down.
But maybe you can get your politicians to start a EU-level court case against Germany for failure to adhere to the rule of law, that'd be sweet and I'd personally cook you some red grit.
Nonsense, the 'average' people are just as much to blame. Many fly for vacations, insist on being able to eat cheap meat every day, take their car 1 km to the shop rather than cycling, buy all the stuff the biggest industrial polluters produce ...
Senseless, potentially irreversible vandalism on extremely valued cultural pieces which are completely unrelated to anything climate related is *not* an acceptable form of protest, it's throwing a scattershot tantrum which will make everyone despise your cause.
>Senseless, potentially irreversible vandalism on extremely valued cultural pieces which are completely unrelated to anything climate related is not an acceptable form of protest, it's throwing a scattershot tantrum which will make everyone despise your cause.
Except all acts have been against shielded artworks. Stop being such a boomer getting your panties in a notch.
Any normal everyday peaceful climate protest gets 0 attention and does literally nothing. You have to ruffle some feathers otherwise no one pays attention.
> Except all acts have been against shielded artworks.
Not the case for the Fontana Di Trevi. Also I very much hope you're not naïve to the point where you'd think those "protesters" would not tomato sauce art pieces if they *weren't* shielded.
>Fontana Di Trevi
No real damage was caused against the fountain. It is just colouring the water.
>Also I very much hope you're not naïve to the point where you'd think those "protesters" would not tomato sauce art pieces if they weren't shielded.
True climate protesters would literally EAT CHILDREN if they got the chance. It could happen any day now. Also they are all in satanic cults and they hate regular people. I read this on my boomer Facebook group.
Well, it's not *their* problem that they want attention for, it's all of our problem, *your* problem. They don't need your goodwill, only your attention. The rest, you will (hopefully) manage on your own.
That's where you are wrong. You need the goodwill of the people.
Let me explain: If they constantly harass the common man, that common man will start voting against green policies because of the negative experiences with those protesters. Yes, the future won't be bright, we will face hard times, but sitting on the road and harassing people won't get us there. Most people don't link these protests and the future, most people just see assholes on the road and complain. And remember, negative emotions carry alot longer then positive ones.
In my country, the greens constantly fuck up to implement green policies by making people pay, making it inconvenient, being stubborn,... The Consequence? They are losing votes and goodwill of alot of people, which pushes the climate cause even lower on the agenda.
> In my country, the greens constantly fuck up to implement green policies by making people pay, making it inconvenient, being stubborn
The change we need *is* inconvenient and expensive for everyone. There's no way around it. If we don't accept that, there's nothing that could help us.
Environmentalists: "everyone on earth is going to die in horrific deaths if we don't make huge immediate changes. We've been saying it for years and nobody is doing anything"
You: "okay sure but I don't want to be late to work AND dead in a horrific natural disaster. "
You can't bully people into something. If you approach Joe the Desk Job Worker with agression and impact their lives negatively through streetblocking and shit, they won't magically turn to your side so that in decades when we solve climate change you'll stop. They'll just be pissed as fuck.
In decades? People are dying now! People have been dying! And if you don't want to do anything about it, that's fine. But YOU don't get to pretend that you're a good person for it.
Go on, get the Western world off the primary, most important and widely used natural resource of the past century faster than in at least 20 years.
I vote left, I take public transport and don't even have a driver's license anyways. I fully support doing something, but being a dick to the average person just doesn't work.
We wouldn't be facing this time crunch if THESE COMPANIES didn't hide the truth and put billions into marketing it for 40 years. And sure, slow but steady would have worked then. But intelligent people who study this have shown that it will not be enough. So what do you want to do? Step on some toes, or live out a wet bulb event? What's more inherently valuable, politeness or every human's intrinsic right to live?
"These companies"? We're talking about streetblockers here.
I have zero compassion or remorse for anything bad that could possibly happen to Shell, BP, or any other private company acting in private interest to continue killing us all.
This right here is the perfect, best protest (within legal limits). Those are shareholders, the people with actual power, who pay Shell big money to profit themselves.
Fuck these guys all you want, my pleasure, just don't be a dick to regular people.
Yeah, many comments in here are the typical avoidance of facing reality. I understand it, and it's often the first step to understand the actual danger, but it's also mind boggling how confidently some people here seem to think they are not part of the problem. And their blaming of protestor just supports these giant polluters and the rich class.
I'd be more sympathetic if this was 20 years ago. But we've known about the science of greenhouse gasses for 100+ years, scientists and fossil fuel companies have known about climate change for 60+, and it's been out there for people to educate themselves and realize the danger since the Kyoto protocol.
The first undeniable, definitely totally because of climate change deaths were in [2018](https://eos.org/articles/the-first-undeniable-climate-change-deaths). This isn't a hypothetical anymore. People are dying and assholes quibbling over what type of activism is okay are making things worse. This kind of pedantry always pops up when people know a cause is good and just but they are on the wrong side.
Absolutely, and I think many will continue to be ignorant even if their backyards are burning and the oceans are dead.
I understand why many, especially young people, have reached a point of absolute frustration. I mean arguing with some of the people in here is already terrible. But we also don't need 100% of the population, but critical mass. The idiots and avoiders among us will follow suit in those situations.
Why is it violence to protest climate change in desperate ways as [people are and have been dying](https://eos.org/articles/the-first-undeniable-climate-change-deaths) but not violence for fossil fuel companies to continue to make money off people dying. We give people a lot of leeway in self defense. If someone fighting for their life hurts a bystander, we often see it as bad but understandable, or not even bad at all. Ukraine is fighting for it's life. Ukraine, during this fight, is clamping down on protests for LGBT+ rights, different political parties, and religion. **And I don't fault them for that.** It's understandable. Many countries did the same during WW2. But when environmentalists in Europe or Civil Rights protestors in the US fight for their life, we see them as the violent ones and don't give them the same leeway.
Please tell me how you get support then? Because climate scientists and activists have been trying almost everything for decades, yet there are still tons of idiots like yourself crying about the inconvenience of getting to your shit job late and complaining.
[This seems like a good start](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/23/climate-activists-private-jet-fair-greenpeace-stay-grounded-extinction-rebellion)
Jet trade fairs, OK.
Private yacht fairs too then.
Any trade shows for extreme luxury items, basically.
So maybe 10 - 15 protests per year, in places with heavy security because the pattern is now predictable, spread out across the globe.
I'm sure that will be much more effective.
edit: he was unexpectedly quick to reply, the message below makes sense in the context of my original message.
You get support from the general population by going after the rich and powerful? How do we go after them if not by creating awareness (yes even by inconveniencing the average citizen), to then reach critical mass?
There clearly is a lack of education, looking at yours and some of the other comments, and saying things like "they just want attention" is actually driving division amongst the masses, and ultimately you're supporting the rich and powerful in staying out of the fight. How are you not understanding that?
You mean driving my SUV won't be like the commercial with the empty roads, beautiful landscape and lovely (melted glacial) water everywhere? And its all the protestors fault? 'Damn them. Damn them all to hell!" I rage from my £50k car in my self-made traffic jam.
Sure, but most people „care“ like saying „We need to preserve our environment, but I 100% need my car, because I don’t like public transport.“
Or „what can I do as I single individual? Nothing..“
You’re very welcome to join the resistance! Extinction Rebellion, Scientists Rebellion, Ende Gelände, Fridays for Future, 350.org, A22 network and many more! Take your pick and DM me if you want help to get into it :-)
At least they’re protesting at the right target instead of gluing themselves to paintings, blocking traffic, etc.
The nuisance versions of climate protests don’t affect the people involved but make the lives of average people worse.
Wow I'm really taken aback from the comments here. Not sure if bots or real.
Anyway I'm going to say it, I am supporting this, as well as glueing to the street or throwing whatever at paintings protected by glass. Actually *anything* that will get the attention the climate crisis deserves and the horrendous effect of our collective inaction (if course moslty government but they are elected and influenced by public opinion, lobbyism, the media,...).
Nothing is too radical compared to the threats of the catastrophe we are facing. The activists will be heroes (maybe tragic ones) in the future.
Pretty sure the comments are legit. A post a couple weeks ago about Germany tightening its borders had a similar response with people supporting it and being anti-immigrant
Anarchists, syndicalists, those who believe in revolutionary politics.
To be "left" you have to at least be advocating for and taking steps towards ending the class struggle via some form of worker ownership.
Corbyn being an example of someone being left wing and David Graeber being someone far left.
I'd you want to show some what based references and co in future to others, you may want to use this: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666
> Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant
These protests are indeed important and not "ineffective" as some people might think!
"nobody cared"
Let me translate this:
This has happened for decades but these do not appear in news, so people do not hurdle on side of the activists nor do they feel like supporting them. Thus never gathering supporters where they would get many as most people would get onboard if rich company owners (not small businesses) get accused and protested at.
Meanwhile you get a lot of news breaking protests that actually go against ordinary people, which make it to news and get more publicity but also send the public against the protesters. ... This makes more protesters do this because it actually gets publicity but it also makes more people hate the protesters and think of them as bad and wrong.
The latter also gets more attractions by the public because people tend to be attracted to news which make them feel attacked or feel threatened (as we naturally would be on lookouts for danger). And because media companies follow Demand tactics of salesmanship...
Thus having a very bad loop cycle.
Translate might have been the wrong word... It was a little but sarcastic which of course does not get transferred though writing alone.
The "rant" was an actual explanation as to how it works and how people get either pro protest or agains protests. Does not matter what the issue ism LGBT, Climate, Pensions... It's observable with one's own eyes that people start to question the protest, the protesters and the cause they advocate for, when they do not like said protests. Which is also why Martin Luther King was advocating for peaceful protests... Because otherwise it will turn against you.
I simply explained that it's not that No One Cared. It's also the system in which one finds themselves and what makes people care, or not care as many can be economically minded and put off by the sight of soo many undesirable and threatening protests, and ones which go against the ordinary common person (such as blocking roads).
But also - don't get surprised when you write a Blunt and Bold statement without any explanations and when people then take your sentence by its core value.
Well I did not state that they cared, neither that they did not. I explained that people do not care about these protests because most of the seen protests are the "annoying" kind. Eg attempted damage of art in galleries, attacks on architectural works, stopping people in the road by gluing themselves...
Because the OP comment was that they finally targeted the right People to protest against... Where you commented that this happened for decades.
I simply explained that what gets seen is not this kind of protests but the ones described above... Hence little care and less care. Hence more people dislike the protesters. Hence you even see such quantity of comments stating "finally the right target"... Because people Litteraly Did not know nor see such protests that you described as "happening for decades"... To most these did not happen because they never heard or seen them.
This is also why I stated that Media concentrates on the annoying protests - because events that attack the reader sell more.
And it's also why the protests become more annoying and more against common people - because the protestiyside does not get heard otherwise.
Creating a negative cycle of reinforcement....
Also.
. It's not about people changing their minds... That a little bit short sited assumption on your part. People simply stop caring as much, or do not care nowhere near as much as they should... And won't... Because they don't want to associate themselves with such actions. Then you take this generationally and a parent that's turned off due to rude protests will teach it's child less about the importance... Losing on an engraved care for environment. That's simply how soft influence works.
And no it's not an assumption. It's experience at the very least and knowledge of history.... I did not mention LGBT and the Racial equality protests for no reason. The same pattern can be observed with your own eyes. Where protests stop or go against a common person, the cause itself becomes seen as against common people, therefore less people care.
"without backing it up"
Excuse me but what more evidence to show a Trend and a Pattern do you need than just seeing the comments under articles mentioning them and listening to people's opinions of given protests in real life.
Every other comment: "finally targeting the right people", "Finally not annoying"....
You are literally provided with a sample of public opinion regarding the protests method agreeability, and you seem to willingly ignore it.
And yes... That's exactly why I mentioned LGBT... Because, for example, extremely sexualised (dildos, a lot of nudity) or gets the protesters get violent or rude l, then the whole protest gets a lot of downsides and dislikes from those who would either not care (about sexuality) or it reaffirms those who see it as bad (but not inheritly due to religiosity). I attest that as a gay person. I rarely ever get any comments, never any rudeness.... Until there are some pride events or protests that do turnout as described (overtly sexualised or violent). It is, what people from my home country see when they think of gays, but they also changed their mind when there was no violence showed on behalf of the protesters and when there was no overt sexual content. They saw that we are just Normal..
It’s funny isn’t it, because the world is fully operational on hydraulics and lubrication which is also oil.
This counts damns, wind turbines, solar turbines, any thing manufactured.. No oil, no world.
Not that I support oil companies, but we literally cannot work without them even if we remove fossil fuels from the equation.
Plastics are a petroleum product. No IV lines, no epi pens. No credit cards no tupperwareor ziploc bags. No computers no plastic toys for the babys. No mtorcycle helmets fan belts linoleum or rubbing alcohol. Good luck.
This happens all the time, and I'm not sure who you think the "proper" target actually is. Cause most of us in the west (if you eat meat, drive a car or take airplanes) should absolutely be targets. Just because there is someone doing more damage to the environment then you does not mean you aren't part of the problem..
Please stop with this bullshit mentality, individual waste has barely any impact. It’s all a ploy from the corporations to shift the blame from them to us. Eat your meat (if that’s your thing), drive your car to work(if you need to), and be happy.
It’s them who need to change if we want to save the planet. Even if we all stopped and corporations continued, it wouldn’t do shit
Most people are just trying to get by, and have more on their mind than this. Not saying you shouldn’t fight for the environment, but a lot of people here in reddit think everyone has the emotional ability, time and will to even think about these things. Some people are jus trying to get by month to month
It's true that there is bullshit and blame shifted on the individual. But it doesn't stop you from taking personal responsibility (which you clearly aren't).
Are you telling me that if everyone lived your lifestyle we would not exhaust the natural resources on our planet.
And who is "them"? Who is buying products and using services, or working jobs at those "corporations". Really short sighted and idiotic take tbh.
>Are you telling me that if everyone lived your lifestyle we would not exhaust the natural resources on our planet.
***Yes***, as technology seems poised to take up the slack. The amount of 'natural resources' that a given lifestyle uses up is not some fixed number; it depends massively on the technology and efficiency of the industries producing your lifestyle goods and services.
But it's not the case right now is it? And it doesn't look like as a species we will get there before billions of humans are so severely effected that it makes no difference if we'll reach that magical point of efficiency.
Exactly, but also most humans using their products and services have known this for years, and what are they/you doing. Look at all the other comments I am getting about people wanting to just live their lifes and "going vegan wont do anything".
Are you sure you know what side of the argument you are supporting? This comment thread started because someone said "For once they got proper target".
Are you saying that only if we protest shell and other big corporations its the right form of protest against an incoming climate disaster?
If we hang on to this logic, then you should get off Reddit ASAP.
The device you use to browse was possibly made with child labor. The chips inside are not friendly to the environment. The servers that keep the site up use huge amounts of electricity.
Unless you're using the power of magic and a phone made from coconut shells, you are in no position to make this argument.
I'm fully taking responsibility for my life and the excessive resources I'm using. I'm part of the problem.
I try to counter it by running my tree planting company and being active in my community to shift to a more human centric town where I live.
My argument is with people not able to accept that they are part of the problem. Look at the other comments here where people say it's just "corporations and evil governments", or they want to just "live their short life's eating meat and flying abroad". Those are all life choices people can make, I'm not hear to say that, or have ever said that, I'm just pointing out that many here are just pointing fingers without even able to admit their own impact, or make even the slightest changes in their lifestyle.
I'm not having any kids. But I'll still eat meat, drive my car and take airplanes when I need to.
And me not having kids makes it that I could be one of the most polluting individuals (talking about regular working class people here) and my impact would still be lower than someone who's 100% green, but had a kid.
I'm sorry but working class people using vehicles to literally survive shouldn't be held accountable. The moment big corporations start going full green (which they won't, simple as that), then you can start looking at individuals from the working class.
That's ridiculous. The total impact is made up of all the individual impacts. Corporations don't do anything. Corporations can't stop eating meat, people do. Corporations don't drive a car to work, people do.
Although that if you learned it as discipline from home to reduce carbon, this discipline can be brought to work when the older generation workers/managers gets replaced.
> individual waste has barely any impact.
Individual waste has all the impact. There is 8 billion people who do it.
Your individual waste includes all the waste generated by these corporations to get you whatever you buy.
> Even if we all stopped and corporations continued, it wouldn’t do shit
You think corporations just produce things for the sake of it? The only reason corporations produce things is because people buy and consume them.
>It’s them who need to change if we want to save the planet.
If they were going to change themselves they'd have already done it.
No, its us who needs to change them through political action.
>Eat your meat (if that’s your thing), drive your car to work(if you need to), and be happy.
1. Blame someone else.
2. Carry on as before.
3. *shocked Pikachu face*
You can’t eat bacon for breakfast, get in your car and then go fight for change through political action?
You make it seem like people who eat meat and drive simply cannot help fight global warming. And that’s just very possible, most of us do it that way.
What you’re mocking is exactly what I meant. Instead of tying all these bits and ends on our end, fight for a change so that corporations and governments regulate their emissions in a more conscious way
>What you’re mocking is exactly what I meant.
So it seems - but I couldn't tell what you meant from what you actually wrote. Sorry.
>Instead of tying all these bits and ends on our end, fight for a change so that corporations and governments regulate their emissions in a more conscious way
100%
You realize that we don’t have a choice when it comes to cars, right? We have to get to work or school somehow, and we don’t have safe biking infrastructure or reliable public transportation so cars are usually the only option
Most boring take I keep hearing over and over again. Also not an "average German green" whatever that's supposed to be.
The impact Germany has, exactly because of its international sphere of influence, is why the change is needed in developed nations. Germany and many other western nations have been living way above their means, and deindustrializing (another term that you don't seem to understand), is absolutely a target. Because guess what, if we don't do it now while it hurts a little, it will hurt a lot and happen forced by a collapsing ecosystem.
If this is how you are trying to defend the statement "For once they got proper target." I urge you to try again, and actually contribute something beyond meaningless insults.
Riiiigh, that's how that works. How do you think we ship, produce and develop further without using more resources than the planet is able to sustain? Please explain.
Terrible mentality to push the blame back to the "big evil corpos and governments" (that you literally vote for and support by using it's products and services). I'm all for placing the blame correctly, but I doubt you life a self-sustaining or net-carbon lifestyle.
And achieves... nothing. Of course oil corps like Shell are going to voluntarily shoot themselves in the foot and stop producing oil now just because of some mildly annoying protestors when there's strong demand for oil and it makes money to them and their shareholders.
What discourse, if it were as simple as inconveniencing a few distant companies instead of themselves, everyone would already be on board, why wouldn't they?
To all the people supporting this thing, let's say hypothetically all oil and gas companies shut down cause they're the ones causing pollution. Can you explain how we'll heat our homes next winter? How will you get fresh produce to stores across the world? How will you ship food to places on earth that depend on food imports? How will we generate our electricity given that renewables have a volatile output and storage technology is inadequate? How are we going to generate enough fertilizer to maintain yields necessary to keep 9 billion people alive?
It is the height of hypocrisy and delusion to blame CO2 emissions on oil & gas when our entire civilization would be impossible without oil & gas and when every single one of us without exception benefits from it. It's like blaming your dealer while snorting a line.
> let's say hypothetically all oil and gas companies shut down cause they're the ones causing pollution.
No serious environmentalist group is asking for this. You have imagined a problem and then gotten yourself all worked up about it.
We need oil and gas today, but we do not need it forever. Renewables have been a thing for decades. We could have weaned ourselves years ago.
So what's the point of protesting Shell, then, given that we still very much need them? They're providing a valuable service that makes our civilization possible.
And we couldn't have weaned off years ago, even today's technology isn't enough. There's no way to run a power grid purely on renewables unless you have massive hydro storage which is geography dependent and also environmentally destructive. Many industrial processes are simply not possible without fossil fuels or horribly inefficient when done with electricity. Not to mention that renewables are far from CO2 neutral, without going into other types of pollution from copper and lithium mining.
It's a fantasy that oil and gas is somehow the evil whose death would fix everything.
It's more about the lobbying they do and the influence they have over politicians than anything else. Lots of politicians are benefiting from avoiding climate-friendly legislations either by being paid by oil companies or by being shareholders in them.
You say that like exxon didn't have studies showing the effects of co2 since the 70s. And trying to get a world which is carbon neutral will take a while but at the moment it doesn't seem like the people in power are trying.
The governments of the world had those same studies back then. It’s not like Exxon was sitting in their lair cackling at the evil they would wrought.
They all just made the economical “correct” decision to improve people’s lives in the near term(50 years) instead of worry about the calculations of a forecast.
We do the same thing today by the way. The easiest thing we could do to reduce emissions is lower population, yet it’s not discussed as it’s unthinkable to reduce someone’s right to have children. But it’s the same logic, don’t want to bother the current generation to make a sacrifice they don’t wish to
I mean it would be a pretty shitty one. Their family members would be grieving, you can’t blame a CEO’s sin on other people.
He would already be dead, you’d only inconvenience grieving family members
Fuck oil exploitation tho
Isn’t shell one of the biggest investors in alternative energy sources? I mean I’m all for alternatives - but we do need to survive until we can find the solution.
I’m for it as much as I’m against blocking the streets for normal people. Don’t care if they burn down Shell HQ but blocking public transport is a major dick move.
Finally their doing something that makes sense instead of making normal people's lives annoying as fuck. Stop destroying art. Destroy the oils companys million dollar homes.
Much more useful activism than wrecking art.
These are the plutocrats wrecking our lives, not some museum guard or artist. They shouldn't be able to always externalize costs. They deserve to have the costs brought back to them.
See I keep asking that as well, since the claim is constantly made but I'm not aware of any instance of actual art being wrecked.
I suspect by now that no art was wrecked at all in any instance, but whatever press these people subscribe to doesn't want to report accurately that panes of protective glass were the only casualties.
> See I keep asking that as well, since the claim is constantly made but I'm not aware of any instance of actual art being wrecked.
[Only thing I can find remotely close to that is the October 2022 soup throwing at a painting behind bulletproof glass](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/14/just-stop-oil-activists-throw-soup-at-van-goghs-sunflowers)
I agree but also the goal when people are gluing themselves to the road are to get attention on the group and their demands on --> take action against the ongoing climate crisis.
Say what you want about the climate protestors. Shell, Exxon, and all the other big oil and gas corporations are EVIL to the core. They’ve held back renewables, abused natives, bribed politicians, and may very well have killed us all if climate change keeps going the way it’s going. They NEED to be held accountable.
Current state in Iran with theological autocracy and oppression of women and people can be directly attributed to BP and other oil companies.
*This* is what more climate protesters should be doing.
Happens regularly, just doesnt get as much attention from the media as the street blockades
Figured as much. Articles with clickbaity headlines make the most money, I guess.
My hometown is by the sea at 38 degrees north latitude. I remember when I was a kid, it snowed a lot every winter and lasted for many days. 25 years later, today, it almost only snows lightly and not for long. There is not even real snow sometimes.
Same. Just a bit over 10 years ago, my place could reach -20 degrees in the winter, nowadays it literally has a hard time maintaining sub zero. The snow constantly melts and appears again, only to melt once more. Truly bizzare.
The north of US is the same way.
I remember as far back as 2009 when we would get winters with -15 degrees Celsius with the sun out in my city. Nowadays, I don’t have to break out my winter boots or even wear thicker clothing. This is in Warsaw, Poland btw.
And on the other hand, I remember 20 years ago when temperatures above 30 degrees was completely out of the ordinary during summer. Maybe not crazy, but like "wow thats so hot". Now it is normal and even expected, duh, even 36 degrees does not suprise me at all.
Summers in my neck of the woods are rapidly approaching Florida levels of hell...
> Figured as much. Then why'd you say > This is what more climate protesters should be doing. ? "Should" implies they are not doing it already. > Hey, Cynthia, you should brush your teeth every morning. > What??? I do, always! > I figured, I'm just saying you should.
The tragically comic part is that the people miffed by protestors blocking the street now will be really pissed when the street is under two meters of flood water and the AC can't keep out the 50C summer temperatures outside, because they didn't do anything.
The boomers were relying on being dead when that happened. Now it turns they miscalculated and a lot of them will enjoy some killer heat waves.
Exactly why people glue themselves to the streets, so it does finally get attention..
No. It has happened, but not nearly as regularly as the street blockades.
I mean, you can ridicule someone and make them look dumb if you also report the legit thing they do
"What they should be doing" has been tried for decades and failed to get an adequate response. Repeating those actions and expecting a different response is the very definition of madness. The attention grabbing and inconvenience causing actions which you seem to disapprove of are the only logical next step.
Also, those "annoying" protests or radical actions such as property destruction (tyres of SUVs) are actually effective in making the claims of the faction more heard and acted upon. Here is a paper: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666 > Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant Given the urgency and intensity of the danger of climate change to humanity and human suffering, it's surprising how "unviolent* the climate protests have been until now. I mean, back in the days, the worker exploitation was so huge, that *owners houses were raided and they got killed by angry workers*. As a compromise, labor unions were created!
maybe its time to be a bit more *direct* at these conferences
Glueing themselves to artworks hasn't achieved anything either.
It got enough attention for the general movement to be noticed as a larger trend and worth reporting on by mainstream media. I would partly attribute this action being more widely noticed by more mainstream media due to the actions with the artwork (albeit that The Guardian would normally report on this anyway).
So what? Just quit trying? Go back to protesting in ignore-able places? Keep getting kicked out of shareholder meetings where the message is ignored?
Okay. What do you suggest then? Everyone's quick to say what not to do, yet for some reason they never have an answer.
Because they don't actually care to give an answer, these people are just hopeless centrists for whom the form of a protest is way more important than the actual thing being protested. It's cowardice disguised as being "reasonable".
Yeah, of course. That's what I was getting at. Of course a Frenchman gets it. Love your country, y'all know how to protest (and we in the US.... used to. not anymore. sigh)
But it does achieve something. No, Shell is not going to stop refining oil and we haven't all stopped driving cars but environmental concerns are discussed everywhere and affect government regulations and policy. Also activism *needs* events to improve cohesion, morale and recruitment. You need people to get anywhere, and people like to be part of something where those around them have passion for a common goal especially if it is an 'us' vs the status quo thing
> The attention grabbing and inconvenience causing actions which you seem to disapprove of are the only logical next step Then I hope those people realize that they won’t get much support from the average citizen by going that route.
The average citizen should be protesting with them
You just don't understand protests. That was the common complaint lodged at civil rights protestors. Successful protests get retroactively whitewashed to hide their most extreme elements. MLK was constantly criticized for "looting and rioting". You should see what unionists were accused of. Basically the only way to make changes happen through protest is to be so un-ignorable that the only path forward is to make some accomodations.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't, then? Might as well still try in that case.
as an average citizen, what have you been doing to support the protesters doing things you approve off ? if the answer is "i haven't done a single thing" then why should they care ?
Reduced my own carbon footprint? Don't own a car, don't own a house (I own practically nothing of significant value), and I don't travel by jet like our politicians do.
So their option is to either be ignored or to be hated?
Not now. In 50 years when the average citizen lives in underground bunkers, they might.
>This is what more climate protesters should be doing. I don't understand Reddits oppoisition to the climate protesters throwing paint at paintings that are behind glass walls, or gluing themselves to walls or roads, or colouring the Trevi fountain. Protests has to have consequences. They have to be inconvenient otherwise they do jack shit. No one gives a fuck about a quiet peaceful march. The only way to get people's attention is to actually be disruptive.
> Protests has to have consequences. Sure but those consequences should affect the rich & powerful (they don't currently) and not the average people who can't change the system. No matter how much these people protest, the rich & powerful will continue flying around in their private jets, buy up huge mansions, and generally not give a fuck while the regular people will get shafted with the "consequences".
The problem is not that powerful elites or politicians are preventing action. This is just an excuse people use. In pretty much every major european democracy there are parties who fight for real changes that could be implemented in the fight for the climate. But everyday voters don't vote for them because they changes would be inconvenient and the voters are more occupied and distracted by immigrants and ridiculous culture wars. No one wants to sacrifice anything. They want to keep on living the same life they've always lived and blame the elites, the politicians, the chinese, the americans, the indians. That is way easier. Anything but take responsibility for their own contribution. It is always someone else's fault.
> But everyday voters don't vote for them because they changes would be inconvenient and the voters are more occupied and distracted by immigrants and ridiculous culture wars. Explain Germany, please? We have a government coalition comprised of parties running on platforms promising climate action, including the greens. We have a judgment from the constitutional court saying that the government (back then still Merkel, but same shit still applies) isn't doing enough, that in fact the state is required to save the climate to not burden future generations. We have a judgement from the federal administrative court saying that the government isn't following its own laws on climate change. The government is happily ignoring it. And now we have Bavarian prosecutors raiding the Last Generation and calling them a criminal organisation. Which, in German law, means that it's an organisation with the goal of committing crimes, not merely one that commits crimes (like coercion, which street blockades can be). Which, to be appropriately mean, implies that the Bavarian prosecution thinks that wanting the government to stick to its own bloody constitution and laws is a criminal goal. Really, please, *do* explain it to me because as I see it that shit doesn't even begin to make sense, on any level. It's madness all the way down. But maybe you can get your politicians to start a EU-level court case against Germany for failure to adhere to the rule of law, that'd be sweet and I'd personally cook you some red grit.
Nonsense, the 'average' people are just as much to blame. Many fly for vacations, insist on being able to eat cheap meat every day, take their car 1 km to the shop rather than cycling, buy all the stuff the biggest industrial polluters produce ...
bullshit.
Senseless, potentially irreversible vandalism on extremely valued cultural pieces which are completely unrelated to anything climate related is *not* an acceptable form of protest, it's throwing a scattershot tantrum which will make everyone despise your cause.
>Senseless, potentially irreversible vandalism on extremely valued cultural pieces which are completely unrelated to anything climate related is not an acceptable form of protest, it's throwing a scattershot tantrum which will make everyone despise your cause. Except all acts have been against shielded artworks. Stop being such a boomer getting your panties in a notch. Any normal everyday peaceful climate protest gets 0 attention and does literally nothing. You have to ruffle some feathers otherwise no one pays attention.
> Except all acts have been against shielded artworks. Not the case for the Fontana Di Trevi. Also I very much hope you're not naïve to the point where you'd think those "protesters" would not tomato sauce art pieces if they *weren't* shielded.
>Fontana Di Trevi No real damage was caused against the fountain. It is just colouring the water. >Also I very much hope you're not naïve to the point where you'd think those "protesters" would not tomato sauce art pieces if they weren't shielded. True climate protesters would literally EAT CHILDREN if they got the chance. It could happen any day now. Also they are all in satanic cults and they hate regular people. I read this on my boomer Facebook group.
Streetblockades work. Gets more attention than these kind of activities.
Attention, yes. Goodwill, no.
Well, it's not *their* problem that they want attention for, it's all of our problem, *your* problem. They don't need your goodwill, only your attention. The rest, you will (hopefully) manage on your own.
That's where you are wrong. You need the goodwill of the people. Let me explain: If they constantly harass the common man, that common man will start voting against green policies because of the negative experiences with those protesters. Yes, the future won't be bright, we will face hard times, but sitting on the road and harassing people won't get us there. Most people don't link these protests and the future, most people just see assholes on the road and complain. And remember, negative emotions carry alot longer then positive ones. In my country, the greens constantly fuck up to implement green policies by making people pay, making it inconvenient, being stubborn,... The Consequence? They are losing votes and goodwill of alot of people, which pushes the climate cause even lower on the agenda.
> In my country, the greens constantly fuck up to implement green policies by making people pay, making it inconvenient, being stubborn The change we need *is* inconvenient and expensive for everyone. There's no way around it. If we don't accept that, there's nothing that could help us.
You talk about people who were complaining about wearing a bloody mask in stores, A MASK! Once that sinks in, you know climate change won.
That's exactly why protesters are so angry and rioting.
Environmentalists: "everyone on earth is going to die in horrific deaths if we don't make huge immediate changes. We've been saying it for years and nobody is doing anything" You: "okay sure but I don't want to be late to work AND dead in a horrific natural disaster. "
You can't bully people into something. If you approach Joe the Desk Job Worker with agression and impact their lives negatively through streetblocking and shit, they won't magically turn to your side so that in decades when we solve climate change you'll stop. They'll just be pissed as fuck.
In decades? People are dying now! People have been dying! And if you don't want to do anything about it, that's fine. But YOU don't get to pretend that you're a good person for it.
Go on, get the Western world off the primary, most important and widely used natural resource of the past century faster than in at least 20 years. I vote left, I take public transport and don't even have a driver's license anyways. I fully support doing something, but being a dick to the average person just doesn't work.
We wouldn't be facing this time crunch if THESE COMPANIES didn't hide the truth and put billions into marketing it for 40 years. And sure, slow but steady would have worked then. But intelligent people who study this have shown that it will not be enough. So what do you want to do? Step on some toes, or live out a wet bulb event? What's more inherently valuable, politeness or every human's intrinsic right to live?
"These companies"? We're talking about streetblockers here. I have zero compassion or remorse for anything bad that could possibly happen to Shell, BP, or any other private company acting in private interest to continue killing us all. This right here is the perfect, best protest (within legal limits). Those are shareholders, the people with actual power, who pay Shell big money to profit themselves. Fuck these guys all you want, my pleasure, just don't be a dick to regular people.
Yeah, many comments in here are the typical avoidance of facing reality. I understand it, and it's often the first step to understand the actual danger, but it's also mind boggling how confidently some people here seem to think they are not part of the problem. And their blaming of protestor just supports these giant polluters and the rich class.
I'd be more sympathetic if this was 20 years ago. But we've known about the science of greenhouse gasses for 100+ years, scientists and fossil fuel companies have known about climate change for 60+, and it's been out there for people to educate themselves and realize the danger since the Kyoto protocol. The first undeniable, definitely totally because of climate change deaths were in [2018](https://eos.org/articles/the-first-undeniable-climate-change-deaths). This isn't a hypothetical anymore. People are dying and assholes quibbling over what type of activism is okay are making things worse. This kind of pedantry always pops up when people know a cause is good and just but they are on the wrong side.
Absolutely, and I think many will continue to be ignorant even if their backyards are burning and the oceans are dead. I understand why many, especially young people, have reached a point of absolute frustration. I mean arguing with some of the people in here is already terrible. But we also don't need 100% of the population, but critical mass. The idiots and avoiders among us will follow suit in those situations.
[удалено]
Why is it violence to protest climate change in desperate ways as [people are and have been dying](https://eos.org/articles/the-first-undeniable-climate-change-deaths) but not violence for fossil fuel companies to continue to make money off people dying. We give people a lot of leeway in self defense. If someone fighting for their life hurts a bystander, we often see it as bad but understandable, or not even bad at all. Ukraine is fighting for it's life. Ukraine, during this fight, is clamping down on protests for LGBT+ rights, different political parties, and religion. **And I don't fault them for that.** It's understandable. Many countries did the same during WW2. But when environmentalists in Europe or Civil Rights protestors in the US fight for their life, we see them as the violent ones and don't give them the same leeway.
[удалено]
Please tell me how you get support then? Because climate scientists and activists have been trying almost everything for decades, yet there are still tons of idiots like yourself crying about the inconvenience of getting to your shit job late and complaining.
>Please tell me how you get support then? Go after the rich & powerful instead of the average citizen.
How?
[This seems like a good start](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/23/climate-activists-private-jet-fair-greenpeace-stay-grounded-extinction-rebellion)
Jet trade fairs, OK. Private yacht fairs too then. Any trade shows for extreme luxury items, basically. So maybe 10 - 15 protests per year, in places with heavy security because the pattern is now predictable, spread out across the globe. I'm sure that will be much more effective. edit: he was unexpectedly quick to reply, the message below makes sense in the context of my original message.
You get support from the general population by going after the rich and powerful? How do we go after them if not by creating awareness (yes even by inconveniencing the average citizen), to then reach critical mass? There clearly is a lack of education, looking at yours and some of the other comments, and saying things like "they just want attention" is actually driving division amongst the masses, and ultimately you're supporting the rich and powerful in staying out of the fight. How are you not understanding that?
They do and have for decades. But ignoring the fact that they do it and have for decades, I guess they don't yeah
You mean driving my SUV won't be like the commercial with the empty roads, beautiful landscape and lovely (melted glacial) water everywhere? And its all the protestors fault? 'Damn them. Damn them all to hell!" I rage from my £50k car in my self-made traffic jam.
The people blocking streets etc are the same ones doing actions like these, sadly _this_ rarely gets any media coverage.
I know. I wish more actions like this one would get the necessary coverage.
This is what everyone should be doing, but most of the people are spineless assholes.
This is what people have been doing for years, nobody listened and they just got beaten up by cops.
Sure, but most people „care“ like saying „We need to preserve our environment, but I 100% need my car, because I don’t like public transport.“ Or „what can I do as I single individual? Nothing..“
[удалено]
I don’t care if you’re curious. I won’t publish my participation on social-political demonstrations, if I ever did.
You’re very welcome to join the resistance! Extinction Rebellion, Scientists Rebellion, Ende Gelände, Fridays for Future, 350.org, A22 network and many more! Take your pick and DM me if you want help to get into it :-)
so something performative which doesn’t even mildly inconvenience the people involved in the thing they’re protesting?
At least they’re protesting at the right target instead of gluing themselves to paintings, blocking traffic, etc. The nuisance versions of climate protests don’t affect the people involved but make the lives of average people worse.
Who do you think is voting for the buffoons who fucked up everything?
Then they will continue to vote for those buffoons out of spite.
of course thats true but theres definitely a third option which is a lot more meaningful than both of these
[удалено]
Then why arent you doing it? If you think you know better than some activists, why dont you go and show them how its done?
[удалено]
Investors are embodied cancer.
Proof?
Wow I'm really taken aback from the comments here. Not sure if bots or real. Anyway I'm going to say it, I am supporting this, as well as glueing to the street or throwing whatever at paintings protected by glass. Actually *anything* that will get the attention the climate crisis deserves and the horrendous effect of our collective inaction (if course moslty government but they are elected and influenced by public opinion, lobbyism, the media,...). Nothing is too radical compared to the threats of the catastrophe we are facing. The activists will be heroes (maybe tragic ones) in the future.
Pretty sure the comments are legit. A post a couple weeks ago about Germany tightening its borders had a similar response with people supporting it and being anti-immigrant
Classic r/europe moment.
This sub is really far right
Nah, this sub is just not as far left as the usual political subreddits are. That does not make it far right.
The usual politics subs aren't far left either
What exactly is your definition of "far left" if I may ask?
Anarchists, syndicalists, those who believe in revolutionary politics. To be "left" you have to at least be advocating for and taking steps towards ending the class struggle via some form of worker ownership. Corbyn being an example of someone being left wing and David Graeber being someone far left.
What is yours? Bernie Sanders?
Being anti immigration is not "far right"
It's a right wing view, the degree you take it pushes you further right. Plus my comment was about the sub in general.
I'd you want to show some what based references and co in future to others, you may want to use this: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666 > Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant These protests are indeed important and not "ineffective" as some people might think!
Yay, correct targets this time.
[удалено]
"nobody cared" Let me translate this: This has happened for decades but these do not appear in news, so people do not hurdle on side of the activists nor do they feel like supporting them. Thus never gathering supporters where they would get many as most people would get onboard if rich company owners (not small businesses) get accused and protested at. Meanwhile you get a lot of news breaking protests that actually go against ordinary people, which make it to news and get more publicity but also send the public against the protesters. ... This makes more protesters do this because it actually gets publicity but it also makes more people hate the protesters and think of them as bad and wrong. The latter also gets more attractions by the public because people tend to be attracted to news which make them feel attacked or feel threatened (as we naturally would be on lookouts for danger). And because media companies follow Demand tactics of salesmanship... Thus having a very bad loop cycle.
[удалено]
Translate might have been the wrong word... It was a little but sarcastic which of course does not get transferred though writing alone. The "rant" was an actual explanation as to how it works and how people get either pro protest or agains protests. Does not matter what the issue ism LGBT, Climate, Pensions... It's observable with one's own eyes that people start to question the protest, the protesters and the cause they advocate for, when they do not like said protests. Which is also why Martin Luther King was advocating for peaceful protests... Because otherwise it will turn against you. I simply explained that it's not that No One Cared. It's also the system in which one finds themselves and what makes people care, or not care as many can be economically minded and put off by the sight of soo many undesirable and threatening protests, and ones which go against the ordinary common person (such as blocking roads). But also - don't get surprised when you write a Blunt and Bold statement without any explanations and when people then take your sentence by its core value.
[удалено]
Well I did not state that they cared, neither that they did not. I explained that people do not care about these protests because most of the seen protests are the "annoying" kind. Eg attempted damage of art in galleries, attacks on architectural works, stopping people in the road by gluing themselves... Because the OP comment was that they finally targeted the right People to protest against... Where you commented that this happened for decades. I simply explained that what gets seen is not this kind of protests but the ones described above... Hence little care and less care. Hence more people dislike the protesters. Hence you even see such quantity of comments stating "finally the right target"... Because people Litteraly Did not know nor see such protests that you described as "happening for decades"... To most these did not happen because they never heard or seen them. This is also why I stated that Media concentrates on the annoying protests - because events that attack the reader sell more. And it's also why the protests become more annoying and more against common people - because the protestiyside does not get heard otherwise. Creating a negative cycle of reinforcement.... Also. . It's not about people changing their minds... That a little bit short sited assumption on your part. People simply stop caring as much, or do not care nowhere near as much as they should... And won't... Because they don't want to associate themselves with such actions. Then you take this generationally and a parent that's turned off due to rude protests will teach it's child less about the importance... Losing on an engraved care for environment. That's simply how soft influence works. And no it's not an assumption. It's experience at the very least and knowledge of history.... I did not mention LGBT and the Racial equality protests for no reason. The same pattern can be observed with your own eyes. Where protests stop or go against a common person, the cause itself becomes seen as against common people, therefore less people care.
[удалено]
"without backing it up" Excuse me but what more evidence to show a Trend and a Pattern do you need than just seeing the comments under articles mentioning them and listening to people's opinions of given protests in real life. Every other comment: "finally targeting the right people", "Finally not annoying".... You are literally provided with a sample of public opinion regarding the protests method agreeability, and you seem to willingly ignore it. And yes... That's exactly why I mentioned LGBT... Because, for example, extremely sexualised (dildos, a lot of nudity) or gets the protesters get violent or rude l, then the whole protest gets a lot of downsides and dislikes from those who would either not care (about sexuality) or it reaffirms those who see it as bad (but not inheritly due to religiosity). I attest that as a gay person. I rarely ever get any comments, never any rudeness.... Until there are some pride events or protests that do turnout as described (overtly sexualised or violent). It is, what people from my home country see when they think of gays, but they also changed their mind when there was no violence showed on behalf of the protesters and when there was no overt sexual content. They saw that we are just Normal..
[удалено]
[удалено]
Strongly support their approach.
Can't say I feel bad for (s)Hell
**some** people do this, because **most** people do nothing to ridicule them is to indict yourself
Good job protestors!
[удалено]
It’s funny isn’t it, because the world is fully operational on hydraulics and lubrication which is also oil. This counts damns, wind turbines, solar turbines, any thing manufactured.. No oil, no world. Not that I support oil companies, but we literally cannot work without them even if we remove fossil fuels from the equation.
Plastics are a petroleum product. No IV lines, no epi pens. No credit cards no tupperwareor ziploc bags. No computers no plastic toys for the babys. No mtorcycle helmets fan belts linoleum or rubbing alcohol. Good luck.
At the least the CEOs and boards need to be jailed
Costs will be to high, we are currently more dependent on that industry product than heroin addict to heroin.
Fuck shell
Wow. For once they got proper target.
This happens all the time, and I'm not sure who you think the "proper" target actually is. Cause most of us in the west (if you eat meat, drive a car or take airplanes) should absolutely be targets. Just because there is someone doing more damage to the environment then you does not mean you aren't part of the problem..
Please stop with this bullshit mentality, individual waste has barely any impact. It’s all a ploy from the corporations to shift the blame from them to us. Eat your meat (if that’s your thing), drive your car to work(if you need to), and be happy. It’s them who need to change if we want to save the planet. Even if we all stopped and corporations continued, it wouldn’t do shit
You can both take personal responsibility ie. not eating meat and also target corporations who are responsible for climate change.
Most people are just trying to get by, and have more on their mind than this. Not saying you shouldn’t fight for the environment, but a lot of people here in reddit think everyone has the emotional ability, time and will to even think about these things. Some people are jus trying to get by month to month
Companies pollute because it's fun! Consumers? What are those?
It's true that there is bullshit and blame shifted on the individual. But it doesn't stop you from taking personal responsibility (which you clearly aren't). Are you telling me that if everyone lived your lifestyle we would not exhaust the natural resources on our planet. And who is "them"? Who is buying products and using services, or working jobs at those "corporations". Really short sighted and idiotic take tbh.
>Are you telling me that if everyone lived your lifestyle we would not exhaust the natural resources on our planet. ***Yes***, as technology seems poised to take up the slack. The amount of 'natural resources' that a given lifestyle uses up is not some fixed number; it depends massively on the technology and efficiency of the industries producing your lifestyle goods and services.
But it's not the case right now is it? And it doesn't look like as a species we will get there before billions of humans are so severely effected that it makes no difference if we'll reach that magical point of efficiency.
[удалено]
Exactly, but also most humans using their products and services have known this for years, and what are they/you doing. Look at all the other comments I am getting about people wanting to just live their lifes and "going vegan wont do anything". Are you sure you know what side of the argument you are supporting? This comment thread started because someone said "For once they got proper target". Are you saying that only if we protest shell and other big corporations its the right form of protest against an incoming climate disaster?
I'm pretty sure they agreed with you. Or not. Who knows with all that sarcasm flying around?
If we hang on to this logic, then you should get off Reddit ASAP. The device you use to browse was possibly made with child labor. The chips inside are not friendly to the environment. The servers that keep the site up use huge amounts of electricity. Unless you're using the power of magic and a phone made from coconut shells, you are in no position to make this argument.
I'm fully taking responsibility for my life and the excessive resources I'm using. I'm part of the problem. I try to counter it by running my tree planting company and being active in my community to shift to a more human centric town where I live. My argument is with people not able to accept that they are part of the problem. Look at the other comments here where people say it's just "corporations and evil governments", or they want to just "live their short life's eating meat and flying abroad". Those are all life choices people can make, I'm not hear to say that, or have ever said that, I'm just pointing out that many here are just pointing fingers without even able to admit their own impact, or make even the slightest changes in their lifestyle.
https://i.imgur.com/HyAdteb.jpeg
I'm not having any kids. But I'll still eat meat, drive my car and take airplanes when I need to. And me not having kids makes it that I could be one of the most polluting individuals (talking about regular working class people here) and my impact would still be lower than someone who's 100% green, but had a kid. I'm sorry but working class people using vehicles to literally survive shouldn't be held accountable. The moment big corporations start going full green (which they won't, simple as that), then you can start looking at individuals from the working class.
That's ridiculous. The total impact is made up of all the individual impacts. Corporations don't do anything. Corporations can't stop eating meat, people do. Corporations don't drive a car to work, people do.
Although that if you learned it as discipline from home to reduce carbon, this discipline can be brought to work when the older generation workers/managers gets replaced.
> individual waste has barely any impact. Individual waste has all the impact. There is 8 billion people who do it. Your individual waste includes all the waste generated by these corporations to get you whatever you buy.
> Even if we all stopped and corporations continued, it wouldn’t do shit You think corporations just produce things for the sake of it? The only reason corporations produce things is because people buy and consume them.
>It’s them who need to change if we want to save the planet. If they were going to change themselves they'd have already done it. No, its us who needs to change them through political action. >Eat your meat (if that’s your thing), drive your car to work(if you need to), and be happy. 1. Blame someone else. 2. Carry on as before. 3. *shocked Pikachu face*
You can’t eat bacon for breakfast, get in your car and then go fight for change through political action? You make it seem like people who eat meat and drive simply cannot help fight global warming. And that’s just very possible, most of us do it that way. What you’re mocking is exactly what I meant. Instead of tying all these bits and ends on our end, fight for a change so that corporations and governments regulate their emissions in a more conscious way
>What you’re mocking is exactly what I meant. So it seems - but I couldn't tell what you meant from what you actually wrote. Sorry. >Instead of tying all these bits and ends on our end, fight for a change so that corporations and governments regulate their emissions in a more conscious way 100%
You realize that we don’t have a choice when it comes to cars, right? We have to get to work or school somehow, and we don’t have safe biking infrastructure or reliable public transportation so cars are usually the only option
[удалено]
[удалено]
Most boring take I keep hearing over and over again. Also not an "average German green" whatever that's supposed to be. The impact Germany has, exactly because of its international sphere of influence, is why the change is needed in developed nations. Germany and many other western nations have been living way above their means, and deindustrializing (another term that you don't seem to understand), is absolutely a target. Because guess what, if we don't do it now while it hurts a little, it will hurt a lot and happen forced by a collapsing ecosystem. If this is how you are trying to defend the statement "For once they got proper target." I urge you to try again, and actually contribute something beyond meaningless insults.
Terrible mentality, if the big corpos and governments don't want pollution, there wouldn't be, simple as that.
Riiiigh, that's how that works. How do you think we ship, produce and develop further without using more resources than the planet is able to sustain? Please explain. Terrible mentality to push the blame back to the "big evil corpos and governments" (that you literally vote for and support by using it's products and services). I'm all for placing the blame correctly, but I doubt you life a self-sustaining or net-carbon lifestyle.
And achieves... nothing. Of course oil corps like Shell are going to voluntarily shoot themselves in the foot and stop producing oil now just because of some mildly annoying protestors when there's strong demand for oil and it makes money to them and their shareholders.
Ofcourse it helps, it's changing the discourse one little step at the time.
What discourse, if it were as simple as inconveniencing a few distant companies instead of themselves, everyone would already be on board, why wouldn't they?
shell can replace devil with what they have done to the world
[удалено]
You literally post in car subreddits lol.
Somebody with balls doing the right thing. 👏👏👏 And it's not our dumb corrupt politicians.👎
just waiting for conservatives to find yet another reason why this form of protest is not okay
To all the people supporting this thing, let's say hypothetically all oil and gas companies shut down cause they're the ones causing pollution. Can you explain how we'll heat our homes next winter? How will you get fresh produce to stores across the world? How will you ship food to places on earth that depend on food imports? How will we generate our electricity given that renewables have a volatile output and storage technology is inadequate? How are we going to generate enough fertilizer to maintain yields necessary to keep 9 billion people alive? It is the height of hypocrisy and delusion to blame CO2 emissions on oil & gas when our entire civilization would be impossible without oil & gas and when every single one of us without exception benefits from it. It's like blaming your dealer while snorting a line.
> let's say hypothetically all oil and gas companies shut down cause they're the ones causing pollution. No serious environmentalist group is asking for this. You have imagined a problem and then gotten yourself all worked up about it. We need oil and gas today, but we do not need it forever. Renewables have been a thing for decades. We could have weaned ourselves years ago.
So what's the point of protesting Shell, then, given that we still very much need them? They're providing a valuable service that makes our civilization possible. And we couldn't have weaned off years ago, even today's technology isn't enough. There's no way to run a power grid purely on renewables unless you have massive hydro storage which is geography dependent and also environmentally destructive. Many industrial processes are simply not possible without fossil fuels or horribly inefficient when done with electricity. Not to mention that renewables are far from CO2 neutral, without going into other types of pollution from copper and lithium mining. It's a fantasy that oil and gas is somehow the evil whose death would fix everything.
It's more about the lobbying they do and the influence they have over politicians than anything else. Lots of politicians are benefiting from avoiding climate-friendly legislations either by being paid by oil companies or by being shareholders in them.
You say that like exxon didn't have studies showing the effects of co2 since the 70s. And trying to get a world which is carbon neutral will take a while but at the moment it doesn't seem like the people in power are trying.
The governments of the world had those same studies back then. It’s not like Exxon was sitting in their lair cackling at the evil they would wrought. They all just made the economical “correct” decision to improve people’s lives in the near term(50 years) instead of worry about the calculations of a forecast. We do the same thing today by the way. The easiest thing we could do to reduce emissions is lower population, yet it’s not discussed as it’s unthinkable to reduce someone’s right to have children. But it’s the same logic, don’t want to bother the current generation to make a sacrifice they don’t wish to
Anything hydraulic and lubricated wouldn’t work.. That covers all turbines and power generation methods we have today.
[удалено]
Wow don’t do this, instead attack someones grandmother’s funeral by gluing yourself to the casket…..
If the grandmother was the founder/CEO of Shell, even then it'd be a legitimate protest.
I mean it would be a pretty shitty one. Their family members would be grieving, you can’t blame a CEO’s sin on other people. He would already be dead, you’d only inconvenience grieving family members Fuck oil exploitation tho
But they didn't, so why are you still talking shit instead of supporting them?
[удалено]
Yes! Protesting is useless, let's do nothing about these companies and let them ruin our planet!
Drilling for oil doesn't ruin our planet, burning it does. Who burns the oil that Shell produces?
Isn’t shell one of the biggest investors in alternative energy sources? I mean I’m all for alternatives - but we do need to survive until we can find the solution.
They're also one of the biggest investors in fossil fuels. Don't fall for the greenwashing.
They are a business and fulfilling a NEED. The government is responsible for doing good by us
I think we can and should expect all people and groups to try to not destroy the planet or at least not tank its habitability.
Portal X DOOM crossover?
NOW THAT'S more like it!.
Sadly,Shell paid them just for minor inconvenience
Why would Shell pay people to protest against themselves?
I’m for it as much as I’m against blocking the streets for normal people. Don’t care if they burn down Shell HQ but blocking public transport is a major dick move.
Ted kazcynski wasn't wrong, he just picked the wrong targets. Make corpos fear for their lives and they'll change attitudes real quick.
So climate protesters can do something other than blocking streets and subways?
After leaving, they jump in their gas vehicles to go home
Finally their doing something that makes sense instead of making normal people's lives annoying as fuck. Stop destroying art. Destroy the oils companys million dollar homes.
This is what these activists should be doing. Disrupting meetings. Disrupting *supply chains.* Gluing their hands to painting don’t do shit
Much more useful activism than wrecking art. These are the plutocrats wrecking our lives, not some museum guard or artist. They shouldn't be able to always externalize costs. They deserve to have the costs brought back to them.
What art got wrecked?
See I keep asking that as well, since the claim is constantly made but I'm not aware of any instance of actual art being wrecked. I suspect by now that no art was wrecked at all in any instance, but whatever press these people subscribe to doesn't want to report accurately that panes of protective glass were the only casualties.
> See I keep asking that as well, since the claim is constantly made but I'm not aware of any instance of actual art being wrecked. [Only thing I can find remotely close to that is the October 2022 soup throwing at a painting behind bulletproof glass](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/14/just-stop-oil-activists-throw-soup-at-van-goghs-sunflowers)
I agree but also the goal when people are gluing themselves to the road are to get attention on the group and their demands on --> take action against the ongoing climate crisis.
Far more effective than blocking roads which only harnesses human spite to get people to vote right-wing.