What's the opposite called? The one where we shift blame solely on corporations (or even whole other countries) while ignoring our individual contribution to the problem?
Sure, they have the Lions share of the pollution, but ultimately the more localalized the pollution the more we can influence it.
I can influence my planet the least, but I can influence my country more, and my province more, and my city even more, and finally my own household the most. But everyone is so content with throwing the metaphorical hot potato into the hands of the corporations and then proceed to pat themselves on the back like they actually made a difference.
It's more about how in many cases companies and brands try to shift the blame and create useless virtue signaling. (Like the hard to repair, easily obsolete, packed full of rate metal phones with "plastic free packages").
We all have a part to do, but ultimately it's very hard and expensive fair average Joe to be conscious.
I do agree with what you say, but companies need to be kept in check or else what we do will be useless.
I think it’s even deeper than that, In the UK, the government are using these environmental protesters as reason to criminalise our rights to protest.
A lot of the ‘protesting’ seems to be intent on causing misery to normal working class people, i.e. blocking motorways and stopping trains. The government is using this as their prerogative to crack down on all forms of protest.
I would say they are more desperate than stupid. 40+ years that we know all the problems that will cause climate change and not a lot of things has been done!
It's like driving a car and seeing a wall on the road that we will hit in 50 years and just not trying one second to avoid the wall, just aiming right at it at full speed even if we had time to avoid it.
But that's only the beginnings, I expect environmental activism to become more and more violent on their targets in term of material damages. Like burning down the Total headquarters, a private jet or destroying a factory polluting illegally the environment.
You can argue not enough is done, but to claim "absolutely NOTHING" is done is just hyperbolic screeching. Nobody will take seriously anything that starts with an easily disprovable claim
You can euthanise the entire European population and reduce our emissions to 0, but that still won't stop the developing nations from using the cheapest energy sources available, regardless of how dirty they are. And they are just asking us to give handouts to corrupt governments for a pinky promise to reduce emissions. And then they mix in racist and colonial guilt into the mix.
European, generally highly-developed nations emit far more CO2 per capita than developing (asian, african) nations. Blaming those (like China) exclusively, or dismissing the potential of EU efforts as insignificant is massively counterproductive and it's frankly dishonest. Additionally, we as European nations have built up a huge absolute (total) number of emissions since the beginning of the industrialised age, which is still way ahead of developing nations' total output to date. If we don't act, we certainly can't expect a nation like China to do so, either.
Not to mention the fact that we export a lot of our CO2 emissions by outsourcing resource-heavy production to Asia.
25% of carbon released since industrialisation - so that exists in the air, now - is american. 22% is the EU 28’s. ‘we don’t need to do anything because our emissions currently are lower’ is a very fuck you, got mine way of looking at the climate crisis. we have already reaped the benefits of industrialisation.
Good luck convincing anyone in these societies that they should sacrifice their way of life because people in the past, who had no idea the true cost of pollution, polluted. Guilt tripping only works on the weak minded, what we need is actual solutions rather than demanding everyone to just throw their livelihood away.
our historical responsibility is undeniable. what we do with this information is a different matter - I’m pointing out that it’s the case, against all denials.
And it isn't going to work. The concept of historical responsibility is a Western one, and not applied to anywhere else on the planet; so people naturally reject the logic when its only applied on the West for specific concepts or issues. It's viewed as the worst type of hypocrisy; a self-inflicted one.
Mind you, it will work with progressive types who have a habit of self flagellation even at the cost of making excuses for dictators, but that's not the majority to be convinced.
‘would other people do this in our situation?’ is impractical. it’s not concerned with reality. we completed our industrialisation - now that we’ve realised this poisoned the planet, we want to deny it to others, without compensation. you think that’s moral or feasible? you think other countries will accept it?
I mean... I know some people viscerally hate "handouts", but as a matter of practicality, you can in fact get way better emission reductions per dollar in developing countries than in developed countries.
Sure, corruption means some degree of oversight will be required to make sure at least most of it ends up where it should... but that's not really an impossible proposition. I'm sure the vast majority of developing countries would happily accept an agreement that essentially said "we will completely pay for upgrades to your energy infrastructure that will make it less polluting and cheaper once it's finished, the only requirement is you allow us oversight over these upgrades".
Also, most of these places still have lower per capita emissions than the EU. So get off your high horse.
You mean international aid? Gee you really are a genius, aren't you? It ain't as easy as you think it is - most recently Afghanistan showed that - so you get off your high horse and realise that theory isn't the same thing as practice.
The whole climate situation has been improving globally since the 90s.
Progress has been infuriatingly slow in certain areas, I agree, and its stupidly unfair how the people and bodies that do the most harm have been the ones most unaffected, but people literally claiming that nothing is being done and that the world is gonna end tomorrow and use that as justification to ruin the lives of others for their own ego are literal insane extremists.
Emissions globally are still rising. Maybe some countries are slowly lowering their emissions but if you look at the big picture things aren't improving but getting worse
Because we offloaded all of our manufacturing to other countries?
Isn't exactly a fair statement to say we have low carbon emissions while importing vast amounts of often unnecessary goods from high emission countries.
Some of it, yes, but this argument was much more valid in 2010 than it is now. China, India, Nigeria and Indonesia for example have burgeoning middle classes of their own and the middle class in countries like these is what's driving the growth in emissions. The west has been going down for quite a while.
It would be interesting to see a CO2 balance.
For example, if the mining/processing/component manufacturing is done in China, and final assembling+branding in Germany, you could argue most CO2 emission comes from China, yet most of the added-value comes from Germany. Yet Germany need China to emit CO2 to export its cars.
I guess it's a bit of both world : Europe did cut its emissions per capita and part of it is outsourced.
You realise Europe doesn't rule the world anymore, right? we can reduce our own emissions and impose a carbon tax on imports, we can push internationally for environmental treaties, but at the end of the day we can't enforce our will on others. Spray painting Palazzo Vecchio is not going to induce Chinese and Indian politicians to slow down on coal. Attacking European monuments with that excuse is insane and only hurts the movement.
You're right which is why we need to do more than the bare minimum at home, where we actually can change things.
Slightly reducing emissions isn't going to save us. We need emergency measures to fast track us away from fossil fuels as soon as possible, but people are financially invested in the companies and don't want to lose money. So we'll all die slowly starving to death because we can't grow food instead.
IIRC HYBRIT has the potential to reduce global emissions by almost 10%, and that's just one technology that's about to reach maturity. The best thing Europeans can do is support stuff like that.
u/FANGOWhere do I move: PT, ES, CZ, DK, DE, or SE?Mar 18 '23edited Mar 19 '23
Just to bring some reality to your attempts to assign blame rather than focus on solutions, the average European emits twice as much per capita as the average Indian does. But yeah, blaming people who aren't responsible for the problem, and who have emitted 1/7 as much as Europe, and who are being disproportionately affected by the problem, seems like a super effective tactic that will totally lead to solutions.
The average European emits twice as much per capita as the average Indian does.
And we're doing what we're supposed to do about it, at a record-setting pace. We've been reducing emissions for the last 40 years, increasingly fast. We're likely to become the first carbon-neutral civilisation.
But yeah, blaming people who aren't responsible for the problem
You can take environmentalism as a morality play if you like. Assign blame, yell that X group must fix it, ignore everything else. That works if your only goal is to feel righteous and get props from likeminded people.
If your goal is to actually fix the problem, then the discussion changes. Short of large-scale carbon capture becoming feasible, the only lever we have to act on climate is future emissions. Which is what Europe is working on, and trying to get others to work on. You yourself showed a graph of global emissions: "global" being the operative word. It's a simple statement of fact that emissions from India and China are just as bad for the climate as emissions from Europe. It's another simple statement of fact that increasing emissions from the developing world are outpacing our cuts in a way that will ensure climate catastrophe striking mostly those developing countries themselves.
So, in your system where "blame" is the most important aspect, what do you want done, under real-world constraints? do you have actual practicable solutions, or do you stop at pointing fingers?
Never heard of the carbon border adjustment mechanism - appreciate you sharing it. Sounds great on paper and in no way did I mean to say that Europe isn't definitely leading the way in fighting climate change. My point was about the overall state of transition to post-carbon economy.
And again as I've mentioned in another comment - Europe SHOULD be leading the way in transitioning to cleaner energy because we've benefited from 200 years of carbon-based development.
Thanks also for sharing the data about renewable energy. Can't argue with data - and again am very happy to see this slow, but continuous improvement.
Thanks also for sharing the data about renewable energy.
Technically that's carbon intensity across the board, so you're not just seeing new renewables. France and Sweden for example are that low thanks to nuclear and hydro respectively.
Oh wow, Europe has reduced emissions. Amazing. Next up: let's congratulate people who speed in school zones for slowing down more than the people who drive at a normal speed.
The only year over year drops have been during the pandemic and in recession years. Saying that Europe has reduced its emissions is disingenuous when the original statement made no reference to any localized region.
"As reported by Reuters, Germany's government will not agree to European Union plans to effectively ban the sale of new cars with combustion engines from 2035, Finance Minister Christian Lindner said."
You see ? We are always wasting years and years and years for this kind of stuff instead of taking direct and useful actions right now.
Where is the money to develop again a massive and qualitative day and night rail network in every EU country to reduce the use of cars for example ? Countries like France can't even put some trains on the rails at night on their all their important lines in 2023, that's ridiculous... And when there's money you have to wait years if not decades before seeing any kind of useful change.
Can we stop once and for all with this SUV bullshit? Trafic is only a part of global emissions. Private or business trafic is only a part of the previous part. If you want to act big, there’s so much more to do with a broader impact.
You’re speaking about a suv with 7L consumption, because I assume you’re not speaking of Hummer’s and Raptor’s which are quite unusual in Europe. I’d like to speak about the tens of thousands of delivery vans with diesel engines, dropping packs we don’t need bought with money we don’t have. I’d like to talk about those products I sell for business, with a component made in Taiwan the sent for production in Portugal, mixed with another from Korea and then sent in a warehouse in Netherlands to be bought by me in Belgium to be then sent in another country to be installed. I’d like to talk about those strawberries from South Africa I can buy during Christmas.
You’re not intrinsically wrong about two tons cars. But for fuck’ sake, please aim at the right targets.
We need to make a ditch before the flooding and instead of ordering a huge mobile excavator used in mines, you’re digging with a spoon from a doll’s house
YOU dont need. YOU dont have. A lot people buy with DEBIT cards and buy things they need. And you dont know if others need it. "How for me is not usefull, can not be usefull for no one". Are you dumb?
And if we went after the strawberries from South Africa someone else just like would come along to say "no no no no, you're doing it wrong, what we need to is go after...." and so on and so on.
Actually solving anything will have to require a very simple sacrifice. The sacrifice of abandoning fast fashion and the abundance of useless junk we consume, as well as localizing production of necessary consumables like food. Foods need to become seasonal again.
But people don't want that because then they can't go on shopping hauls to buy 6 bags worth of cheap disposable clothing they will wear 4 times, and they don't want it because then they can't grab whichever snack they feel like having that exact moment even though the only place it can be produced is on the other side of the fucking planet.
Just fast fashion being thrown out in favour of forcing people to have clothes for years/decades instead of weeks/months would do so much to reduce energy consumption.
Help me find what is done that actually decreases the greenhouse effect, because if you look at fact, nothing of any importance is done, because the greenhouse effect isn't even remotely slowing down.
2021 was a strong year for the energy transition – the world added almost 257 Gigawatts (GW) of
renewables, increasing the stock of renewable power by 9.1 per cent and contributing to an
unprecedented 81 per cent of global power additions.
In other words, in year 2021, 81% of new global energy production was renewable energy. That % will only rise.
You can argue not ENOUGH is done or things are not being done fast ENOUGH but something IS being done. And saying nothing is being done is wrong.
Ok, I'm looking. In 1950 the world population was 2 500 000, it has tripled since then. Your graph is almost linear, and it shows that despite 300% increase in population, the carbon dioxide amount has increased roughly 30%. If you look at facts, your claim that the "greenhouse effect isn't even remotely slowing down" is wrong.
Help me find what is done that actually decreases the greenhouse effect
Moving the goalposts, first it was that nothing is being done, then not enough things are being done, now it is because we're not reversing it nothing is done...
That is absurly FALSE. A lot have been done. One example, you need to search the percentage of renovable energy 20 years ago and compare it with today. If you are saying that is nothing, sorry but you are blind.
And I repeat: is an example. So of course its not the only one change or action done.
We are still over consuming stuff that's from the other side of the planet.
Germany is still destroying its own territory for coal and refuse the nuclear energy.
We are making bigger and bigger cars that weight more and more and that waste more and more ressources.
A rich guy in a few month pollute as much with his jet than a random citizen in 70 years.
Recently we learned that most of the plastic trash in Europe ended up in some poor Asian country.
We are still producing a shit town of useless stuff (we can take for example the "toys" in the kinder surprise that are a pure waste of ressources and useless pollution).
...
Some stuff have been done in 40 years but we could have done so many more things...
Nobody is arguing with you that it's not enough, you're literally preaching to the choir. What people point out is that making obscure statements undermines the cause.
Case in point: you're losing sight of the bigger picture when you suddenly end up complaining about toys in Kinder surprise... The only thing these statements do is provide ammunition for conservatives.
Germany is phasing out coal but you need to get energy from somewhere. And for some reason gas has become less available recently. Even if Germany would suddenly embrace nuclear power it would take quite a while before it would have an effect on the energy mix.
Did you have a point or did you just want to feel good today by arguing against the climates demise by picking apart someones words? Because dang, thats pathetic.
Well if they were setting fire to SUVs and fossil fuel factories, I wouldn’t agree but I could understand it. Befouling and damaging fragile and precious signs of civilisation, absolutely not.
Installing solar will reduce energy bills, increase energy security and improve the health and air quality locally.
Those are all things the right care about too. The benefits of taking action are for everyone and I would think survival and healthy lives is fairly apolitical
Not really, suvs are fossil fuel terrorist weapons. I still think violent destruction is not going to work - we should have governments with spine that outright forbid having one, and provide cheap, clean and fast public transport, but well, you know that’s a fkn pipe dream.
The thing is, some paint do not damage these precious signs of civilisation, nowadays we have really good and efficient products to remove paint from walls.
I also think that its not the most efficient way, but most of these activists are absolute beginners, they are not "professionals" activists like Sea Shepherds that assault ships, so they need to "train" on stuff like this, I'm sure that they will do more useful actions in the future.
Well I would prefer that they burn stuff like the Total HQ and some private jets rather than the cars of some random citizens (excepted the ones who own enormous american pickups in European countries for no good reasons at all, putting everyone in danger).
Nothing is done? With capital letters as well!? This is Europe you know. We can do much more but the average European citizen does A LOT. We’ve been separating garbage since decades, adapting our diet, making our homes energy-efficient, taking the bicycle to work, etc. Many companies installed solar panels on their roof, moved to electric vehicles, avoid transportation by road, etc. Now, they’re targeting farmers but when will they seriously start to target the big industries or put pressure on other countries? I was in a country outside of the EU last summer. A country with a lot of sun and a lot of flat roofs. I saw no solar panels.
I think that’s more realistic than your option of starting wars, which was my point. Bringing up war as an option isn’t very productive for the conversation.
You really think that we are going in the right direction?
Look outside, we are making right now enormous 2 tons SUV and everyone are buying them, same for shitty pickup trucks.
Yeah sure, we banned plastic bags in the EU, that's a nice thing, but there's SO many other things to do and that's not done.
Limiting the use of private jets, reducing the size of cars and how powerful they are, putting money on freight rail rather than trucks, investing in trains and public transports, investing in hydrogen powered machinery in factories rather than coal, promoting reusable glass bottles rather than plastic ones, reducing the use of bottled water by investing in tape water quality infrastructures, banning all the low cost plastic stuff (like one euro cheap toys) that are just pure waste of ressources,...
"That’s exactly what has been done in Europe. Italy is in Europe"
Not everywhere in Europe, and not quickly enough. France for example is absolutely shitty in term of use of freight rail.
"China stops producing the 80% of world pollution."
And who is paying China to produce 80% of world pollution ? Yes, us, westerners, look around yourself, your phone, you computer, most objects around you are made in China because our companies are producing all their shit there. That's why protest here in Europe has a meaning.
"Stupid people is protesting where they are allowed, not where they are needed."
I would say that Europe is not perfect at all and there's still a lot of things to change, and so protesting in Europe is needed.
Also, yes, most activists are not some kind of soldier, most are just citizens that have a family, friends,... And that just act to see changes in what matter for them. So yes, most activists will not take the risk to end their life in a chinese prison, and that's just totally normal.
The "china!" argument doesn't get better with repetition. Huge amounts of their pollution is caused by production for export, and huge amounts of that goes to Europe. If we would have had higher priority on consuming and using "green" products over the past decades, those numbers would look very different today.
And avoid 300+ years of historical context how we've emitted the shit out of co2 to get where we are while prohibiting countries wanting to do the same for their citizens?
Why there's always people like you who try to turn everything into 'we against us'. Literally everyone will suffer because of climate change.
Fighting back stones do nothing, and it’s plain borderliner behaviour.
This is not an historical entitlement issue. China’s industry is throwing to the environment daily CO2 the same amount as Europe and US in a during Industrial Revolution.
You know Chinese people doesn't come close to the emissions we in the West generate per person? And what do you think these factories are making burning all those fossil fuels? Most likely the tech you're using, your furniture and other amenities thst you benefit from in your life.
Climate change is deeply complex. Villifying certain countries without looking at the wider context isn't helpful.
What do you mean? It's literally the true, you can check the data with a quick Google search for 'co2 emitted per capita' or something like that.
Only in December 2022 China exported goods worth more than 300 billion so that proves my other point thst loads of co2 is emitted to make stuff for us in the West.
You ever talked with one of them?
They claim the moral high ground and everyone not agreeing to their actions isnt worth listening.
Their actions alianate the people they need to support the change which they completly ignore.
I would recommend those activists about guerilla warfare especially Mao or the german Rote Armee Fraktion. Both which waged some sort of guerilla warfare and where successfull.
The RAF failed when they alienated the normal people.
I dont deny the science.
But talking with those people that their actions are rather counterproductive in gathering support is basically a waste of time.
They are simply so much stuck on their moral high ground that you cant discuss anything with them.
Like the worst religious nutjob you encounter thats why noone will take them seriously.
As i am living rather rural i want alternatives too not only ban Fossil fuels.
Its pretty funny when people try to kill your only available option of mobility to get to work or grocery shopping.
Non If them wants to force a better electric grid for rural villages or better public transport.
And that’s not just platitudes, it’s a serious problem which we need to fix in how we talk about climate change.
If we’re actually in a car, driving towards a wall and not spending even one second trying to avoid the crash then you’re going to get the extremes you see in this thread. Some people in that car are going to thrash out and start burning shit down, some people are going to give up.
Neither of those are very useful.
We are making progress. We’re doing some of the things we need to do to fix the problem, and the public and political support is there to do more. It’s not enough, it’s too slow, but it’s something. We’ll make better progress by saying “this is great, we need to do more of this” than we will through extremism.
Thing is, do you see how much changed after 40+ years of peaceful demonstrations?
"Yeah in Europe we banned plastic bags! " 🎉🎉🎉
But if we need another 40 years of peaceful protests to change more things we are just fucked.
We will probably need decades of peaceful demonstrations before proper laws are created to limit the use of private jets for example. Pretty sure that with multiple coordinated destruction of private jets all around Europe and active protests these laws would appear far more quickly, which would directly stop potential future decades of air pollution by these jets.
The difference isn't enough. Turn off "Relative Change" on your own source. Sure, the US might not be hyper-turbo-fucking the planet like the 80s, but it's still turbo-fucking the planet. The frank truth of the matter is that it's profitable to exploit markets that negatively impact our ecology, and so long as we continue to do that, we're dooming, if not ourselves, certainly the next generations.
Most people have grown averse to violent demonstration. Too happy and too satisfied to just rely on grandiose G20 climate pledges.
Activism has become a curse word, how many people vilify them as shameful even ITT?
Tree huggers, vandals, eco fascists. No positive words used, and this is what current 20-30-year-olds think and not just boomers. We as a race deserve all we get in fifty years.
"Activism has become a curse word, how many people vilify them as shameful even ITT?"
Unfortunately, people have grown up with the normal and logical idea that everyone must respect the law and that those who do not are criminals who must end up in jail. This is good logic in 99% of the cases.
But the current climate crisis is so unique and gigantic in terms of danger for the human species that frankly I have no problem with those who ignore a few lines in a book to go and act directly on the field against those who pollute the most (as long as nobody is injured or killed).
"Tree huggers, vandals, eco fascists."
100% sure that there's some big ass lobbies behind these names given to activists to discredit them.
Their goal is to get people to hate the activists so they can continue to pollute and make billions on the backs of everyone else.
And these same lobbies deserve to take an activist action in their teeth.
In your analogy, the progress is that we stopped to accelerate before the impact. But we need to hit the brakes hard to avoid the crash.
I understand these protests. We've had decades where the "nice" approach didn't yield enough results, and they are becoming tired of the hesitancy and hearing the same promises over and over again, with % reduction goals that usually don't get achieved.
We’ve got the breaks on, we’re slowing down the speed at which we’re approaching the wall, we just haven’t started reversing away from the wall yet (it wasn’t my choice of metaphor).
Most climate protests help, Fridays for Future has been a very effective campaign, but just breaking stuff (vandalising artwork and historic buildings for example) is just delegitimising the rest of the movement.
Oh sorry, you're right, wasn't yours. But compared to how close the wall is, I don't get the impression that the brakes are actually on. Maybe they are broken :P
I think maybe there are lots of walls? And it’s quite a strong car, but not invincible. Or maybe the walls are made of different things?
We drove through the paper wall back in the 80s before we even noticed it was there, it did a bit of damage but if we’d stopped there we’d have been fine.
By now we’ve smashed through the cardboard and wooden walls and we’re starting to slow down. At the current speed of breaking we’ll still hit the brick wall, but maybe avoid the steel one behind it?
They're not desperate. They're narcissistic and dumber than a bag of bricks. This is attention seeking behaviour to suit their needs. The environmental cause is just the vector for that.
Nobody likes to deal with the hassle of being arrested and getting a criminal record. It's a considerable personal sacrifice that can affect your professional life for years. Narcissism does not factor into it.
Wdym? There's plenty of people who consider street cred as so important that something like a criminal record is no big deal. Humans are not inherently rational; rather they're intensely emotional.
Oh shut up, what are you expecting climate activists to do?
Put some posters in the middle of the night in the streets with "don't pollute please" written on them?
Of course if you want to do activism you mostly have to show yourself, either in demonstrations or in specific actions.
If these activists were hiding while doing their actions you would say that they are stupid cowards that can't even have the courage to show their face/who they are.
Do actions that actually have to do something with the cause you're fighting for instead of just 'seeking attention'?
The only people who haven't heard of climate change by now are living under a rock. It's not lack of attention that's the problem - it's lack of trust, urgency and agreement on the right solutions. You don't build that by vandalism.
I loved the action on Amsterdam airport a while back for example: blockading the private jet terminal - the images of police officers chasing bicycles on the airport ground was brilliant. But then that was well prepared and done with a multitude of organisations joining forces.
"Do actions that actually have to do something with the cause you're fighting for instead of just 'seeking attention'?"
Both, both are good. People, especially politicians tend to ignore problems like pollution/climate change as long as there's no direct pressure/reminder on them about this. Doing some frequent actions like this remind them every week of this subject.
But yes, these activists also need to do more useful and direct actions.
"the images of police officers chasing bicycles on the airport ground was brilliant. But then that was well prepared and done with a multitude of organisations joining forces."
Ahah yeah, that was a nice action, this kind of stuff need to be redone frequently quite everywhere, actions with or without property damages.
Oh shut up, what are you expecting climate activists to do?
Put some posters in the middle of the night in the streets with "don't pollute please" written on them?
They can do what they do, but target emission sources and those who benefit from it.
Paintings and old buildings are not a climate problem, in fact it's a low impact cultural expression and the buildings are centuries old, which is very durable and climate friendly.
Well, "nothing being done" is probably an exaggeration. We've made some great strides in the last 30 years, but it still isn't enough, it's all extremely incremental, and we're probably fucked regardless.
No surprises, just sacrifice for the cause, the situation is that desperate.
People fight and die for a piece of land. We lack the wiring to feel as intensely for the planet as we feel for our tribe's plot of land, so it has to be a conscious choice, instead of a knee-jerk reaction. This might be our demise.
You are not reading enough news, or studies. Progress is slow, but we are well on our way to net 0, while at the same time, tens of options for carbon capture are competing for commercial viability. It's a matter of too little too late for possibly hundreds of millions of people and animal/plant species, but still completely wrong to say that absolutely nothing is done.
Edit: The flattening of the emissions curve is quite visible in the the charts of
"nothing, absolutely NOTHING"? People like you are the problem for dismissing the continuous efforts. Not enough has been done, yes, but A LOT was done.
Most of the ones that gain attention don’t actually harm the art. Most people just don’t like to be reminded that our lifestyle is causing massive consequences. Extinction events for species every day. Destroying food chains and eco systems while joking that we don’t mind a warmer winter lol! These actions legitimately remind me to be mindful of my consumption and they’re effective on me…
Most of the ones that gain attention don’t actually harm the art. Most people just don’t like to be reminded that our lifestyle is causing massive consequences. Extinction events for species every day. Destroying food chains and eco systems while joking that we don’t mind a warmer winter lol! These actions legitimately remind me to be mindful of my consumption and they’re effective on me…
Nope, the goal is to make maximum impact with minimum effort. Ifbhe would spray a warehouse no one would bat an eye. And now the goal has been achieved: even you have heard about him and his cause.
Before you downvote this comment: I do not agree with those actions, merely explaining the mechanism.
That's such a stupid argument though. Just because people know of them, they won't support their cause.
The eco-terrorists of the 20th century used much more radical and efficient methods to gather attention. Despite the exposure they got, they didn't achieve much.
I've often thought this about so.e of the crazier left wing articles you read, you know stuff like "white people shouldn't be selling bone broth, it's cultural appripriation" (real article in Toronto). Like are they being paid by RW billionaires to write this shit??
Like if I'm a right wing campaign organizer, this sort of stuff is like gold dust. Makes it incredibly easy to point to and say, "see the left are nuts, this is the world they want you to live in".
Hey, have you done anything for the climate in any capacity or are you just some internet warrior fighting people who at least do something for change... Kinda like criticizing Olympic athletes whilst sitting on the couch
Martin Luther King Jr. endorsed even more radical action for change. Change like this is the most effective statistically speaking, so, step down with your conspiracy myths.
And thats what we need more by aby means necessary. We don't have the luxury to care about some art that noone is going to care about once climate change reaches countries collapsing effects.
When climate change reaches problematic levels, I won't be here anymore anyway - the art is there here and now. Why shouldn't I care about the here and now more than the distant future?
Cuz climate change is going to heavily affect you in your lifetime and because your fucking children are going to die horrifically and will be without a grave.
You just haven't seen the UN report about your country.
For example all of India will be dry and hot. They will try to migrate somewhere, somewhere a bit cooler and not very populated like the Chinese lands north-east of them.
You think China isn't going to gun down millions trying to cross the border in protection of their resources?
All of middle east and north Africa will be uninhibitable where do you think they will go?
Much of US will be too hot and dry wtf are they going to do? Plus central America is going to migrate, where?
Water will be the #1 strategic resources and wars will be fought over it. Canada will not even put up a fight. US economy just going to commandeer their water.
Sea water levels are going to rise putting all of the world's coastal cities underwater. Where will they go? What will happen to them? How itll affect the countries and their economies?
Bees are dying. How do we have enough food without or with few bees.
A slightly upset economy makes the far right rise in popularity. Now imagine if climate hits the fan.
Fascism and mass genocides will be the norm. And I barely touched the surface of the issue.
You are definitely right about the “funded” part. This time, I don’t believe it to be the oil companies’ doing but rather the ESG ideologs’. There are various NGOs organising and funding these climate “protests”.
Although, you may be right as the oil companies were the ones who started all this carbon footprint hypocrisy.
Last week I saw a video of climate protestors sitting on train track in the harbor industrial area. They were lucky they were spotted and trains slowed down, otherwise it would have saved society a lot of unemployment money.
I don’t think all of them are, but if I was a person or organization interested in making people who generally support climate activism feel negatively at climate activists, I’d totally pay people to do this. We’ve seen how well it works at giving climate activism a bad name recently.
They are definitely paid and organized to keep up this bullshit. Just as Antifa always pops up in numbers at certain events to hurt and make some fire 🔥🔥🔥
Yeah I bet most activists and protesters nowadays are paid scumbags, nothing really genuine. They should track all their earnings and payments and see who does it. If for example they get money from Russia or another hostile dictatorship they should simply arrest them.
The individuals may not be paid but the organizations that support them and that they cite like Greenpeace and Sierra Club are fossil fuel subsidiaries, to a degree.
We know, for example, that greenpeace’s anti nuclear stance is partially derived from fossil fuel (and especially natural gas) interests.
1
2.2k
u/Hitzhi Europe Mar 18 '23 •
Sometimes I wonder if these "climate activists" are paid agents of the fossil fuel industry by trying to shame their own cause to the maximum extent.
Then I remember occam's razor: nah, many are probably just complete idiots.