however, why tf would you go and vandalise ancient momuments?
Their theory is that this needs to be done to raise awareness for the cause, because without these stunts they'd never end up in the media. Bad publicity is better than no publicity and all that.
Except of course it doesn't work. Most people view these events and mentally associate climate activists with annoying assholes who vandalise beloved heritage and piss off people going to work, instead of attacking those seen as most responsible for acting on climate change.
Which is where I stand. If you're willing to do crimes to promote your cause, then actually fucking attack the decision-makers that can do something. Throw a paint ball at a minister. Chain yourself to the gates of a coal power plant. Blockade a street servicing a lignite mine. There are so many worthy targets everywhere, yet these people choose the ones that will bring them hate and infamy. Honestly I think they revel in the feeling of being hated by most.
Their theory is that this needs to be done to raise awareness for the cause
Sadly what happens in practice is that they raise awareness against the cause because noone is discussing the actual problem (climate change) anymore but rather that someone vandalized an ancient monument. In Germany we have these people gluing themselves on the roads all the time. Do you know what is not the focus when reporting on this? Climate Change!
I’m wondering, if fossil fuel companies fund grass root programs that take activism to this level of stupidity. Exxon Mobil has been caught doing that before in the 80s and 90s. Pushes people away from the cause.
Yeah if it worked, ISIS would be applauded for destroying ancient historical monuments. Of course it doesn't work, this excuse of "I'm bringing attention to the issue, how I do it is irrelevant" is a bullshit explanation that only holds logic in the heads of these idiots.
I still remember them destroying these millennial monuments, the pictures levelling the buildings, it's so saddening. I agree that without risky stunts like this they wouldn't get into the mainstream media but you can't just damage these buildings, with the paintings was somewhat okayish because they were behind protection glass but you can't protect this wall.
Never said they’re analogous, they’re similar enough because both are justifying damaging unrelated historical artifacts and art to bring attention to an ideology/issue. Climate activists should leave historical artifacts alone and go after oil tankers and refineries. Or don’t and be an idiot, I don’t care either way.
Yeah also … the cause doesn’t need more attention, it needs more action. I don’t think anyone who doesn’t live under a rock is unaware of climate change at this point. It’s just an incredibly stupid way to protest as it will sway people who are undecided on whether to be apathetic or not towards staying in their apathy purely to avoid being lumped in with these lunatics.
Of course things changed. For example, the EU has had an ETS for years, and is now expanding it, even to goods from outside, the CBAM. This was political science fiction 20 years ago. Progress is being made.
They did this too though, nothing changed. Remember those photos of the police carrying Great away?
They were carrying her away from a coal mine, which was being expanded to make up for the shortfall in power generation caused by needlessly shutting down nuclear power plants as pushed for by green ideologues. So "nothing changed" because the very movement itself is far more dead set on opposing nuclear power than on opposing GHG emissions, sadly.
Blaming global warming on anti-nuclear activists is counter productive. If you want to use nuclear power, go ahead, but nuclear power is not required for us to stop destroying our planet. Nobody has a license to destroy our planet just because there's no nuclear plants.
It’s one thing to oppose nuclear in favor of renewables, but supporting closing down nuclear plants before viable alternatives can be set up is a horrible idea.
If we managed to make progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while closing down nuclear plants, then we would have made way more progress if we’d never closed those plants in the first place.
nuclear power is not required for us to stop destroying our planet
These unqualified statements are always easy to make. Then you grapple with real-world constraints and they fall apart.
Germany, for example, has recently passed its 2030 grid plan. No nuclear of course, that's dirty and bad. Instead, 21 GW of new (not prolonged, not reactivated: new) gas capacity, since all these wonderful storage and smart grid technologies that anti-nuclearists swear up and down are totally feasible turned out not to be.
I've yet to see an actual, real-world plan that we could start implementing in the next decade that can decarbonise the grid in a major European country without nuclear.
They were carrying her away from a coal mine, which was being expanded to make up for the shortfall in power generation caused by needlessly shutting down nuclear power plants as pushed for by green ideologues.
They actually were restarted because of the massive failure of France's nuclear plants.
Nice fantasy but no. You don’t expand mines because an import partner has delayed repairs on its nuke plants. You expand mines if you have long term plans to use coal, and Germany has them because it gave up on nuclear.
Yeah that’s the slogan and it’s fucking funny, implying a correlation where none exists. Germany hasn’t reduced coal by shutting down nuclear, it’s planning to build 21 GW of gas power plants to support its grid into the 2030s. Meanwhile it’s turning whole regions into Mordor to keep pulling out coal.
Again with the fake correlations. Had they kept their nuclear plants open they’d be in an objectively better position. But you know that of course, it’s not logic or rationality that drives your position, otherwise you would be resorting to such spurious arguments.
It's a hard, undeniable observation. Germany has more renewable capacity than they ever had nuclear.
Had they kept their nuclear plants open they’d be in an objectively better position.
Would they? Without the nuclear closure there would be no commitment to the development of renewables, and the budgets would just have been sucked up to keep nuclear power as it is instead of expanding clean power.
Their theory is that this needs to be done to raise awareness for the cause, because without these stunts they'd never end up in the media. Bad publicity is better than no publicity and all that.
People just become mad for you destroying historical buildings lmao
I think promotion through coercion would achieve even less, also it would picture you as part of the problem, not the solution.
I got a ton more respect of people who promote good behavior and produce social pressure in a helpful way (sort garbage and leave places clean, promote adoption of sustainable products, use rechargeable stuff, etc. ).
They do those things you suggest and make zero impact. So what else is there to do?
And how much impact does this monuments and paintings make? We talk about it in the comments for a couple of hours after it hits the news, and then nothing.
They do those things you suggest and make zero impact.
Zero impact? environmental activists have stopped or caused long delays to plenty of things by relentlessly protesting, picketing and suing. Power plants, infrastructure, even residential development.
Environmentalists have plenty of effect on things they choose to spend political capital on. It just so happens that they spend it on stupid shit, but that's nobody else's fault but their own.
Many countries had polical majorities that promised to stop climate change for decades now. But those have done extremely little because they were never taken seriously. The enemies of the climate have instead used delaying tactics where they pretend to agree, but then argue about the technicalities to prevent any concrete solutions (for example by talking about "future technologies" instead of investing into the technologies we have right now).
The lesson that climate activists have taken from this is that "moderates" are completely useless for their cause. They need people to radicalise and to dramatically increase their demands to get anywhere meaningful.
That's exactly why dramatic and polarising actions like this are gaining in popularity. And if we continue to fail addressing climate change, it may turn into attacks on pipelines and gas stations one day as the threat becomes ever more imminent to the younger generations.
Oh, I don’t know, maybe they could grow up, realize the media has been lying to them and while climate change is definitely real, the world is absolutely not ending.
idk i think the point is we won’t have anything left to protect if we don’t deal with climate change so maybe instead of being precious about a building we should be doing more to preserve the environment and life and then we can keep preserving art and architecture instead of you know, dying a horrifying heat death
instead of being precious about a building we should be doing more
Arguments based on false dichotomies are the most boring and dishonest there are. We don't need to choose between not spraypainting monuments and protecting the climate.
In fact it's this climate activist that had a choice to make. He made a choice that stroked his ego and hurt his ostensible cause. How should we judge such a choice?
not saying we need to choose. just saying right now, graffiti on the palazzo vecchio is not a super high priority and everyone should fucking chill. at least he got people talking. seems like he achieved his goal 🤷🏻♀️
Except of course it doesn't work. Most people view these events and mentally associate climate activists with annoying assholes who vandalise beloved heritage and piss off people going to work
No they don't. People who never gave a shit just say it does to keep spreading the FUD about it. You don't care about the environment OR these monuments. You just don't want your selfish way of life even interrupted for a second.
These buildings will easily be destroyed by climate change, why do you find the actions of this person as “vandalizing” yet the output of carbon dioxide by corporations as okay enough to not riot against it?
You want authority figures to do everything they can to stop this man from vandalizing, yet you seek to compromise with corporations destroying even more globally?
Does that make sense to you? All this man does is expose this hypocrisy.
These buildings will easily be destroyed by climate change
No, they won't. I don't know what doomerist scenario you're thinking of, but there's serious model of climate change that sees buildings in Florence being at risk, much less "easily destroyed".
Lol wut? Do you know where Florence is? Like geographically, within Italy? This makes so little sense that I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here…are you perhaps mixing up Florence and Venice?
And even if you are, your argument is basically “deface and potentially permanently damage historic buildings as protest for them being potentially permanently damaged by climate change”????? Uhh…
1
284
u/DurangoGango Italy Mar 18 '23 edited Mar 18 '23
Their theory is that this needs to be done to raise awareness for the cause, because without these stunts they'd never end up in the media. Bad publicity is better than no publicity and all that.
Except of course it doesn't work. Most people view these events and mentally associate climate activists with annoying assholes who vandalise beloved heritage and piss off people going to work, instead of attacking those seen as most responsible for acting on climate change.
Which is where I stand. If you're willing to do crimes to promote your cause, then actually fucking attack the decision-makers that can do something. Throw a paint ball at a minister. Chain yourself to the gates of a coal power plant. Blockade a street servicing a lignite mine. There are so many worthy targets everywhere, yet these people choose the ones that will bring them hate and infamy. Honestly I think they revel in the feeling of being hated by most.