Read the history of the activist group/network "ACT UP". They used non-violent civil disobedience tactics to raise awareness of AIDS, etc. They utilized and in many cases pioneered dramatic and disruptive actions that gained a lot of attention and helped them achieve their goals. They were so successful that today many activists groups mimic their tactics and that's what you see here. And of course, what worked for them is often aped to detrimental effects. In many cases ACT UP unintentionally created numerous cargo cults.
Too many of these groups seem stuck on "awareness", as if seeing a single poster will instantly sway the reader to their cause, and to succeed they just need more people to see more posters. The reality is that most people have very rational reasons to ignore/oppose the climate protestors and other groups.
Protests don't need to change the minds of the public to work. For example, protests still work in non-democratic societies in which public opinion has no bearing on policy. They work by directly exerting pressure on people who make decisions.
I guess I would agree if they were raising awareness for something people arent aware of, but everyone is aware of climate change wether they believe it or not. If their activities highlighted specific areas that need more awareness then that might also be more acceptable, but the only thing the public are aware of is that they are very annoying.
Why don't they target oil companies, or politicians, instead of the general public? It's bad enough having your government ignoring you without also having activists target you ostensibly for the same causes you believe in.
Have they exhausted all other options? They've attacked public spaces, events, and infrastructure, targetted artwork and ancient monuments, but have they actually targetted the causes they are protesting against in any way, or even the politicians that have the power to effect the changes they want to see?
No political party which takes climate change seriously could possibly survive, much less maintain power within a democratic system. People don't want to give up their comforts and luxuries and standard of living, and business interests don't want to do anything to interfere with profits.
If it were possible to address this problem through the democratic process, it would have been done long ago, when it might have been possible to avoid disaster. Now the best we can hope for is damage mitigation, but even that requires sacrifices no government would dare even suggest. Democracy doesn't work when people don't care.
Personally, I'm trying to learn to accept the end of humanity in much the same way I hope to learn to accept my own eventual demise. It has not been easy for me.
Certain level of nihilism and simply not caring does help a lot in the process. Life is only downwards from here in health, retirement is uncertain... Soo, why not have the little fun before the inevitable end...
Eeh, climate change isn't gonna cause the end of humanity within the foreseeable future.
We might see lots of people getting displaced, more deaths to draughts, heatwaves, more forest fires, decimated ocean wildlife etc... but the end of humanity? No, that's not gonna happen from climate change itself. At least not within the next several hundred years
How long is the future really foreseeable? The current trajectory is already dismal and appears to be accelerating[0]. Certainly humanity's carbon emissions increase inexorably; what can stop them? Human extinction is probably a bit hyperbolic, certainly within this century, but can you imagine what the world will look like to a child born today, turning 75 in the year 2100? I can't claim to have any certainty, but I expect I'll be happy to have departed by then.
> but can you imagine what the world will look like to a child born today, turning 75 in the year 2100? I can't claim to have any certainty, but I expect I'll be happy to have departed by then.
Oh, absolutely. But climate change is going to be a minor issue for them. The social issues like wealth inequality, the continuous descent into a Low Trust Society and similar are most likely going to be way more pressing to them
Social issues certainly matter, but they can be reversed on human timescales. The changes we're making to the atmosphere and ultimately to the Earth cannot be. Calling it a minor issue for the future seems terribly naive at this point, though as I say, I wish I could share in that.
You're misinterpreting what I wrote. It's not a minor issue, it's a minor issue to them because they've got more pressing problems.
Let's say the sun is about to go supernova in... Let's say 30 years. On that theoretical planet we'll imagine a person that's actually enslaved and getting beaten whenever it's master feels like it.
Would you call the coming apocalypse via supernova the biggest issue from the perspective of the slave?
It's a gigantic issue, but on a daily basis... It's negatives are going to be outweighed by various other problems, like how he can survive for another day.
And I expect our societies to get significantly worse within the next 70yrs, which is why I expect the people living in 2100 to consider climate change to be less pressing then the fact they can't provide for themselves, can't get a home/can't afford rent, can't get a job, can't fight against injustice as very little equality will be left by then, etc.
do you honestly think people with problems like that will particularly care about the dying oceans and people getting displaced by rising sea levels, stronger heat waves etc?
And to loop back to my original comment: It's gonna take a very long time for climate change to get to a point for it to wipe out humanity entirely. Way longer then any our predictions have meaning, and other things such as rising tensions and potential wars are more likely to be the cause for such.
I appreciate the clarification and you make some good points. I have two thoughts on the matter. The first is that as heinously complex as the Earth's climate is, it is somewhat amenable to being modeled and we can say that things are bad and will get worse as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. But I don't think that human society can really be predicted that way, and so the future is just more of a blank as far as I am concerned. You could be right about it though; there is little evidence to me that things have reason to improve.
My other thought is that while climate change is global, the effects are varied and local. I've lived in South Texas my whole life, and so I viscerally feel the heat and see the occasional story of someone dying of heat stroke. And I'd rank that as an even more pressing concern for an enslaved person.
Anyway, probably better to try not to think about any of it.
Nothing. We need to practice degrowth radically and globally. We need to deconstruct our technological civilization, limit growth, reduce energy usage and consumption, return to a stable, likely pre-industrial, level of existence and remain there indefinitely. That will never happen. Governments will never suggest it. People will never vote for it. Working within a system whose very existence is antithetical to any solution is laughable.
They don't actually want a solution no matter how much they say they do - they simply want a moral cause with which to inflict pain and suffering against the world. They will openly say this in the language of "degrowth", a euphemism hiding the government culling of humans. That is why Just Stop Oil and the like are against nuclear power - they do not want solutions, just to increase suffering.
No, we don't just want to increase suffering, we do actually want a solution.
Unfortunately the world is full of people like yourself only capable of seeing those with whom they disagree as amoral monsters, thus no solution can or will be reached.
There are plenty of people I disagree with that are just that, people I disagree with. Members of the degrowth death cult are uniquely horrible. Your movement will be remembered in the same breath as eugenicists.
People have been trying to do that for several decades with little to show for their efforts.
Time has grown short, and conventional democratic means seem to deliver change at such a glacial pace it seems likely to outlast the glaciers themselves, so it makes sense that people who feel a sense of urgency will look toward direct action.
I'm a leftist hippy and have made changes to my life to help alleviate climate change. But I am baffled by the fixation that activists seem to have on airplanes. Aviation accounts for something like 3% of emissions globally. What's the deal?
Instant media coverage perhaps? I've had long conversations with some of the people from this group in the past and my conclusion is they have no idea what they're doing. With enough arguments, their claims and worldviews ALWAYS fall apart at some point (it's actually surprisingly easy, which is sort of terrifying). I'm not at all against young people or activists per se. Anyway, do I need "fresh" sea food being shipped to the EU from central Asia every three days? Absolutely not. Good, so let's found a non-profit or a company and get to work.
The fact of the matter is that consumer demand is only part of the problem. The other part is shareholders and other corporate interests who are deeply intrenched and do not mind if the world burns for their future returns and wealth preservation. Non profits and for profit concerns are unable to solve for this.
> Shareholders representing an estimated two-thirds of eligible voting shares were consulted for their views. Over 95% of shareholders that specifically expressed a preference for retention or demerger supported the retention of the coal and carbon steel materials business, primarily on the basis that retention should enhance Glencore’s cash generating capacity to fund opportunities in its transition metals portfolio, such as its copper growth project pipeline, as well as accelerate and optimise the return of excess cash flows to shareholders.
> Fossil fuel companies are running “a massive mis- and disinformation campaign” so that countries will slow down the adoption of renewable energy and the speed with which they “transition away” from a carbon-intensive economy, the UN has said.
> Selwin Hart, the assistant secretary general of the UN, said that talk of a global “backlash” against climate action was being stoked by the fossil fuel industry, in an effort to persuade world leaders to delay emissions-cutting policies. The perception among many political observers of a rejection of climate policies was a result of this campaign, rather than reflecting the reality of what people think, he added.
Flight is an easy target because alternatives exist or could with relatively little effort be made practical. High-speed rail is a thing. And it's not like anyone actually needs to fly to South-east Asia for vacation every year.
Fascinating how you jumped to that conclusion given that vacation and air travel are two completely different things. Shows you the power of good marketing I guess.
The worst thing you can say is that aircraft allow people to travel more miles than they would have otherwise. I could fly to Cancun and burn more fuel than my car uses in a year.
It’s perfect topic for a flame war. But imho blocking airports ends up in more traffic overall because planes must be re-routed. Is this not opposing original goal?.. or the goal is not saving climate at all?..
The purpose of this type of action is not to stop the carbon emissions atthatmoment, but to get people’s attention to hope something is done in the future.
The main discussion is whether this kind of action will create the intended result.
Well, personal responsibility is one of the dumbest things you can cite to a global problem.
Even dumber is annoying and inconveniencing random bystanders that have literally no way to influence the problem, like these protesters are doing to the travelers here.
Nonetheless, there is no way to avert the coming climate catastrophy without forcing almost everyone to change their behavior.
Wherever that has any chance of happening is a different story altogether.
That completely depends on what qualifies as meaningful. From a rational point of view, every impactful change came by regulation, which is a proxy for force. After all, what's going to happen when you break this regulation?
That doesn't mean that regulation would solve this particular crisis though. The best you can achieve with national regulation is pollution and that's just not gonna stop the coming climate disaster.
And you're mistaken wrt what I labeled dumb: I specifically phrased it in the context of actions, not people.
49 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 92.4 ms ] threadWhy don't they target oil companies, or politicians, instead of the general public? It's bad enough having your government ignoring you without also having activists target you ostensibly for the same causes you believe in.
It's going to be ugly.
If you haven't read the book, there's a nice review at https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2021/07/15/mins...
If it were possible to address this problem through the democratic process, it would have been done long ago, when it might have been possible to avoid disaster. Now the best we can hope for is damage mitigation, but even that requires sacrifices no government would dare even suggest. Democracy doesn't work when people don't care.
We might see lots of people getting displaced, more deaths to draughts, heatwaves, more forest fires, decimated ocean wildlife etc... but the end of humanity? No, that's not gonna happen from climate change itself. At least not within the next several hundred years
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl6VhCAeEfQ
Oh, absolutely. But climate change is going to be a minor issue for them. The social issues like wealth inequality, the continuous descent into a Low Trust Society and similar are most likely going to be way more pressing to them
Let's say the sun is about to go supernova in... Let's say 30 years. On that theoretical planet we'll imagine a person that's actually enslaved and getting beaten whenever it's master feels like it.
Would you call the coming apocalypse via supernova the biggest issue from the perspective of the slave?
It's a gigantic issue, but on a daily basis... It's negatives are going to be outweighed by various other problems, like how he can survive for another day.
And I expect our societies to get significantly worse within the next 70yrs, which is why I expect the people living in 2100 to consider climate change to be less pressing then the fact they can't provide for themselves, can't get a home/can't afford rent, can't get a job, can't fight against injustice as very little equality will be left by then, etc.
do you honestly think people with problems like that will particularly care about the dying oceans and people getting displaced by rising sea levels, stronger heat waves etc?
And to loop back to my original comment: It's gonna take a very long time for climate change to get to a point for it to wipe out humanity entirely. Way longer then any our predictions have meaning, and other things such as rising tensions and potential wars are more likely to be the cause for such.
My other thought is that while climate change is global, the effects are varied and local. I've lived in South Texas my whole life, and so I viscerally feel the heat and see the occasional story of someone dying of heat stroke. And I'd rank that as an even more pressing concern for an enslaved person.
Anyway, probably better to try not to think about any of it.
Unfortunately the world is full of people like yourself only capable of seeing those with whom they disagree as amoral monsters, thus no solution can or will be reached.
Time has grown short, and conventional democratic means seem to deliver change at such a glacial pace it seems likely to outlast the glaciers themselves, so it makes sense that people who feel a sense of urgency will look toward direct action.
https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/13082024/glencore-to-retain-i...
> Shareholders representing an estimated two-thirds of eligible voting shares were consulted for their views. Over 95% of shareholders that specifically expressed a preference for retention or demerger supported the retention of the coal and carbon steel materials business, primarily on the basis that retention should enhance Glencore’s cash generating capacity to fund opportunities in its transition metals portfolio, such as its copper growth project pipeline, as well as accelerate and optimise the return of excess cash flows to shareholders.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/08/...
> Fossil fuel companies are running “a massive mis- and disinformation campaign” so that countries will slow down the adoption of renewable energy and the speed with which they “transition away” from a carbon-intensive economy, the UN has said.
> Selwin Hart, the assistant secretary general of the UN, said that talk of a global “backlash” against climate action was being stoked by the fossil fuel industry, in an effort to persuade world leaders to delay emissions-cutting policies. The perception among many political observers of a rejection of climate policies was a result of this campaign, rather than reflecting the reality of what people think, he added.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/23/only-the-super-wea...
> Only the super wealthy stand to lose money from shutting down fossil fuels, study finds
I didn't jump anywhere. You brought it up.
Yes, you did. Your conclusion does not follow.
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10311
The worst thing you can say is that aircraft allow people to travel more miles than they would have otherwise. I could fly to Cancun and burn more fuel than my car uses in a year.
The main discussion is whether this kind of action will create the intended result.
Even dumber is annoying and inconveniencing random bystanders that have literally no way to influence the problem, like these protesters are doing to the travelers here. Nonetheless, there is no way to avert the coming climate catastrophy without forcing almost everyone to change their behavior.
Wherever that has any chance of happening is a different story altogether.
And you're mistaken wrt what I labeled dumb: I specifically phrased it in the context of actions, not people.