this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023

1 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5053 readers

457 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Should Climate Protesters Be Less Annoying? (newrepublic.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived copy

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For anyone annoyed by climate activists: wake the hell up. LISTEN to the message.

We are on course for an UNLIVABLE FUTURE. A BILLION climate refugees, mass crop failures, cities under water, temperatures too hot for human survival. Economic and societal collapse.

These disruptions damage nothing and inconvenience a small amount of people for 5-30 minutes. It's not a big deal. In a world of reactionary social media and news, these are the tactics that get attention. It is not the activist's fault for how the media reports it.

This is not "their cause". This is the fight for everything we know and love.

If you don't like what they're doing, start doing what you think works.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You won't get anyone not already convinced to listen to your message if the people are hung up on hating what you're doing and thinking you're a moron.

It just seems like a bad way to reach or convince anyone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Not really true, the evidence shows the popularity of the group may go down but concern over the issue goes up.

Tell us a better way that hasn't already been tried, one that's proportional to the urgency. Genuinely open to ideas.

The suffragettes were more than annoying, they blew stuff up and burnt down buildings and they were effective.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

bUt We jUsT wANT to WaTcH tENniS

You’ll get your fucking tennis when we start killing each other for food. Human brains are incapable of comprehending what we are continuing to do to our future. Its so fucking frustrating seeing this society being completely oblivious to the tortures we could’ve avoided by relatively small changes 60 years ago and which we still can lessen by doing something now.

buT iM GoNna gEt a TeSla fOr my NeXt Car

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem I have with groups doing things like the throwing soup in a painting thing or other annoying activities is how can we be sure these people weren't paid to make the cause look bad? It wouldn't be the first or last time something like that happens where someone will be paid to make a cause look bad.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If and when protests turn violent because people are desperate and there's nothing else left you'll realise how innocuous these types of protests are. They hurt nobody, disrupt people for a very short time and get the message out there.

This idea that it's funded by big oil is just ridiculous. I am in activism and I know people from JSO, they are some of the kindest and caring people you could meet. They understand the urgency of the crisis and are willing to their bodies and freedom on the line to get the message out. Being popular is not their goal, they get people talking and that is undeniable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, but they should be coherent and meaningful. These fools (or possibly goons for oil companies) who attack paintings are only making environmentalism look utterly stupid. They are openly mocked by everybody because they're lashing out incoherently.

They're actively working against environmentalism. I really think they're bad, selfish, narcissistic, and stupid people. They don't care about the environment.

There is absolutely no reason to think their ridiculous behavior could possibly help the environment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Read some books about how to do politics strategically and you’ll see why they do this

Your anger works in their favor

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you vaguely tell somebody to read more it's because you have no actual argument.

There is no connection to environmental issues. They are doing this to look cool to their friends.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are doing it because it gets people talking and thinking about climate collapse, and that leads to solutions.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it gets people talking about people who glue themselves to paintings. And that's as far as the conversation goes because it has no connection whatsoever to environmental issues. It's pure uncut narcissism.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This has nothing to do with mental illness, don't use that word like that

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Come back when you have something substantial to contribute.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I’m annoyed by over critical analysis of nonviolent protest tactics, rather than substantive conversation about why they’re protesting in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you're not disrupting anything, your protest will invariably be ignored.

The "I support the right to protest as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone" reeks of a "negative peace" ploy to stifle dissent while appearing to be reasonable in the eyes of other Enlightened Centrist hypocrites.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then they should disrupt pollution rather than something totally unrelated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, that's bullshit. If they "disrupt pollution" by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that's how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention.

At a pro tennis event in Washington DC, on the other hand, the media is already there, peaceful protest isn't called terrorism and due to the location, there's an excellent chance that some of the very representatives who are standing in the way of climate action or at least someone from their inner circle are actually THERE.

TL;DR: You seem to either have no clue what you're talking about or be exactly like the negative peace demanders that held back MLK and his fight for justice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If they “disrupt pollution” by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that’s how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention

And there's a reason that actual disruption is illegal, and performative nonsense carries lighter consequences. The reason is that oil companies absolutely LOVE for protests to be ineffectual and just cause disruptions among leftists. Obviously these "gluing myself to stuff" protests have NOT helped the environment. Nobody ever actually thought they would.