93
submitted 1 year ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Just Stop Oil protesters have been arrested after smashing the glass covering a Diego Velázquez painting at the National Gallery in London, as police detained dozens of others who blocked Whitehall.

Two activists targeted the glass on the Rokeby Venus painting with safety hammers before they were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage.

The artwork, which was painted by Velázquez in the 1600s, was slashed by the suffragette Mary Richardson in 1914. One of those involved on Monday said: “Women did not get the vote by voting; it is time for deeds not words.”

The Metropolitan police said at least 40 activists who were “slow marching” in Whitehall were also detained and that the road was clear after traffic was stopped for a brief period.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

These are essentially publicity stunts, right? They don't think destroying art will decrease carbon emissions somehow?

[-] GreyShuck@feddit.uk 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is very clearly about publicity. You can't get any message across unless you get someone's attention in the first place.

In this case, they are playing on the link back to the suffragettes.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Seems to me like they're getting a net negative message across since they're seen more as nuts. But I hope someone there has done the sociology analysis to see if it's actually a net positive or negative impact on their cause.

[-] GreyShuck@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

There have been studies on this kind of thing. I don't have the links to hand, but the upshot from the ones that I have seen IIRC is that it doesn't generally cause many people to actually change their views from positive to negative or vice versa, but it does keep the issue in the news.

Of course, in the wider perspective, no protests of this kind are ever going to work alone, but then that's not the idea. They are never going to be happening alone either: there are always going to legal challenges, political movements, consumer pressure, boycotts and so on and so on alongside. The question is, which ones drive which others? Which wouldn't happen without the others?

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (46 replies)
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
93 points (97.9% liked)

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

5239 readers
341 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: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS