72
Should Climate Protesters Be Less Annoying?
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
72 points (84.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5310 readers
336 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Then they should disrupt pollution rather than something totally unrelated.
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.
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.
Brief disruption of a single large-scale pollutant out of a million more just like it, before being thrown in jail for decades on terrorism charges, is not "actual disruption". Statistically it doesn't even rise above random noise in terms of effect, and people would hate them more, not less. They would be branded violent terrorists trying to destroy our infrastructure. You would be sacrificing everything and all other forms of effectiveness to have the tiniest, barely-detectable impact on the root issue.
The problem is systemic, and so must be the solution. You cannot break a system by destroying one of a million nodes in the system. If we had the power to stop this via direct action, we would have already long been capable of solving this with political action well before that point.