The industrial revolution was a mistake. Convenience and comfort have proven to not be worth the cost of complete ecological destruction. Total deindustrialization is the only solution, and it will not happen. We’re going to kill ourselves off, or nearly, and the world will be a better place for it in the long run.
Given much of the transition to renewable energy is planned to be solar this may be counterproductive. China is rolling out monumental amounts of solar at the moment, we can’t just block the sun since it’s part of the solution.
That’s a feature, not a bug. Using geo-engineering will take the pressure off of fossil fuel reduction policies. So why use solar power when you can happily continue burning coal and oil?
The UN Environmental Program's recent report into SRM concludes that it is not currently a realistic or wise plan.
"UNEP concurs with the panel that, at present, large-scale, or operational deployment of SRM technologies is not necessary, viable, prudent or sufficiently safe, given the limited scientific understanding and uncertainty about the potential impacts and unintended consequences," says UNEP’s Chief Scientist Andrea Hinwood.
"The review concludes that SRM cannot replace reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
Nonetheless, the body doesn't rule out the method altogether, with the report concluding that their assessment of the technique "may change should climate action remain insufficient".
No. They’re there to support they own sense of moral virtue and righteousness. They’ve done far more harm for climate activism than good. Now climate activism is seen as some sort of annoying lefty pastime instead of the absolute urgent matter that it is.
This is the problem, people have been quietly talking about this issue and trying to convince people for decades. Barely anything has happened. Protest is supposed to be inconvenient. Not sure whether this type to protest works, but the quiet, passive way certainly doesn't.
Also worth pointing out the demand isn't to dissolve the oil and gas industry over night - but to suspend all new licensing and expansion of the industry which in this case... is 1) something the UK should be doing anyway to meet their climate commitments and 2) not that radical or unreasonable
Everyone knows protests are only effective if they don’t inconvenience anyone. Ideally, climate activism should be conducted from the inside of one’s closet. That’s how real change happens!
But why are they inconveniencing people who wanted to watch a tennis match and not idk… oil execs?
They get as much sympathy from me as I gave the truckers who protested outside my apartment building in Ottawa trying to convince me covid isnt real as if I had any decision making power
Yeah I agree - so why do they keep picking on us who have no power and not bringing their message to places that could have more impact with less fallout from those who agree with their cause but not the way they are going about it
I see that, but I still disagree. Protesting at Wimbledon isn’t “picking on us.” I couldn’t afford to go to a match even if I lived in the UK. One day alone is £75. In a country where people can’t afford food due to inflation. Protesting at Wimbledon is picking on them.
Idk even know what to make of this, First they did pay that money for a ticket to get on the court and in doing so supported the causes they are protesting against. Second, my whole argument is why are they not supporting working people in the fight against corporate greed when the working people want to support them but don’t see the value in merely causing a disturbance.
It’s not like others in the exact same movement haven’t figured out blocking roads and marches in the street ARE effective ways of putting the message out there - heck that’s exactly what was on the morning news in a segment about the movement prior to a separate segment about the Wimbledon ‘disturbances’…
Visibility. Targeting widely broadcasted events increases exposure of the cause.
Disruption: Ever heard of bread and circuses? Disrupting the circus rouses the general public, and a roused public is preferable to complacent one even if they are roused against the protestors themselves.
Pressure: Eventually, 2. forces the ruling class to take action. Again, even if the action is to silence or persecute the protestors it still serves to highlight the issue.
Symbolism: Shit is not fine. Most people want to pretend it is, and this kind of event is part of the illusion. Pulling aside the curtain is the right thing to do.
2 and 3 sound about where we are and even you admit it turns people against the protests - I’m against oil execs but it genuinely feels like these muppets arent on my side
Hate em - the whole reason I wish these protests targetted them more directly - burn their mansions and oil rigs down to the ground - then we shall tennis
I just want to say, I used to work at a fossil fuel company and one of the owner‘s family’s favourite sports to talk about was tennis, other two was golf and sailing.
Not sure if they also watched this one, but I can see a potential connection at least.
I get that but it’s starting to feel like these people would protest a kids birthday party if it meant the news would cover them .
I like seeing them on the streets doing their slow walks and getting in the way of corporations daily business but I can’t help but feel some of their actions are starting to alienate would-be supporters
I get that frustration as well that you express, since it disrupted something you enjoy and that isn‘t pleasant. However, as the inaction by those in power mounts, so do the frustrations of otherwise powerless protesters and that is something happening regardless of any negative counter reactions they may also provoke.
Already people have set themselves on fire in front of government buildings in the US for example and even that isn‘t yet the height of escalations that people can go to trying to get themselves to be heard. You can probably see why, as the climate reports we do hear get increasingly dark and various people and ecosystems on the planet experience negative effects.
Yeah - I guess it also feels like everyone knows something needs to be done by now but clearly if everyone actually did feel that way (I would hope at least) something would be done
Wimbledon is a sporting event which has a posh reputation, many seats being traditionally reserved for the upper and ruling classes. For example, on the centre court they have a area called the ‘Royal Box’. I would argue that there are probably quite a few oil execs in the audience.
Arguably the most impactful figure for climate change is Greta and I can’t think of one instance where she has angered working people to gain traction (maybe I’m wrong) and I believe she has done much more for the cause than getting on the news for causing a disturbance…
you like to bring up things that are beside the point, it does not matter if they have a problem with her for a real reason or a made up one, just that a lot of people discredit her because of her trying to bring attention to climate change. I was just responding to the "I can’t think of one instance where she has angered working people to gain traction"
Fair enough - I definitely should have been more precise.
I’m trying to criticize protests that actively alienate people who agree with the cause.
What I’m trying to understand is whether Just Stop Oil wants to inconvenience the average joe or whether they are targeting those with the power to make a difference? Imo, at times it feels like the former more than the latter.
If they were so dumb they saw a protest for something they agree with then stop because it's an annoyance then they did not give a shit about the issue in the first place.
Because tennis is an middle and upper class sport that thes people are likely to be attending, same as the glhorse races the other week. Doing it at London stadium when West Ham are at home would be a bit different.
Inconveniencing oil execs achieves absolutely nothing. You will never change someone’s opinion whose livelyhood depends on holding that opinion. The climate crisis will not be confronted by oil execs and any meaningful measures will not have their support. Protesting them is a waste of time.
The only way to achieve anything is to increase the immediate right-now cost of doing nothing over the cost of doing something. The cost in annoyance, money, time and for the people that can be persuaded, ie. the general public.
Ok - so one could say a ‘goal’ per se is decreasing attendance at events like this with the hope that it causes a change ? I can get behind that and believe that’s a rational reason to protest.
If all that’s true then my only real complaint is Just Stop Oil isn’t getting THAT message across effectively
You’re really missing the point. Nobody would say “the ‘goal’ per se is decreasing attendance to events like this”.
They did exactly what they set out to do. Make a public spectacle that people write news stories on and then the public talks about it. Normalizing discourses of these issues and drawing more attention and support to addressing them.
People who are already of the corporate lapdog mindset that any inconvenience to them about social, political, and environmental issues should just go away won’t have their minds changed. But nobody wants to change their minds, they understand these people won’t change.
But young people especially will be drawn to support causes and invoke change when they are constantly reminded that their future is being destroyed around them, instead of just buying into distractions and ignoring it all.
euronews.com
Newest