I’d like just a little terrorism and murder, just enough to scare off investors and insurers from fossil fuel producers, refiners, distributors and mass users, to speed things up and maybe prevent the uncountable future deaths from failed monsoons, heat waves, overpowered storms, and eventually sea level rises
You’re probably gonna make it worse for everyone. It’s probably more profitable to have more security around the infrastructure than to just abandon it, so that’s more expensive. You’re gonna make it more difficult to convince people to actually believe in climate change and legislation that helps the cause, since the climate movement is associated with terrorism.
Just vote for the candidates that actually care about the climate and invest in preserving it. You can also help a little bit by using things that have a very low carbon footprint over its lifetime, like an electric car or using public transportation. These things are just off the top of my head but terrorism ain’t it.
I vote green. Americans can’t unless they’re willing to throw their vote away
Not necessarily, you can vote for someone who invests in nuclear over someone who invests back into coal
Cars are a tiny fraction of a country’s carbon footprint
Maybe, but there are other steps that you can take to minimize your print. Something like a solar array. Sure these are very small steps but they aren’t a money sink like they used to be and if enough people adopt them, they could do something.
Why would a recruiter know about all the technologies? He knows what technology is required for a given position and doesn’t care about all the other stuff in your profile.
If you think blowing up a pipeline is a good thing because it feels like you’re saving the world, can I blow your head with a gun because I think that without oil people will starve?
See, when you want to use violence, I assure you that you won’t win, especially the simps that support violence for climate nonsense don’t know how to fire a pistol. Let’s be civilized and avoid violence and aggression.
Maybe you should learn how to convince people with your ideas, regardless of how stupid, ridiculous, immoral, uneducated and propagandized they are.
In my opinion, you said a very stupid thing and I don’t care about your opinion. I’m done discussing dumb climate change nonsense. So, as long as you’re not using violence, I don’t give a shit what you think as you’re free to think all the stupid things you want, otherwise, I’ll share the violence you’re causing with you.
You’re already sharing violence, by threatening people who would defend themselves from aggressors.
But since you don’t care, are done discussing this nonsense, and are intellectually honest, I’m sure I won’t see a foolish reply defending that aggression further.
You’re already sharing violence, by threatening people who would defend themselves from aggressors.
Given this level of stupidity that I interpret as “you’re not tolerant because you don’t tolerate my intolerance”, I guess we reached an impasse. And I’m not speaking just for this post, but in real cases where real violence is involved. You mind your own business, and I’ll mind mine, and that’s how peace is maintained. I have zero sympathy for anyone attempting violence then getting killed.
There’s no believing in that climate change is going to kill significantly more people as it ramps up in the second half of this century; it will regardless of what we believe. Your opinion is the only stupid thing here
You’re brainwashed and dumb. I don’t care what you think. You believe all the nonsense you want, just stay away from us, the people who understand power-grab and how it works. You fuck up your countries as much as you want, and again, stay away from us, and we’ll be laughing when you have no more food.
The moment you use violence, we will too. No more “discussion”. Fuck that. I’m done pretending people like you aren’t retarded. I encourage everyone to treat those retards like this.
Without doing a moral calculation, what I can say is that shooting people in the head is less effective in dealing with climate change then blowing up oil pipelines.
Blowing up oil pipelines will make it more expensive for oil companies to do business. This will decrease the amount of oil production which will directly effect how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere.
How effective will it be? Will it stop climate change? Those questions are unknowable at this point in time. But it is pretty clear that we’re getting to a point where lots of people are going to start dying due to climate change.
I disagree with you, and I think if we stop using oil hundreds of millions will starve in days.
Do I care what you think? No, I don’t give two shits about your opinion on climate change. I’m done discussing it. However, you’re free to have all the stupid opinions you want. Just don’t use violence because you don’t have a monopoly on it, we all can do it.
Wait, about what? Are you saying that shooting people in the head is more effective in dealing with climate change that blowing up oil pipelines?
I think if we stop using oil hundreds of millions will starve in days
I agree with this, and I never said we should stop using oil. I think we should definitely use less though. We should try to use as little as possible. We will still need plastics for medical stuff.
Just don’t use violence because you don’t have a monopoly on it, we all can do it.
A lot of people are about to die due to climate change. I think if you want them to not do violence, you had better start convincing them that they have a shot to survive this. Telling them that violence is bad is not going to do it. Honestly, blowing up a few pipes is pretty low price, all things considered. Things have the possibility to get much worse than some property damage.
I would 100% prefer that governments take action to slow down oil production and push hard for more climate friendly policies, but they are not.
Yeah, right. Go try to make a joke about blowing up airplanes in the airport then tell me “sorry, I was joking”. We don’t joke about violence without acknowledging it’s wrong.
I mean if removing people from the equation is on the table then targeting billionaires with a carbon footprint of small nations would be the logical place to start.
That aside, this meme is calling for collective violent action against infrastructure. Your example is an individual violent action against a person.
Does self-defense count as violence? Because forcefully dismantling the oil infrastructure can save lives and it would be nonviolent as long as the police don’t start with their violence.
Killing someone who will blow up oil pipes counts as saving lives too. Without oil people starve and hundreds of millions will die. It’s a matter of perspective.
lemmy.ml
Newest