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

5053 readers

391 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

silence7@slrpnk.net

125

Just Stop Oil activist jailed for six months for taking part in slow march [UK] (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ThatsMrCharlieToYou@sh.itjust.works 55 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I hear the narrative that people shouldn't protest in this way but I have taken to asking what is the alternative? If you are silent, your discontent will go unnoticed. The real problem is that we are having to do this at all. As far as I'm concerned, these people are genuine heroes, fighting against a lobby masquerading as a government. A damn shame

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is no version of protest that isn't an inconvenience. People who are more mad at the protesters in the streets than they are at whatever they are protesting are exactly the people that need to hear the message the protesters are trying to spread.

The worst thing a protester can do is garble their message or make it incoherent. It needs to be short, actionable, and repeatable. It needs to be something that acts as a response to "get out of the road!"

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

A spokesperson for the campaign said: “Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, a law drafted by the fossil fuel lobby, was introduced in April by Priti Patel, and covers ‘interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure’..."

A lobby masquerading as a government indeed.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago

The only thing this is telling activists is that pacifist protesting isn't going to work, so the next step will be hostile/violent protesting. This is a bad predicament.

[–] Vincent@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The test to see whether you agree with an argument like this, is imagining people protesting something you are vehemently in favour of. If you'd still agree with it then, then the logic holds.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I feel like the complication of this is that people generally only get worked up enough to protest something, or be vehemently in favor of something that others might be protesting, if they genuinely believe the thing in question to be a moral issue, and a fairly serious one at that. If you view causing others inconvenience as bad, but view the objective you are trying to achieve as sufficiently more important as to outweigh that if the inconvenience furthers that cause, then you're left in a position where it is perfectly logical to condemn a law that stops you from protesting in a manner you believe will be effective, and support that same kind of law to stop people protesting the opposite position, because your objective in this case isn't creating consistent and fair laws (even if you do actually believe in such fair laws, but just view this specific issue as even more important) but instead furthering whatever cause you were concerned about in the first place. It's not truly hypocritical either, because in such a case one's position is not "it's okay for me to do this but not for you", but rather "it isn't really okay for either of us to do this, but (whatever cause one is supporting) is so pressing that I believe the ends justify the means in achieving it".

[–] Vincent@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

I guess the point of my argument isn't about whether you should or shouldn't condemn the specific action, but whether it should or should not be legal and, if not, what the punishment should be. That, at least, should be consistent, because the government response should be proportionate to the inconvenience, so if you believe your cause outweighs the inconvenience, then it should also outweight a proportionate response.

One especially helpful mental trick is to imagine you actually believe what someone you disagree with says that they believe. For example, I don't believe that actual lizards control the country and systematically rape children, but if I did... Well, obviously that belief would justify quite a lot.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Protest at the refineries? You shut those down and you're not inconveniencing the 60 people who are sitting in their cars in traffic... you end up causing a ripple to millions. This type of protesting is just silly and doesn't actually do anything.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Just Stop Oil started off with protests at the refineries. It had zero identifiable impact and almost no press coverage.

That's why people started things like 'slow march' and 'throw soup at the glass in front of artwork'

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

If they're going to be impactful to these companies, they're going to be more on the saboteur side of things.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 37 points 9 months ago (1 children)

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

― John F. Kennedy

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Peacdful protest was the compromise and its well past time the owning class was reminded of this.

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

It’s the UK. They long ago traded freedom for the illusion of security and don’t have the ability to forcefully remind the owning class of anything beyond their ability to ignore such inconveniences.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago

Absolutely infuriating.

A spokesperson for the campaign said: “Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, a law drafted by the fossil fuel lobby, was introduced in April by Priti Patel, and covers ‘interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure’. It seems this government has now made walking down the road, walking on the public highway an illegal act that is worthy of imprisonment.