To those who sneer at activists blocking roads: what are you doing?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
To those who sneer at activists blocking roads: what are you doing?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/10/climate-activists-save-the-planet-tories-imprison-protesters
9 comments
Answer: likely driving to work so I can contribute to a productive economy that incentivizes the development of new, greener, cheaper energy technologies and geoengineering techniques - which is a way to "save the planet" that DOESN'T involve total economic collapse and millions, maybe billions, of avoidable deaths.
I take cold showers and wear polo shirts instead of t-shirts. I also have plenty of soup to throw on paintings in case someone has one they wish to enhance with a better soup than Campbells. Too salty imo.
I vote and donate some money to candidates who follow the same general direction in politics as I do, that does more than any of these clowns who blocking roads.
Usually trying to get to work.
I am of the opinion the right to protest can never have an asterisk. It can never be prevented or stopped without serious ramifications. It is absolutely the right for a protest to be quite inconvenient or uncomfortable to others. If its just 1 person, then it cant be that inconvenient. If it's lots of people and quite inconvenient then its on the politicians to answer the protest.
In this case, I absolutely support what they are doing. Gluing themselves to paintings because there are so many climate deniers in museums, or in this case blocking traffic. I question whether or not they are achieving any goal however. They are no doubt damaging their own cause. So what's the point? This is their choice however.
>For all those rightwing commentators (most of whom are not, these days, climate deniers) who sneer at protesters, there is only one question. If not blocking traffic, then what? You have to suggest better ways to alert voters, other ways to save the planet and your children and grandchildren. You have to do something yourself – or at least back the people who are doing whatever they can.
Lets put aside the doomsayer arguments. We are certainly not going extinct or anything like the activists claim. But say there's trillions of $ of damages coming in the next 50 years as well as the exhaustion of fossil fuels. To do nothing is idiotic. It's no doubt a national security risk to do nothing.
Step 1 is addressing the elephant in the room. The activists damaging the movement. For all we know they are doing this in false flag against climate change. Another huge factor is the usurping of the issue. A political movement which is dead under several brands now has taken up climate change to push their political agenda again. Everyone sees it for what it is. Literally nobody is surprised to see Greta Thunburg is anticapitalism.
The conversation of climate change needs to be reframed to exclude these 2 groups. Which is understandably quite difficult to do because these people at least maybe are your greatest supporters.
But the big question as well, what exactly is left of climate change when the exaggeration of '4 hiroshima bombs per second' goes away? Does climate change remain in the top most concerns?
What about world hunger and poverty? Climate change movement is intentionally harming those 2.
Also how much of climate change is the replication crisis involved? I posit a significantly high percentage. Is climate change a non-sense crisis and is just another example of the much larger replication crisis?
In this case, I absolutely support what they are doing. Gluing themselves to paintings because there are so many climate deniers in museums, or in this case blocking traffic. I question whether or not they are achieving any goal however. They are no doubt damaging their own cause. So what's the point? This is their choice however.
>For all those rightwing commentators (most of whom are not, these days, climate deniers) who sneer at protesters, there is only one question. If not blocking traffic, then what? You have to suggest better ways to alert voters, other ways to save the planet and your children and grandchildren. You have to do something yourself – or at least back the people who are doing whatever they can.
Lets put aside the doomsayer arguments. We are certainly not going extinct or anything like the activists claim. But say there's trillions of $ of damages coming in the next 50 years as well as the exhaustion of fossil fuels. To do nothing is idiotic. It's no doubt a national security risk to do nothing.
Step 1 is addressing the elephant in the room. The activists damaging the movement. For all we know they are doing this in false flag against climate change. Another huge factor is the usurping of the issue. A political movement which is dead under several brands now has taken up climate change to push their political agenda again. Everyone sees it for what it is. Literally nobody is surprised to see Greta Thunburg is anticapitalism.
The conversation of climate change needs to be reframed to exclude these 2 groups. Which is understandably quite difficult to do because these people at least maybe are your greatest supporters.
But the big question as well, what exactly is left of climate change when the exaggeration of '4 hiroshima bombs per second' goes away? Does climate change remain in the top most concerns?
What about world hunger and poverty? Climate change movement is intentionally harming those 2.
Also how much of climate change is the replication crisis involved? I posit a significantly high percentage. Is climate change a non-sense crisis and is just another example of the much larger replication crisis?
cowtools(1)
In other words, only people who agree with these activists are allowed to criticize them? A strange standard, but they do seem to be getting plenty of criticism from people who meet that criteria.