this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
165 points (96.1% liked)

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

5324 readers
262 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: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 76 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Contrary to most of the opinions in this thread, I think this (and the van gogh incident) is a great and appropriate protest.

It causes a knee-jerk reaction to be mad that they are harming a precious piece of history and culture, which is a perfect juxtaposition to how the climate change harms our precious natural resources and will harm ourselves, and

It achieves this without actually causing permanent damage to the subject artifact, and

It is incendiary enough to remain in our public consciousness long enough for it to affect the discourse.

I only wish there was a more direct way to protest the people most responsible for the worst effects (oil executives, politicians, etc.), but the truth is that the "average middle-class Westerner" (most of the people who have access to enjoy these particular cultural relics) is globally "one of the worst offenders". While I firmly believe that individuals have less power to enact change than corporations and policymakers, this protest does achieve the goal of causing reflection within people who have the power to make changes.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

I'll disagree. I think these actions only entrench the decided.

As in: if you are of your opinion that damaging artifacts is appropriate, given the protest cause, then you're already "sold".

If you feel that these actions are inappropriate, then you have only gotten further away from these actors, and, potentially their message.

I mean that I'm not sure how many undecided or uninformed folks are impressed, convinced or engaged by these destructive protests.

[–] Atomic 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It gets the exact opposite effect. Yes they get attention alright. But the wrong attention.

People don't think "oh wow yeah stop oil!" They think "wow these stop oil guys are absolute idiots, I don't want to be associated with them"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 60 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just Stop Oil said the orange powder paint was cornflour and it would "wash away with rain

[–] [email protected] 45 points 5 months ago (3 children)

That's good, I suppose; I'm of the mind that historical art belongs to humanity.

However, if climate activists want to vandalize something to make a point, go vandalize the CEOs who are ruining the climate. They don't care about history and preserving anything, as long as they're making gobs of money, so punching somebody else in the face isn't something that causes them any discomfort.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I think these guys get headlines exactly because they target things that “belong” to all of us. PETA throwing red paint on some rich schmuck wearing furs? That might get a minute of airtime. But (safely) paint Stonehenge, throw baked beans on the Mona Lisa, etc and every news outlet will cover it.

[–] Lucidlethargy 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

And yet, all I think when I see this is "these guys seem like assholes".

If they ruined the house of an oil CEO, however... Heroes.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Exactly my point. Their reason for doing it gets overshadowed by the act, because they are incongruent.

The act and the message should be essentially one and the same, because people's attention is already stretched thin by a myriad of things.

[–] Kecessa 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

If you put more focus on the act instead of the reason you don't have your priorities straight. People should be out in the streets and destroying a shit ton of monuments important to the rich with what's happening in the world right now.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

I thought the headline was a bit misleading, because obviously environmental activists wouldn't "paint" or vandalize something like that.

Anyone who thinks they are assholes for doing this to a monument should be thinking about what oil companies are doing to less visible areas that are just as important.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

And it works, and may actually be effective at spreading your cause, the first couple times

After that, everyone already knows who you are and what you want, so the only thing they think of the next time you come up is "these assholes again?"

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

That's the whole point. The CEOs dont care for their property either, there's no point of vandalizing anything of theirs and ending up with lawsuits.

This message wasn't to CEOs, it was to you.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Kecessa 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think you understand the point they're trying to make...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm still not convinced that these guys aren't being fronted by oil conglomerates to make real climate activists look like morons.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Holy shit I've been wanting to say this since they started but figured it would sound too conspiratory. They prey on the most lonely and disillusioned progressives and get them to do stupid things from the feeling of being apart of something.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

it‘s a conspiracy theory and I am not sure whether you are pushing it. yesterday there was a big discussion about it on another thread and the proof presented by some was garbage.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kecessa 37 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Man, I've studied history and I still agree with all that they're doing and even wish they had done permanent damage to all the things these protestors have sprayed. The hypocrisy is incredible.

It's just like when Notre-Dame burned, billions started coming in while people in Paris are homeless or must choose between eating or paying rent.

These things are objects, living beings are dying due to our inaction and people would rather spend money to admire a fucking painting than think about it? That's disgusting.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (5 children)

So your argument is that because humans suck and don't want to help their fellow humans, it's okay to destroy art and relics?

Really?

Why is it so hard for people these days to understand that two wrongs don't make a right, and two sides can be wrong or do bad?

Letting people rot in the streets is bad. That is not hard to understand.

Destroying relics and ruins just to call attention is bad too. Why is this so hard to understand?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But they (probably) didn’t do permanent damage to this or the painting, just enough to cause outrage.

[–] Kecessa 6 points 5 months ago

And that's an issue, they need to cause damage to wake people up. Revolutions don't happen by painting graffitis that are covered the next day, they happen through acts that put an end to the status quo. Had the Mona Lisa been ruined we would still talk about it today.

What's happening in the world now is much worse than what lead to the French or American Revolution, but people are more bothered by the fact that people used fake paint on Stonehenge than the fact that close to a thousand have died in Saudi Arabia JUST TODAY because of climate change.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kecessa 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

My point is that we waste so much resources on preserving that stuff while people are fucking dying, sometimes just a few blocks away from where these art pieces are kept.

They're objects that have no utility in keeping the world habitable and right now you've got governments and private interests more busy spending billions preserving them instead of preserving life on this planet.

You go and tell someone from Samoa that you think it's more important for us to be spending billions preserving Notre-Dame because people would rather release tons of CO2 by taking a plane to travel across the ocean to visit a church no one cared about a two hundreds years ago instead of spending that money for reforestation efforts in France in order to capture CO2 and reduce global warming that will lead to their island disappearing in the ocean.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But they aren't destroying them, are they? The stones have been standing in the rain and snow for 3,000 years. Some powder paint is just going to wash off the next time it snows. It's not like they've taken a jackhammer to the Heel Stone.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Lots of people seem to hate this and I do on some level get it. I'd be happy to talk about whether its a winning strategy or what alternatives there are (I'm not sure personally its the optimum form of activism)

What I would say is the evidence suggests:

  • General public do seem to hate this stuff.
  • There is a relatively little spill over from the organisation to the wider issue (as in people think these guys are idiots but don't link to climate change or environmentalism more generally).
  • It is evidenced to increase the saliance and perceived importance of climate change I.e. people hate them but spend more time thinking climate change is serious than before.

Lastly, what I would say is from my own visceral reaction to the Van Gogh painting: I felt a huge and sudden feeling of cultural loss. That something of our heritage was at risk and we may lose it and initially I was angry and sad but I realised that we are routinely doing this everyday with lost species. Heritage we haven't even been able to document yet. All that is to say it maybe we have a discussion about what the best activism is and who we need to influence and how (I think we need to do better than just think we need everyone on side) but what we shouldn't do is entertain for a moment that the scale of this action isn't proportional and valid to what we face. We are hurtling towards a cliff edge and some people still have their foot on the accelerator. This is the equivalent of worrying about a vase in the boot. I want to save it too but at the moment we are endangering it more through business as usual than through some cornflour.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Good post. To be honest, when I found out that nothing they did was real, I came to appreciate them. But I don't understand why we prop up fossil fuel in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

It has a lot to do with money and technology. By the time we were able to have electric vehicles, oil companies were loaded and companies like to make money. So they spend money to lobby and keep themselves entrenched. Throw in some good feel bullshit to placate a simple majority of the people and that brings us to today.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Despite supporting probably all of their goals; I hate them.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why? They've never actually damaged anything

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

No one should have to explain why throwing soup on a painting is a dumb way to protest - yes, even if the painting has a glass barrier

In the modern history of protest it’s the stupidest possible way.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Keeps us discussing it though

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

We talk more about their tactics than the message they're trying to spread, so I don't think we're really discussing the things they'd want us to focus upon.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This. I truly believe that humanity will not stop burning fossil fuels until the last drop is gone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We only discuss their tactics briefly when they do something dramatic and get on the news.

When people hear about their tactics, ask why they're going so far, and look into environmental issues as a result, I think that can have a much longer lasting impact.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

And that's where we disagree. I don't think anybody is researching anything. The average person does not have the drive or attention span for a Step 2.

Plus, I agree with their core ideology, yet I still think people who do this stuff are assholes, and I'm immediately annoyed on the outset. To expect people who aren't invested in climate change to look past the "asshole" is a pretty big ask.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, why can't they just quietly trudge towards our own extinction with resignation like the rest of us, instead of making a fuss.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

You really have to scroll down google results to find Just Stop Oil's social media due to the incredible publicity this action has generated about climate change resistance. Their Twitter account is https://twitter.com/JustStop_Oil, and they're smashing their fund-raising targets via chuffed.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

After reading the article, and realizing that what they used isn’t “paint” as we usually think of it, makes me feel less of a homicidal rage.

This is besides the point, but I’m curious about the technical aspects. How do you “spray” cornflour? The second picture looks like it’s in some large cylinder. Is it pressurized, like a fire extinguisher?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

If the powder is fine enough you could just blow air across or through a reservoir of it, maybe? That's my best guess like a leaf blower with a bag of powder you pour in

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Stonehenge dosen't containt oil, are they stupid?

[–] Kecessa 18 points 5 months ago (19 children)

No, but people are ready to burn a shit ton of it to go see it though.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Question: What in the flying fuck does Stonehenge have anything to do with big oil companies? 🤔

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

It's supposed to generate headlines. It has done.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's newsworthy, unlike when they used to lay in roads.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›