That's because no one pays attention to the huge developments in infrastructure or the amazing new technologies coming to market - e fuels like sequestered carbon jet fuel made from excess renewable power, and no it's not a science fiction dream it's happening now. Of course we should have more funding for these things but they are happening.
A huge part of that problem is that people resist even the slightest positive change, paper straws are fine but I bet there are people who like this post who also liked posts complaining about them - if we stopped organized sports and spent that half a trillion on transitioning local infrastructure or establishing carbon sequestration systems with productive use of captured carbon (e.g. building materials that get landfilled at eol) we could move much faster, but no one will give up a single football game to save the planet they'd rather bomb something and feel like a hero
Bread and circuses, working as intended. We wouldn't want people coming home after a day's work and putting anger and frustration into something productive, would we?
Not saying I disagree but methinks many of you don't realize everything we use fossil fuels for from plastic to fertilizer it's not just gas. You think costs are spiralling out of control now.... oooh boy just wait.
Society would change, a lot. I’d be very interested in what a plastic-phobic society would look like. Remember milkmen, who would take one empty glass bottle and give you a full one?
Yeah it's scary that people don't seem to understand that this would lead to billions dead which would cause chaos and resources wars that totally doom the planet.
We need infrastructure to transition, we need technological innovations and cultural stability
There is actually another myth: the planet will do just fine - it is the humanity that will die as the result. Not that we would care about this nuance at that point...
That will take a few hundred million years to recover then. Not to the same biome, there will certainly be some crazy species popping up.
From what i recall, Earth still has a few billion years before it is consumed by the Sun, should be ok.
It's possible to ruin the planet enough that the things supporting life, the ozone layer and the atmosphere for example, are wrecked beyond repair and that the planet becomes permanently lifeless. Sure, technically the planet will still exist, but so will every other dead rock in space.
That's true, we need fossil fuels for so many things besides transportation. At the same time, we are simply running out of fossil fuels. Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.
So what I am wondering is, even if one thinks man made climate change is a hoax or something similar, shouldn't the first and foremost thing everyone agrees on be to still spare those scarce resources? For things we really ("really") need to make from oil?
The first thing that comes to mind (maybe since I work in the lab) is medical equipment. You don't really want to have to wash and reuse things like catheters, do you? I am not sure if bioplastics (i.e., still plastics, but made from plants) would be an alternative here once we run out but I sincerely hope so.
Prices will go up, in any case, and it will be a painful transistion. But now we are at a somewhat luxurious point where we can still make this transistion somewhat controlled and "smoothly". If we continue to treat oil as a never ending resource and then do a surprised pikachu face once there is nothing left this will be much much worse, won't they?
We already know how to create plastics from CO2 extracted from the air and hydrogen from water. There is no shortage of raw material for plastics. The main question for the industry is cheap plastics and the answer to that has always been cheap oil and gas.
Using proven reserves and current consumption you get to 47 years and things run out. That's a "within my lifetime" number for many.
Nail on the head! It's not that we can't make products from something other than curde oil, it's just by far the cheapest. To a lot of people the economy is more important than the environment.
So my understanding out of this is that we need a government that takes responsibility and raises taxes on the cheap oil and gas to move the industry in the right direction. And we need a system where politicians aren't being paid by companies so they make decisions in their favor.
As a last point I'd like to mention that by that time there will be bio fuels and bio plastics. I am hoping that we will move to those within those 47 years.
We're working on all sorts of alternatives for fuels and for the plastics as you mention. I think we'll be fine as far as that's concerned. I agree that prices will go up and it will be hard. And it's up to governments to deal with these things responsibly.
The main issue is politics in a broken system and politicians being paid by companies that don't have our best interests in mind. How do we fight back?
Oh and trains. We need lots of trans because cleaning power supply is easier and cleaner than making batteries for trucks.
Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.
unfortunately the last two decades of discovery have provided ample petroleum and natural gas sources that won't be exploited unless we commit to fully and intentionally cooking the atmosphere.
we're not going to run out of petroleum, which will make it even harder to get people to leave it behind.
I wouldn't say we should get rid of all plastics. Some of it is required for medical purposes and food safety.
I would love for governments to grow some balls and start fighting against climate change. But in the case that that doesn't happen (and it probably won't because money). I would rather take price increase and inconvenience in exchange for a planet that's still livable in 100 years.
Really, the only way we are going to ween ourselves off fossil fuels successfully is if they are more expensive than the alternatives. I hear shit like that all the time (big example is meat alternatives). Simply removing the subsidies that fossil fuels do enjoy would go a long way toward making them less attractive.
Long life oil based plastic products aren't so bad.
Meat alternatives are bullshit. We need meat*, and grass fed beef and lamb are probably carbon neutral, almost definitely carbon neutral if anything comes of the seaweed fix for their methane emissions
And yes, kill government support for the oil industry and uses for the oil. Animals are going to be important for providing fertiliser for fields that abandon industrial stuff
*We can survive without it, we can do well with bacterial sourced creatine supplements, but we thrive on real meat
Meat alternatives are perfectly fine. And tons of people do perfectly fine with zero meat at all and thrive just as much as people who eat meat daily. I have no qualms with eating meat since I do but let's not kids ourselves and say it is a necessity.
The big problem with beef is the amount of land and resources it takes. It takes a fuck ton of water and feed to get a pound of beef. The added carbon from beef is largely due to transportation of the feed, electricity, and also transportation of it on its way to the store. If that were all green sources, cattle would basically be carbon neutral. We are a long way from that though. And even if the energy sources for those were green, the other resources they eat up leads to massive destruction of environments.
Animals can certainly play a part in sustainable farming but the amount we currently have is absurd and is nowhere near sustainable. Just killing the subsidies alone would bring it significantly closer to sustainable. If the US stopped providing subsidies for the cattle industry, beef would be $35/lb.
The land used for beef isn't useful for anything else. In Australia it's arid grasslands. We can't eat grass, sheep and cows can turn grass into wool and milk and meat
Transportation of feed is not a factor in grass fed, grass finished animals
Who said anything about veganism? You do know that being a vegetarian is not the same as being vegan, right?
If the beef industry was largely composed of grass fed cattle that requires no grass to be watered, there would be much less of an issue. But that only makes up a small percentage of the industry. And saying that grassland is not useful for anything ignores the ecosystem that is already there. It may be arid but it is not devoid of life.
But forcing a sustainable model and removing subsidies would absolutely go a long way toward mitigating the environmental impact of the beef industry since beef would likely be USD $70/lb.
A statement like "veganism is unhealthy" is so objectively wrong that it really harms your credibility in general. I wonder how much you actually read from the article, or did you just grab the title and run with it?
There are a small number of specific nutrients that are readily available in meat that are harder to come by in a vegan diet. Harder but entirely possible, especially with supplements.
And many of the meat alternatives that you were disparaging earlier are specifically engineered to provide those nutrients (in particular Impossible and Beyond brands).
"Veganism is unhealthy" in the same way that any eating pattern is unhealthy if you aren't mindful of what you're eating. Conventional meat-based diets have much higher risk of heart disease due to high cholesterol, so let's go ahead and label that unhealthy too.
If you think prices will be high without the use of fossil fuels, oooh boy just wait for the coming climate collapse that will obliterate all modern agriculture, create billions of climate refugees, decimate human civilization as we know it, and end all global supply chains.
Almost all of the things have fossil fuel free alternatives and the out of control costs are mostly from corporate greed. Strict but fair price controls would enable a society that can afford not to use fossil fuels for all but a few things.
I'm PRETTY sure that's a "incognito mode and several kinds of privacy guarding software" kind of search better suited for a search engine that isn't also a US government contractor 😄
Honestly, it's a very known and discussed book within the climate justice movement and won't put you on any list. Btw: there is also a movie on archive.org I think.
And I mean to google in a general sense, not necessarily on the page with the same way.
Am I the only person who remembers how we already decided that some jokes are very dangerous? You get some impressionable twenty something thinking everyone is serious...
We didn't, they decided to force it onto us. JPEG-XL is technically superior, but they refused to implement it into Chromium to push their own garbage because they know most people use Chromium anyway.
That would only make you feel good. It would not make real change.
I'm frustrated that I want to get a full off the grid solar setup but then it'll cost 25K and won't really offset itself until 10 years or more. I'll feel good about being net zero in home energy usage but that is not a cost that the average person can afford.
Size refers to how many solar panels you have and their efficiency. Try
https://sunroof.withgoogle.com but I think that site undersizes and expects you to pull some from the grid.
Yep. I was learning about the actions we need(ed) to take like 25+ years ago in elementary school. But we didn't take any of those actions and instead added 2.5 billion to the population.
The problem is millions die, government's are no longer able to govern and popularist war lords gain power in the chaos which results in huge conflicts that cause far more ecological damage without any measures or efforts to remedy them - we still get clomate change but probably sooner and worse.
Also let me ask the people here with children who among you would let your child freeze to death and who would chop down a tree to burn? The ecological damage done by a civilization collapse would be intense, we're too close to the edge to risk that - maybe if it'd fallen at the start of the Industrial revolution but how long would it have been until that technology comes back and we're right where we are?
We need to change society and evolve new technology, the later is actually doing really well with many giant leaps for climate friendly technologies and infrastructure but society is proving to be very resistant, people aren't going to create a new greener world if they get angry at the very idea of being told to reduce, reuse, recycle.
Why would government fall over? They have police and military to keep/restore order
Anyway out of the violent methods I prefer a slower method where selective vandalism pushes away investment and insurance, so the fleets of diesel ships can be slowly replaced; so city energy can slowly adapt
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.
That's my point. I knew y'all were wannabe terrorists for a while, but everyone kept denying/downplaying it. I now have several highly up voted posts to point at. I'm sure the denial will continue, but this a start.
Radical? Sure. Terrorist? Nah. Liberals (and especially right wing libs) are violent towards marginalized groups and literally the planet itself, among others. Marxists, anarchists, etc. are violent towards capitalism and those who seek to uphold it. Revolution takes shape in many ways and some of those are violent, particularly towards the end. Don't act like the system we're living in isn't abhorrent and violent. Politics in all of its forms boil down to violence. What are you seeking to build, what needs to be destroyed, who stands in your way, and what means are you able to use? That's politics in a nutshell. Answer those questions for the majority of governments the world over and then answer them for your left wing Boogeyman of choice. Which sounds like it's worth fighting for?
What of the police state though? How can revolutionaries stay out of the gulags in order to fight these revolutions you speak of.
I don’t believe in the extreme, tired ways of the retirees of the world. There’s plenty of smart routes to change that don’t require being thrown in jail.
We live in the technical age, one hacking group took out most of Las Vegas slots. Anything is possible through though and intelligent action. Stupid violence leads to unnecessary death.
While these idiots are advocating for a revolution they'll neither participate in nor be effective if they did, the rest of the world will just keep innovating it's way out of problems.
People like the dude you're replying to are the worst kind of useless. They're the kind of person buying Powerball tickets to try to get out of debt.
Imagine you're in a room and someone is pumping some gas into the room. SSsssssssssssssss.
The people pumping in the gas say "don't worry it'll be ok, just keep on doing your work, trust us!" But the smartest people in the room all say "yeah... that's gonna kill us eventually."
One guy starts kicking at the vent the gas is coming from.
Another guy says "keep that racket down! I want to be a good boy and get my work done!"
I fully agree with the sentiment... but I'm also not sure kicking at the vent will do much to stop the room from filling. To solve that I think we'd need to tackle the larger forces creating a situation where someone somehow benefits from the absurd situation of pumping gas into this hypothetical shared room....aka economic system.
We are already allowed to stop. Turning on a machine is an action. We don't need more technology to stop using existing technology.
It sounds like your concern is more systemic than the literal action of polluting. In which case, the action we're currently taking is legal protection of polluters from people who would defend themselves.
Sorry if this is putting words in your mouth, but we aren't entitled to all the same stuff we have today, at the cost of destroying the climate. We're essentially stealing from future people.
So you think the reasonable person is the one that wants to sit around debating who's fault it is while gas is still pumped into the room is the reasonable person?
We shouldn't damage that gas pump because an underpaid worker installed it? We don't want to be a nuisance! SSSSSSssssssssssssss.....
What if that gas allows everyone in the room to function and when it stops they all either die or fight for the limited alternatives, that fight releases far more gas than would have been released over the next five hours and kills all the people working on opening the window and making alternatives who would have been finished with in the hour?
Your metaphor only works because it misses out all the important bits.
Your mistake is to assume everyone is on the same level, having access to the same amounts of resources. The guy asking you to let him do his job is doing so in order to survive. He doesn’t think four generations ahead. He barely thinks four meals ahead.
So the guy working to survive is the reasonable one, whilst people with no food, power, living, clothing, infrastructure, or any real form of insecurity, who ask them to start kicking the vent are just too obtuse and unaware of the real world to start thinking about reason.
Global warming is bad. Your kids crying themselves to sleep because of hunger is worse. I don’t care what your argument is. It is worse. So stop attacking people trying to survive, and start looking for alternatives before asking people to give their lives up, for your kids future. Be less selfish.
Worse: saying people that are trying to get by without any help from privileged folks (spoiler alert: those few quid you gave some NGO is being used in its majority to pay for wages in your own country) are “shheeple” is the apex of stupidity.
And criticizing people for pointing pity the flaws in your reasoning just shows how obtuse “green” people actually are. We have to fight global warming, but it does not start by having a Tesla. It starts by having viable alternatives, that are affordable to everyone, so a transition is possible.
So yeah, let’s make tons of noise around ending fossil fuels with an electric Volvo, Mercedes or Audi in the garage. Let say nuclear is as bad as fossil, while we’re at it, so we can show how truly stupid we are. Let’s have less ways for poor people to have food. I am sure Bill Gates will take care of the tab.
Sometimes I wonder if people actually are this stupid, or are just doing it for internet clout.
Congratulations, my “working class” friend, for your rant!
Hope you got the kick you needed out of insulting someone, as if you knew me, where I am from and what I am talking about, like probably you do regularly on social media.
Meanwhile, let the grown ups do the dirty work, so you can say your Tesla is the way to go. I am glad my existence makes your arrogance possible. Sleep well. There is no reasoning with obtuse.
Have you ever felt hunger? Have you ever seen someone beg you for food? Not someone approach you in Times Square, Piccadilly Circus, Champs-Élysées, or whichever privileged place you are from, in order to make a buck, but see someone weak from actual hunger? Have you seen that?
I am all for green energy, and God knows I want us to stay away from fossil fuels.
But going “yeah, let’s end fossil fuels, and then see what happens to fix it ” is being very cavalier about ending millions of lifes, making billions suffer all around the world, so you can say you’ve done something good in your privileged community, go to the country club, opera or whatever and boast about your achievement.
But hey, you won’t be affected, so who cares, right? Let the poor eat brioches!
I'd be much more likely to support and sympathize with a group blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure than standing in the fucking road, blocking traffic.
The clear answer is yes. This is exactly like the people who say they won't be allies anymore if we LGBT+ people aren't polite enough.
No halfway decent person who isn't a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest. That user's take stems from discourse specifically designed to shut down protests, and it's imperative that we do not let it work.
So no, the "dude" doesn't have a "point." It's all horseshit. Shut them down immediately when they start flapping their pie hole with that shit.
No halfway decent person who isn't a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest.
You assume there are significantly more "halfway decent people" than "steaming piles of excrement". If your assumption were true, we would have abandoned fossil fuels in favor of electric vehicles at least 40 years ago, and wouldn't be having this argument today. Humanity leans far more to the "excrement" side of this particular debate.
You need the support of quite a lot of the people you describe as "steaming piles of excrement", and all you're doing is driving them straight to the first politician who says "I'll lock up every last one of these asshole protesters as soon as they step in the street" while taking the money of every oil tycoon on the planet.
No, OP's idea is infinitely superior to those jobless, orange-coated jackasses.
The problem is studies have demonstrated it's counterproductive both in the popular debate and at driving policy, it can actually set back the green movement.
Just because you agree with their idealism doesn't mean you need to agree with their behaviour, if I burn tires to get awareness for climate change that isn't something a sensible person supports
Protests are supposed to raise awareness and motivate people to join their cause. These particular protests are turning away far more people from this cause than they are gaining.
These protests are ideal for promoting stricter laws against jaywalking and unlawful detention, but not so much for reducing the use of fossil fuels.
When an oil refinery blows up and gasoline prices are suddenly 8x what they are now are you going to be saying "OMG why did they do this without any kind of warning"?
Consider the possibility that blocking traffic, throwing paint on paintings and yachts, the orange dust, etc. might be a warning. If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think about what your plan will be when you can no longer afford to put gasoline in your car. Put emotion aside and think about how you would logically solve that problem. Because you might have to soon enough.
So you've chosen your side in this. No one needs to feel bad about the problems it'll cause for you if and when it comes time to start blowing up refineries.
Correct. The problems of a blown up refinery will affect the oil producers first. The problems of obstructing traffic will affect the oil producers never.
Picket the oil infrastructure. Make it expensive and unreliable, and consumers will gravitate away from it. The problems it will cause are not a big, but a feature.
Oil prices rising won't just affect cars that run on petroleum products. All your electricity bill will probably rise as well unless power in your area is 100% provided by renewable energy.
Even then, most renewable energy still rely on fossil fuel to run the vehicles for transporting and maintaining their infrastructure, so now even that cost would sharply increase.
Talking about EVs, just which EV companies have eliminated the involvement of any fossil fuel in their supply line? Unless we have enough of these supply lines, EV prices will also increase for the majority of people.
Very few electric plants burn petroleum products. Fossil fuel plants typically burn either coal or natural gas, neither of which would be significantly affected by disruption of oil-based infrastructure.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is dumb. I hope some mentally unstable person takes this to heart and fucks everything up for everyone so we can atleast have someone to point fingers.
Ah yes, "enlightened" centrism, where causing relatively insignificant damage to stop the destruction of the planet is just as bad as destroying the planet for profit.. 🤦♀️
This shitty take reeks of being
more devoted to "order" than to justice; and preferring a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
Bruh this has nothing to do with centrism. It's "if we blow up an oil pipeline, the oil will spill out and be far more destructive than it would've otherwise"ism.
Fuck off with your "Insignificant damage" bullshit.
Fuck fossil fuels, fuck the industry that peddles them, but your ideas would just cause way more problems than they solve.
It doesn't have to be an extreme like that. It would send a strong message If every gas station had to replace their LCD screens every week, or the windows of their headquarters.
But I guess non-action and bootlicking while we wait for our thoroughly bribed politicians to do nothing is better.
A large number of gas stations are franchises. Breaking the LCD screens hurts the local franchise owner, not whichever fossil fuel company they're working with.
More to the point, breaking LCD screens accomplishes absolutely nothing. Most people don't drive because they love driving, they drive because of zoning, sprawl and a lack of reasonable alternatives. If you get rid of fossil fuel infrastructure without fixing the underlying car dependency, they'll be stuck at home.
I do, and I get it. We used to have the infrastructure, but it was lost as our communities became more car-centric. Personally, I own a cheap used fuel efficient car that I only use when I have to drive long distances.
I also know a lot of people who own gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs who don't need them, and people who choose to live in expensive suburban areas because they fancy themselves too good to live amongst us "poor people" in "bad neighborhoods" because we're supposedly dangerous. Also, a lot of people who think they have to drive everywhere they go, even a few blocks from their home. Those people can fuck right off.
I'd rather be inconvenienced by losing my car than continuing to subsidize the type of people I see driving every day.
The amount people drive is closely tied to local urban design, which comes down largely to local zoning regulations and infrastructure design. Those are primarily impacted by the people who show up at town meetings and vote.
Advocate for walkable, mixed-use zoning, improved bike infrastructure, etc. Most people aren't "drivers", "cyclists" or "public transit riders", they're people who want to get from point A to point B as easily as possible and will take whatever is best.
You're the only one talking about non-action and bootlicking. I think you might be projecting a little.
And please realize that actions such as breaking lcd screens is going to increase the production of lcd screens. But if you wanna throw some bricks through some windows, i say go for it.
Just to point out, we're running out of sand to make those windows, as well. They're digging it up from the ocean floor, at this point, which isn't great.
I have no solutions, but I'll sure be quick to point out the problems...
Anything other than writing strongly worded emails is going to cause some form of economic damage, even just peaceful protesting with signs.
It's about being heard and forcing the governments to ignore the billions in oil bribes they have already received. You can't do that by sitting at home and making angry faces.
At what point did I give a shit about economic damage? Throw bricks, occupy refineries, do what you want. Just don't dump an inordinate amount of toxic material into our environment just to try prove a point about protecting the environment.
"You can't do that by sitting at home and making angry faces." Agree 100%, never said we could, glad we're on the same side here.
Your take is bad. The person who is destroying the planet isnt some conpany that sells you shit. They just give you what you want for some competitive price. I would bet my entire life that if most people had the opportunity to pay more for a greener product/greener service, they would still choose the cheaper/worse for environment option.
I mostly agree with this. Companies only pollute as part of their process for making whatever good or service it is that they sell. They only sell those goods or services because people are buying. If suddenly everybody stopped buying and switched 100% to growing their own crops, the pollution from corporations would drop to zero. Not because they'd suddenly care about the environment, but because you don't spew out a ton of CO2 making a widget if nobody's buying widgets.
Having said that, corporations are optimized to produce as much profit as possible. If it's cheaper to run a plant on coal and they can get away with it, they'll do it.
As consumers, we have no real way to audit a company's supply chain. Even a government would have trouble doing it since most supply chains are international. If I honestly wanted to buy the most ethically-created widget out there, I'd have to trust a lot of people's stories about where everything comes from. And, because corporations know how hard it is to audit their supply chains, they're incentivized to save any bucks they can, even if that means massive pollution, massive suffering, and so-on.
Then there's lobbying. It would be nice if the government passed a law that required audited supply chains, but the government won't because it's corrupt. Evil government. But, the government won't pass anything like that because corporations will lobby against it and bribe politicians to make sure it never happens. Evil corporations. But, the money corporations have to lobby / bribe comes from their revenues, which come from people buying their goods and services. Evil consumers. But, consumers don't know which corporations are lobbying and bribing because there's no audit trail. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a law requiring audit trails...
Fundamentally, we can only do what we can do. Part of that is admitting we're part of the problem. If you own an F-150 for status, not because you move heavy things often, you're a big part of the problem. If you live in a part of the world where you need central heating in the winter, you're part of the problem. If you run air conditioning in the summer, you're part of the problem. If you use a car (even an electric one) instead of public transit, you're part of the problem. If you buy potato chips in a plastic bag, you're part of the problem. If you eat meat, you're part of the problem. If you have kids, you're a huge part of the problem. If you watch sports, you're part of the problem.
This is the true black pill. We are in a loop where we as the general public are in control, but everything is so convoluted so we are more comfortable shifting blame to the next guy. Its attractive to say that we cant see the supply chain but in the end it wont matter unless we start caring about it.
But what does it mean to care in this case? We can end lobbying, but we dont vote for that because it might be in an omnibus bill that also gives tax breaks to billionaires. We can end overfishing, but we like eating sushi on Fridays even though we live in Omaha. We can reduce overspending on useless purchases, but I have undiagnosed depression and spending gives me endorphins.
I would bet my entire life that if most people had the opportunity to pay more for a greener product/greener service, they would still choose the cheaper/worse for environment option.
Yeah that's the point. We know people will choose the cheaper option even if it fucks up their future.
Some oil refineries getting exploded would result in the "worse for the environment" option to be more expensive than the green option. Now I don't think we're at that point yet, but without significant changes, in a few years we may reach the point where blowing up a refinery is the only way for people to have a chance for survival.
We need both. Fucking hate binary thinking. It's a curse.
Maybe, but one seems to get all the attention and little results.
That's because no one pays attention to the huge developments in infrastructure or the amazing new technologies coming to market - e fuels like sequestered carbon jet fuel made from excess renewable power, and no it's not a science fiction dream it's happening now. Of course we should have more funding for these things but they are happening.
A huge part of that problem is that people resist even the slightest positive change, paper straws are fine but I bet there are people who like this post who also liked posts complaining about them - if we stopped organized sports and spent that half a trillion on transitioning local infrastructure or establishing carbon sequestration systems with productive use of captured carbon (e.g. building materials that get landfilled at eol) we could move much faster, but no one will give up a single football game to save the planet they'd rather bomb something and feel like a hero
Bread and circuses, working as intended. We wouldn't want people coming home after a day's work and putting anger and frustration into something productive, would we?
Not saying I disagree but methinks many of you don't realize everything we use fossil fuels for from plastic to fertilizer it's not just gas. You think costs are spiralling out of control now.... oooh boy just wait.
Society would change, a lot. I’d be very interested in what a plastic-phobic society would look like. Remember milkmen, who would take one empty glass bottle and give you a full one?
As in, billions will die? That is a big change indeed...
Yeah it's scary that people don't seem to understand that this would lead to billions dead which would cause chaos and resources wars that totally doom the planet.
We need infrastructure to transition, we need technological innovations and cultural stability
There is actually another myth: the planet will do just fine - it is the humanity that will die as the result. Not that we would care about this nuance at that point...
Not if we nuke it all into an irradiated wasteland in desperation.
That will take a few hundred million years to recover then. Not to the same biome, there will certainly be some crazy species popping up. From what i recall, Earth still has a few billion years before it is consumed by the Sun, should be ok.
It's possible to ruin the planet enough that the things supporting life, the ozone layer and the atmosphere for example, are wrecked beyond repair and that the planet becomes permanently lifeless. Sure, technically the planet will still exist, but so will every other dead rock in space.
We still have those!
I would love a return to milkmen tbh
That's true, we need fossil fuels for so many things besides transportation. At the same time, we are simply running out of fossil fuels. Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.
So what I am wondering is, even if one thinks man made climate change is a hoax or something similar, shouldn't the first and foremost thing everyone agrees on be to still spare those scarce resources? For things we really ("really") need to make from oil?
The first thing that comes to mind (maybe since I work in the lab) is medical equipment. You don't really want to have to wash and reuse things like catheters, do you? I am not sure if bioplastics (i.e., still plastics, but made from plants) would be an alternative here once we run out but I sincerely hope so.
Prices will go up, in any case, and it will be a painful transistion. But now we are at a somewhat luxurious point where we can still make this transistion somewhat controlled and "smoothly". If we continue to treat oil as a never ending resource and then do a surprised pikachu face once there is nothing left this will be much much worse, won't they?
We already know how to create plastics from CO2 extracted from the air and hydrogen from water. There is no shortage of raw material for plastics. The main question for the industry is cheap plastics and the answer to that has always been cheap oil and gas.
Using proven reserves and current consumption you get to 47 years and things run out. That's a "within my lifetime" number for many.
Nail on the head! It's not that we can't make products from something other than curde oil, it's just by far the cheapest. To a lot of people the economy is more important than the environment.
So my understanding out of this is that we need a government that takes responsibility and raises taxes on the cheap oil and gas to move the industry in the right direction. And we need a system where politicians aren't being paid by companies so they make decisions in their favor.
As a last point I'd like to mention that by that time there will be bio fuels and bio plastics. I am hoping that we will move to those within those 47 years.
We're working on all sorts of alternatives for fuels and for the plastics as you mention. I think we'll be fine as far as that's concerned. I agree that prices will go up and it will be hard. And it's up to governments to deal with these things responsibly.
The main issue is politics in a broken system and politicians being paid by companies that don't have our best interests in mind. How do we fight back?
Oh and trains. We need lots of trans because cleaning power supply is easier and cleaner than making batteries for trucks.
unfortunately the last two decades of discovery have provided ample petroleum and natural gas sources that won't be exploited unless we commit to fully and intentionally cooking the atmosphere.
we're not going to run out of petroleum, which will make it even harder to get people to leave it behind.
Say what now
We have plenty of rope with which to hang ourselves.
I wouldn't say we should get rid of all plastics. Some of it is required for medical purposes and food safety.
I would love for governments to grow some balls and start fighting against climate change. But in the case that that doesn't happen (and it probably won't because money). I would rather take price increase and inconvenience in exchange for a planet that's still livable in 100 years.
we could also use some responsible disposal rules for plastics to prevent them from ending up in our circulatory systems and oceans.
Plant based plastics are a thing.
Really, the only way we are going to ween ourselves off fossil fuels successfully is if they are more expensive than the alternatives. I hear shit like that all the time (big example is meat alternatives). Simply removing the subsidies that fossil fuels do enjoy would go a long way toward making them less attractive.
You're right, I think. But isn't that the entire problem ? government collusion with private interests ?
Long life oil based plastic products aren't so bad.
Meat alternatives are bullshit. We need meat*, and grass fed beef and lamb are probably carbon neutral, almost definitely carbon neutral if anything comes of the seaweed fix for their methane emissions
And yes, kill government support for the oil industry and uses for the oil. Animals are going to be important for providing fertiliser for fields that abandon industrial stuff
*We can survive without it, we can do well with bacterial sourced creatine supplements, but we thrive on real meat
Meat alternatives are perfectly fine. And tons of people do perfectly fine with zero meat at all and thrive just as much as people who eat meat daily. I have no qualms with eating meat since I do but let's not kids ourselves and say it is a necessity.
The big problem with beef is the amount of land and resources it takes. It takes a fuck ton of water and feed to get a pound of beef. The added carbon from beef is largely due to transportation of the feed, electricity, and also transportation of it on its way to the store. If that were all green sources, cattle would basically be carbon neutral. We are a long way from that though. And even if the energy sources for those were green, the other resources they eat up leads to massive destruction of environments.
Animals can certainly play a part in sustainable farming but the amount we currently have is absurd and is nowhere near sustainable. Just killing the subsidies alone would bring it significantly closer to sustainable. If the US stopped providing subsidies for the cattle industry, beef would be $35/lb.
Veganism is unhealthy
The land used for beef isn't useful for anything else. In Australia it's arid grasslands. We can't eat grass, sheep and cows can turn grass into wool and milk and meat
Transportation of feed is not a factor in grass fed, grass finished animals
Who said anything about veganism? You do know that being a vegetarian is not the same as being vegan, right?
If the beef industry was largely composed of grass fed cattle that requires no grass to be watered, there would be much less of an issue. But that only makes up a small percentage of the industry. And saying that grassland is not useful for anything ignores the ecosystem that is already there. It may be arid but it is not devoid of life.
But forcing a sustainable model and removing subsidies would absolutely go a long way toward mitigating the environmental impact of the beef industry since beef would likely be USD $70/lb.
A statement like "veganism is unhealthy" is so objectively wrong that it really harms your credibility in general. I wonder how much you actually read from the article, or did you just grab the title and run with it?
There are a small number of specific nutrients that are readily available in meat that are harder to come by in a vegan diet. Harder but entirely possible, especially with supplements.
And many of the meat alternatives that you were disparaging earlier are specifically engineered to provide those nutrients (in particular Impossible and Beyond brands).
"Veganism is unhealthy" in the same way that any eating pattern is unhealthy if you aren't mindful of what you're eating. Conventional meat-based diets have much higher risk of heart disease due to high cholesterol, so let's go ahead and label that unhealthy too.
If you think prices will be high without the use of fossil fuels, oooh boy just wait for the coming climate collapse that will obliterate all modern agriculture, create billions of climate refugees, decimate human civilization as we know it, and end all global supply chains.
Almost all of the things have fossil fuel free alternatives and the out of control costs are mostly from corporate greed. Strict but fair price controls would enable a society that can afford not to use fossil fuels for all but a few things.
Am I the only one who thinks this is funny? It's a joke people.
You mean c/memes isn't the place for serious political discussion?
Private Minecraft servers are the best place to plan and practice terrorist attacks.
Except when the top half of the World Trade Center just stays hanging in the air.
Google "How to Blow up a Pipeline" by Andreas Malm
I'm PRETTY sure that's a "incognito mode and several kinds of privacy guarding software" kind of search better suited for a search engine that isn't also a US government contractor 😄
Honestly, it's a very known and discussed book within the climate justice movement and won't put you on any list. Btw: there is also a movie on archive.org I think.
And I mean to google in a general sense, not necessarily on the page with the same way.
Yeah, I actually knew all that (except for the last one, which I halfway expected), but I can seldom resist feigning ignorance for a joke 😉
Is it? Is it really? Should it be?
Am I the only person who remembers how we already decided that some jokes are very dangerous? You get some impressionable twenty something thinking everyone is serious...
checks community name
If they think memes are factual, they need better life skills/Education
We didn't, they decided to force it onto us. JPEG-XL is technically superior, but they refused to implement it into Chromium to push their own garbage because they know most people use Chromium anyway.
Just switch to Firefox nightly
I have no idea why it doesn’t work in Firefox standard, the option to turn support on is there but it does nothing
I noticed that, nice to know it's in nightly.
Unfortunately, I don't think anyone's gonna actually use the format because the vast majority of people can't use it.
Sites should nag people for using an "Unsupported Browser" and tell them to switch to a modern & secure one like Firefox or Librewolf.
That would only make you feel good. It would not make real change.
I'm frustrated that I want to get a full off the grid solar setup but then it'll cost 25K and won't really offset itself until 10 years or more. I'll feel good about being net zero in home energy usage but that is not a cost that the average person can afford.
It'll be more than $25k. A battery alone is $10k, and a 10kw system is more than $25k.
Take a look at a year's worth of electricity bills to see what size you actually need to hit zero. Consider where a future EV fits in.
I was thinking I want just 4 or 5 kw of storage. Also wanting an electric car to plug in but that's another coat I'm not ready to dive into. Ugh.
Size refers to how many solar panels you have and their efficiency. Try https://sunroof.withgoogle.com but I think that site undersizes and expects you to pull some from the grid.
Molotovs are the preferred beverage of the revolution
Taste like victory
Honestly this would speed up the process of transitioning away from FF.
A bunch of people would die early.
Yep. I was learning about the actions we need(ed) to take like 25+ years ago in elementary school. But we didn't take any of those actions and instead added 2.5 billion to the population.
Great job guys!
Compared to the bunch of people that die early currently because of pollution?
More than a billion?
https://lemmy.world/post/4309612
a small price to pay for salvation
Your family and you first, then I believe you believed your idiotic comment.
huh, never heard of sarcasm? or quoting a movie?
Versus the millions who will be killed by climate change?
The problem is millions die, government's are no longer able to govern and popularist war lords gain power in the chaos which results in huge conflicts that cause far more ecological damage without any measures or efforts to remedy them - we still get clomate change but probably sooner and worse.
Also let me ask the people here with children who among you would let your child freeze to death and who would chop down a tree to burn? The ecological damage done by a civilization collapse would be intense, we're too close to the edge to risk that - maybe if it'd fallen at the start of the Industrial revolution but how long would it have been until that technology comes back and we're right where we are?
We need to change society and evolve new technology, the later is actually doing really well with many giant leaps for climate friendly technologies and infrastructure but society is proving to be very resistant, people aren't going to create a new greener world if they get angry at the very idea of being told to reduce, reuse, recycle.
Why would government fall over? They have police and military to keep/restore order
Anyway out of the violent methods I prefer a slower method where selective vandalism pushes away investment and insurance, so the fleets of diesel ships can be slowly replaced; so city energy can slowly adapt
Capital is already doing all the things you seem to want done, only without the terrorism.
GOD I LOVE TERRORISM
It's not terrorism, it's 🌟🌍ecoterrorism🌎🌟
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
problem is the terrorists aren't liberals, they're accelerationists who want a civil war.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/10/power-grid-attacks-00114563
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
Cars are a tiny fraction of a country's carbon footprint
Energy includes road transport which is 11.9%, of which cars+motorbikes+buses is 60% so 7.4% overall
Animal agriculture is about the same as passenger transport
My EV is a drop in the bucket. Only fossil fuel investors and governments can move the needle
Carbon numbers are from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Not necessarily, you can vote for someone who invests in nuclear over someone who invests back into coal
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.
At least y'all are being honest now. I was getting tired of being gaslit.
That “gaslighting” was us asking nicely
What did you think all of the talk about revolution involved? Radical change isn't normally achieved through peaceful measures
That's my point. I knew y'all were wannabe terrorists for a while, but everyone kept denying/downplaying it. I now have several highly up voted posts to point at. I'm sure the denial will continue, but this a start.
Funny how the people who want to harm the oil companies are "terrorists," but the people literally destroying the earth are not
Radical? Sure. Terrorist? Nah. Liberals (and especially right wing libs) are violent towards marginalized groups and literally the planet itself, among others. Marxists, anarchists, etc. are violent towards capitalism and those who seek to uphold it. Revolution takes shape in many ways and some of those are violent, particularly towards the end. Don't act like the system we're living in isn't abhorrent and violent. Politics in all of its forms boil down to violence. What are you seeking to build, what needs to be destroyed, who stands in your way, and what means are you able to use? That's politics in a nutshell. Answer those questions for the majority of governments the world over and then answer them for your left wing Boogeyman of choice. Which sounds like it's worth fighting for?
Which is why extremism continues to rise
More of a peaceful revolution kinda guy if possible but hard to do these days with how dire some things are getting.
I have a good feeling such revolutionaries would only fuel the oppositions fire
What of the police state though? How can revolutionaries stay out of the gulags in order to fight these revolutions you speak of.
I don’t believe in the extreme, tired ways of the retirees of the world. There’s plenty of smart routes to change that don’t require being thrown in jail.
We live in the technical age, one hacking group took out most of Las Vegas slots. Anything is possible through though and intelligent action. Stupid violence leads to unnecessary death.
While these idiots are advocating for a revolution they'll neither participate in nor be effective if they did, the rest of the world will just keep innovating it's way out of problems.
People like the dude you're replying to are the worst kind of useless. They're the kind of person buying Powerball tickets to try to get out of debt.
Definitely a sign you're going to win a war.
i'll never need to care because this is just a fantasy you console yourself with while not actually doing anything helpful
If the revolution comes, I can pretty much guarantee you're not gonna see the end of it.
Always blows my mind that you people think you'll somehow survive the war you encourage happening lol
You first coward.
So we're acknowledging that it's mostly a coordination problem.
I wouldn’t call it a hot take
i guess explosive take fits better
Por que no los dos?
en fecto!
They only works if you're wealthy enough to be solely dependent on your EV. Everyone else who can't afford one or takes transit would be fucked
Imagine you're in a room and someone is pumping some gas into the room. SSsssssssssssssss.
The people pumping in the gas say "don't worry it'll be ok, just keep on doing your work, trust us!" But the smartest people in the room all say "yeah... that's gonna kill us eventually."
One guy starts kicking at the vent the gas is coming from.
Another guy says "keep that racket down! I want to be a good boy and get my work done!"
Who is the reasonable person in this scenario?
I fully agree with the sentiment... but I'm also not sure kicking at the vent will do much to stop the room from filling. To solve that I think we'd need to tackle the larger forces creating a situation where someone somehow benefits from the absurd situation of pumping gas into this hypothetical shared room....aka economic system.
But pumping the gas is the action, and stopping is inaction.
We are already allowed to stop. Turning on a machine is an action. We don't need more technology to stop using existing technology.
It sounds like your concern is more systemic than the literal action of polluting. In which case, the action we're currently taking is legal protection of polluters from people who would defend themselves.
Sorry if this is putting words in your mouth, but we aren't entitled to all the same stuff we have today, at the cost of destroying the climate. We're essentially stealing from future people.
Certainly not the person who keeps blaming the underpaid worker for the gas leak instead of the billionaire who owns the building.
So you think the reasonable person is the one that wants to sit around debating who's fault it is while gas is still pumped into the room is the reasonable person?
We shouldn't damage that gas pump because an underpaid worker installed it? We don't want to be a nuisance! SSSSSSssssssssssssss.....
What if that gas allows everyone in the room to function and when it stops they all either die or fight for the limited alternatives, that fight releases far more gas than would have been released over the next five hours and kills all the people working on opening the window and making alternatives who would have been finished with in the hour?
Your metaphor only works because it misses out all the important bits.
You've just proven that you don't understand how metaphors work. Congrats!
Ha ha ok sure if that's what you went to pretend
Your mistake is to assume everyone is on the same level, having access to the same amounts of resources. The guy asking you to let him do his job is doing so in order to survive. He doesn’t think four generations ahead. He barely thinks four meals ahead.
So the guy working to survive is the reasonable one, whilst people with no food, power, living, clothing, infrastructure, or any real form of insecurity, who ask them to start kicking the vent are just too obtuse and unaware of the real world to start thinking about reason.
Global warming is bad. Your kids crying themselves to sleep because of hunger is worse. I don’t care what your argument is. It is worse. So stop attacking people trying to survive, and start looking for alternatives before asking people to give their lives up, for your kids future. Be less selfish.
Worse: saying people that are trying to get by without any help from privileged folks (spoiler alert: those few quid you gave some NGO is being used in its majority to pay for wages in your own country) are “shheeple” is the apex of stupidity.
And criticizing people for pointing pity the flaws in your reasoning just shows how obtuse “green” people actually are. We have to fight global warming, but it does not start by having a Tesla. It starts by having viable alternatives, that are affordable to everyone, so a transition is possible.
So yeah, let’s make tons of noise around ending fossil fuels with an electric Volvo, Mercedes or Audi in the garage. Let say nuclear is as bad as fossil, while we’re at it, so we can show how truly stupid we are. Let’s have less ways for poor people to have food. I am sure Bill Gates will take care of the tab.
Sometimes I wonder if people actually are this stupid, or are just doing it for internet clout.
Congratulations, my “working class” friend, for your rant!
Hope you got the kick you needed out of insulting someone, as if you knew me, where I am from and what I am talking about, like probably you do regularly on social media.
Meanwhile, let the grown ups do the dirty work, so you can say your Tesla is the way to go. I am glad my existence makes your arrogance possible. Sleep well. There is no reasoning with obtuse.
Have you ever felt hunger? Have you ever seen someone beg you for food? Not someone approach you in Times Square, Piccadilly Circus, Champs-Élysées, or whichever privileged place you are from, in order to make a buck, but see someone weak from actual hunger? Have you seen that?
I am all for green energy, and God knows I want us to stay away from fossil fuels.
But going “yeah, let’s end fossil fuels, and then see what happens to fix it ” is being very cavalier about ending millions of lifes, making billions suffer all around the world, so you can say you’ve done something good in your privileged community, go to the country club, opera or whatever and boast about your achievement.
But hey, you won’t be affected, so who cares, right? Let the poor eat brioches!
Transit would adapt quickly. Electric rail is easy. It'd only be a few shit years
There is no transit where I live. The only option is EVs which aren't affordable or suitable for many people.
LOL tell that to California.
But stuff like pipeline infrastructure, could be used for transporting hydrogen as ammonia in the future.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21440780/?ref_=ext_shr
I'd be much more likely to support and sympathize with a group blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure than standing in the fucking road, blocking traffic.
Ohno, people who are being systemically killed are making you late for work! Time to turn against them
The dude has a point whether we like it or not. Public support makes a difference. Losing it is a cost. Is what they're accomplishing worth that cost?
The clear answer is yes. This is exactly like the people who say they won't be allies anymore if we LGBT+ people aren't polite enough.
No halfway decent person who isn't a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest. That user's take stems from discourse specifically designed to shut down protests, and it's imperative that we do not let it work.
So no, the "dude" doesn't have a "point." It's all horseshit. Shut them down immediately when they start flapping their pie hole with that shit.
You assume there are significantly more "halfway decent people" than "steaming piles of excrement". If your assumption were true, we would have abandoned fossil fuels in favor of electric vehicles at least 40 years ago, and wouldn't be having this argument today. Humanity leans far more to the "excrement" side of this particular debate.
You need the support of quite a lot of the people you describe as "steaming piles of excrement", and all you're doing is driving them straight to the first politician who says "I'll lock up every last one of these asshole protesters as soon as they step in the street" while taking the money of every oil tycoon on the planet.
No, OP's idea is infinitely superior to those jobless, orange-coated jackasses.
If.
Protests are supposed to be disruptive. Standing in traffic is disruptive. What's the problem?
The problem is studies have demonstrated it's counterproductive both in the popular debate and at driving policy, it can actually set back the green movement.
Just because you agree with their idealism doesn't mean you need to agree with their behaviour, if I burn tires to get awareness for climate change that isn't something a sensible person supports
Protests are supposed to raise awareness and motivate people to join their cause. These particular protests are turning away far more people from this cause than they are gaining.
These protests are ideal for promoting stricter laws against jaywalking and unlawful detention, but not so much for reducing the use of fossil fuels.
anyone who's not already on board the climate change cause is either too stupid or too rich to care. neither of which can be fixed.
None of that is a justification for obstructing traffic.
Yes, that's an accurate summary of what I just said.
The only thing those idiots are likely to accomplish is stronger laws against jaywalking.
When an oil refinery blows up and gasoline prices are suddenly 8x what they are now are you going to be saying "OMG why did they do this without any kind of warning"?
Consider the possibility that blocking traffic, throwing paint on paintings and yachts, the orange dust, etc. might be a warning. If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think about what your plan will be when you can no longer afford to put gasoline in your car. Put emotion aside and think about how you would logically solve that problem. Because you might have to soon enough.
Yeah I get that you're an asshole that doesn't believe in anything. You just like hurting other people and pick whatever cause allows you to do so.
Given you're a professional asshole, why should anyone give a shit about you?
I use that time to think about bills classifying intentional obstruction of traffic to be unlawful detention.
So you've chosen your side in this. No one needs to feel bad about the problems it'll cause for you if and when it comes time to start blowing up refineries.
Haha so you're a racist asshole that expects people to be sympathetic to your personal hardships? You don't deserve any sympathy.
Correct. The problems of a blown up refinery will affect the oil producers first. The problems of obstructing traffic will affect the oil producers never.
Picket the oil infrastructure. Make it expensive and unreliable, and consumers will gravitate away from it. The problems it will cause are not a big, but a feature.
Why not support both?
Giving the general public and the oil companies a common enemy. It's a bold move, Cotton.
Until gasoline became unavailable (while still being needed by billions of people) because of terrorism instead of a more reasonable approach.
Gasoline won't become unavailable. There is too much redundancy built into the production and distribution networks.
What would happen is the price of gasoline would rise, which would further drive electric vehicle adoption.
OP's approach is infinitely superior to harassing drivers directly.
Oil prices rising won't just affect cars that run on petroleum products. All your electricity bill will probably rise as well unless power in your area is 100% provided by renewable energy.
Even then, most renewable energy still rely on fossil fuel to run the vehicles for transporting and maintaining their infrastructure, so now even that cost would sharply increase.
Talking about EVs, just which EV companies have eliminated the involvement of any fossil fuel in their supply line? Unless we have enough of these supply lines, EV prices will also increase for the majority of people.
Very few electric plants burn petroleum products. Fossil fuel plants typically burn either coal or natural gas, neither of which would be significantly affected by disruption of oil-based infrastructure.
Natural gas is a petroleum product.
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.
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 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.
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.
Blowing up pipelines doesn't kill anyone. I know you think property damage is worse than murder, but sane people don't think that.
By the same logic, climate change doesn't kill anyone.
There is an appropriate place for coordinated political violence and it's absolutely never, officer ;)
the likelihood of u blowing off op's head is as high as the likelihood of anyone here blowing up an oil pipeline
I think that's another point trying to be made by the above comment...
Totally agree.
Btw, I prefer chacha20 🙃 ... you're obsolete!
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.
Don't care. Violence will lead to violence.
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.
Violence is wrong. Period.
Does self-defense count as violence? Because forcefully dismantling the oil infrastructure can save lives.
Sir, this is ![email protected]
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.
The excessive pollution is aggression. More people will die from climate change than from lack of oil, regardless of what you think.
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.
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.
lol no polluters are not just like gay people
This is dumb. I hope some mentally unstable person takes this to heart and fucks everything up for everyone so we can atleast have someone to point fingers.
people who read a meme and then commit a terrorist attack are kind of a long shot and needed help to begin with
Fossil fuels cause massive environmental damage. Let's cause some more!
Ah yes, "enlightened" centrism, where causing relatively insignificant damage to stop the destruction of the planet is just as bad as destroying the planet for profit.. 🤦♀️
This shitty take reeks of being
Bruh this has nothing to do with centrism. It's "if we blow up an oil pipeline, the oil will spill out and be far more destructive than it would've otherwise"ism.
Fuck off with your "Insignificant damage" bullshit.
Fuck fossil fuels, fuck the industry that peddles them, but your ideas would just cause way more problems than they solve.
It doesn't have to be an extreme like that. It would send a strong message If every gas station had to replace their LCD screens every week, or the windows of their headquarters.
But I guess non-action and bootlicking while we wait for our thoroughly bribed politicians to do nothing is better.
Gas stations are not the place to make a difference. It's at the very end of the supply chain.
Especially when gas stations are often individually franchised... Burning an Exxon down doesn't actually hurt the Exxon company all that much.
A large number of gas stations are franchises. Breaking the LCD screens hurts the local franchise owner, not whichever fossil fuel company they're working with.
More to the point, breaking LCD screens accomplishes absolutely nothing. Most people don't drive because they love driving, they drive because of zoning, sprawl and a lack of reasonable alternatives. If you get rid of fossil fuel infrastructure without fixing the underlying car dependency, they'll be stuck at home.
The people downvoting you clearly haven't lived anywhere with shitty public transportation.
I do, and I get it. We used to have the infrastructure, but it was lost as our communities became more car-centric. Personally, I own a cheap used fuel efficient car that I only use when I have to drive long distances.
I also know a lot of people who own gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs who don't need them, and people who choose to live in expensive suburban areas because they fancy themselves too good to live amongst us "poor people" in "bad neighborhoods" because we're supposedly dangerous. Also, a lot of people who think they have to drive everywhere they go, even a few blocks from their home. Those people can fuck right off.
I'd rather be inconvenienced by losing my car than continuing to subsidize the type of people I see driving every day.
Breaking those LCD screens might just convince them to stop installing them, stop playing those fucking ads while I'm trying to refuel.
The problem with gas stations isn't their LCD screens.
Nation-wide action, of course, is best. Something like the green new deal or even a market-based solution like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.
On a local level, though, there's a lot of action that can be done.
Nation-wide, the biggest category of carbon emissions is transportation, at 28% of all emissions. Over half of all transportation-related emissions are from cars and trucks.
The amount people drive is closely tied to local urban design, which comes down largely to local zoning regulations and infrastructure design. Those are primarily impacted by the people who show up at town meetings and vote.
Advocate for walkable, mixed-use zoning, improved bike infrastructure, etc. Most people aren't "drivers", "cyclists" or "public transit riders", they're people who want to get from point A to point B as easily as possible and will take whatever is best.
You're the only one talking about non-action and bootlicking. I think you might be projecting a little.
And please realize that actions such as breaking lcd screens is going to increase the production of lcd screens. But if you wanna throw some bricks through some windows, i say go for it.
Just to point out, we're running out of sand to make those windows, as well. They're digging it up from the ocean floor, at this point, which isn't great.
I have no solutions, but I'll sure be quick to point out the problems...
True. But at least glass is non-toxic, unreactive, and will break back down into sand over time.
I'll take it as the lesser of two evils.
Good point.
Anything other than writing strongly worded emails is going to cause some form of economic damage, even just peaceful protesting with signs.
It's about being heard and forcing the governments to ignore the billions in oil bribes they have already received. You can't do that by sitting at home and making angry faces.
At what point did I give a shit about economic damage? Throw bricks, occupy refineries, do what you want. Just don't dump an inordinate amount of toxic material into our environment just to try prove a point about protecting the environment.
"You can't do that by sitting at home and making angry faces." Agree 100%, never said we could, glad we're on the same side here.
Your take is bad. The person who is destroying the planet isnt some conpany that sells you shit. They just give you what you want for some competitive price. I would bet my entire life that if most people had the opportunity to pay more for a greener product/greener service, they would still choose the cheaper/worse for environment option.
I mostly agree with this. Companies only pollute as part of their process for making whatever good or service it is that they sell. They only sell those goods or services because people are buying. If suddenly everybody stopped buying and switched 100% to growing their own crops, the pollution from corporations would drop to zero. Not because they'd suddenly care about the environment, but because you don't spew out a ton of CO2 making a widget if nobody's buying widgets.
Having said that, corporations are optimized to produce as much profit as possible. If it's cheaper to run a plant on coal and they can get away with it, they'll do it.
As consumers, we have no real way to audit a company's supply chain. Even a government would have trouble doing it since most supply chains are international. If I honestly wanted to buy the most ethically-created widget out there, I'd have to trust a lot of people's stories about where everything comes from. And, because corporations know how hard it is to audit their supply chains, they're incentivized to save any bucks they can, even if that means massive pollution, massive suffering, and so-on.
Then there's lobbying. It would be nice if the government passed a law that required audited supply chains, but the government won't because it's corrupt. Evil government. But, the government won't pass anything like that because corporations will lobby against it and bribe politicians to make sure it never happens. Evil corporations. But, the money corporations have to lobby / bribe comes from their revenues, which come from people buying their goods and services. Evil consumers. But, consumers don't know which corporations are lobbying and bribing because there's no audit trail. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a law requiring audit trails...
Fundamentally, we can only do what we can do. Part of that is admitting we're part of the problem. If you own an F-150 for status, not because you move heavy things often, you're a big part of the problem. If you live in a part of the world where you need central heating in the winter, you're part of the problem. If you run air conditioning in the summer, you're part of the problem. If you use a car (even an electric one) instead of public transit, you're part of the problem. If you buy potato chips in a plastic bag, you're part of the problem. If you eat meat, you're part of the problem. If you have kids, you're a huge part of the problem. If you watch sports, you're part of the problem.
This is the true black pill. We are in a loop where we as the general public are in control, but everything is so convoluted so we are more comfortable shifting blame to the next guy. Its attractive to say that we cant see the supply chain but in the end it wont matter unless we start caring about it.
But what does it mean to care in this case? We can end lobbying, but we dont vote for that because it might be in an omnibus bill that also gives tax breaks to billionaires. We can end overfishing, but we like eating sushi on Fridays even though we live in Omaha. We can reduce overspending on useless purchases, but I have undiagnosed depression and spending gives me endorphins.
Yeah that's the point. We know people will choose the cheaper option even if it fucks up their future.
Some oil refineries getting exploded would result in the "worse for the environment" option to be more expensive than the green option. Now I don't think we're at that point yet, but without significant changes, in a few years we may reach the point where blowing up a refinery is the only way for people to have a chance for survival.
"The Nazis are killing millions of people. Lets kill some more!"