this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
10 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5022 readers
471 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think this sends a much stronger message than stone henge
The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.
Almost as if when you target the problem it sends a better message than doing some random shit.
So close together? Probably not. Look at the comments. everyone is just talking about Stonehenge.
Those idiots destroying paintings and monoliths belong behind bars. That won't convince anyone with even half a brain to think. Just destroys something and makes everyone angry.
But... they didn't do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.
Yeah but it's a lot harder to paint climate activists as the bad guys when you say things like "they souped our glass and powdered our rocks", so better to just lie, right?
Going after a painting that's behind glass is VERY different to going after the stone henge that has no protective layer, and most importantly of all, has nothing to do with the target of their cause
saying it destroyed the stone henge is a major exaggeration, saying it did no damage is also just as wrong. The English heritage society emphasised that it was only no VISIBLE damage left, however they also said it did cause damage.
It's just like how you can't touch walls in caves because any change in the oils and stuff in our skins can cause long term damage even though there's no immediate visible damage
How do you think those rocks will fare when the average temperature rises a few degrees?
Do you think the big stones will avoid damage while humans are fighting wars over water?
Are those precious rocks going to be ok when countries near the equator become uninhabitable, and the UK has to violently defend its borders from millions of climate refugees?
Do you think it can still be considered a cultural heritage site after all the humans are dead?
I never once said I disagree with their message, but doesn't mean I need to agree with their methods
If their message is that oil is bad and that government should be doing more, they should be targeting oil companies, lobbyists, government officials, companies that have excess waste and chemical use (coke im looking at you)... Not heritage listed stuff that's mostly maintained by volunteers
If you actually agreed with their message, then I don't think you would take the time to whinge about the safety of the precious rocks.
No, because I don't agree with their methods... Just like any extremist group might have a good message but doesn't mean I agree with them bombing oil pipelines or kidnapping people
Attacking rocks does nothing to progress their cause... Attacking things in the environment doesn't even line up with their cause of wanting to protect the environment
As long as they stick to actually attacking the companies and groups that actually are the cause of the problems, I would support their methods and as a result, them as a group
While I haven't heard a reasoning from any of these groups why they perform provocative acts in galleries and on historical sites, I think there are reasons:
A lot of art galleries, opera houses, and other institutions of high culture are supported by the super-rich. As such many of these institutions are outlets of fossil-fuel money.
High culture is essentially a distraction for those with education and intellect. So going to places of high culture means you tend to reach (and, granted, annoy) the kinds of people who have enough free mental bandwidth to understand and enough clout to actually influence decisions.
They do that too.
If their message was anti whaling and they cut down trees as well as sabotaged boats, would you be "well they attack boats too so that's fine"?
Hey, just went back to this conversation now that the UNESCO report claims that the highway construction project is putting Stonehenge in real danger. What's your opinion on that?
Destroyed? Let's talk about that.
As you know, Stonehenge has been standing in the rain for 3,000 years.
Following the industrial revolution, fossil fuel emissions made that acid rain. It attacked every cultural artifact standing outdoors for decades.
I think that the people who did that belong behind bars.
yep. I can get behind this one
Have you ever seen the pictures of the ocean after the gulf oil spill? They never did fix that - they just sprayed chemicals that sunk the oil to the bottom of the gulf, creating a dead zone (with help from agricultural chemical runoff from the Mississippi River). And the people there never did get treated for all their medical issues, even though most of their food comes out of that ocean. That's also why we need Medicare for all btw - so we can make sure the EPA, CDC, and other government organizations are actually doing their job and people are actually taken care of when something goes wrong.
ThOsE iDiOtS!1!
Says the moron while not even taking 3 seconds to understand what they did and why they did it. Lol
Look how angry everyone gets about art and architecture whilst not even remotely having the same reaction about climate change and what it's doing to our planet.
I think that's kinda the commenters point. Morons almost have a chance of connecting a few dots when it's private jets. Half a step removed, and nope, morons won't even attempt understanding
I think the point is to ragebait people into reading about it.
An educational campaign doesn't work.
People get angry when the protests disrupt their day.
Peaceful protests happen literally everyday in the US in nearly every city and hear nothing about them.
The only way it gets visibility is it has to be disruptive, and the only way to get them to read/learn about it is to hook them in. And if Faux News has taught anyone anything, it's that ragebaiting is fucking effective.
anyone that thinks people will say 'oh these guys are doing something I feel is stupid, I better learn what they have to say' has never met a single human in their life.
Hear me out, painting private planes don't effect 98% of humanity not everyone has an interest in the arts.