this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024

2 points (100.0% liked)

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

5185 readers

388 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

Stonehenge covered in powder paint by Just Stop Oil protesters - BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 4 months ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/climate@slrpnk.net

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (4 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?

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 4 months ago (1 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.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but you know very well that this is more than "well the stones are fine!"

This is not the first time they try to destroy art or historical sites and maybe this time it's "not too bad" but in others, painting were damaged.

The point is just that this is NOT helping. This will piss people off and push them to vote for politicians that will stop these assholes. Those politicians with the tough on crime stance are the same that think climate change is a hoax.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 months ago

You've shifted from "destroyed" to "damaged", I notice. The varnish of The Hay Wain was damaged, but the painting was not. The frames of various other paintings were damaged. The glass of The Rokeby Venus was damaged. Nothing compared to what Mary Richardson did in 1914.

It is literally Just Stop Oil's point that people will start wringing their handkerchiefs at these actions but they are doing nothing about the climate emergency which threatens all our lives. You think it will make a difference if these people vote for different parties? The current parties are already doing worse than nothing - Sunak is opening up new oil and gas fields.

It is not climate protesters' responsibility to persuade people to save the planet that we all live on. It is up to everybody, and too many people are not doing their share. Just Stop Oil have a right to be angry. We should all be angry.

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, the kind of outrage that will push even more people to vote for the kind of politicians that will stop this... The same kind of politicians that also claim that climate change is a hoax.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 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.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think it's the wrong argument.

You don't need to get rid of world heritage to save the world, it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

What we need is politicians who a) actually understand science and b) care enough to push through environmental protection plans that will stop CO2 output and c) the biggest problem, voters that have a and b too.

What we got is loads of career opportunists that happily lie their ass off to become popular, happily dismantle any environmental protections to become popular and they're voted for by stupid ignorant voters that happily lao up all the crap they're being fed. World wide governments are making swings to the right, world wide, environmental protections aren't increased, they're dismantled.

Do you really believe that destroying art will change any of this for the better?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

We don't need to, but at some point if no one reacts don't be surprised if some people start figuring out that the only way you'll get people angry is by showing to the world how hypocritical people are.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

They haven’t damaged anything. They just bait the news into writing publicity for the cause and it works because people believing “they damage an artifact” generates clicks.

People have publicly killed themselves to to make people pay attention to the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced.

Such is unaffective because news doesn't cover it.

The chemicals in our rain from industrial waste that will wash these stones clean, do way more damage. But you don’t know that because not enough people talk about it.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Would agree if this wasn't the first time, and if it wasn't that actual art has been damaged to get attention.

Destruction of art or historical sites will NOT save the world. It'll piss people off and push them to vote for right wing politicians that will dismantle even more environmental protections

[–] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 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.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 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"

[–] paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's the point though. They've done other protest work "the proper way" and nobody knows about it because it doesn't get reported on. They want the message "just stop oil" to be in the news, so they do what gets them in the news.

If they go for the "right" attention, they're barely reported on by two local outlets. If they go for public outcry, they're global news in hours. Their goal isn't to get you to support their organization. It's to keep you talking about and thinking about and caring about climate change.

[–] PeteBauxigeg@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago

More moronic arts and craftsy hippie shit giving the left a shit reputation in the UK