Or apartments aren’t mandated to have recycling. Or how oil corporations controlled anti-climate change propaganda, as well as Republicans. Or how corporations forced us to use oil to get to our jobs because there really was no public transportation alternative (particularly in America).
That makes this meme stupid, because consumers didn’t have much control over big money buying everything or basically requiring the use of specific materials.
In the US, Bernie was right there. The average voter just don’t want to change their life. The average person is mentally weak and scientifically illiterate.
A little from column A, a little from column B. Looking at the media coverage over Bernie vs the other candidates, he had the deck stacked against him. Which doesn’t mean that someone like him couldn’t eventually win. It takes longer for the message to get through. in this environment.
I think the more dire the situation gets, the more people will start to get involved themselves, and then they’ll spend more time listening.
They do though. Manufacturing in general has a high carbon footprint, and the overwhelming majority of plastics the containers won’t be recycled so the next packaged item will have the exact same carbon footprint as the first one.
Those were examples, but as pointed out they absolutely do have an effect on climate change.
However, I can provide a couple more direct examples if you like:
No public transit available, and neighborhoods built in such a way that the majority of residents need to travel miles to reach their place of business.
Products being grown, packaged and sold in completely different countries. Driven by profit, meaning many companies make the same ridiculous decisions. Consumers are often given no alternatives for certain products.
Consumers have the very real ability to vote and protest for changes but the people don’t care and the politicians know it would be unpopular so they wouldn’t do it.
I mean, I think it would be cool if I could go into a store and buy a flash drive that wasn’t surrounded by a mountain of plastic and other resources. Or replace that with just about everything else. Although we’re at another wealth inequality problem in general (I can go vegan tomorrow, move to a commune where everything was made of hemp, and it will still probably take 100 of my lifetimes to offset the carbon footprint of Elon or Taylor Swift over the next week, or maybe even just hour) I do often think about the very nature of our system now is that goods sold are often going to come with at a bare minimum equal parts waste to product.
no, only those in power and making profits are to blame, not the people trapped in their wealth extraction system with no choice but to participate or die.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Martin Luther King Jr, Letter from the Birmingham Jail
Edit: I guess the more radical aspects of MLK’s beliefs still upset moderates
I was surprised when I was quitting smoking that my friend (who also smoked) was advocating vaping instead. I asked: Why not just quit completely?
I do think vaping is less dangerous than actually smoking but not doing either one is best for your health. Even getting "hooked" on nicotine gum or similar is better than smoking or vaping. But again, best to just quit nicotine / smoking / vaping completely.
I feel like the generally accepted wisdom on the issue is that quitting smoking is hard. Whichever one works for you is the best one.
For me, “harm reduction” was just a convenient excuse for not really trying… And, I eventually decided, again, this is my experience, not advice, but, like, eventually, every method of quitting will eventually be cold turkey, so I just went for it.
Personally I found the nicotine addiction is overstated. I never had any trouble making it through 8 hours of sleep without a cigarette, so my claim that I needed one every hour or two kinda seemed like bullshit. Also, if I was so hung up on nicotine addiction - nicotine starts declining in your system almost immediately, so, if I was smoking for 5 minutes of every hour, I was spending 55 minutes of every hour in nicotine withdrawal. That’s… dumb. That’s a dumb way to live.
(I was also a heroin addict from when I was a teenager until my late 20s - and - at least heroin lasts a while. Nicotine is a garbage drug.)
In the end, smoking is a habit - and there’s not much in the way of shortcuts to changing your habits - and it’s especially hard when your enjoy it. There are better techniques and worse techniques, but no cure.
For me, when me and my wife added tiny little people to the world, I realized that they would prefer me to be alive, and I didn’t want to make them sad, so I quit.
I think people need to PRACTICE quitting and I wish more people had this mentality. Assuming that you'll succeed at something so difficult the first of many times of trying to do it is unrealistic. It took me several attempts and taking a class about it to quit smoking.
"I couldn't climb the mountain the first time I tried with no practice or help, therefore I'm never trying again" is very defeatist. Quitting is a process and practicing quitting is completely acceptable. Learn what didn't work that time and develop strategies to deal with what didn't work.
I have a bunch of tips from the class I took that I still mostly remember. I wonder how much of that info is online.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all opposed to vaping as a stepping stone to quitting. I tried it myself for a little while one of the times I was trying to quit.
And, again, I do think that vaping is less dangerous than actually smoking. But best to quit all of it completely.
Yeah you’re not wrong. It’s about harm reduction though. If the people who wouldn’t quit if they tried quitting for good switch to vaping they’ll be better off. Vaping only makes sense for current smokers, no one else should be using them. They are more harmful than nothing, but way way less harmful than tobacco.
I’m very conflicted about vaping. On the one hand I’m happy it exists as I think it can definitely help some people quit smoking.
On the other hand I dislike it as it lowers the entry into smoking and also has the adverse effect. ( My opinion ) It’s probably also not great for your lungs to inhale steam on a regular basis.
As a non smoker at least my clothes don’t smell like smoke/tobacco, doesn’t stink up the room and there’s no people holding their cigarette nexto them so it doesn’t blow in their face, while it’s smoking in mine all the time ( e.g.: at a bar outside ). Super annoying( though not deliberate on their end ). Vaping at least solves that issue for non smokers compared to ciggies.
It’s not just “steam” in vapes, there’s also the chemicals used to vaporize the liquid, and of course the flavors themselves. I’m not a scientist but I can’t imagine it’s good for you. Breathing regular air in a big city isn’t great for you - like, bacon causes cancer - we probably don’t want to assume the best for directly inhaling inadequately studied chemicals
That’s not quite true. Nicotine is indeed the addictive part of smoking, and the source of long term behavioural issues.
But that’s not, by far, the most dangerous or impactful aspect of cigarettes or vapes. Cigarettes are little cancer sticks with some of the most absurdly carcinogenic substances known, and it really destroys your lungs ability to expel excess mucus and contaminants.
Vapes don’t have nearly the same amount of quite absurdly random crap a cigarette will have, but they’re still carcinogenic and they slowly burn cilia and cause inflammatory responses.
Being addicted to nicotine gum could give you headaches, issues with mood, and eventually cardiovascular issues. It’s certainly not a good thing - but saying “nicotine is the aspect of it that is proven to be especially bad for you” is simply wrong.
…Because of the nicotine. Nicotine is a known carcinogen on its own. Propylene glycol and Glycerol are not. Of course it is possible to make vape juice with other additives that happen to be carcinogenic but those can be omitted. There have been studies showing it’s possible for vaping to irritate the airways but from what I was reading I didn’t see any hard links between that and serious health outcomes, or that this always necessarily happens.
So as best I can tell, my statement is correct, the main thing about vaping that is bad for you is the nicotine, and I wasn’t able to find evidence that other (necessary) aspects of it are inherently harmful in a serious way. If you could provide evidence of that I’d consider it.
Capitalists: Climate change is your fault and here’s an exhaustive list of every little thing a normal person does and how it negatively impacts the environment
You: fails to either learn to photosynthesize, or starve to death
Capitalists: Ugh, I can’t believe you would do this to the environment! This is all your fault!
Here it is, blaming emissions on capitalism again though plenty of non capitalist societies were just as poor for the environment within the context of their time. Just because in your preferred system you think you could force through the changes you want does not mean that that is a better system. What makes you think you will be in power or in the majority? If your preferred system is decentralized, that requires a lot of education, the same type that could literally solve this issue with the current system. If your system only works with massive amounts of education and trust, it cannot scale.
Maybe we should focus on the task at hand instead of trying to focus on radical change that will likely make the problem much worse before it gets better. You are literally making the situation worse because you are turning people against actual progress over your ideology.
Emissions based regulations are completely achievable and capitalist. It’s called addressing an externality. Additionally, avoiding the tragedy of the commons requires international treaties which take time, economic alignment, and robust demand on all sides.
Emissions based regulations are completely achievable and capitalist
Yes, that’s my whole point. They put the blame on us to distract us from enacting regulations with teeth. I’m not a hardcore socialist, just don’t like billionaires and companies lobbying to keep laws in their favor while simultaneously blaming us for everything.
There’s a fundamental contradiction between the capitalist reach for yield and environmental regulations.
In the long run, not having environmental regulations is bad for the market. In the short run, though, businesses can make a lot of money very quickly when they’re not regulated. This tension has lead to deadlock in every capitalist nation on Earth and it’s not getting better.
We may disagree on these points but it should be obvious that there’s plenty of opposition to your preferred system in the majority of the modern world. That’s why insisting on radical change as a precursor to action is counter productive to actual mitigation of climate effects. Even if you are right about the system being less effective at environmentalism, you are hiring the efforts to do something about the issue now and drastic action is needed.
That same tension existed in regards to national parks, CFCs, water management, wildlife management, waste management, and many other issues. What makes you think climate is any different other than bigger?
That same tension existed in regards to national parks, CFCs, water management, wildlife management, waste management, and many other issues. What makes you think climate is any different other than bigger?
All of that was implemented while the USSR was still around. Without the boogyman around to scare capitalists into reforming themselves and implementing sustainable business practices, they won’t do it. That’s why we’ve been seeing all those Cold War era reforms eroded one after another, there’s just no need to placate the masses.
Maybe climate change can be the boogyman that the USSR was. It doesn’t seem to be working, though.
I don’t think it was the USSR that was the motivation behind it, at least the ones during that period. It might’ve been more the hatred of cities, cancer, disease, and pests respectively. I will admit, giving the USSR credit for the environmental movement in the US is a creative and new one for me. You are off by about 25 years there for the beginning but it’s close.
The US only implemented reforms to placate the working class and stop them from getting any ideas of revolution. The Cold War was an ideological war, so once the USSR fell the spectre of revolution was gone. The Cold War “proved” that communism doesn’t work and there will never be a global proletarian revolution and there’s no need to placate the masses to keep them passive.
So, like I keep saying, that’s why everything good is being destroyed. They believe it’s not necessary because the threat of communist revolution is gone. The illusion of democracy is gone, now the ruling class can just do whatever it wants with no consequences.
I’m sorry to break it to you but not everything is about your oppressive communist revolution. Not any more than any other historical counter to the liberal world. Don’t go through the world thinking everything is about what you care about.
What kills me is that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. The longer they fight against change, the more people they will convince that capitalism itself is the problem.
Posting and liking memes is great, but real change comes from actions. If you are as concerned as we are about climate change, please consider joining or supporting climate activists near you.
Thank you for the link. It’s important for everyone to read, especially those who don’t understand why “carbon footprint” has recently become a joke on Lemmy.
Climate science denialism is nothing new. It has been going on for decades. The Greenhouse effect has been known for more than 100 years. There have been urgent public warnings from scientists for more than 40 years. Right now, science warns that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) will break down (link). If we carry on like this, it will be a question of when, not if. This is just one example. Each example should cause immediate global political action. Instead, we’re living the meme.
Once again: Posting and liking memes is great, but real change comes from actions. If you are as concerned as we are about climate change, please consider joining or supporting climate activists near you.
My biggest problem these days is the scale of changes that must happen quickly, and the intrinsic resistance or outright hate for the easily known ways we could cut emissions and further oil exploitation - but the stupids won’t let us. They won’t even consider it. They argue that windmills cause cancer. They want to tax renewable power sources and EVs. In Texas, they pay cryptominers to not cryptomine MILLIONS OF DOLLARS when their shoddy grid starts gagging on texas summers, winters, and well, the rest of the year. It’s a hideous distortion of power services, and only one tiny example of places where we could legislate and reduce consumption. Rolling coal, cruise ships, recreational vehicles from RV’s to dirt bikes to snowmobiles - if it’s not for work, cut it out. We could do this today, we’re just too lazy and willing to let the stupids drive the environment to destruction.
You blaming people trapped in a system, for the system, instead of blaming those who create and profit from said system, is you buying in to propaganda exactly like the people you blame, you're just on a different branch of the force feeder (the "I think I'm better than other people for buying a metal straw to drink my starbucks with as I ignore the systemic issues" smelling your own farts branch).
It is you who are lazy (and/or uncomfortable, or scared) to look at the actual cause of the problem, so instead you dismiss people with irrelevant slurs to make yourself feel superior as you do absolutely nothing to address the actual problem
You blaming people trapped in a system, for the system,
Nope. I’m blaming society for letting the system crumble to satisfy motorheads and the vroom-vroom cult. A decent society would have long ago cut this bullshit off, but we’re not a decent society are we? We let you roam about unshackled, for example.
Consider: if you were to receive a message like you just sent, would it be likely to have changed your mind? Especially if you weren’t you now, but like the you from let’s say ten years in the past? It’s just a thought, I hope you find it interesting.
It would not. Because as long as your brain is brainwashed and full of shit, nothing is going to change. Specially something that goes against your “own believes” !
You need to fully “reset” your state of mind, either through DEEP meditation, some psychedelics or whatever does the trick to clean up the wired mess your brain is continuously exposed to (pollution, processed food, animals being held in concentration camps, hate, TV, right & left, …).
It’s the question of “red” or “blue” pill during your life time. That will either break your mental construction/barrier and give you a glimps of what those shadows are in plato’s cave allegory or just stay a captive of your own mind/knowledge of the shadows you’re looking at.
An argument which could have been brought forward in a way which would have been outside the very system you describe. Why resort to personal attacks? Did you feel offended?
As for the question at hand: Do what you can, continue the movement. Ask for better. A part of the problem is that those who can make (bigger) changes have nothing to loose by not changing. Why is that?
Most of us has the ability to change one thing in our life/work which would be better. Let’s change that one thing. If everyone here does, it will be thousands of changes.
I agree. We’re in a dire situation for a multitude of reasons. But one of the most important drivers for actual change is human agency. There is still a bit of hope to avoid the greatest catastrophies but we need to loudly demand change.
alternate take: personal freedom of movement, whether bidedal, or automated, is a thing of value, as is electricity, clean running water, and a majority of what modern technology provides. it, like most everything else can be done better, and cleaner. not the same argument as smoking, which was always an "entertainment", as apposed to transportation and perambulation which are a necessity. thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Exactly right. We should celebrate the possibilities and freedom that modern technology gives us. EVs are an amazing invention and nitpicking for tiny issues that they don’t solve is a level beyond First World Problems.
The only things EV’s solve is emissions. They reduce emissions in cities which is great, and thanks to clean power plants (renewable and nuclear) help reduce overall emissions. But they are still cars, still take up space, they are heavier so cause more wear on the road surfaces and emit tire particles. I wouldn’t say these are tiny issues.
If we have to use cars then yes, electric are better, but it’s not the solution. The solution should aim at reducing use of the inefficient forms of transport in favor of mass transit or micro mobility.
Better urban planning, as well. We can’t do anything about cars as long as we build entire communities to accommodate cars. We’ve gone from people owning cars to cars owning society.
Mass transit is inefficient compared to having your own car. Pretending mass transit can completely get rid of cars is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard.
Are you high? Mass transit is a thousand times more efficient than cars.
How many cars on a highway, on streets contain only 1 person? How long are people sitting on the road, idling because of traffic lights or no movement because of there being too many cars?
How much land is taken up by highways, freeways, exit ramps, and interchanges that could be better used for homes and parks and shops?
The point of public mass transit is not to eliminate car traffic, because there will always be a use for it, but we should try to minimize it as much as possible. Only car-brained Americans think mass transit is inefficient and “freedumb-restricting” because our mass transit systems have been massively underfunded and downright eliminated for a century.
Oddly enough I think he meant that having your own car is more efficient than mass transit for the individual. And really, we’re talking about time spent traveling more so than overall energy spent.
It takes me less time to get in my car and drive downtown than it does to wait on a bus to arrive and eventually get me to where I’m going… Which is why cars are never going away.
You guys are both talking about different types of efficiencies.
That said, yours is the type of efficiency that MOST people are talking about when this discussion is had.
I don’t even think it’s efficient in that way either though.
I mean, sure, you can get in your car and start driving faster. But then you likely have to sit and wait at traffic lights, sit in traffic if you’re anywhere in a city, and find parking.
That just seems less efficient than getting to the nearest bus stop or train station and not having to deal with any of the trouble of driving. Of course, as long as the city is designed well, which you can’t find in the US.
Vaping is actually very helpful and it's probably helped a lot of people stop smoking.
The only problem was the fact that they got away with doing shit like advertising it to kids and making it cool. Fix that problem and vaping is almost literally only an advantage compared to cigarettes.
And even with more people taking it up, it's still unhealthy but it's like mildly unhealthy instead of cigarettes where it's like oh yeah you're going to double your chance of dying at 50.
Vaping is an advantage compared to cigarettes sure, but it is still signifcantly worse than just breathing air and it still promotes consuming one of the most addictive substances, nicotine. It drains the health and wealth of its consumers and offers little more than a head rush and a habit in return.
Smokers’ needs are way, way the fuck down the priorities list compared to non-smokers’ needs. If something might save 100 smokers but risk harming a single non-smoker, it’s still not worth doing.
And if smokers don’t like it, well, it’s their own damn fault for making that choice. Quit fucking cold-turkey and deal with it.
Edit: vapes do harm by tempting non-smokers to start vaping. If you want help quitting smoking, at least use a goddamn nicotine patch or whatever like a responsible person instead of being a useful idiot enabling Philip Morris etc. to push new shit on the public. Everybody defending vaping because it’s myopically good only for people who already smoke (ignoring the significant harm that new, non-smokers get addicted to it) is a terrible fucking person and should be ashamed of himself.
Addiction is a powerful thing and this kind of thinking is such a counter-intuitive way of dealing with it.
Addiction often stems from issues people are dealing with in their lives and telling them to stop like this as if it’s a moral failure on their part just feeds into it all. Most people know they need to stop for themselves and others but shoving them down like this genuinely makes it harder
The point is that smokers do not deserve that help AT THE COST OF NEW NON-SMOKERS GETTING ADDICTED TO VAPING!
Cause that’s the trade-off you’re making when you talk about how great vapes are. NOT helping smokers at no cost to anybody else, but instead helping smokers at very high cost to the rest of society.
If you want to quit smoking, use a goddamn PATCH or something that — UNLIKE MOTHERFUCKING VAPES – actually doesn’t tempt stupid teenagers to start the same habit you’re trying to break!
Do you know what “creating new addicts by pushing vaping on them” is?!
Why the fuck do you think existing addicts are somehow entitled to expose others to risk and temptation just because they’re too fucking weak to make good decisions for themselves?!
Marginally is a massive understatement. Maybe in 50 years we're going to discover that it causes some crazy side effects, but in comparison to smoking it's like having a hamburger once a week compared to three a day.
For every smoker vaping helps, it also tempts probably at least one person to start using who didn’t before. Therefore, it is 1000% indisputably negative and everybody trying to make excuses for it is a goddamn enabler.
Because Lemmy has a relatively small user base bad takes can take up a lot of a thread. Normally those silly voices would be hidden away. By replying to them lots we let them take up more of the thread space. I’m guilty of it too, but after scrolling down I think we should just ignore that person.
First the cigarette itself was marketed as better than rolling your own. Next came filters, so called "light" and "ultralight" versions of existing products, electric cigs, then finally vapes.
Liberals have a massive problem with connecting with the general public. They seem to pick all the worst ways to try to further their cause. They picks methods to protest that end up turning off people who would otherwise side with their cause.
You pick rush hour traffic when people are exhausted and simply trying to get home to block entire highways to protest environmental causes?? Really? You thought that would endear your cause to these people who are now stuck there? All you are doing is building anger and resentment. A few months back, there was some guy who needed to meet with his parole officer within a certain amount of time. He was stuck in this intentionally created traffic jam. If he was late for his meeting for any reason, he would be thrown back in prison. He was pleading with the protestors to let him go and they wouldn’t budge.
Similar deal with groups like PETA. They always have this in-your-face attitude that gets under people’s skin. I think most people would consider themselves animal lovers, so how does an organization supposed aimed at the ethical treatment of animals screw up their messaging so badly? That organization always finds the worst ways to spread their message. There was that story months back on how they essentially stole some homeless guy’s dog. The poor guy had no other possessions and clearly cared for his companion, and yet they took the dog away from him because he wasn’t able to give it the home that they felt it deserved. What an absolute douchebag move and if I recall correctly the authorities sided with the guy and he got his dog back. But why would you do that? You cause more harm than good.
Causing more harm than good is a common theme amongst many of these left-leaning organizations. It is very frustrating to watch since to a large degree I, as well as many others, would tend to agree with the general theme of what the organization is trying to do. Just don’t do it that way.
The granddaughter of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty is publicly showing her support for the attention-grabbing protests carried out by Just Stop Oil activists in museums.
Ah, different paint throwers than the ones I thought were being talked about. I thought that was reference to the peta twats that throw paint on people.
If you won't care about the issue because it's too inconvenient to think about it, then the issue must become more inconvenient for you.
Protests are not about quietly holding placards and being easily ignored. They're about disruption. If you're not being disrupted, you get to ignore the protest.
That's why I protest by walking into people's homes when they are at work and shitting in their kitchen sinks. Then I leave a pamphlet explaining climate change next to it. They think about climate change while they clean it and change their voting patterns the next day I imagine.
Honestly, what is this road glueing good for? You are annoying people who are not the root cause and allowing news sites and trolls to make an enemy of you.
I’m sorry, but how are daily commuters not a huge part of the cause? I recognize they’re part of a larger system, and may have limited means to fix anything, but they’re still participating in behavior that is destroying the only home we have.
There are two alternatives: activists either do nothing consequential, people like you ignore them and nothing changes, or…
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop.
Mario Savio
You’re literally defending the moderate in the meme.
I’m sorry, but how are daily commuters not a huge part of the cause?
But daily commuters aren’t really the problem in itself, it’s the combustion engine cars. Blocking road also blocks people in EVs or even the ones taking the bus.
It's less bad than burning gasoline by far, but your argument is only an environmental one on the surface. I just wish people like you would come out and say you're against individual autonomy already.
“individual autonomy” except riding a bike or walking requires no (government controlled) licence no (corporate provided, and government-mandated in many places) insurance and no (government demanded) road tax.
Have you ever tried to move a cello on a bike? It fucking sucks, and I'm absolutely not going to take my most prized instrument for a bike ride in the rain.
Sounds like a bad case of being a bike-humper. Seek help, and while you're at it, get a fucking clue.
Have you ever tried to move a cello on a bike? It fucking sucks, and I’m absolutely not going to take my most prized instrument for a bike ride in the rain.
honestly, i haven’t.
but i’ve moved heavier and more fragile shit in a bike trailer, and 2 minutes of internetting located this cellist who toured with not only her instrument, but entire-ass gig setup, by bike: can.org.nz/…/cyclist-musician-to-tour-with-cello-…
either way, a comically large musical instrument (which let’s be real, those of us with a vision for a post-car future would probably still sign off on as “sure I guess an occasional van is fine for this”) doesn’t address the nonsense take that private car ownership, and widespread car-centric public space, is a core part of, or even compatible with, “individual autonomy”. you’ve been lied to, and you’re now doing free PR work for an industry that’s poisoning our lungs, killing our friends and family (especially older and younger people), and torching the planet.
Wtf are you talking about? Cobalt is a rare earth blood mineral, so continuing on with our car-centric society will make battery demand unsustainable and kill 1000s of workers. I want human-scale architecture with highly accessible public transit, so people have more choices to travel. Car-centric architecture spreads things out by necessity, which creates unnecessary waste and destruction of wildlife.
Efforts are already underway to remove it from future battery production, and so far they've been fairly successful.
You just don't want people to be able to move on any terms besides those of whoever owns mass transit. Please stop trying to pretend that's not the case.
There is room for cars to exist. I think most vehicles don’t need to be as large as they are currently, but there’s still a place for them. I just also want highspeed passenger rail, busses, lrt, bikes, and walking to be considered. I also want the government to offer these as a service, I don’t want any corporate involvement with public transit.
I think for certain types of mass transit, specifically buses, corporate control would be fine as long as there's enough regulation to ensure a reasonable minimum standard of safety. Even corporate trains might work if someone can wrest control of the actual rails themselves away from the freight companies.
I agree, though. There's room for both mass transit and individual transportation in the world.
I just don't see the point. What is "consequential" about shutting down a road? What are you trying to achieve exactly? Are you doing it just because it's beneficial in and of itself? Shutting down one road out of the millions on Earth for like an hour does practically nothing and you should spend your time more wisely. Are you trying to win hearts and minds? People will do far more than just ignore your cause, they will actively despise it. Or is it just out of spite for commuters? Even though many of them, as you said, have limited means to change anything. Not everyone can afford to just quit their job to get one closer.
It would also kind of go against their own point if public transit was also stopped. Sometimes you can’t just live near absolutely everything. Some people have disabilities and cannot physically ride a bike to get where they need to go. That would maybe also encourage people to take a car or a carpool, where they’re more likely to be able to do a u turn.
They are bringing awareness to the cause. Yes they are annoying the fuck of “innocent bystanders” but if they went on to a street and handed out flyers they would do fuck all, because people would just ignore them.
Plus this is not a “us” vs “them”. It’s not like they want to save “their” planet. There’s only one earth last I checked. So people might be angry about it, many will just laugh and say it’s stupid, others will join the cause and/or demand change.
People think they are so smart to ridicule them for throwing food at some paintings but they just want to feel better about themselves about not doing anything. So they criticize them to hide that discomfort. “If what they are doing is stupid, then I won’t feel bad for not doing it.”
I ask you? What do you suggest they do instead? And then go a check because for sure they did it and either it didn’t do shit or they are still doing it.
There are countless of ways to to that. I could bring awareness by killing puppies, burning down orphanages, or any number of comically heinous things. The more outlandish the better. So why stop at blocking traffic? Just do the most hateful, awful thing imaginable because "bringing awareness to the cause" is all that matters right? Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. Not all forms of protest are just automagically valid and effective just from virtue of being protests.
Great examples. Because blocking roads and mildly inconveniencing people that can demand change is almost the same as killing animals and children. Yes the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it’s between those two things and very close to one of them.
But again, what way that hasn’t been tried would be ok in your book? Asking people nicely?
Why the snark? I literally used the term "comically heinous" myself to describe the examples. I am aware they are extreme, it was to demonstrate my point...
So we disagree on where that line should be drawn. And it comes down to the fact that you think blocking traffic is "mildly inconveniencing". I would say: how the fuck do you know? You don't know what's going on in the lives of those people.
Maybe someone got a call from the hospital that their father is dying and they should come in to see them one last time.
Maybe a food insecure parent is working hard to support their children and if they are late one more time they could get axed and put their children in danger.
Maybe someone chopped their finger off and are rushing to the hospital to get it reattached.
Or any number of scenarios. If YOU were in any of these situations, what would you think of the people blocking the road? Somehow I don't think you would be so understanding when it happens to you personally.
But again, what way that hasn’t been tried would be ok in your book? Asking people nicely?
I think my position is clear. I'm OK with any form of protest that actually advances the cause behind the protest and I am not OK with any form of protest that is counter-productive against the cause of the protest. I started out my comments by saying what standing in a road accomplishes, and so far all you've really said is "uh, well nothing else has worked so why not?". That really isn't good enough.
And exactly what kind of protest is that? Again you still haven’t answered my question and more and more it seems that there is no such protest so we will all live miserable lives in the future but hey, at least people weren’t bothered those few times.
Also you can block roads and let emergency vehicles through. Accidents happen, roads get blocked for a variety of reasons on a daily basis. If people used cars less they would be less congestioned, do you also use that argument there?
Finally, people do die of climate change. Everyday and it’s not a small amount. Consider that on the other side of the equation whenever you make one.
Either way I’m calling this convo. Have a nice day and weekend. Hope it’s not too hot wherever you are.
lol I posted first! You responded to me. I was the one posing the question: What is the benefit of blocking the road? Any discussion outside of that scope is moving the goalpost and I won't entertain it. So far I've seen you propose a grand total of zero benefits so I'm just going to assume there are none.
Because the people you are “inconveniencing” don’t make the decisions. They are mostly people just doing what they have to to survive. Find a way to inconvenience the decision-makers, and it will have everyone’s support.
You want someone else to do ALL your thinking for you? I’ve given you a way: make it a problem for the decision-makers. I don’t have a list of your assets or skills. The details are up to you.
Have these protests done anything? For example that due to the lack of public transport people are obliged to use a car, or many workplaces especially office work are put around cities not inside because of tax reasons? In my case I had to use a car for my previous work, for it was 45 minutes instead of 4,5 hours with trains and buses.
These people do nothing, but scream STOP USING OIL, STUPID! and call it a day.
Nobody is oblivious to this problem, but many have few choices.
The method behind the road blocks is: Block road to hold normal people hostage -> normal people get angry and demand change -> government changes it’s policy towards your demands. Yeah everyone knows climate change to be a problem but if nothing is being done despite that you have to apply pressure somewhere, so because Fridays for future moved the needle maybe minimally, by doing normal marches, you start to be the tiniest bit annoying by blocking streets without prior warning.
The very few people getting stuck in traffic from these protest are really just innocent bystanders but, they also need to change, and both the real targets, so politicians and rich people, have enough influence to easily shield themselves from the effect of protests, apart from maybe the private yet stoppages which the same groups also organised.
And at least here in Germany the media coverage about climate change is now much more frequent than before LG started blocking the streets. And the coverage is only interspersed by talking about the protests themselves not singularly about the protests. So there is at least some noticeable change.
These people don’t do nothing, they are fighting for my right to live 60 more years in relative peace and prosperity, protests and civil disobedience is far from doing nothing. The political message that gets told whenever any of them is interviewed is certainly much more nuanced than the slogan as well. And the reason they are on the street to begin with is because they themselves also have few choices, if the people going out to the street had power apart from their time and body they would be and are using it towards that same goal, but obviously their power via other ways is insufficient.
All in all if you think you act efficiently and fairly towards climate change reversal/reduction, but write a comment defending your 45min car commute, you might be missing something.The lack of public transport in your city for example isn’t solved by just continuing to use it without reflection about why it is that way, and honest investment into fixing it.
I’m sorry but your explanation of the method just doesn’t understand human beings. The drivers will get angry and demand change. The change they demand won’t be about the climate. They aren’t sitting in their cars going “hmm, maybe these people have a point”. What they demand will be stopping protests that disrupt traffic.
I’m sorry but you don’t seem to understand human beings either. Just because drivers get angry and demand a crackdown doesn’t mean a crackdown actually is feasible from the governments point of view. The drivers for which this is the reaction fundamentally don’t matter to the protestors. What matters to the protestors is political change, the number of drivers they directly impact is small, the number of people being told climate change is an existential threat is disproportionately large. Which furthers their political goals on the whole, even if everyone hates them.
This entire argument is the same argument against every “civil” and not so civil protest, public disobedience or other dissent. BLM 202x FFF 2019, Antifa since 193x, LGBTQ movement, women’s rights, they all get this same argument against them: Why won’t you just be civil, why won’t you play by the rules, why don’t you try to gain sympathy from your political enemies.
As if that’d work, as if that’d be sufficient to keep your own freedom, live and livelyhood, inside of a system that tries to take it from you. How could you ever trust in the process when you’ve seen it fail time and time again, specifically for the issue that is of concern in your group.
This is the other human you failed to account for, the protestor that isn’t going to stop, because they deeply believe their way of life is threatened in a way where a more direct confrontation is necessary. And they rightly understand that it’s a confrontation with the entire system, not with some commuters on arbitrary streets.
It’d be much more interesting and impactful to do something like espionage on oil wells or pipelines. Hurt the profits of the companies forcing it rather than everything stuck in a bad system.
In the UK at least, Just Stop Oil did block oil infrastructure initially. The corporations worked with the government to use massive injunctions so people were getting huge penalties for very minimal disruption, and it never got any press coverage either.
The law protects the corporations, and the press doesn’t care unless the public or public figures are involved. That’s why they changed to public disruption.
They would just raise the prices of the oil they had to make up for it… for about twice as long as necessary. So they’ll make more money, and we’ll likely end up with a giant mess.
climatememes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.