Two Just Stop Oil supporters have painted multiple private jets on the airfield where Taylor Swift’s jet landed mere hours before. They are demanding that the incoming UK government commit to working with other governments to agree an equitable plan to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030. [1] At
How does this harden public opinion against their cause? This is the type of shit we want to see. There’s a difference between this and inconveniencing those who are commuting to work.
We were all clueless about this at one time. Conversations like this educate people, I think it’s obvious a lot more people will be upset with the emissions of private jets after this, than before the group vandalized.
But this is the point. Conversations will do it, activists like this won’t. I don’t think its obvious or even feasible, that many or any will change their mind about emissions based on these activists vandalizing planes.
I do support the cause, but I don’t understand the means
I wrote that badly. I wanted to say that this sort of activism is valuable because it starts conversations like this. Which educates people, raising awareness.
Its fair but looking through the discussions here it seems like mostly people discussing the efficiency of demonstrations and supporting each other on it being the right thing to do (and a few dis agreeing on that too). But it seems like the point of the discussion is not the environmental crisis but the demonstration and vandalism
I dont see many becoming convinced or becoming aware about the environmental crisis, who were not already aware.
Took a quick look at Reddit and it’s more encouraging. Some posts have a fair number of comments about private jet emissions, others posts didn’t have a single one about it.
Do you think it convinced the motorists who have beaten them and dragged them off the road by their hair? Or the people responsible for the preservation of Stone Henge? Or the wealthy people whose jets they painted? I can’t prove a negative, of course, or religion would be gone but you may be right, they may have convinced someone.
And I built a straw bale house 20 years ago that saves 75% on heating and cooling over my next door neighbours smaller house. I am making a real difference by making personal changes instead of trying to ram my moral superiority down other people’s throats.
The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent).
I think what you built is legitimately cool but your efforts are erased many times over by a single flight these people take. I think thats enough to suggest you shouldnt empathise with the rich being given an inconvenient message, not that it was meant to change their minds, its to raise awareness in us, the general populace.
Also, we need systemic change, not just individual effort. We will have energy needs irrespective of how efficient we make things, and political pressure is how we will force away from fossil fuels.
No doubt. My point was that I’m actually taking concrete action to dramatically reduce my own carbon footprint rather than pissing off a bunch of people whose support I really need for my cause by trying to ram my misguided sense of moral superiority down their throats.
I’m actually taking concrete action … rather than pissing off a bunch of people
Yes and this is an example of a justified campaign for some systemic change, something quite different from what you’re doing. I’m sure you’ll agree that once it is them causing a huge amount of damage, inconveniencing them is ok if it gets a message to them, and gets people talking about a non-proliferation treaty and the harms of private jets?
whose support I really need for my cause
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. But they won’t be drawing up new laws. And we can’t rely on their good will seeing all the cases of companies focusing on their bottom line while knowingly harming people and the environment.
Yes and this is an example of a justified campaign for some systemic change, something quite different from what you’re doing. I’m sure you’ll agree that once it is them causing a huge amount of damage, inconveniencing them is ok if it gets a message to them, and gets people talking about a non-proliferation treaty and the harms of private jets?
I love the fact that you used the word justified here.
“Anything that I do to __________ is justified because I’m __________ superior.”
That’s self-absolution which is the hallmark of extremism.
A handfull of extremists gluing themselves to the road and throwing things at works of art aren’t going to change the world. They’re going to piss people off and get arrested and jailed and the world will move on. You need BILLIONS of people on board to get real change to happen and this is NOT the way to do it. Sure, it makes them feel good and they can sit around in a discussion circle and talk about how pissed off they made the people they were delaying but that’s not going to make change happen.
With an ASBO and jail time, without convincing anyone, and hardening public opinion against their cause. A big win for the extremists for sure.
How does this harden public opinion against their cause? This is the type of shit we want to see. There’s a difference between this and inconveniencing those who are commuting to work.
This is the type of shit you want to see, not the public.
Activists doing things activists like to see, won’t motivate many others than the people who already are motivated.
We were all clueless about this at one time. Conversations like this educate people, I think it’s obvious a lot more people will be upset with the emissions of private jets after this, than before the group vandalized.
But this is the point. Conversations will do it, activists like this won’t. I don’t think its obvious or even feasible, that many or any will change their mind about emissions based on these activists vandalizing planes.
I do support the cause, but I don’t understand the means
I wrote that badly. I wanted to say that this sort of activism is valuable because it starts conversations like this. Which educates people, raising awareness.
Its fair but looking through the discussions here it seems like mostly people discussing the efficiency of demonstrations and supporting each other on it being the right thing to do (and a few dis agreeing on that too). But it seems like the point of the discussion is not the environmental crisis but the demonstration and vandalism
I dont see many becoming convinced or becoming aware about the environmental crisis, who were not already aware.
Oh I didn’t notice that.
Took a quick look at Reddit and it’s more encouraging. Some posts have a fair number of comments about private jet emissions, others posts didn’t have a single one about it.
How can you be sure they don’t convince anyone? I’m not sure, but I think you made that up - as it matches what you feel
Do you think it convinced the motorists who have beaten them and dragged them off the road by their hair? Or the people responsible for the preservation of Stone Henge? Or the wealthy people whose jets they painted? I can’t prove a negative, of course, or religion would be gone but you may be right, they may have convinced someone.
At least they tried, instead of just discussing the form of protest on the internet. History will prove them right.
And I built a straw bale house 20 years ago that saves 75% on heating and cooling over my next door neighbours smaller house. I am making a real difference by making personal changes instead of trying to ram my moral superiority down other people’s throats.
Fom the article:
Oxfam:
I think what you built is legitimately cool but your efforts are erased many times over by a single flight these people take. I think thats enough to suggest you shouldnt empathise with the rich being given an inconvenient message, not that it was meant to change their minds, its to raise awareness in us, the general populace.
Also, we need systemic change, not just individual effort. We will have energy needs irrespective of how efficient we make things, and political pressure is how we will force away from fossil fuels.
No doubt. My point was that I’m actually taking concrete action to dramatically reduce my own carbon footprint rather than pissing off a bunch of people whose support I really need for my cause by trying to ram my misguided sense of moral superiority down their throats.
Yes and this is an example of a justified campaign for some systemic change, something quite different from what you’re doing. I’m sure you’ll agree that once it is them causing a huge amount of damage, inconveniencing them is ok if it gets a message to them, and gets people talking about a non-proliferation treaty and the harms of private jets?
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. But they won’t be drawing up new laws. And we can’t rely on their good will seeing all the cases of companies focusing on their bottom line while knowingly harming people and the environment.
I love the fact that you used the word justified here.
“Anything that I do to __________ is justified because I’m __________ superior.”
That’s self-absolution which is the hallmark of extremism.
A handfull of extremists gluing themselves to the road and throwing things at works of art aren’t going to change the world. They’re going to piss people off and get arrested and jailed and the world will move on. You need BILLIONS of people on board to get real change to happen and this is NOT the way to do it. Sure, it makes them feel good and they can sit around in a discussion circle and talk about how pissed off they made the people they were delaying but that’s not going to make change happen.