Earth Is on the Brink of Breaching a 7th of Nine 'Planetary Boundaries'

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 10:50 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #128

anigbrowl wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one way of inconveniencing people. Road closures are another way. Like many protest tactics, it doesn't bring about change, until it does. The Just Stop Oil protesters are using an 'earned media' strategy that has proven successful for decades. Publicity stunts draw attention, and even negative attention (in the short term) often yields dividends over the long term.

Who are they inconveniencing? Who are they making reconsider their stance? What are their explicit demands? A protest needs a target audience, a target and a set of demands. They have none of the above. Occupy Wall Street for example had two of the three, but ultimately failed in most of its goals because it didn't have a concrete demand. And that was an example of a protest on a far larger scale.

  Demand 1: No New Oil and Gas Licences – WON!
  Demand 2: Just Stop Oil by 2030.
  We need a Fossil Fuel Treaty.

Post by 0xdde » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 2:14 AM UTC

ghastmaster wrote: post #90

redsunglasses wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting point to cherry-pick, and it's fair to question the affect of atmospheric CO2 on aquatic life, but you can't say that CO2 levels are at historic lows when they're up 30% in the past 60 years [1]. [1] - https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

> but you can't say that CO2 levels are at historic lows when they're up 30% in the past 60 years I thought I made it very clear the historic period I was referring to. Questioning the relevance is indeed apropos. However, the semantics, I do not understand. Regarding the last 60 years, I think it is very unlikely that the earth has not had a period where atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not rose as quickly. The v…

Post by RandomThoughts3 » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 7:10 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #119

RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We choose instead to condemn the people who draw attention to this. We condemn them because what they do is dumb not because they draw attention to climate change. It’s the same thing as glorifying a teenager skipping school. Climate activists are incredibly good at killing their own credibility. That’s why most people don’t bank on them to change anything. > But all the 'yay humanity let's all cooperate in pursuit…

It's not dumb because it fulfils their communication goal. You go tell the Nigerian This is trying to displace responsibility for fossil fuel extraction to some remote place with different incentives. Climate activists like Just Stop Oil are concerned with the policy choices, lobbying, subsidies, infrastructure, and overconsumption of fossil fuels in the developed countries where they live. Demanding those change is…

Post by johnchristopher » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 7:13 AM UTC

RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #76

anigbrowl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I say the solution is to restrain those who callously and deliberately profit off climate damage, by force if necessary, people get upset and downvote me, metaphorically speaking. But all the 'yay humanity let's all cooperate in pursuit of a solution' thinkers are demonstrably failing, because selfish people make up the largest bloc (though still a minority) of humanity. People who go to a museum and throw…

> We choose instead to condemn the people who draw attention to this. We condemn them because what they do is dumb not because they draw attention to climate change. It’s the same thing as glorifying a teenager skipping school. Climate activists are incredibly good at killing their own credibility. That’s why most people don’t bank on them to change anything. > But all the 'yay humanity let's all cooperate in pursuit…

Post by jmye » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 1:43 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #122

hodgesrm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But even if they were actually destroying art, their point is that many extractive industries are actually destroying the environment and killing off whole species... How does trashing art actually solve the problem? It just makes people with normal level of concern who are actually trying to do something look as if they are in cahoots with people who are bonkers.

You know how: it makes people talk about an issue they would otherwise prefer to ignore. The fact that some people's first instinct is to reject them (using weasel words like 'bonkers') is beside the point. The use of repetition and attention-grabbing techniques to drive an argument home is a well-established PR and political communication tactic.