Asklemmy

The planet is being destroyed and the politicians are not doing enough. So activists protest. That's good! I can't imagine being angry at climate activists for ~inconveniencing~ my day; after all, the real culprits are the politicians who don't do enough!

tl;dr: things are bad, things will get worse, be angry at the criminals, not those sounding the alarm

We've known what we're in for for half a century, meanwhile governments have kept catering to fossil industries. What's being destroyed by governmental inaction dwarfs that what you accuse these groups of (art has not been destroyed) and at this point I'm not surprised that people are looking to more disruptive and direct action.

We've had scientists do the researching and informing, public interest groups do litigation, NGOs trying what they can themselves, etc, yet we're still headed to a degree of climate destabilization where large ecosystem tipping points may well launch us into uncharted territory - and even if not, we're already past the point of 'dangerous' climate change and that's something we'll have to bear the human, societal and economic costs for.

Anyone doing anything to protest the climate or damage the profits of fossil fuel companies is fine by me. I can't call everyones methods "efficient" but it honestly doesn't matter to me, an extreme response to climate change is reasonable at this point.

I don't think they've ever tried to destroy art. If you're talking about the sunflowers, they knew it was behind glass. Their whole MO is doing shocking things to get attention to the cause and to point out that these things will be gone if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.

they're not violent enough I think

Climate change will cause more droughts, fires, and heat waves. Millions of people will die and be displaced.

There's a handful of people who want to do something to prevent this, but, given our system, there's basically nothing they can do to change the outcome. So they're resorting to civil disobedience.

I think it's fine. From what I've heard, these are mostly minor inconveniences. Given the scale of suffering they're warning us about, the inconveniences don't seem minor. Disrupting medical care isn't acceptable, etc.

They've successfully gotten people talking about climate change, so it's working.

I glued myself to the streets to protest, I thought it was a good idea to shake things up a bit, get people to join us and confront the governement with their inaction. Instead I was cursed and spit at, got beaten and payed a lot of money. Some people might want change, but hardly anyone wants to change themselves. That hit me the hardest. It's still too cosy, until it is too late.

Both Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are great, and protests should be disruptive, otherwise they're just ignored. Maybe they're not doing enough disruption and damage to force governments to listen. Or, maybe someone should go after energy/oil companies directly via sabotage or other means and cause enough economic damage that the cost of polluting and resource extraction becomes too high for them to profit from.

...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.”

I think you're MLK's "white moderate": our greatest stumbling block in our stride towards freedom.

They're too peaceful and nonconfrontational.

I think they often go after the wrong targets, usually the working class. To their credit XR has shut down airports used by the private jets of the bourgeoisie before, which seem like the kinda thing they should be doing more of.

Based. Politicians only listen when people crash the economy. Direct action has the most impact by far.

I have no issue with disruptive and inconvenient climate actions, I think they're one of many valid ways to draw attention and put pressure on the people who actually make decisions about such things.

You're right, blocking traffic and other publicity stunts are not effective.

In the pursuit of self defense, any and all actions are legitimate. This includes deadly force.

I like a lot of these takes and explanations on behalf of the protestors, like that they throw paint to signify "What will be lost in the climate crisis" for instance. It's clever.

But also, asymmetrical warfare is very much about winning "hearts and minds." If all you do is petty vandalism to annoy and or sabotage other working class people, you just succeed in pissing them off while the actual culprits are still laughing their way to the bank.

Worse, it makes it much easier for them to get public support in crushing your movement by turning your own class against you. You've then raised awareness that "People dressed like this are a public nuisance that will get in your way" more than climate change.

Most average people don't know what they can do to actively sabotage the oil industry. Myself included, I feel pretty damn hand-bound when a lot of issues are systemic, like unwalkable cities and forced commutes for instance.

What's the call to action for everyone stuck on a blocked road?

You gotta educate your potential allies instead of merely resorting to performative shock for clout, then you gotta give them the tools to join your plight.

Many groups just shout "awareness! Be aware btw!", and stop there to collect their nonprofit money.

Awareness is made. Cool. Now what? That's what we want to see them answer.

I think blocking roads and publicity stunts are ineffective, but there's plenty of actually effective stuff you can do, like tree spiking or sabotaging oil infrastructure. I don't really care if people want to block roads or throw soup at paintings but I don't think it'll achieve much. I guess better than doing nothing. But with the draconian punishments people are getting in various countries for this sort of protest, it really doesn't seem worth it when you could do something that's also criminalised but actually directly does something to prevent climate change.

Personally I don't like how a lot of the XR-related groups are so ideologically wedded to nonviolence, to the point where they condemn and actively oppose others on the left they deem "violent" (which is usually just racialised people who acted in self-defence at a protest). I see that as a bigger problem than ineffective protests, because they're actively withholding solidarity from those who should be aligned with them.

I don't think they've ever tried to destroy art. If you're talking about the sunflowers, they knew it was behind glass. Their whole MO is doing shocking things to get attention to the cause and to point out that these things will be gone if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.

Based. We need more of them. Either people will understand through inconvenience, or show themselves a murderous, self-centered settler barbarian. It's either this, or we start putting down CEOs, C-Suite execs, and even non-exec vulture capitalists in the streets like the dogs they are cause we don't have time to keep fucking around trying to change hearts and souls in the heartless and soulless.

If you block emergency vehicles and someone dies or gets (more severe) injuries you should be prosecuted.

Generally the art vandalism just makes me feel aversion towards whatever your agenda is. But I'm not sure if I'm your target audience in the first place.

If you block me while I'm working, turns out I'm paid by the hour anyway. If you block me on my free time I'll probably work up a rage and actively start opposing your agenda instead of listening on what you have to say.

Over all you'll probably not convince me.

You'll never be able to address climate change under capitalism- you have to push for socialism and then environmental protections. See: the percentage of renewable energy and battery storage that is being produced in China as they transition out of a mixed economy toward more worker control.

Unless the protest in a location directly impeding the destructive act, I don't see it as being effective.

It ends up being a feel good measure instead of becoming a vehicle for change.

By and large I support them, including the ones doing more "direct" action. However, not every group calling themselves "environmental" are automatically getting my support. Some are choosing the wrong targets (e.g. Nuclear power, GMOs), others the wrong means (pouring sauces over art is just weird and not related to the environment). Greenpeace in particular is often quite misguided in their positions and actions IMO.

Stunts make headlines, not change. Change and fixing the problem these groups are fighting against takes work and lots of it.

I think those of us who care about our climate would be better served by larger scale collective action aimed at the profits of companies benefitting from destroying our environment. Even the groups you mentioned by name though probably couldn't collectively agree on where to apply pressure.

We're going to all get a lot more done if we're willing to compromise and find common ground than all trying to do our own things. In my opinion the time for uncompromising idealism and lofty goals is past. We need targeted, specific, collective action anyone who cares to can participate in. The hurdle will be finding consensus on what specifically to apply that effort towards.

I think ones that block roads are counter productive and just hurt their own causes. They should go bother the actual companies or politicians. Disrupting road ways is just stupid. You have no idea who you are impacting when you do that. Nobody would find it acceptable if my version of protesting was running around spraying a machine gun in the air. Do you think blocking roads can't get people killed?