I can’t tell if you’re joking but very few organizations are doing that sort of action which is generally quite risky. There are a range of actions between the sort of personal responsibility actions you’re doing and outright sabotage. I know people here are generally dismissive of these but letter-writing, petitions, marches, etc. can all be effective parts of a political movement, as can more radical actions like blockades or strikes.
Personally, I think sabotage has to be carefully considered in the context of a broader campaign or it risks becoming an element of reactionary propaganda. It doesn’t help that our culture has for decades, perhaps centuries conflated property damage with violence against people, and this often makes people unsure if those who engage in the former might also engage in the latter. While I could see that sabotage might be morally justified in some situations, it’s not clear that it’s the correct tactic when the climate movement is as small and weak as it is right now.
Blowing up a pipeline would be a bit counter productive wouldn’t it? Don’t think there is something like a clean pipeline explosion.
I think a more effective way of steering the wheel would be to associate the position of the decision maker and the outcome of that decision with fear.
I’m not sure if I agree that they haven’t worked. The severity of climate change has been significantly reduced by currently enacted policies, even as the situation continues to look fairly dire.
Like any mass movement, the effectiveness of these actions depends on the number of people engaged in them. To date, this movement has been fairly small compared to other movements that succeeded in bringing about similarly large changes. Furthermore, while blowing up a pipeline might have a more tangible and direct impact, that impact is still very small, and the political implications are complicated. The idea that fossil fuels can be stopped completely through sabotage seems at least as far-fetched as the idea that it can be stopped through letter-writing.
Given that situation, the main question becomes: how does this movement grow large enough that its demands must be answered fully? I think a clear and coherent message and political strategy is essential. Framing the issue as one of ordinary people fighting for children and the common good against the interests of a corrupt elite is usually beneficial. I worry that property destruction undermines this framing by defining the movement in public consciousness as violent extremists instead of a movement that is fighting to protect ordinary people. I think this was a major failing of the George Floyd protests which had widespread public support until they were successfully smeared as lawless rebels who engaged in looting and arson. Even though very few people engaged in this behavior, the right’s media dominance allowed them to convince many people that this was the whole movement and it lost support for its demands.
Good idea. If I’m gonna sabotage oil infrastructure I’ll need some help.
I can’t tell if you’re joking but very few organizations are doing that sort of action which is generally quite risky. There are a range of actions between the sort of personal responsibility actions you’re doing and outright sabotage. I know people here are generally dismissive of these but letter-writing, petitions, marches, etc. can all be effective parts of a political movement, as can more radical actions like blockades or strikes.
Personally, I think sabotage has to be carefully considered in the context of a broader campaign or it risks becoming an element of reactionary propaganda. It doesn’t help that our culture has for decades, perhaps centuries conflated property damage with violence against people, and this often makes people unsure if those who engage in the former might also engage in the latter. While I could see that sabotage might be morally justified in some situations, it’s not clear that it’s the correct tactic when the climate movement is as small and weak as it is right now.
Letter writing and petitions and marches have been going on for decades now and haven’t worked. I know, I was there.
And at least if we blow up a pipeline it’ll be better than throwing soup on a painting or gluing myself to a road.
Blowing up a pipeline would be a bit counter productive wouldn’t it? Don’t think there is something like a clean pipeline explosion.
I think a more effective way of steering the wheel would be to associate the position of the decision maker and the outcome of that decision with fear.
I’m not sure if I agree that they haven’t worked. The severity of climate change has been significantly reduced by currently enacted policies, even as the situation continues to look fairly dire.
Like any mass movement, the effectiveness of these actions depends on the number of people engaged in them. To date, this movement has been fairly small compared to other movements that succeeded in bringing about similarly large changes. Furthermore, while blowing up a pipeline might have a more tangible and direct impact, that impact is still very small, and the political implications are complicated. The idea that fossil fuels can be stopped completely through sabotage seems at least as far-fetched as the idea that it can be stopped through letter-writing.
Given that situation, the main question becomes: how does this movement grow large enough that its demands must be answered fully? I think a clear and coherent message and political strategy is essential. Framing the issue as one of ordinary people fighting for children and the common good against the interests of a corrupt elite is usually beneficial. I worry that property destruction undermines this framing by defining the movement in public consciousness as violent extremists instead of a movement that is fighting to protect ordinary people. I think this was a major failing of the George Floyd protests which had widespread public support until they were successfully smeared as lawless rebels who engaged in looting and arson. Even though very few people engaged in this behavior, the right’s media dominance allowed them to convince many people that this was the whole movement and it lost support for its demands.
You’re way more chill about the death of the biosphere than I consider healthy.