244
These Climate Activists Make People Uncomfortable -- And It's Working
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
244 points (97.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5282 readers
527 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is this a vegan org? It doesn't mention anything about their members adhering to a plant-based diet, and it would certainly make me uncomfortable if they weren't.
Along with what others have said, you’re also falling for the oil industry’s years long campaign to heave onto us the responsibility to fix the mess they created, knew about, covered up, and gaslighted everyone on.
A group is having a real impact on the people and companies that are 85%-95% responsible for the mess we’re in…and you question the climate group? Like…that’s such weirdly unnecessary bootlicking. You probably don’t realize you’re doing it—or maybe you do, I dunno. But this is the same tactic used every single time a reporter is trying to discredit a spokesperson for any climate action group—the shitty conservative reporters too, like Pierce Morgan.
So…you’re not in good company.
You can find other orgs that fight against climate change who promote veganism within their organization and to the general population. Greenpeace, for example. Hell, even Greta Thunberg, who's had more of an impact than these other guys, is vegan.
The idea is to "be the change", and you can't be telling one group (i.e. the fossil fuel industry) to stop doing what they are doing, while acting in ways that demonstrably harm the environment needlessly.
A plant-based diet, perhaps above all else, is one of the most powerful tools we have to fight climate change. And once you convince one person to go vegan, they will likely change their lifestyle beyond diet to reduce their carbon footprint and rely less on the fossil fuel industry.
The industry won't go anywhere if they still have 8 billion customers. As individuals, our day-to-day lives impact their bottom line; we can make them money, or we can prevent them from making money.
I don't discredit their efforts, but their credibility. It would go a long way if their members showed that they were serious about climate change in their own lives, while fighting against the industry.
Anyway, I just asked the question, since I don't know this group. Perhaps they are all vegans, and they go after the livestock industry, too.
Yeah, of course it’s always good. No one is denying that.
But my point is the context. Following an article about a climate group that is seeing positive results in hounding the fuck out of some of the assholes responsible, your reaction actually runs cover for the assholes. See what I’m saying?
“Average citizen foils a home robbery as he’s walking by with his dog.”
You: “pfft. But does he volunteer his time to help those people starving in his city?”
Like, what the fuck? Yes, we all know it’s good to cut out what you can—it’s better to ride a bike than drive a car. It’s better to eat less meat than meat all the time. It’s better to be vegetarian than eat meat. It’s better to be vegan than vegetarian. But to say if you’re not doing ALL OF THE ABOVE, FUCK YOU doesn’t help anyone but the people truly responsible for the climate crisis. It’s turning your attention away from those who output megatonnes carbon into the atmosphere and who literally engineered the term “carbon footprint” to shift blame and focus away from them (which you have picked up the torch on, which is my point) and onto us, the people who don’t put out in a year what one of these companies is responsible for in a day or a week.
Again, you’re not wrong, it’s great to do what you personally can, but in this context, you’re not proving that point. You’re saying, “oh yeah, well what’s your carbon footprint?! Did you make those signs out of recycled paper? Did you drive here to make this climate change denier face their crimes?!” For that, you kinda suck in this context. No offense.
Adhering to dogmatic ideas of ideological purity is detrimental to the environmentalist cause.
I'm sure they do. What they said is that requiring members to be vegan is bad for their cause because it limits membership. As long as they're working towards the same goals, they shouldn't have a requirement like that. Maybe encourage members to change their lifestyle, but not require it of them before they join.
I was going to be very mean to you, then I took a deep breath and realized that it wasn't worth it.
I would invite you to realize that for every 10 articles detailing how bad climate change is, there are maybe 1 of these articles. Tell me, what exactly are you doing by poking holes here? This organization has the potential to create far more lasting change than you being vegan ever will. What do you gain by pointing this out?
Your self-described "simple questions" are a textbook example of concern trolling, aimed not at gaining insight but at undermining efforts to address climate change. You position yourself as a reasonable skeptic—an advocate for the underrepresented, a cycling enthusiast concerned about the impracticalities of immediate fossil fuel cessation. Yet, your arguments selectively ignore the robust initiatives that organizations implement alongside the push to end fossil fuels, not to mention the extensive literature that outlines transitional strategies which are sensitive to socioeconomic disparities [IPCC, 2021].
Furthermore, your juxtaposition of environmental groups against Greenpeace creates a false dichotomy, one that oversimplifies the diverse tactics within the environmental movement. Both types of efforts—ending crimes by fossil fuel companies and phasing out fossil fuels—are critical and complementary, not oppositional [Greenpeace, 2023].
By framing necessary environmental actions as "strange" or "out of touch," you're not just questioning logistics; you're implying a deliberate disconnect by these organizations, thus painting them as elitist or naive. This isn't a critique; it's a strategic misrepresentation designed to discredit. If you were genuinely interested in resolution or progress, your dialogue would include recognition of ongoing efforts to develop sustainable, equitable alternatives and would perhaps offer constructive suggestions rather than thinly-veiled disparagement.
This approach does nothing to further the conversation or contribute to real solutions—it merely perpetuates a cycle of doubt and delay at a time when urgent action is most needed. Concern trolling undercuts serious discourse, exploiting legitimate anxieties for the sake of argument rather than resolution. If the goal is truly to enhance the effectiveness of climate action, then engagement should be aimed at fostering understanding and progress, not fomenting skepticism and strife.
This is delicious. Thankyou very much.
Wow, you're the worst sort of person. Instead of actually replying to their comment, or just leaving it be, you try to discount it as AI written and add nothing more. Also, there's good evidence it isn't AI written. I don't think I've ever seen AI use an em-dash, for example.
Do keep your mouth shut, and your fingers off the keyboard.
While going vegan is a good thing for the environment, not everyone can or is willing to switch completely. You can reduce your meat intake and eating more plant based foods without going full vegan.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough, especially at an individual level.
I mean if you feel better you do it, but actual actions regarding the climate would be laws that force the industry to act on their emissions.
Which in return will make meat more expensive and therefore people will eat less.
Pretty much yeah, individual actions are important but meaningless if not followed by government regulation.
It's quite literally one of the most impactful things you can do as an individual.
99.99% of people can, but an org that's fighting to end climate change really should have that be their minimum for members.
Greenpeace, for example, promotes veganism all the time. I'd trust them more than these other guys.
Perfect is the enemy of good enough, the goal should be for everyone to reduce their footprint, and we shouldn't be splitting hair and arguing that everyone should go vegan. That's unrealistic.
At the scale of a country if we get 90% of the people to reduce their red meat and dairy intake by 60% it would be a massive win already.
Roughly 15% of the world population has IBS which means a much larger number than 0.1% cannot go vegan (I'm one of them). I try my best to reduce my food footprint but there's only so much I can do.
Also by your reasoning you can't be a member of an organisation fighting against climate change if you're not vegan, that's a great way to drive people away from the cause...
The article is about fighting oil and gas and you bring up veganism and state that if they're not vegans they aren't truly fighting for the cause?? Defeating oil and gas would be a great thing for the world and being vegan has nothing to do with any of it. But way to keep your eye on the prize Showroom. They certainly can't lobby to make the world a better place if they eat chicken nuggets from time to time. The Audacity of these people.
I was actually asking about the values of the group, not the article specifically.
From what I understand (after reading the group's website), is that they aren't only against oil and gas but all forms of industry and government leaders who can impact climate change.
Their posted values include “peacefulness”, which is in line with the vegan movement.
Their posted values also include “solidarity”, and explains that they “stand with” other movements, including racial and economic justice. This is also in line with the vegan movement.
I was merely curious, since veganism would be a great fit for the members of that group. It would certainly elevate their credibility.
They're referring to the highlighted part.
No, because comparing individual lifestyle choices like diet to systemic issues like fossil fuel consumption doesn't quite align in terms of impact. Fossil fuels are responsible for 89% of CO2 emissions and 65% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, whereas all agricultural livestock accounts for around 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. While every bit helps, the scale of change needed to significantly reduce our carbon footprint goes far beyond individual actions—it requires systemic transformation, particularly in how we produce and consume energy [International Energy Agency, 2020; FAO, 2013]. Furthermore, while there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels—such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power—the same breadth of alternatives doesn't exist for diet. Enforcing dietary changes can be culturally sensitive and challenging, making it a less feasible solution for rapid global implementation. It's essential to focus our efforts where the biggest impact can be made, and that's on reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
@NegativeInf @Showroom7561 @climate
The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do "it".
As one example, if l was say "No thanks! I've brought my own non-plastic bag" to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn't stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.
But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.
Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).
@NegativeInf @Showroom7561 @climate
The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do "it".
As one example, if l was say "No thanks! I've brought my own non-plastic bag" to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn't stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.
But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.
Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).
Oh noes, that organization that really makes an impact in bettering the world doesn't support my particular pet peeve, they suck!
It's this attitude why most grass roots organisations fail. As soon as a group gains some traction, you have all these.peoplemlike you immediately trying to inject their issues in there. I remember this happening to occupy Wall Street, that started good, then it toren itself apart when they needed to add all the other issues, racism, lgbtqfjwkskgr, Womens rights, animal rights, and so on... Meanwhile the coke sniffing assholes were laughing at them from a high balcony with champagne in their claws I shit you not.
How about you just tell them: well done, please do some more! Can I help you with your cause? Maybe one day we'll look at my particular cause, but that can wait a day.
Your behavior is the reason why we can't have nice things, please stop it
I think you've missed the point. I merely asked if this climate change organization promoted veganism, since other climate change groups do, and it seems to be in line with their message.
If they aren't, why not?
It's good to ask questions, friend. If not, you might as well listen to industry propaganda, since values don't matter anyway.
No.
This is not about values not mattering. This is about people, like you, needing to inject their specific pet peeve into valid discussions, arguments, and organizations.
A climate organization does NOT need to require everyone being vegan. Would it help? Sure, I guess. Is there room for such organizations? Sure! Create your own, you're free to do so! Should you force a successful organization to adopt your pet peeve? No, piss off, because you will ruin said organization. Let this organization donors thing to make the world a little better, if you want vegans world wide, then start your own.
Don't repeat occupy wallstrreet, I beg of you.
Do you do CrossFit too?
I use Arch btw
Thank you
So you can lobby for the world to be a better place but in order to be genuine about it, you have to be vegan... Gotcha
You need to take a step back and reassess who is on your team and what team you're on. You and these people are trying to accomplish the same thing yet you're poo pooing on their efforts because you can't confirm if they're vegans? That's kind of insane
They're not really trying to change minds, they're just crashing fossil fuel parties. We'll have to see if they crash meat industry parties too. I doubt it.
It's pretty common for people to fail at understanding systemic problems, unfortunately. We'll see what other groups do after this one fails and disbands.
You want people crashing meat industry parties? Get your friends to join you and do exactly that.
One of the biggest things you can do to dilute your message as a group, especially a small group, is to choose too many targets. As you said elsewhere, Greenpeace is already promoting veganism, as is PETA and a number of other groups. These guys don't need to jump on that bandwagon to get the message out. Let them focus on what they're doing, which also needs to be done. Otherwise, all you're doing is redirecting criticism from the bad actors to the people trying to make them stop.