158
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

This is part of why I'm not a proponent of going out to protest. There are so many problems and risks with doing so, and whether it's effective or not depends mostly on whether MSM decides to even cover it or make a big deal about it, and then you gotta hope they don't demonize your side. I mean, if you're gonna get in legal trouble, make it worth it and help take down MSM and make it harder for them to demonize the resistance lol.

I'm not saying don't go out and protest, I'm just saying look at it realistically and ask whether there are other actions that would have a better chance at building a better world. I recommend building resilience at the community level, it's hard, especially for introvert types. Help work each other's gardens and learn skills.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 23 points 1 year ago

Depends a lot on what you do and in which country.

Protests can serve as social proof that there is widespread support for climate action. This is important, and helps bring more people on board and tell politicians that it's worth their while.

[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Protests can serve as social proof

Yep, I think this is the probably the best use of them.

[-] burningmatches@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

I assume this is an evidence-based argument and you can share the research proving this?

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago

It very much depends. Holding up signs and shouting loud really does depend on the MSM, but blockades and other more disruptive forms of protests are a great tool to actually hurt fossil fuels were it hurts the most, in the wallet.

The thing is we need to do two things at the same time. One is to shut down fossil fuels as quickly as possible and for that protests are great solution. The other part is to build up an alternative and for that protests are really not the way to go, as quite frankly the people in power want to stay in power and changing the system, which brought them power is a bad move by them, unless they are absolutly forced to. Much easier to destroy them and replace them, just like fossil fuels.

[-] perestroika@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Authoritarian tactics to suppress protest typically intend to have a chain of effects like this:

  • protest will decrease
  • those who protest will protect themselves better, legally (in terms of planning and considering how to avoid charges)
  • those who protest will protect themselves better, physically (in terms of not being detained and overcoming the police)
  • in the second scenario, police will then be able to depict the protests as "violent" and call it an "insurrection"
  • consequently, they can press heavier charges against anyone they do manage to detain
  • organizing a protest becomes dangerous
  • participating in a protest will be perceived as dangerous
  • people with families and a job and elderly people will fear to participate
  • protest will lose effect due to few participants
  • that will prompt some individuals to anonymous protest and actual sabotage
  • nobody should want that, yet that's where the path leads to

The solutions?

  • fixing the problematic laws via political process, adding a freedom-of-protest agenda to other goals
  • disputing the problematic laws where the legal system allows (appealing to constitutions, conventions and charters)
  • bypassing the laws after analysis, protesting in ways that cannot be criminalized
  • in rare cases where it's worthwhile and there is exceptional mass support, just ignoring the laws, because if there's a million people blocking streets for some reason, cops are powerless

All of that won't be doable in every country, and in some countries, something else might be doable instead.

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

governments from Canada and the US to Guatemala and Chile, from India and Tanzania to the UK, Europe and Australia, are cracking down on activists trying to protect the planet.

It's remarkable that China, Russia, and Iran aren't the "baddies" in this article. What's the common thread here?

[-] Anonymosh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It seems you already know the answer. Care to elaborate?

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

i really don't know, first thing that comes to mind is they don't already have these laws on the books... but that's just a guess.

not an expert on these things

this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
158 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5197 readers
663 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

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