Those idiots destroying paintings and monoliths belong behind bars. That won't convince anyone with even half a brain to think. Just destroys something and makes everyone angry.
But... they didn't do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.
Yeah but it's a lot harder to paint climate activists as the bad guys when you say things like "they souped our glass and powdered our rocks", so better to just lie, right?
Going after a painting that's behind glass is VERY different to going after the stone henge that has no protective layer, and most importantly of all, has nothing to do with the target of their cause
saying it destroyed the stone henge is a major exaggeration, saying it did no damage is also just as wrong. The English heritage society emphasised that it was only no VISIBLE damage left, however they also said it did cause damage.
It's just like how you can't touch walls in caves because any change in the oils and stuff in our skins can cause long term damage even though there's no immediate visible damage
How do you think those rocks will fare when the average temperature rises a few degrees?
Do you think the big stones will avoid damage while humans are fighting wars over water?
Are those precious rocks going to be ok when countries near the equator become uninhabitable, and the UK has to violently defend its borders from millions of climate refugees?
Do you think it can still be considered a cultural heritage site after all the humans are dead?
I never once said I disagree with their message, but doesn't mean I need to agree with their methods
If their message is that oil is bad and that government should be doing more, they should be targeting oil companies, lobbyists, government officials, companies that have excess waste and chemical use (coke im looking at you)... Not heritage listed stuff that's mostly maintained by volunteers
No, because I don't agree with their methods... Just like any extremist group might have a good message but doesn't mean I agree with them bombing oil pipelines or kidnapping people
Attacking rocks does nothing to progress their cause... Attacking things in the environment doesn't even line up with their cause of wanting to protect the environment
As long as they stick to actually attacking the companies and groups that actually are the cause of the problems, I would support their methods and as a result, them as a group
While I haven't heard a reasoning from any of these groups why they perform provocative acts in galleries and on historical sites, I think there are reasons:
A lot of art galleries, opera houses, and other institutions of high culture are supported by the super-rich. As such many of these institutions are outlets of fossil-fuel money.
High culture is essentially a distraction for those with education and intellect. So going to places of high culture means you tend to reach (and, granted, annoy) the kinds of people who have enough free mental bandwidth to understand and enough clout to actually influence decisions.
It’s going to be too cold to visit once the Gulf Stream stalls from reduced ocean salinity, and Britain’s climate is more like northern Canada or Alaska.
Says the moron while not even taking 3 seconds to understand what they did and why they did it. Lol
Look how angry everyone gets about art and architecture whilst not even remotely having the same reaction about climate change and what it's doing to our planet.
I think that's kinda the commenters point. Morons almost have a chance of connecting a few dots when it's private jets. Half a step removed, and nope, morons won't even attempt understanding
I think the point is to ragebait people into reading about it.
An educational campaign doesn't work.
People get angry when the protests disrupt their day.
Peaceful protests happen literally everyday in the US in nearly every city and hear nothing about them.
The only way it gets visibility is it has to be disruptive, and the only way to get them to read/learn about it is to hook them in. And if Faux News has taught anyone anything, it's that ragebaiting is fucking effective.
anyone that thinks people will say 'oh these guys are doing something I feel is stupid, I better learn what they have to say' has never met a single human in their life.
That's funny, you realize not everyone will jump to the conclusion it was 'stupid' right away? Most will say, "they did what? Why?" Aka curiosity. We learn more. We understand. Then we decide if it's stupid or not.
Have you ever seen the pictures of the ocean after the gulf oil spill? They never did fix that - they just sprayed chemicals that sunk the oil to the bottom of the gulf, creating a dead zone (with help from agricultural chemical runoff from the Mississippi River). And the people there never did get treated for all their medical issues, even though most of their food comes out of that ocean. That's also why we need Medicare for all btw - so we can make sure the EPA, CDC, and other government organizations are actually doing their job and people are actually taken care of when something goes wrong.
The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.
Ron Guilmette, whose tennis court was destroyed in previous storms along the beach, added that he now doesn’t know how much his property is worth or if he will stay in the area. He calls the situation on Salisbury Beach “catastrophic.” “I don’t know what the solution is,”
Oh no, not your tennis court. What a shame. What a darn tragic loss for our nobility. Oh why can't the climate adjust to save your beachfront home. How could the earth be so inconsiderate for our rich land owners.
Ron Guilmette, whose tennis court was destroyed in previous storms along the beach, added that he now doesn’t know how much his property is worth or if he will stay in the area.
Not home - property implying one of many, and be owns his own private beach tennis court... But I mean I guess it could've been two words:
To be fair a lot of these homes have been there for 50-100 years (some way older). Salisbury (and parts of Hampton just north) is relatively poor compared to much of the New England sea coast, but those look like pretty expensive homes. Just a road or 2 over is a lot lower income. lots of fishermen lived there traditionally. That part of the Atlantic coast was settled and built before the idea of public land was really well defined unlike parts of California and the west coast.
That's what I don't get. If I'm determined to off myself, why not take someone with me that would make the world a better place to be without? I definitely have a name at the top of my list, but since I'm not suicidal, it just remains a fantasy.
I hope this post doesn't get me added to any lists myself. I'm talking in hypotheticals here.
The guillotine was invented as a fast, efficient, humane method of execution. It was meant to take the human factor out of it for a clean, repeatable result.
I don't know I like the idea of a union gig job of cranking the handle on the wood chipper and going on mandatory lunch break halfway through one of these CEOs
ITT: bots, trolls, and plain old fools angrier with this woman for demanding that we stop climate change than with the mega corps trying to cause long-term devastation for short-term gain.
There's like 1 guy. I mean, I know there are masses of angry chuds out there who hate her(and also not-so-secretly lust after her, which is beyond sick) but in this thread there's just the one.
P.S. the other is a troll who is using sarcasm wrong.
Sure, blame the kids. Not like that's exactly what previous generations have done or anything. All I see here is more blame-shifting and passing the buck.
I mean it explicitly says it’s not Gen Z’s fault they don’t have the requisite training. They want to learn more than the rest of the population, there just aren’t good opportunities to learn the relatively niche skills.
I totally agree the article should have been written way better, and I question why it focuses on just gen z when a lack of sustainable talent seems like a multigenerational problem, but improving training being most critical for gen Z as they will be taking over more and more of the workforce in the oncoming years (critically during the window of opportunity to reverse more of the effects of climate change) makes sense to me
What's old is new again. Time is a flat circle. But really, technology has a good habit of compounding gains. One new idea applied to a hundred old ones really gets innovation running hot.
The scale of a sail needed to propel a giant cargo ship is really quite a bit different from what you might imagine on an old frigate, aka a "pirate ship." Making a sail that large out of traditional materials is not feasible, and would require a ton of people to operate it. One of these monstrosities is staffed by probably less than 20 people, and labor is expensive, so this sort of computer operated sail can be both feasible and cost effective, whereas old school type sails were not
Those damned sails stealing the earth's winds for free.
Global warming you know why it's happening? Because the sails are all stopping the global winds! No winds to blow the heat away and it all warms up! BAN SAILS TODAY to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
There's a reason they quit, though. It's slow and doesn't let you go in every direction. The midline area of earth has winds that move mostly towards west, while the north and south portions blow mostly east.
For those curious, these sails save 12 tons per day. The average cargo ship uses around 200,000 tons per day, so around 6% better fuel economy.
Thanks for putting it into relation to daily use.
200,000 is not realistic though. Just had a google and found this source citing up to 400 metric Tons/day
The 12 tons are a best case and they represent 37% of this ship's fuel consumption, that would be ~32.5 tons a day, on average it saved 3.3 tons, ~10%.
Which makes the break-even point for such wingsails, which cost one hell of alot more than a few tonnes of fuel did .. rather far-away/long-term, doesn't it?
There was also a system using huge parachute-kite things, on carbon-nanotube-ropes, fired up into the sky with rocket-assist, and the things could apparently pull the ship, quite effectively...
.. the service-subscription the ship was supposed to pay-for gave them the optimal route for fuel-savings vs time-to-get-there..
here, it was sorta like this, but the kite-sail looked different, and I'm pretty-sure they were saying something about nanotube cable for the kite, and it wasn't just a concept, it was actually-working...
I seem to remember that at the beginning of covid, some shipping companies just shortened the bulbs on their hulls, to optimize for a slower cruising-speed, and saved money that way..
I love this story. From people banding together and building a sand barrier on the beach to stop the ocean. To the idea that they MUST know sandbags exist but they never considered why people don't just skip the bags and dump sand, to not one person mentioning climate change or sea level increase even though that's clearly the problem, to the one guy saying "it's mother nature you just have to accept it". 5 stars, would deny climate change and fix the problem with sand piles again.
The best part is that their previous sand dune was removed by storms and high tides in 2022, so their solution was to build another sand dune, which took a year, and was immediately removed by storms and high tides.
When I first came here, this was all beach. Everyone said I was daft to build a house on a beach, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the ocean. So I built a second one. That sank into the ocean. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the ocean. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest house in all of the coast.
Friendly reminder that Exxon themselves independently discovered their own business contributes to climate change waaaayy before it became the political trap it is now. He is arguing in bad faith and knows it too. Hold his feet to the fire
The infuriating thing is the oil industry was (and still is) well positioned to do something about it. To build offshore wind farms you need people experienced with building structures offshore. Which the oil industry has. To transport hydrogen over land you need people who can build pipelines. Which the oil industry has. To transport Hydrogen overseas you need some chemical engineers to figure out how to get it into a forma they can easily transport (Ammonia maybe?). Which the oil industry has. Geothermal? Well you need people that are experienced in drilling into the ground... which yeah...
But you'd need to have a lot of money to invest into these projects... oh wait they have that too, don't they?
The only problem was these projects would take time to start turning a profit and they only care about quarterly profits for just long enough to get their golden parachutes.
So basically the oil industry has what's needed to solve the problem... they just don't wanna.
This is the primary reason governments worldwide need to introduce a carbon tax. There are legitimate uses for petrochemicals and plastics, but to save the planet carbon capture and diverse energy production are needed yesterday
The fossil fuel companies tried it and found out renewables don't have the same return on investment that they're accustomed to, so they stopped with renewable projects.
But the ride was sponsored by Chevron from 1998-2012, and that company is pretty dedicated to poisoning small children anyway, so it was apt.
Thankfully, in 2012, Disney attracted a new sponsor, Honda, and in 2016, Honda upgraded the engines to small four-stroke engines, reducing noise and pollution significantly. However, the cars still create exhaust, which is still poisonous to the children riding behind these polluting engines. It’s also poisonous to employees, to the point where Disney pays hazard pay to employees who are assigned to staff the ride.
Those are probably the same engines used in small AC generators and manual lawnmowers. Yes, the four-stroke ones are better but have you ever used a lawnmower? It is loud and stinky.
I was just thinking about how Trump co-opted the term “Fake News”. The term gained traction in reference to the Republican backed “fake news“ about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
I don't mean to downplay the situation at all but doesn't that description pretty much match the world as it exists today? If anything I would expect their predictions to be more dire than that. The global south seems to have more than it's fair share of pain and suffering already.
Oh I know. I'm just saying I don't think this particular quote really communicates that fact. It could just as easily be describing any point in the last 200 years as a future impacted by climate change.
In Córdoba Argentina weather has been getting crazy these last few years. We've been constantly getting 40°C+ temperatures in summer, an even in winter we've hit the 40°C mark (in the middle of July, mind you). Last year we only had like two days in the whole year where we managed to get minus 0°C temperatures
Almost 9 fucking months of summer here in Perth, with about 3 of those months being 30C and clear every single day. Forests and bushland are dying as a result, and water is scarce. I've never seen anything like it.
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
Top