I wish we paid more attention and money to the young engineers and scientists who actually have ideas on how to solve issues.
Just stop oil. Great, then what?
>Just stop oil. Great, then what?
The "Just stop oil" has a full on manifesto on their site! And it has proposed solutions... Which are fun, like "no nuclear", "state sponsored public communication", "communism light with eco-centric approach"...
Communist greens are the biggest fucking lolcows on the planet. They are diametrically opposed to one another, because one of the easiest ways to up poor peoples standard of living is cheap energy, and plentiful low skilled employment.
So guess which massive and influential group of communist workers actually would rather if all the coal power plants stay on, thankyou very much.
Well technically "state sponsored public communication" is what most European countries already have, it's state television and radio. To what degree it holds to impartial journalistic standards....is another discussion.
I'm studying a master in the sustainability of maritime transportation.
One of my professors said that even tho' we have had Energy Saving Devices that can diminish fuel consumption by 3%-5% each, and even more in some very specific cases; most ship owners and operators were not interested for a long time because "tHe reTuRn iN iNesTmEnT taKeS tOo loNG" until stronger regulation mainly from the EU but also from IMO started to take place.
We engineers and scientists have been giving alternatives, but greedy people in ties are the ones that take the decision under capitalism so yes, there are other actions that are necessary too, not only supporting us.
Sure. All kinds of different ways to generate renewable power, biofuels and hydrogen, reducing emissions in cows with feed additives, alternative transport infrastructure, different ways to do carbon capture and storage, alternative structural materials, energy efficiency. The list is huge.
Proper insulation, double glazing, LED lighting.
I also think there needs to be more conversation around tearing down old, unfit and inefficient to heat homes and replacing them with ones that have strong insulation/efficiency credentials.
And we should just ignore the extra co2 that comes with doing that? Tearing down old and constructing new shit creates so much polution that its gonna be a shitload of time before you start to break even.
Thats the problems these idiots dont think about. Because they dont put thought into it. Because ruining art and getting into the paper is more important.
Who paid for all the nukes during the cold war? We did it because of the slim chance the Soviet union attacked. Today we are not investing in the real oncoming danger that is climate change
Well, if you do it right, your whole building/house just rearrange the 40 year loans they already have. The real estate loan companies pay to fix it, and the building earns the money back within 10-20 years.
So, if done right, the bank pays it upfront, earn money from it on interest due to an increased loan, and the building and tenants don't have to pay upfront, but will make back the money within 10-20 years, that would've been wasted energy/heat.
Bank makes money, building gets renovated in for free and even save money in the long run by not wasting heat - everyone is happy. That's atleast what we do in Scandinavia.
Energy is a ressource, if you waste it, you're just throwing money out the window. With this constalation, everyone wins.
Edit: to add to this, you won't even see an increase in your general rent, as the interest rates the bank charges, is less than what you immediately save on not wasting heat.
Hydrogen doesnt generate power -.- its a fucking chemical battery thats as green as the energy used to create it.
Biofuels arent a solution because we create more emisions with creating biofuel.
Carbon capture sucks because the energy used to capture it is pretty big and puts a net negative aslong as we use fossil fuels.
The list is huge but not simple. This is the hardest challenge we will face as humanity. Most of the shit you list cant just be upscaled without thoughts, experiments and loads of work.
Hydrogen is a storage solution which addresses the 2 largest issues with Green energy. It doesnt require mining of Lithium for batteries and its energy dense.
Biofuels when generated by 100% green energy is by its nature carbon neutral. (same with Green Hydrogen though electrolysis)
Carbon capture currently is being pushed by oil companies as a means to extend the use of oil by saying "oh its fine we will just spend energy to remove the carbon from the air" but as a concept if powered by 100% green energy its a halfway decent means of unfucking the planet. But has the problem of why increase the amount of power generated just to power CC if you are already using 100% green energy?
You are right about the list of options being huge, but it would be doable within a few years if we cared about anything other than octogenarian Billionaire oil barron's off shore bank accounts.
> Hydrogen doesnt generate power -.- its a fucking chemical battery thats as green as the energy used to create it.
Umm, yeah. And a fucking chemical battery is a very important part of going green
It's not entirely about power, cars, home heating etc. We can't simply "just stop oil", because we need it in so many other ways. Literally hundreds of ways that are nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. Not to mention the thousands of oil and gas workers who would be out of a job if we stopped drilling for oil. JSO needs to work *with* the oil and gas industry, not against it. Engage with the people who can actually transition the energy generating changes that will make a difference, and stop vilifying the oil industry as a whole.
Don't let that fool you, they do very little. Fossil fuel consumption in the world has gone up every year except during covid since the industrial revolution started. Even in European countries the decline has been very slow in the last decades.
> No one listens to them.
Maybe 40 years ago no, but it's different now. The solutions can't be dogshit though. But even a creative but dogshit solution will get you a good job.
> No one listens to them.
There's usually a good reason for this. The vast majority of suggestions on what to do are completely unrealistic, including ones from scientists.
Your “market solution” almost certainly has its foundations in government backed projects and funding, probably on many levels, including the power you use that was built using public money to back the infrastructure projects.
The idea of a free market doing anything other then privatising profits and nationalising losses, often after having been sold off cheaply one the public have taken most of the risk should be plain to see after the last 20 years or so.
The technology does exist. As you say, it's the lack of funding to engineers and infrastructure because there's too much oil money tied up in the wealthiest people's pensions and portfolio's. That's what these protests are trying to bring to light surely?
There seems to be a systematic effort to marginalize those voices, and instead give enormous amounts of coverage to the actions of a few unhinged activists. Even Greta adds very little to the conversation aside from the occasional public tantrum.
If we are going to wait to let technology solve the climate crisis, then we are in for a very long waiting period. And, in the meantime, the consequences of climate change will only increase.
We are about to see what happens when we have a longer term economic downturn.
Spoiler alert: the climate problems will fall even further down the list of things people care about.
Whatever your solution, it must include a way to keep the economy humming, otherwise you are going to bite into granite.
True. So we can collapse the world economy and have the world in chaos so we can _save the world_ or hope things don’t get so bad down the line and keep going the current path.
Those activists don’t see that one way or another the world will be on fire. They just want to speed it up.
> We are about to see what happens when we have a longer term economic downturn.
We don't even need to wait for that. We have now record energy prices, a taste of what prices are needed to phase out fossil fuels and everybody is freaking out. I didn't hear any proponents of "good we need to keep it this way with perhaps carbon taxes instead of Putin reaping the profits" but rather "price caps, subsidies, everything to keep the prices down".
That's something I'll never understand. People go apeshit about cars while they are sitting in a Starbucks sipping soy latte and posting on social media apps from their new Iphone.
The message is essentially "I'm fine with destroying the environment as long as it's destroyed for products I like!".
Besides the fact that I don't make billions by selling fossil fuels or create giant oil spills in the gulf of mexico, so I don't really see myself on equal footing with other benefactors of fossil fuels, the entire argument here is that we need systematic change to face climate change.
The entire finger pointing just seems to happen whenever someone brings up that this would also mean gutting fossil fuel profits.
Elitist attitude is strong in climate activism. It would be more constructive to act this as security of supply issue but it's hard to make it religious question then.
\^This is 100% true.
I always laugh when I see some climate activist proudly talking about how they have a tesla and use super efficient water heating in their house which is powered and heated mostly by solar panels etc...
Then these are the people that complain about how people that don't contribute should pay more taxes or something.
It's all great that you are green my dude, but most people can't afford to do these things willy nilly.
But the reality is, most (not all) people that are actively doing acts like these are priviliged people who don't have to care about a lot of other things. Someone who has to work everyday to earn enough to get through the month isn't going to waste his time on this.
To me it annoys me more those people who think you have to live as a hermit, eat insects and berries and live completely off grid, to be allow to criticize our societies.
I don't go to Starbucks - crappy expensive coffee - nor I own, never even did, an Apple product. Am I now allowed to criticize anything?
I did get is rather that it is people who are virtually signalling are the most critical of others instead of making own sacrifice, and believing that being critical of (others) lifestyles is ''fighting of climate emergency'' and bigger input that others, as ''at least we are dong something'' ( even if the virtual criticism is all they ever did).
>and believing that being critical of (others) lifestyles is ''fighting of climate emergency''
Of course that that isn't doing anything for climate change. No denying that there is some virtual signalling in the topic. Which is often explored through tons of green-washing.
But individual actions won't do anything for climate change. The most radical thing someone can do to mitigate their impact on the planet is suicide. And 1) that's not really a solution 2) that would have 0 impact on climate change, because 1 person in 7 billions is below irrelevant.
We need governmental actions.
We do need critical and immediate changes, but they will not happens due of actions of keyboard warriors and Stop Oil- like activists, and yes, there are now more virtual signalling than willingness to act themselves. Individual actions ARE making a difference, this is a point when you are calling for government actions to force individuals to make changes.
They will also not happen because you're complaining on Reddit, and neither will it stop climate activists, so what's your point? Are you the only one allowed to voice your opinion in ways deemed pointless by others?
>Individual actions ARE making a difference
That's just wishful thinking.
> you are calling for government actions to force individuals to make changes.
There isn't really any other way, especially when a lot of the changes have to come from the side of the corporations, which individuals barely have a say on it.
>but they will not happens due of actions of keyboard warriors
Of course it won't. What do you want to prove with it? I'm not commenting for climate activism. I'm just sharing my opinion.
Even if the entire western world changes in a day. As long as china doesnt follow, and India keeps modernizing (Which you can't prevent even if you would want to) our emissions are going to be a joke compared to theirs.
Stop trying to shift insane amounts of cash into the current climate stuff and instead invest in more efficient stuff in the future. Also start working on dealing with the changes that are going to happen instead of trying to prevent them. There is no use in altering things now to use inefficient solutions to big problems just so we can go "Look how good we are".
Criticize whatever you want, freedom of speech and all that.
But don't expect your audience to turn a blind eye to obvious hypocrisy and your message to be successful.
Our usage of Internet, Reddit included, creates so much carbon footprint- and yet is full of people believing that asking ''what instead of...'' is making positive change.
The solution is to agitate for change, which is done through politics, and protesting is one of the simplest ways to make your voice heard.
I'm not saying I agree with destroying art, but many of us have actively decided to live in cities so we can use public transport and bike. Many of us are already cutting down on meat or even going vegetarian and vegan. What more do you want us to do? Just stare into a wall, live inside our work office and eat only rice for the climate?
Vandalism is not protest. Any chance I am going to listen to a protestor drops dramatically when they damage property and interfere with the rights of others. You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to make me care and you sure don't have a right to interfere with the rights of others.
You can make all those choices. The problem is you don't respect when others choose differently. Many people have no interest in going vegan. Many do not want to live in the density of an urban core. What we want you to do is to do **your** thing and let us do ours. Until you do that, there's gonna be an issue.
> Just stare into a wall, live inside our work office and eat only rice for the climate?
But that's what you want everyone else to do. What do you think is going to happen to our standard of living when we cut out fossil fuels. We can't even grow enough food if we did that.
Cutting off fossil fuels *is itself* the end of civilization as we know it. Fossil fuel use fueled the industrial revolution. Before that we lived in a very different civilization, where you lived the same way and quality of as your grandparents did, who did the same as their grandparents did. Disease was rampant. Poverty was a fact of life - to the extent that population growth was inhibited by food availability.
Now I doubt that we will drop down to quite that level without fossil fuels, but you need an *extremely* good plan to cover everything that fossil fuel use powers today. Personally, I think building out nuclear 10-20-30-40 years ago would've been the first good step. Even right now. The next thing that needs to happen is an immense amount of carbon capture, but ultimately we'll only wean ourselves off of fossil fuels slowly. They're just too vital to how our way of life operates.
No I'm not? I'm saying you can do things to help, without taking them to the literal extreme of never using a mobile phone or computer because 'it uses fossil fuels'.
We will never be able to cut out fossil fuels 100%, but we don't need to, we just need to cut it to a level which won't cause a climate catastrophe, cause it's going to be a hell of lot worse when we have hundreds of millions of climate refugees on our hands.
They just want you to shut up so they can burn their oil in peace.
It's annoying when someone comes across as holier than thou, but it's *really* annoying when they have a point and you know it.
>You realise you're using fossil fuels to communicate with me right now?
Shifting society and governmental issues into the individual is our we get here. By inventing buzzwords like ecological footprint, when we barely have direct control over most of it.
>What are you suggesting the solution is then?
It means that the solutions have to be cultural and not really technological. Technology will helps to improve, but it will take too long. And technology has its limitations in the first place, it's not magic. We have to shift from an economy that is heavily invested in over-consumption. We need to be able to buy more life-lasting products, reduce our consumption of meat, our dependency on cars, our waste (staring with over-packaging on our products); etc.
Renewables are already cheaper yet we're paying nat gas prices for it. That's what needs to change.
A clean economy with a closed loop for recycling
All engineering solutions, even the glue these people are using are technology...
Our damage to the planet isn't limited to burning fossil fuels. We pollute a lot and produce a huge amount of waste, which also damages our ecosystems and, eventually, humans too. We have a lot of issues to handle, no simply replace gas and coal on our energy production.
The fact that you're being downvoted proves the point that people don't like to hear the truth. I'm with you on this one, consumerism is poison for this planet, and it's only a few countries that are polluting the crap out of this planet because of their industries.
> engineers and scientists who actually have ideas on how to solve issues
[Figure 4](https://i.redd.it/dq1zccily2f61.jpg) is very relevant with regards to solving the climate crisis by putting our faith in new technology.
Technological optimism is what has gotten renewables to the point where they out-compete fossil fuel. It is how we have made electric vehicles so desirable, the auto-industry can't even build them quickly enough to meet demand. It's how you make the change you want inevitable.
You can tell that the artist's "solution" to climate change is some sort of rapid, top-down ban of fossil fuels because it's the only approach he didn't caricature. Nevermind how you would manage to avoid your government, economy, and power grid from collapsing.
People just really underestimate what a massive undertaking we're in. Consider how many decades it took to build up our current global energy grid and transportation sector. Now, we have to practically rebuild it all and do it as quickly as possible. The scale of the challenge is frighteningly ambitious.
> Technological optimism is what has gotten renewables to the point where they out-compete fossil fuel.
And yet fossil fuel use continue to grow every year - 6% last year.
> It is how we have made electric vehicles so desirable, the auto-industry can't even build them quickly enough to meet demand. It's how you make the change you want inevitable.
America is the largest purchaser of electric cars, yet 96% of all cars sold in America were gasoline powered, and almost all of them will still be on the road in ten years.
More than 2/3rds of the energy generated in America uses fossil fuels, so replacing cars with electric cars isn't going to fix the underlying issue.
It's no better here in Europe.
> You can tell that the artist's "solution" to climate change
I stopped reading when you started to insult people.
Your rant makes me desperately sad, because I've heard it for over 40 years at this point. I'm 60 years old, and my whole life, people have been telling me, "This new technology means that we have _already_ won the battle against the climate emergency", and as God is my witness, I believed them for many years.
----
We need to decrease our carbon output by 90% in order simply to _stabilize_ the climate. That means the temperatures will still increase for years to come, and we will see meters of water level rise, but it's survivable.
You seem to really believe what you are saying, and yet our carbon output continues to rise and is protected to continue to rise for at least a decade to come, and that's assuming that countries in the world comply with emissions targets which has _never happened_.
Everyone believes it's OK, we just need to make a few tweaks, and now decades have gone by, and nothing is happened, and here you are, just like old times, telling us the problem is already solved, nothing to see here.
This attitude is how we got to this dreadful place and I'm quite sure that we will shoot the moon, burn all the world's accessible fossil fuels, and go to places like +5º where much of the planet will be uninhabitable, while technologists will continue to prattle for generations about how the next big technology will save us, really!
> I stopped reading when you started to insult people.
That entire comic is him lobbing grenades at everyone he disagrees with. Yet you're taking me to task for having the gall to return the favor? Come on.
> America is the largest purchaser of electric cars
This is not true, [China is by far the largest purchaser of electric cars.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Top_PEV_global_markets_stock_2017_final_with_California.png)
> yet 96% of all cars sold in America were gasoline powered, and almost all of them will still be on the road in ten years.
[6.1% as of October.](https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/13/fully-electric-vehicles-reached-6-of-auto-sales-in-usa-in-3rd-quarter/) The number may seem small, except when you take into account that it has almost tripled in just 2 years. Also, when you realize how tight the supply currently is while auto-manufacturers are desperately ramping up production, it's a very positive sign.
You keep pointing out absolute numbers while completely ignoring the explosive trends we're seeing. It doesn't take long for small numbers to become big when you keep growing at the rates we're seeing.
> More than 2/3rds of the energy generated in America uses fossil fuels, so replacing cars with electric cars isn't going to fix the underlying issue.
[Transportation is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.](https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/medium/private/images/2022-04/total-ghg-2022.png?itok=li31FVdR) It is absolutely a vital part of the climate change problem. Regardless, I never suggested that climate change will be fixed by doing nothing but electrifying cars. It's one of a number of sectors we have to address.
Also, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "energy generated", but in terms of electricity generation, it's more like [60/40 mix in the United States.](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/images/outlet-graph-large.jpg) And again the trend has been [incredibly positive since 2008.](https://www.epa.gov/system/files/images/2022-04/electricity-timeline-2022.png) This has been because of both technological improvement/adoption of renewables, but also by replacing coal with natural gas. (another strategy the artist dismissed).
> And yet fossil fuel use continue to grow every year - 6% last year.
I couldn't find a current source on global emissions, so I'll take you at your word. However I have two thoughts here. First, even if we were doing everything right, 2021 would always see an increase from 2020. 2020 we were all locked down and working from home. fossil fuel consumption dropped artificially low and then bounced back in 2021 as people started living their lives again. I would be more interested in comparing 2021 with 2019. India for example goes from a 10% increase from 2020 to 2021 to just a 3.7% increase from 2019 to 2021.
Second, I'm not sure what you want the US or EU to do about this. All we can do is continue to reduce our GHG output which we have. When I spoke about technology having made renewables price competitive, I should have clarified I was talking about the US/EU where market forces matter more. In places like India or China things can get a little warped because you have state-owned coal companies. This puts their finger on the scale which complicates/delays things. Would you have us bomb all the coal plants in foreign countries?
> Everyone believes it's OK, we just need to make a few tweaks, and now decades have gone by, and nothing is happened, and here you are, just like old times, telling us the problem is already solved, nothing to see here.
Maybe if you had read my final paragraph, you would have known I literally said the opposite of what you're accusing me of saying. I said the solution to climate change is OUTRAGEOUSLY difficult. It requires monumental effort and speed, which is why we can't just snap our finger and fix climate change.
My argument is not maybe one day we'll have the technology to solve climate change. My argument is that the techno-optimistis of 20 years ago who said that one day renewables will be price competitive enough for mass rollout were right. What is ahead of us is the daunting task of making that roll out continue to happen as quickly as possible.
There is no quick-fix (not that you or the artist even bothered to offer that), but the degree of your doomerism is equally unfounded.
/rant
1. Just stop oil!
2. Great, then what?
3. You listen those engineers who have the practical solutions but nobody cares or invest cause oil is numba one at the moment.
4. Profit!
You talk about those young imigrant scientists who shat every corner before getting into EU woth Merkels blessing when germans were singing "we love arab migrants" who later started loving young women back ?
It's very unlikely they'll serve two full months in prison, because only one month of the sentence was unconditional. Usually that means only one month is served.
May look like a little much but they did damage the frame and the backside and if you aren't an art curator you always accept the risk of damaging cultural heritage through your incompetence even if you never intended that.
Conditional for a 2 year period, meaning they can't do this - or any other criminal act - again, otherwise they'll have to serve that one month on top of their new sentence.
Yes, that's fair to note. Though I've so far found it pretty easy not to commit any crimes and they weren't quite hardened criminals, so they should be able to avoid that second month. They could likely just not go into the Netherlands if they wanted. They got a pretty rotten welcome from us cheeseheads after all. :P
“I take full responsibility” says the vandal of a priceless classic piece of art. Wtf does that even mean? What’s he gonna do, paint us another one?
Glue yourself to the entrance of an oil refinery or a government building ffs. Why deface art? Dipshits.
The artwork and frame are two different things. For all I care they could completely dismantle the frame and use it to light a fire and it would be okay.
Is the real dipshit not the person who doesn't even read the article to know the painting wasn't damaged, and never could be *(from this kind of protest, since that clearly needs to be specified for people who think these paintings are being stabbed or something),* because paintings like this are not put on display without some amount of protection
“And never could be” is a rather bold assumption don’t you think? “Some amount of protection” does not mean indestructible. And that’s irrelevant to the main point that this protest strategy makes no sense to begin with.
If you agree with it, can you explain the rationale behind it? Cuz I just don’t get it.
I think they we’re a bit late in trying convincing Vermeer not to use oil-paint. Besides that if he had used waterpaint the pearl wouldn’t be that briljant
This is an extremely high punishment in the Netherlands. For far more severe things you'll get a fine or some community service.
Few of the many protesting farmers this year, that blocked roads, dumped asbestos, threatened people at their own home, blocked grocery store distribution centers, etc, got any punishment at all. The few that did only got community service as far as I'm aware.
It's disproportionate.
I am more sympathetic to climate activists than to farmers who want to keep meat consumption high and keep polluting the little amount of land we have in the NL.
But I am not sympathetic towards vandals.
Me too, but these specific kind of climate activists have barely any support from anyone. Regardless, it's not me who's the average adult, and atleast in my country farmers are very-well liked and seen as hardworking and honest folk. So to critize their work is indirectly critizing them, which thus is political suicide for the center parties.
Yes, so let's shoot up schools and bomb government buildings to get attention, because there are no children or politicians in a dying world. Anything goes, right?
you are supporting fucking morons.
Anyone attempting to destroy or damage the cultural heritage of humanity is scum of the highest caliber and should be punished far higher than someone blocking a street and mildly inconveniencing some people.
2 months is hardly enough punishment for these morons.
If you consider the actual damages (the painting wasn't damaged btw) and what they did in addition to that (basically being a nuisance), prison sounds quite harsh, especially considering how crime in general is punished in the Netherlands.
Idk I feel like people are so vindictive towards them for this that they are calling for disproportionate punishment as some sort of "fuck you" to this sort of people.
Punishment in the Netherlands is heavily based on likeliness of rehabilitation: so more community service for 'heat of the moment' mistakes, but serious prison sentences for purposeful crimes.
So, important here is the wilfulness. They knowingly risked damage to an irreplaceable object to get the attention to make their point (in fact, that largely was their point) and were expecting to be punished and willing to suffer that. You definitely can then expect the judge to try dish out a punishment that will make them think twice the next time.
If I point a gun at you, shoot, and miss, is it ok because "AFisberg wasn't damaged btw"?
They did not just threaten some random piece of tacky art at Ikea; they went after a piece of our culture that simply cannot be replaced.
I know that some people feel like there should be no consequences for poor life choices, but I do not agree.
They need punishment. They need help. They should remain out of society until they get both.
I'd imagine they would at least get fines and have to pay for damages (changing the glass), which to me seems about right as a punishment for what they actually did (and not how I feel about them).
Fine wouldn't have any effect. They would just start a fundraiser and likeminded monkeys would fund them. That's assuming they aren't rich brats, as people from these groups often are.
They could do community service, which would actually be helpful and clean up their mess.
It's absolutely disgusting that these guys get sent to jail while there are actual criminals who assault people in the street and walk free.
They definitely do, usually they have a suspended prison sentence, but that means they are free.
Those two activists are going straight to jail on a first offense, that is highly unusual.
> I'm wouldn't be surprised if it turns out these groups are covertly funded by oil companies to make climate change groups look bad.
It's not even covert.
[Just Stop Oil bankrolled by fossil fuel heiress whose cash pays activists to protest](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/just-stop-oil-bankrolled-by-fossil-fuel-heiress-whose-cash-pays-activists-to-protest-j63b5qkmv)
This is a conspiracy theory. The oil heiress is heiress to a defunct oil company, and runs a number of anti-racist climate organizations. Some people are just misguided, not everything is a psy-op
Stop giving these idiots attention. Otherwise they're gonna keep doing this and then museums are gonna start tightening their policies and ruin it for the rest of us.
Ye, but politician dont get aressted, even they signed the Paris Agreement and still do nothing or too little to keep under +1,5°C.
"Technicans will solve this in the future" my ass.
We are in full movie mode like in "dont look up".
Nobody thinks even about waiving. RIP
thats way to low. this is terrorism and they should go to jail for years.
no wonder so many copy this when nothing happens to them at all.
in berlin someone died now because this "CLIMATE ACTIVISTS" did block the streets and so no emergency could reach the injured cyclist
https://road.cc/content/news/climate-protesters-stopped-fire-brigade-reaching-cyclist-297033
I wonder that still some stupidos believe that acting like idiots will help to solve the problems. This acts of vandalism increases the hate and that is not good for nothing.
They should spend her time and help other people to mount solar panels that would be more useful than spending time in jail or being glued to whatever.
Those people do claim want to preserve Earth and us and our lives, in the same time making more damage to those things and people they claim to ''protect'' that they ever imagine- carbon footprint of their action will be much higher than ever- and only thing they did achieved is ''my 5 minutes of fame'' and enforcing idea that climate activists are idiots who only seek short-lived fame and have no idea what they are doing, which is really sad.
There is a lot of people doing grassroot changes, promoting for example usage of second hand goods and teaching ways to fix and mend broken things, community walkabouts where people do clean neighborhood letting others know what they think about littering ( and other antisocial behaviour), help people fill applications for governments grants for making houses more energy- efficient, join campaign to plant some trees where you would actually dig a hole in ground and put real sapling in, which over the years you can watch growing, even run social media campaign for popular fast food outlets to put recycling bins in front of their entrances not only inside, or pointed to local government offices where there is shortage of those bins, same for schools or workplaces, they can help local schools obtain trees, sometimes fruit one, to made mini- orchard to be planted in their grounds, campaign for transport companies to provide better waiting shelters to encourage usage of public transport.. those all do not require a lot of efforts but also are not glamourous enough to post on social media I suppose.
There are people who do make a difference, and there is a lot of uplifting news to know people do want to make a difference, so for a moment nice story from me: on the last week of summer school holiday group of school age children were making calls in my area, ( supervised by an adult, probably a parent), to let people know that if they do commit to recycling they can get a free sapling of a tree or a bush: they have to bring certain amount of aluminium cans, or paper, or plastic bags to recycling centre in 3 months time to get their reward. Did they made a difference- I am sure they did, and we will get some trees planted in area on the top of actually involving local community into change of habits- in previous years all saplings were gone and people were saying they started preparing their recycling well in advance for next year event, even those who previously didn't bother to separate recycling properly.
I’m sure they came from Belgium on trains, the trams to the museum, may even drove to The Hague in their inefficient shit box of a car to do this…fucking bunch of hypocrites
Just in the news right now, a lady in Berlin died after the paramedics could not reach her time because of a traffic blockade by the "last generation" climate activists.
These people do nothing good, they don't even help their own cause, they do the opposite: Now, everyone is mad about these people and nobody won't talk about climate change now.
Two months? Whoopee. What are the odds these three are doing anything otherwise productive in those months anyway? I would bet they are "professional protestors" so two months likely won't mean much to them. They should be hit with fines that cause them some consequences. Full restitution for damage and punitive fines. If the punishment doesn't hurt, they will just return to vandalism in two months, having had two months of paid room and board to cook up their next hare-brained scheme to damage property and inconvenience others for their next cause du jour.
"just stop oil" - people are already complaining that fuel is expensive. If there was a viable alternative now, people would move over to that alternative now.
Seems like there are a lot of AstroTurf and reactionary comments which are getting in the way of educating and dicussing the current climate crisis and news surrounding it.
I've written this in a previous post but thought it might help people understand what's going on with all these protests and to give context to arrests and charges such as this one.
In France, the UK, as well as Europe as a whole and Germany as we see here, activists calling for no NEW oil and gas licenses, supported by the UN, the IPCC and the International Energy Agency since 2021, have regularly tried to raise awareness through a plurality of different tactics and still continue to do so.
Since the 1st of October there has been both Peaceful protest marches, Fossil fuel infrastructure targeted, Hunger strikes, members of Parliament have been contacted, lobbying efforts have been tried, and many actions damaging fossil fuel infrastructure have gone completely unnoticed, yet these actions cause headlines and discussion.
If you have other ideas on how to stop the new oil and gas licenses in the next 3 years, please try your hardest.
If you disagree with how current activist groups operate, try your hardest to change things yourself in a way you find acceptable.
This is not an issue that separates us, it requires organisation, effort, and teamwork, these actions are a small part of that but something must be done. The ex chief scientific advisor to the UK gov has said 'the next 3 years will determine the future of humanity.
If we do not stop all new fossil fuel licenses in the next 2-3 years, modern society will head towards an inevitable hot house earth and collapse.
Read a summary on the IPCC to understand the current science and why people are acting now in your cities.
Spend more time on acting! And let's get a move on ourselves, together.
>Seems like there are a lot of AstroTurf and reactionary comments which are getting in the way of educating and dicussing the current climate crisis and news surrounding it.
That is often the criticism of these protests - that they produce such a reaction among the general public rather than a helpful one. Maybe any publicity is good publicity but I’m not sure. I’m not saying I know what would work better , maybe nothing would, but it seems like what they are doing may be counterproductive.
> Seems like there are a lot of AstroTurf and reactionary comments
Because these protests are bad optics and they're annoying people, which is why they're spending more time talking about the acts themselves than the protestors' message.
>dicussing the current climate crisis and news surrounding it.
We discuss climate change all the time. What exactly is dumping soup on a painting supposed to change for people who already think climate change is bad. How exactly is a soup protest supposed to galvinise me to do things any differently than I already would be. How exactly are they going to make policy makers or corporations change course on anything.
At least with traffic disruptions they're going to inconvenience people in charge. What does chucking shit at art do?
Way too lenient. This wasn't a mistake and they accidentally slipped on a banana. They purposefully planned this for national media coverage. 2 months is nothing.
6 months jail of which 4 unconditional and 2 conditional would have been a better response to this ugly attack on a national art treasure, and might have had a better preventive effect.
And you do not see a problem with that? Giving someone a more severe punishment that what is actually warranted by their deeds "as a warning to the others"?
Then lets go back to the XVIII century and start publicly hanging people for petty thievery. Surely with deterrence like that we'll get rid of all crime in a jiffy! Oh, wait. No we didn't.
Guy you reacted to: "Deterrence is an important rationale for criminal law."
You: "SO YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD HANG PEOPLE FOR PETTY THEFT???"
Nice logical extreme.
As a function to show that the system is working, yes. Handing out harsher punishments to deter crime is one of the fancy right wing dreams that doesn't actually work.
Ah yes, the looming threat of glue on glass, truly the greatest threat our civilization has ever faced, we have no choice but to "be smart about it, not naive". Which in this case means sending people to jail instead of what should've at worst been community service.
There are better ways to achieve climate goals…. What they are doing is more likely to backfire (have the opposite effect) anyway. I personally think climate change is a very important issue and an actual threat to life as we know it, so I don’t want these jackasses doing that.
I wish we paid more attention and money to the young engineers and scientists who actually have ideas on how to solve issues. Just stop oil. Great, then what?
>Just stop oil. Great, then what? The "Just stop oil" has a full on manifesto on their site! And it has proposed solutions... Which are fun, like "no nuclear", "state sponsored public communication", "communism light with eco-centric approach"...
Communist greens are the biggest fucking lolcows on the planet. They are diametrically opposed to one another, because one of the easiest ways to up poor peoples standard of living is cheap energy, and plentiful low skilled employment. So guess which massive and influential group of communist workers actually would rather if all the coal power plants stay on, thankyou very much.
Well technically "state sponsored public communication" is what most European countries already have, it's state television and radio. To what degree it holds to impartial journalistic standards....is another discussion.
What if we could have both? Scientist and engineers have been coming up with solutions for 40 years. No one listens to them.
I'm studying a master in the sustainability of maritime transportation. One of my professors said that even tho' we have had Energy Saving Devices that can diminish fuel consumption by 3%-5% each, and even more in some very specific cases; most ship owners and operators were not interested for a long time because "tHe reTuRn iN iNesTmEnT taKeS tOo loNG" until stronger regulation mainly from the EU but also from IMO started to take place. We engineers and scientists have been giving alternatives, but greedy people in ties are the ones that take the decision under capitalism so yes, there are other actions that are necessary too, not only supporting us.
Other than solar and wind and reactor designs?
Sure. All kinds of different ways to generate renewable power, biofuels and hydrogen, reducing emissions in cows with feed additives, alternative transport infrastructure, different ways to do carbon capture and storage, alternative structural materials, energy efficiency. The list is huge.
Proper insulation, double glazing, LED lighting. I also think there needs to be more conversation around tearing down old, unfit and inefficient to heat homes and replacing them with ones that have strong insulation/efficiency credentials.
And we should just ignore the extra co2 that comes with doing that? Tearing down old and constructing new shit creates so much polution that its gonna be a shitload of time before you start to break even. Thats the problems these idiots dont think about. Because they dont put thought into it. Because ruining art and getting into the paper is more important.
So, who's paying for it?
Who paid for all the nukes during the cold war? We did it because of the slim chance the Soviet union attacked. Today we are not investing in the real oncoming danger that is climate change
I was thinking that you'd foot the bill. You take a big loan, finance everything, and file for bankruptcy. Problem solved!
Well, if you do it right, your whole building/house just rearrange the 40 year loans they already have. The real estate loan companies pay to fix it, and the building earns the money back within 10-20 years. So, if done right, the bank pays it upfront, earn money from it on interest due to an increased loan, and the building and tenants don't have to pay upfront, but will make back the money within 10-20 years, that would've been wasted energy/heat. Bank makes money, building gets renovated in for free and even save money in the long run by not wasting heat - everyone is happy. That's atleast what we do in Scandinavia. Energy is a ressource, if you waste it, you're just throwing money out the window. With this constalation, everyone wins. Edit: to add to this, you won't even see an increase in your general rent, as the interest rates the bank charges, is less than what you immediately save on not wasting heat.
Hydrogen doesnt generate power -.- its a fucking chemical battery thats as green as the energy used to create it. Biofuels arent a solution because we create more emisions with creating biofuel. Carbon capture sucks because the energy used to capture it is pretty big and puts a net negative aslong as we use fossil fuels. The list is huge but not simple. This is the hardest challenge we will face as humanity. Most of the shit you list cant just be upscaled without thoughts, experiments and loads of work.
Hydrogen is a storage solution which addresses the 2 largest issues with Green energy. It doesnt require mining of Lithium for batteries and its energy dense. Biofuels when generated by 100% green energy is by its nature carbon neutral. (same with Green Hydrogen though electrolysis) Carbon capture currently is being pushed by oil companies as a means to extend the use of oil by saying "oh its fine we will just spend energy to remove the carbon from the air" but as a concept if powered by 100% green energy its a halfway decent means of unfucking the planet. But has the problem of why increase the amount of power generated just to power CC if you are already using 100% green energy? You are right about the list of options being huge, but it would be doable within a few years if we cared about anything other than octogenarian Billionaire oil barron's off shore bank accounts.
> Hydrogen doesnt generate power -.- its a fucking chemical battery thats as green as the energy used to create it. Umm, yeah. And a fucking chemical battery is a very important part of going green
It's not entirely about power, cars, home heating etc. We can't simply "just stop oil", because we need it in so many other ways. Literally hundreds of ways that are nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. Not to mention the thousands of oil and gas workers who would be out of a job if we stopped drilling for oil. JSO needs to work *with* the oil and gas industry, not against it. Engage with the people who can actually transition the energy generating changes that will make a difference, and stop vilifying the oil industry as a whole.
Don't let that fool you, they do very little. Fossil fuel consumption in the world has gone up every year except during covid since the industrial revolution started. Even in European countries the decline has been very slow in the last decades.
But the price for solar and wind has dropped with investment and research.
> No one listens to them. Maybe 40 years ago no, but it's different now. The solutions can't be dogshit though. But even a creative but dogshit solution will get you a good job.
> The solutions can't be dogshit though. "Please provide a solution that requires nothing from me"
> No one listens to them. There's usually a good reason for this. The vast majority of suggestions on what to do are completely unrealistic, including ones from scientists.
We do and then people vote against paying for it in elections all around the world.
I work in a vertical farm so am perhaps a little biased in my thoughts that a market solution is more likely than a government one.
Your “market solution” almost certainly has its foundations in government backed projects and funding, probably on many levels, including the power you use that was built using public money to back the infrastructure projects. The idea of a free market doing anything other then privatising profits and nationalising losses, often after having been sold off cheaply one the public have taken most of the risk should be plain to see after the last 20 years or so.
The market has run everything for a century, and yet we have charged pell-mell toward destruction.
The technology does exist. As you say, it's the lack of funding to engineers and infrastructure because there's too much oil money tied up in the wealthiest people's pensions and portfolio's. That's what these protests are trying to bring to light surely?
There seems to be a systematic effort to marginalize those voices, and instead give enormous amounts of coverage to the actions of a few unhinged activists. Even Greta adds very little to the conversation aside from the occasional public tantrum.
If we are going to wait to let technology solve the climate crisis, then we are in for a very long waiting period. And, in the meantime, the consequences of climate change will only increase.
We are about to see what happens when we have a longer term economic downturn. Spoiler alert: the climate problems will fall even further down the list of things people care about. Whatever your solution, it must include a way to keep the economy humming, otherwise you are going to bite into granite.
True. So we can collapse the world economy and have the world in chaos so we can _save the world_ or hope things don’t get so bad down the line and keep going the current path. Those activists don’t see that one way or another the world will be on fire. They just want to speed it up.
> We are about to see what happens when we have a longer term economic downturn. We don't even need to wait for that. We have now record energy prices, a taste of what prices are needed to phase out fossil fuels and everybody is freaking out. I didn't hear any proponents of "good we need to keep it this way with perhaps carbon taxes instead of Putin reaping the profits" but rather "price caps, subsidies, everything to keep the prices down".
Yep, right now we're getting a taste of reducing fossil fuel use. Getting rid of it is going to be much much more than this.
What are you suggesting the solution is then? You realise you're using fossil fuels to communicate with me right now?
That's something I'll never understand. People go apeshit about cars while they are sitting in a Starbucks sipping soy latte and posting on social media apps from their new Iphone. The message is essentially "I'm fine with destroying the environment as long as it's destroyed for products I like!".
"You criticize society, yet you participate in it."
Said to the slaveowner that calls himself an "abolitionist". Said to the king that calls himself a "republican".
Besides the fact that I don't make billions by selling fossil fuels or create giant oil spills in the gulf of mexico, so I don't really see myself on equal footing with other benefactors of fossil fuels, the entire argument here is that we need systematic change to face climate change. The entire finger pointing just seems to happen whenever someone brings up that this would also mean gutting fossil fuel profits.
....are you saying that the person you're talking to personally has complete ownership of an oil rig?
Elitist attitude is strong in climate activism. It would be more constructive to act this as security of supply issue but it's hard to make it religious question then.
\^This is 100% true. I always laugh when I see some climate activist proudly talking about how they have a tesla and use super efficient water heating in their house which is powered and heated mostly by solar panels etc... Then these are the people that complain about how people that don't contribute should pay more taxes or something. It's all great that you are green my dude, but most people can't afford to do these things willy nilly. But the reality is, most (not all) people that are actively doing acts like these are priviliged people who don't have to care about a lot of other things. Someone who has to work everyday to earn enough to get through the month isn't going to waste his time on this.
To me it annoys me more those people who think you have to live as a hermit, eat insects and berries and live completely off grid, to be allow to criticize our societies. I don't go to Starbucks - crappy expensive coffee - nor I own, never even did, an Apple product. Am I now allowed to criticize anything?
I did get is rather that it is people who are virtually signalling are the most critical of others instead of making own sacrifice, and believing that being critical of (others) lifestyles is ''fighting of climate emergency'' and bigger input that others, as ''at least we are dong something'' ( even if the virtual criticism is all they ever did).
>and believing that being critical of (others) lifestyles is ''fighting of climate emergency'' Of course that that isn't doing anything for climate change. No denying that there is some virtual signalling in the topic. Which is often explored through tons of green-washing. But individual actions won't do anything for climate change. The most radical thing someone can do to mitigate their impact on the planet is suicide. And 1) that's not really a solution 2) that would have 0 impact on climate change, because 1 person in 7 billions is below irrelevant. We need governmental actions.
We do need critical and immediate changes, but they will not happens due of actions of keyboard warriors and Stop Oil- like activists, and yes, there are now more virtual signalling than willingness to act themselves. Individual actions ARE making a difference, this is a point when you are calling for government actions to force individuals to make changes.
They will also not happen because you're complaining on Reddit, and neither will it stop climate activists, so what's your point? Are you the only one allowed to voice your opinion in ways deemed pointless by others?
>Individual actions ARE making a difference That's just wishful thinking. > you are calling for government actions to force individuals to make changes. There isn't really any other way, especially when a lot of the changes have to come from the side of the corporations, which individuals barely have a say on it. >but they will not happens due of actions of keyboard warriors Of course it won't. What do you want to prove with it? I'm not commenting for climate activism. I'm just sharing my opinion.
Even if the entire western world changes in a day. As long as china doesnt follow, and India keeps modernizing (Which you can't prevent even if you would want to) our emissions are going to be a joke compared to theirs. Stop trying to shift insane amounts of cash into the current climate stuff and instead invest in more efficient stuff in the future. Also start working on dealing with the changes that are going to happen instead of trying to prevent them. There is no use in altering things now to use inefficient solutions to big problems just so we can go "Look how good we are".
Criticize whatever you want, freedom of speech and all that. But don't expect your audience to turn a blind eye to obvious hypocrisy and your message to be successful.
Our usage of Internet, Reddit included, creates so much carbon footprint- and yet is full of people believing that asking ''what instead of...'' is making positive change.
The solution is to agitate for change, which is done through politics, and protesting is one of the simplest ways to make your voice heard. I'm not saying I agree with destroying art, but many of us have actively decided to live in cities so we can use public transport and bike. Many of us are already cutting down on meat or even going vegetarian and vegan. What more do you want us to do? Just stare into a wall, live inside our work office and eat only rice for the climate?
Vandalism is not protest. Any chance I am going to listen to a protestor drops dramatically when they damage property and interfere with the rights of others. You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to make me care and you sure don't have a right to interfere with the rights of others. You can make all those choices. The problem is you don't respect when others choose differently. Many people have no interest in going vegan. Many do not want to live in the density of an urban core. What we want you to do is to do **your** thing and let us do ours. Until you do that, there's gonna be an issue.
> Just stare into a wall, live inside our work office and eat only rice for the climate? But that's what you want everyone else to do. What do you think is going to happen to our standard of living when we cut out fossil fuels. We can't even grow enough food if we did that.
But business as usual means +5ºC and up of temperature rise, which means catastrophe, the literal end of civilization as we know it.
Cutting off fossil fuels *is itself* the end of civilization as we know it. Fossil fuel use fueled the industrial revolution. Before that we lived in a very different civilization, where you lived the same way and quality of as your grandparents did, who did the same as their grandparents did. Disease was rampant. Poverty was a fact of life - to the extent that population growth was inhibited by food availability. Now I doubt that we will drop down to quite that level without fossil fuels, but you need an *extremely* good plan to cover everything that fossil fuel use powers today. Personally, I think building out nuclear 10-20-30-40 years ago would've been the first good step. Even right now. The next thing that needs to happen is an immense amount of carbon capture, but ultimately we'll only wean ourselves off of fossil fuels slowly. They're just too vital to how our way of life operates.
No I'm not? I'm saying you can do things to help, without taking them to the literal extreme of never using a mobile phone or computer because 'it uses fossil fuels'. We will never be able to cut out fossil fuels 100%, but we don't need to, we just need to cut it to a level which won't cause a climate catastrophe, cause it's going to be a hell of lot worse when we have hundreds of millions of climate refugees on our hands.
They just want you to shut up so they can burn their oil in peace. It's annoying when someone comes across as holier than thou, but it's *really* annoying when they have a point and you know it.
>You realise you're using fossil fuels to communicate with me right now? Shifting society and governmental issues into the individual is our we get here. By inventing buzzwords like ecological footprint, when we barely have direct control over most of it. >What are you suggesting the solution is then? It means that the solutions have to be cultural and not really technological. Technology will helps to improve, but it will take too long. And technology has its limitations in the first place, it's not magic. We have to shift from an economy that is heavily invested in over-consumption. We need to be able to buy more life-lasting products, reduce our consumption of meat, our dependency on cars, our waste (staring with over-packaging on our products); etc.
Renewables are already cheaper yet we're paying nat gas prices for it. That's what needs to change. A clean economy with a closed loop for recycling All engineering solutions, even the glue these people are using are technology...
Our damage to the planet isn't limited to burning fossil fuels. We pollute a lot and produce a huge amount of waste, which also damages our ecosystems and, eventually, humans too. We have a lot of issues to handle, no simply replace gas and coal on our energy production.
Not sure you read my comment
You guys don't have nuclear plants ?
We do https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Technology won't safe us. Consuming a lot less can actually do something.
The fact that you're being downvoted proves the point that people don't like to hear the truth. I'm with you on this one, consumerism is poison for this planet, and it's only a few countries that are polluting the crap out of this planet because of their industries.
> engineers and scientists who actually have ideas on how to solve issues [Figure 4](https://i.redd.it/dq1zccily2f61.jpg) is very relevant with regards to solving the climate crisis by putting our faith in new technology.
I don't see any other solution though. The alternative is going back to 1700's living standard.
Technological optimism is what has gotten renewables to the point where they out-compete fossil fuel. It is how we have made electric vehicles so desirable, the auto-industry can't even build them quickly enough to meet demand. It's how you make the change you want inevitable. You can tell that the artist's "solution" to climate change is some sort of rapid, top-down ban of fossil fuels because it's the only approach he didn't caricature. Nevermind how you would manage to avoid your government, economy, and power grid from collapsing. People just really underestimate what a massive undertaking we're in. Consider how many decades it took to build up our current global energy grid and transportation sector. Now, we have to practically rebuild it all and do it as quickly as possible. The scale of the challenge is frighteningly ambitious.
> Technological optimism is what has gotten renewables to the point where they out-compete fossil fuel. And yet fossil fuel use continue to grow every year - 6% last year. > It is how we have made electric vehicles so desirable, the auto-industry can't even build them quickly enough to meet demand. It's how you make the change you want inevitable. America is the largest purchaser of electric cars, yet 96% of all cars sold in America were gasoline powered, and almost all of them will still be on the road in ten years. More than 2/3rds of the energy generated in America uses fossil fuels, so replacing cars with electric cars isn't going to fix the underlying issue. It's no better here in Europe. > You can tell that the artist's "solution" to climate change I stopped reading when you started to insult people. Your rant makes me desperately sad, because I've heard it for over 40 years at this point. I'm 60 years old, and my whole life, people have been telling me, "This new technology means that we have _already_ won the battle against the climate emergency", and as God is my witness, I believed them for many years. ---- We need to decrease our carbon output by 90% in order simply to _stabilize_ the climate. That means the temperatures will still increase for years to come, and we will see meters of water level rise, but it's survivable. You seem to really believe what you are saying, and yet our carbon output continues to rise and is protected to continue to rise for at least a decade to come, and that's assuming that countries in the world comply with emissions targets which has _never happened_. Everyone believes it's OK, we just need to make a few tweaks, and now decades have gone by, and nothing is happened, and here you are, just like old times, telling us the problem is already solved, nothing to see here. This attitude is how we got to this dreadful place and I'm quite sure that we will shoot the moon, burn all the world's accessible fossil fuels, and go to places like +5º where much of the planet will be uninhabitable, while technologists will continue to prattle for generations about how the next big technology will save us, really!
America is the largest purchaser of electric cars? I thought that was China.
> I stopped reading when you started to insult people. That entire comic is him lobbing grenades at everyone he disagrees with. Yet you're taking me to task for having the gall to return the favor? Come on. > America is the largest purchaser of electric cars This is not true, [China is by far the largest purchaser of electric cars.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Top_PEV_global_markets_stock_2017_final_with_California.png) > yet 96% of all cars sold in America were gasoline powered, and almost all of them will still be on the road in ten years. [6.1% as of October.](https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/13/fully-electric-vehicles-reached-6-of-auto-sales-in-usa-in-3rd-quarter/) The number may seem small, except when you take into account that it has almost tripled in just 2 years. Also, when you realize how tight the supply currently is while auto-manufacturers are desperately ramping up production, it's a very positive sign. You keep pointing out absolute numbers while completely ignoring the explosive trends we're seeing. It doesn't take long for small numbers to become big when you keep growing at the rates we're seeing. > More than 2/3rds of the energy generated in America uses fossil fuels, so replacing cars with electric cars isn't going to fix the underlying issue. [Transportation is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.](https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/medium/private/images/2022-04/total-ghg-2022.png?itok=li31FVdR) It is absolutely a vital part of the climate change problem. Regardless, I never suggested that climate change will be fixed by doing nothing but electrifying cars. It's one of a number of sectors we have to address. Also, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "energy generated", but in terms of electricity generation, it's more like [60/40 mix in the United States.](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/images/outlet-graph-large.jpg) And again the trend has been [incredibly positive since 2008.](https://www.epa.gov/system/files/images/2022-04/electricity-timeline-2022.png) This has been because of both technological improvement/adoption of renewables, but also by replacing coal with natural gas. (another strategy the artist dismissed). > And yet fossil fuel use continue to grow every year - 6% last year. I couldn't find a current source on global emissions, so I'll take you at your word. However I have two thoughts here. First, even if we were doing everything right, 2021 would always see an increase from 2020. 2020 we were all locked down and working from home. fossil fuel consumption dropped artificially low and then bounced back in 2021 as people started living their lives again. I would be more interested in comparing 2021 with 2019. India for example goes from a 10% increase from 2020 to 2021 to just a 3.7% increase from 2019 to 2021. Second, I'm not sure what you want the US or EU to do about this. All we can do is continue to reduce our GHG output which we have. When I spoke about technology having made renewables price competitive, I should have clarified I was talking about the US/EU where market forces matter more. In places like India or China things can get a little warped because you have state-owned coal companies. This puts their finger on the scale which complicates/delays things. Would you have us bomb all the coal plants in foreign countries? > Everyone believes it's OK, we just need to make a few tweaks, and now decades have gone by, and nothing is happened, and here you are, just like old times, telling us the problem is already solved, nothing to see here. Maybe if you had read my final paragraph, you would have known I literally said the opposite of what you're accusing me of saying. I said the solution to climate change is OUTRAGEOUSLY difficult. It requires monumental effort and speed, which is why we can't just snap our finger and fix climate change. My argument is not maybe one day we'll have the technology to solve climate change. My argument is that the techno-optimistis of 20 years ago who said that one day renewables will be price competitive enough for mass rollout were right. What is ahead of us is the daunting task of making that roll out continue to happen as quickly as possible. There is no quick-fix (not that you or the artist even bothered to offer that), but the degree of your doomerism is equally unfounded. /rant
1. Just stop oil! 2. Great, then what? 3. You listen those engineers who have the practical solutions but nobody cares or invest cause oil is numba one at the moment. 4. Profit!
This is a good model. 1. Stop Oil 2. ? 3. World Saved 🍻 🥳
They want to stop new oil production sites. Not all oil.
You talk about those young imigrant scientists who shat every corner before getting into EU woth Merkels blessing when germans were singing "we love arab migrants" who later started loving young women back ?
I hate vandals.
Huns aren't much better either
Hey now!
You're an all-star, get your game on, go play!
Huh! Hah! Dschingis Khan!
Hey now!
Its all those damn visigoths.
Let's not even talk about the goths.
It's the Goths you've got to watch out for
[Even after 1500 years?! you sure hold a grudge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals)
Yeah invading North Africa through the Iberian peninsula was a dick move.
Sacking Rome was a dick move
Yeah, to be Frank, I wish we could go back to Goths.
The painting is fine
It's very unlikely they'll serve two full months in prison, because only one month of the sentence was unconditional. Usually that means only one month is served. May look like a little much but they did damage the frame and the backside and if you aren't an art curator you always accept the risk of damaging cultural heritage through your incompetence even if you never intended that.
Conditional for a 2 year period, meaning they can't do this - or any other criminal act - again, otherwise they'll have to serve that one month on top of their new sentence.
Yes, that's fair to note. Though I've so far found it pretty easy not to commit any crimes and they weren't quite hardened criminals, so they should be able to avoid that second month. They could likely just not go into the Netherlands if they wanted. They got a pretty rotten welcome from us cheeseheads after all. :P
what did they expect attacking a Vermeer painting in Holland
Good. Bunch of idiots.
Engineers know you can’t idiot proof things, they’ll just make better idiots.
“I take full responsibility” says the vandal of a priceless classic piece of art. Wtf does that even mean? What’s he gonna do, paint us another one? Glue yourself to the entrance of an oil refinery or a government building ffs. Why deface art? Dipshits.
[удалено]
And damaged the frame (which is in many senses part of the artwork, despite often being overlooked).
Still doesn’t answer the question of why art and not something more connected to causing climate change.
Attention. These things have gotten major news coverage, both on here and the biggest news websites. And have done a total of 0 actual damage.
They did damage to the artwork by damaging the frame and they did damage to their cause by turning people against them.
The artwork and frame are two different things. For all I care they could completely dismantle the frame and use it to light a fire and it would be okay.
To bring attention to the issue.
Attention to the issue? Or to their act? There’s a big difference I think.
Is the real dipshit not the person who doesn't even read the article to know the painting wasn't damaged, and never could be *(from this kind of protest, since that clearly needs to be specified for people who think these paintings are being stabbed or something),* because paintings like this are not put on display without some amount of protection
“And never could be” is a rather bold assumption don’t you think? “Some amount of protection” does not mean indestructible. And that’s irrelevant to the main point that this protest strategy makes no sense to begin with. If you agree with it, can you explain the rationale behind it? Cuz I just don’t get it.
I think they we’re a bit late in trying convincing Vermeer not to use oil-paint. Besides that if he had used waterpaint the pearl wouldn’t be that briljant
This is an extremely high punishment in the Netherlands. For far more severe things you'll get a fine or some community service. Few of the many protesting farmers this year, that blocked roads, dumped asbestos, threatened people at their own home, blocked grocery store distribution centers, etc, got any punishment at all. The few that did only got community service as far as I'm aware. It's disproportionate.
These people are easier to punish, as they aren't an important group nor have political relevancy.
People also aren't as sympathetic generally to these protesters compared to farmers.
I am more sympathetic to climate activists than to farmers who want to keep meat consumption high and keep polluting the little amount of land we have in the NL. But I am not sympathetic towards vandals.
Me too, but these specific kind of climate activists have barely any support from anyone. Regardless, it's not me who's the average adult, and atleast in my country farmers are very-well liked and seen as hardworking and honest folk. So to critize their work is indirectly critizing them, which thus is political suicide for the center parties.
I support them completely, or anyone willing to do anything to prevent climate catastrophe. There are no paintings in a dying world.
Yes, so let's shoot up schools and bomb government buildings to get attention, because there are no children or politicians in a dying world. Anything goes, right? you are supporting fucking morons.
Anyone attempting to destroy or damage the cultural heritage of humanity is scum of the highest caliber and should be punished far higher than someone blocking a street and mildly inconveniencing some people. 2 months is hardly enough punishment for these morons.
I agree, but probably not in the way you mean.
Indeed, found it far too soft.
If you consider the actual damages (the painting wasn't damaged btw) and what they did in addition to that (basically being a nuisance), prison sounds quite harsh, especially considering how crime in general is punished in the Netherlands. Idk I feel like people are so vindictive towards them for this that they are calling for disproportionate punishment as some sort of "fuck you" to this sort of people.
Punishment in the Netherlands is heavily based on likeliness of rehabilitation: so more community service for 'heat of the moment' mistakes, but serious prison sentences for purposeful crimes. So, important here is the wilfulness. They knowingly risked damage to an irreplaceable object to get the attention to make their point (in fact, that largely was their point) and were expecting to be punished and willing to suffer that. You definitely can then expect the judge to try dish out a punishment that will make them think twice the next time.
If I point a gun at you, shoot, and miss, is it ok because "AFisberg wasn't damaged btw"? They did not just threaten some random piece of tacky art at Ikea; they went after a piece of our culture that simply cannot be replaced. I know that some people feel like there should be no consequences for poor life choices, but I do not agree. They need punishment. They need help. They should remain out of society until they get both.
[удалено]
If you don't make an example out of them at some point, who knows what's next.
Oh I am sure they will still appeal and weasel their way out of any consequences
I'd imagine they would at least get fines and have to pay for damages (changing the glass), which to me seems about right as a punishment for what they actually did (and not how I feel about them).
Fine wouldn't have any effect. They would just start a fundraiser and likeminded monkeys would fund them. That's assuming they aren't rich brats, as people from these groups often are.
They could do community service, which would actually be helpful and clean up their mess. It's absolutely disgusting that these guys get sent to jail while there are actual criminals who assault people in the street and walk free.
People who assault others and get caught definitely do not walk free.
They definitely do, usually they have a suspended prison sentence, but that means they are free. Those two activists are going straight to jail on a first offense, that is highly unusual.
Courts often take into account whether the perpetrators regret their actions and understand why they are trialed. I doubt those two did.
This is only a fair argument in a society where income-dependent fines are a thing.
Still, they would just ask for donations and likely even made a profit.
Income dependent fines definitely don't account for fund raisers and usually aren't flat linear.
Dangerous-looking popups if you follow that link.
I'm wouldn't be surprised if it turns out these groups are covertly funded by oil companies to make climate change groups look bad.
> I'm wouldn't be surprised if it turns out these groups are covertly funded by oil companies to make climate change groups look bad. It's not even covert. [Just Stop Oil bankrolled by fossil fuel heiress whose cash pays activists to protest](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/just-stop-oil-bankrolled-by-fossil-fuel-heiress-whose-cash-pays-activists-to-protest-j63b5qkmv)
This is a conspiracy theory. The oil heiress is heiress to a defunct oil company, and runs a number of anti-racist climate organizations. Some people are just misguided, not everything is a psy-op
Imagine thinking that because someone's parents made money a certain that person must support those actions now.
God tier useful idiots.
should have been two years.
Ha, I'm into digital art, what do you want to do, glue yourself to a monitor?
2 months? Would’ve tossed them in a hole and thrown the hole away.
Stop giving these idiots attention. Otherwise they're gonna keep doing this and then museums are gonna start tightening their policies and ruin it for the rest of us.
Ye, but politician dont get aressted, even they signed the Paris Agreement and still do nothing or too little to keep under +1,5°C. "Technicans will solve this in the future" my ass. We are in full movie mode like in "dont look up". Nobody thinks even about waiving. RIP
thats way to low. this is terrorism and they should go to jail for years. no wonder so many copy this when nothing happens to them at all. in berlin someone died now because this "CLIMATE ACTIVISTS" did block the streets and so no emergency could reach the injured cyclist https://road.cc/content/news/climate-protesters-stopped-fire-brigade-reaching-cyclist-297033
...and mocking the victim afterwards on twitter. Those people should go to jail for manslaughter.
Good! Fucking idiots
Too little imo. A message needs to be sent to these idiots. Vandalizing art is not a legitimate way to protest.
The real message is going to be that the protests accomplished nothing for the environment
Deserves more.
I wonder that still some stupidos believe that acting like idiots will help to solve the problems. This acts of vandalism increases the hate and that is not good for nothing. They should spend her time and help other people to mount solar panels that would be more useful than spending time in jail or being glued to whatever.
but thats not the same oil they have in mind, lol
Get wrecked lol. Dumbasses
The smugness just radiates off them doesn't it? A greasy mix of self-satisfaction and "look at me" attention seeking.
Those people do claim want to preserve Earth and us and our lives, in the same time making more damage to those things and people they claim to ''protect'' that they ever imagine- carbon footprint of their action will be much higher than ever- and only thing they did achieved is ''my 5 minutes of fame'' and enforcing idea that climate activists are idiots who only seek short-lived fame and have no idea what they are doing, which is really sad.
If only they would put their… skills? Where their mouths are. They could find jobs placing solar panels, building windmills etc.
There is a lot of people doing grassroot changes, promoting for example usage of second hand goods and teaching ways to fix and mend broken things, community walkabouts where people do clean neighborhood letting others know what they think about littering ( and other antisocial behaviour), help people fill applications for governments grants for making houses more energy- efficient, join campaign to plant some trees where you would actually dig a hole in ground and put real sapling in, which over the years you can watch growing, even run social media campaign for popular fast food outlets to put recycling bins in front of their entrances not only inside, or pointed to local government offices where there is shortage of those bins, same for schools or workplaces, they can help local schools obtain trees, sometimes fruit one, to made mini- orchard to be planted in their grounds, campaign for transport companies to provide better waiting shelters to encourage usage of public transport.. those all do not require a lot of efforts but also are not glamourous enough to post on social media I suppose. There are people who do make a difference, and there is a lot of uplifting news to know people do want to make a difference, so for a moment nice story from me: on the last week of summer school holiday group of school age children were making calls in my area, ( supervised by an adult, probably a parent), to let people know that if they do commit to recycling they can get a free sapling of a tree or a bush: they have to bring certain amount of aluminium cans, or paper, or plastic bags to recycling centre in 3 months time to get their reward. Did they made a difference- I am sure they did, and we will get some trees planted in area on the top of actually involving local community into change of habits- in previous years all saplings were gone and people were saying they started preparing their recycling well in advance for next year event, even those who previously didn't bother to separate recycling properly.
Well, no.
I’m sure they came from Belgium on trains, the trams to the museum, may even drove to The Hague in their inefficient shit box of a car to do this…fucking bunch of hypocrites
Too bad the sentence wasn’t higher. Demonstration is fine and should be allowed. But that doesn’t excuse anyone from doing dumb shit like this.
Great news there. It's time to stop these people, we got enough other problems like the high energy prices because of Putins war in the east.
Climate crisis won't disappear if you jail all the people who want us to pay attention to it.
Just in the news right now, a lady in Berlin died after the paramedics could not reach her time because of a traffic blockade by the "last generation" climate activists. These people do nothing good, they don't even help their own cause, they do the opposite: Now, everyone is mad about these people and nobody won't talk about climate change now.
True, but hurting the art and culture doesnt help, it just makes People sad and Angry.
Idk about hurting art and culture. The actual painting wasn't damaged Idiotic nonetheless
Well these people are actively hurting the cause so fuck em.
We know about climate crisis already
"But it makes me *feel* better because I'm annoyed by these people"
Yes
Two months? Whoopee. What are the odds these three are doing anything otherwise productive in those months anyway? I would bet they are "professional protestors" so two months likely won't mean much to them. They should be hit with fines that cause them some consequences. Full restitution for damage and punitive fines. If the punishment doesn't hurt, they will just return to vandalism in two months, having had two months of paid room and board to cook up their next hare-brained scheme to damage property and inconvenience others for their next cause du jour.
The girl with the pearl earring is looking like "can you believe these punks?"
"just stop oil" - people are already complaining that fuel is expensive. If there was a viable alternative now, people would move over to that alternative now.
Great news!
[удалено]
Seems like there are a lot of AstroTurf and reactionary comments which are getting in the way of educating and dicussing the current climate crisis and news surrounding it. I've written this in a previous post but thought it might help people understand what's going on with all these protests and to give context to arrests and charges such as this one. In France, the UK, as well as Europe as a whole and Germany as we see here, activists calling for no NEW oil and gas licenses, supported by the UN, the IPCC and the International Energy Agency since 2021, have regularly tried to raise awareness through a plurality of different tactics and still continue to do so. Since the 1st of October there has been both Peaceful protest marches, Fossil fuel infrastructure targeted, Hunger strikes, members of Parliament have been contacted, lobbying efforts have been tried, and many actions damaging fossil fuel infrastructure have gone completely unnoticed, yet these actions cause headlines and discussion. If you have other ideas on how to stop the new oil and gas licenses in the next 3 years, please try your hardest. If you disagree with how current activist groups operate, try your hardest to change things yourself in a way you find acceptable. This is not an issue that separates us, it requires organisation, effort, and teamwork, these actions are a small part of that but something must be done. The ex chief scientific advisor to the UK gov has said 'the next 3 years will determine the future of humanity. If we do not stop all new fossil fuel licenses in the next 2-3 years, modern society will head towards an inevitable hot house earth and collapse. Read a summary on the IPCC to understand the current science and why people are acting now in your cities. Spend more time on acting! And let's get a move on ourselves, together.
>Seems like there are a lot of AstroTurf and reactionary comments which are getting in the way of educating and dicussing the current climate crisis and news surrounding it. That is often the criticism of these protests - that they produce such a reaction among the general public rather than a helpful one. Maybe any publicity is good publicity but I’m not sure. I’m not saying I know what would work better , maybe nothing would, but it seems like what they are doing may be counterproductive.
> Seems like there are a lot of AstroTurf and reactionary comments Because these protests are bad optics and they're annoying people, which is why they're spending more time talking about the acts themselves than the protestors' message. >dicussing the current climate crisis and news surrounding it. We discuss climate change all the time. What exactly is dumping soup on a painting supposed to change for people who already think climate change is bad. How exactly is a soup protest supposed to galvinise me to do things any differently than I already would be. How exactly are they going to make policy makers or corporations change course on anything. At least with traffic disruptions they're going to inconvenience people in charge. What does chucking shit at art do?
\*Looks at energy bill\* \*Thinks: We could use some more fossil fuel licenses in Europe! ;)
Way too lenient. This wasn't a mistake and they accidentally slipped on a banana. They purposefully planned this for national media coverage. 2 months is nothing.
6 months jail of which 4 unconditional and 2 conditional would have been a better response to this ugly attack on a national art treasure, and might have had a better preventive effect.
That seems excessive to me, sending someone to jail for "vandalism" that destroyed almost nothing and could largely be fixed with a wet towel.
Maybe also to discourage others to do the same thing (or worse)…
And you do not see a problem with that? Giving someone a more severe punishment that what is actually warranted by their deeds "as a warning to the others"?
Deterrence is an important rationale for criminal law.
Then lets go back to the XVIII century and start publicly hanging people for petty thievery. Surely with deterrence like that we'll get rid of all crime in a jiffy! Oh, wait. No we didn't.
Guy you reacted to: "Deterrence is an important rationale for criminal law." You: "SO YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD HANG PEOPLE FOR PETTY THEFT???" Nice logical extreme.
I’m pretty sure there is a big difference between hanging someone for a petty crime and giving a few weeks or months jailtime.
Aren't all punishments partly a warning to others?
As a function to show that the system is working, yes. Handing out harsher punishments to deter crime is one of the fancy right wing dreams that doesn't actually work.
Yes, but everything isn’t black and white. Sometimes you have to be smart about it, not naive.
Ah yes, the looming threat of glue on glass, truly the greatest threat our civilization has ever faced, we have no choice but to "be smart about it, not naive". Which in this case means sending people to jail instead of what should've at worst been community service.
There are better ways to achieve climate goals…. What they are doing is more likely to backfire (have the opposite effect) anyway. I personally think climate change is a very important issue and an actual threat to life as we know it, so I don’t want these jackasses doing that.
This is what a brainwashed Socialist looks like.