” Ordinary people are taking matters into their own hands today to do what our criminal governments have failed to do. We are putting our bodies on the wheels of the machine of the global fossil economy and saying oil kills; we refuse to die for fossil fuels and we refuse to stand by while hundreds of millions of innocent people are murdered. We are in resistance against our murderous governments and the criminal elites who are threatening the survival of humanity.
“The climate crisis will not end until every single country has phased out fossil fuels, but those who bear the greatest responsibility and have the greatest capacity must do the most. As citizens of wealthy countries based in the global north, we demand that our governments stop extracting and burning oil, gas and coal by 2030 and that they support and finance other countries to make a fast, fair and just transition. They must sign a Fossil Fuel Treaty to end the war on humanity before we lose everything. “
I don’t think pissing of stressed travelers is the way to do this.
Ports would get alot more govt attention and leave the public alone
There isn’t. But why attack the voting public instead of the unvoting industry?
Airlines produce considerable carbon per individual mile but are also one of the industries improving efficiency and fuel usage (because it’s so expensive). Meanwhile ocean liners and cruise ships burn the cheapest, most polluting fuel outside of national borders.
If you’re calling for a ban on shipping, you deserve a special prize - but you’ll never get it.
I would say protesting at a port would be less likely to garner international attention, and probably would be easier to shutdown quickly and relatively quietly.
Shutting down an airport is much more public, therefore probably safer in the long run. Also more likely to be reported on because it affects the public in a more direct way. Yes, it inconveniences some people, but it gets the message out.
Either way, I doubt it will do much to change anything soon enough.
I hate how accurate the last part is - im being a bit pedantic as something is always better than not doing something perfect.
Depending on how you did it ports/chokepoints would be much harder to stop as you can’t just send in the cops - boats are much harder to board and stop safely. Some rope, floats, a few fast boats and the right placement would hold a ship up for hours, especially done outside a major city or in a shipping lane.
I hadn’t thought of a boat barricade like that. It would definitely be effective in the short term. Unfortunately, in the US at least, the coast guard would end it real quick for national security reasons. That would certainly make international news though.
Flying is one of the most emitting activities in the world. For many Europeans it will be 20% of their carbon footprint for a single vacation.
Most emitting per mile.
If you want to get people on board with your cause you don’t do it by pissing them all off.
Blockadeing ports attacks the organization responsible, doesn’t inconvenience the public and creates industrial pressure for change.
Im not telling them not to do it - only think wider and to be strategic with it. They may delay or divert a few flights, at the expense of the wider public having a considerably lower view of their actions.
I don’t think blocking essential international trade is the way to do this.
Airports are responsible for more frivolous consumption and spread way more public awareness
- you if they had blocked the ports
Look, I can do conservative handwringing too!
They won’t be anyways. The entire conservative movement is against clinate protests regardless of how few people are inconvenienced. So why bother about what they think?
Empirically, the public loves radicals who engage in violence and disruption. It both moves the overton window in those people’s direction and gets support from people frustrated with society but no place to vent it.
Whether it’s Black Lives Matter, Donald Trump, the Gilets Jaunes, violent farmer protests in the Netherlands, Black Panthers, Suffragette terrorists, labor riots and lynchings of factory owners, the assassination of Shinzo Abe, hell, even Al Qaeda and Hamas. The pattern is always the same: radical and often violent disruptors get a massive amount of sympathy, attention and support while centrists wring their hands about how inappropriate it all is.
If you want to win public support, set something on fire. But if you’re offended and scared off by something being set on fire, you’re not the target audience yet. They’ll get around to winning you over when the movement has grown. Eventually, bringing up that it was bad that things were set on fire will make your friends and family uncomfortable, if they don’t outright confront you by saying that it was necessary to overthrow the old ideas. At which point you can re-examine it or retract that part of your politics from the world, forming a seed of conservative confusion and dismay that lies dormant outside the Overton window waiting until someone starts a fire in its name.
Fuck them. If they didn’t want to be stressed maybe they should’ve chosen a different mode of transport
You’re typing this on an item that used up 10-80% of the average annual carbon for 1 person.
Does that give me the right to inconvenience you as much as I can?
