Just Stop Oil

[LDAHL]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/clima...ntl/index.html

I’m seeing a rash of pieces like this decrying the sentences the UK handed out to these “Just Stop Oil” people. They seem to believe they can save humanity by throwing paint at Stonehenge and old masters, blocking traffic, and glueing themselves to things. There are many videos out there of outraged drivers reacting to their exhibitionist antics.

I realize the UK takes a narrower view of free speech than prevails in the US. They can arrest people for “stirring up hate”, by whatever standard the government views as hate. But vandalism or keeping hundreds of thousands of people from their business seems to go beyond free expression to me.

[bae]

Seems foolish behaviour. And inefficient.

If they really wanted to be effective at dismantling our fossil-fuel-based civilization, instead of getting cool Instagram photos, there are some clear paths available.

[flowerseverywhere]

do they never ride in a car or bus? Never use plastic? Mow a lawn with a rotary motor? Rake nstead of a leaf blower? How is their electric generated and are the power plants made with components made of non oil containing products?
below is a list of products that use petrochemicals. Hard to live a modern life with none


any fool that destroys works of art and historical sites deserves to be punished. Blocking traffic endangers life and livelihood. First live an oil free life than lecture the rest of us.


https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas %20Infographic.pdf

[LDAHL]

I think if our climate issues are resolved it will be by clever people trying to make a buck rather than spoiled children mistaking tantrums for performance art.

[catherine]

I guess it's what you consider "non-violent protest"--as an art and history lover I also hate to see irreplaceble works of art and historical icons damaged, but I also hate to see the the world damaged and destroyed by our culture in the way that it is. I'm not saying I support these activists, but sometimes you have elevate your voice when you're not being heard. MLK also stopped traffic and inconvenienced people when he had to.

bae, what are the clearer paths you're thinking of?

[LDAHL]

If elevating your voice is merely annoying people in an attempt to advance your cause, I think you’re well within your rights. You’d certainly be in good company, although it’s hard to see that you’d be winning many hearts and minds that way.

But when you find the law uncongenial to your high moral principles, and commit vandalism, arson, block traffic, occupy buildings or any other crime, then I don’t see why you shouldn’t be treated like any other criminal.

[iris lilies]

I guess it's what you consider "non-violent protest"--as an art and history lover I also hate to see irreplaceble works of art and historical icons damaged, but I also hate to see the the world damaged and destroyed by our culture in the way that it is. I'm not saying I support these activists, but sometimes you have elevate your voice when you're not being heard. MLK also stopped traffic and inconvenienced people when he had to.

bae, what are the clearer paths you're thinking of?

no, I would not agree that destroying objects or buildings is “nonviolent protest. “ Gandhi agrees with me.

Nonviolent protest is standing, sitting, or possibly walking injuring no persons or objects.

[Rogar]

My common sense tends to think there would be the opposite of the intended outcome if the idea is represented by dummies defacing a world heritage site. Their word or opinion on oil might be judged on their sensibilities on destructive protest.

I have wondered about the effectiveness of peaceful protest. Some seem to work, but others quickly fade into meaningless obscurity. I have to think about what the Women's March on Washington was about, and occupy Wall Street is just a vestige of memory. People who have such a passion for an issue might better spend their efforts studying environmental law, or a science, education, or politics.

In the 70's there were ongoing protests objecting to the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant near Boulder. Thousands showed and some blocked a train track entrance to the plant in a sit in for over a year, between arrests. The main issue was radioactive dust from the plutonium processing had contaminated the surrounding soil and a water supply, and you didn't want to live down wind of the plant. It actually got a sizable amount of media attention which probably played a role in it's shutdown and declared a superfund site, although I suspect other incentives went along with the protests. A friend actually got a decent cash settlement just for living close and in the path of the prevailing wind direction.

Protests now seem more like an everyday occurrence.
.

[ApatheticNoMore]

No world heritage site was destroyed, the stonehenge stuff is not different than the traffic (I don't mean a literal car driving on it, although hey there is a road planned nearby so maybe I do) stonehenge has often gotten. But if you can not really damage anything and have stories made up that you are (which is basically what happened), maybe you may as well just actually destroy stuff. Because most of the protests including those involving art are actually designed to not causing any actual damage, which doesn't preclude the possibility of things not working out that way of course.

[jp1]

But when you find the law uncongenial to your high moral principles, and commit vandalism, arson, block traffic, occupy buildings or any other crime, then I don’t see why you shouldn’t be treated like any other criminal.

Are you also as assured of that opinion when one commits an attempt to overthrow the government to stay in power? From all your previous posts you seem reticent about committing to that so I'm curious if you've finally accepted that this matters or if you are still hesitating?