German climate activists stop air traffic after breaking into four airport sites
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/13082024/glencore-to-retain-i...
> Shareholders representing an estimated two-thirds of eligible voting shares were consulted for their views. Over 95% of shareholders that specifically expressed a preference for retention or demerger supported the retention of the coal and carbon steel materials business, primarily on the basis that retention should enhance Glencore’s cash generating capacity to fund opportunities in its transition metals portfolio, such as its copper growth project pipeline, as well as accelerate and optimise the return of excess cash flows to shareholders.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/08/...
> Fossil fuel companies are running “a massive mis- and disinformation campaign” so that countries will slow down the adoption of renewable energy and the speed with which they “transition away” from a carbon-intensive economy, the UN has said.
> Selwin Hart, the assistant secretary general of the UN, said that talk of a global “backlash” against climate action was being stoked by the fossil fuel industry, in an effort to persuade world leaders to delay emissions-cutting policies. The perception among many political observers of a rejection of climate policies was a result of this campaign, rather than reflecting the reality of what people think, he added.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/23/only-the-super-wea...
> Only the super wealthy stand to lose money from shutting down fossil fuels, study finds
I didn't jump anywhere. You brought it up.
Yes, you did. Your conclusion does not follow.
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10311
The worst thing you can say is that aircraft allow people to travel more miles than they would have otherwise. I could fly to Cancun and burn more fuel than my car uses in a year.
The main discussion is whether this kind of action will create the intended result.
Even dumber is annoying and inconveniencing random bystanders that have literally no way to influence the problem, like these protesters are doing to the travelers here. Nonetheless, there is no way to avert the coming climate catastrophy without forcing almost everyone to change their behavior.
Wherever that has any chance of happening is a different story altogether.
And you're mistaken wrt what I labeled dumb: I specifically phrased it in the context of actions, not people.
Why don't they target oil companies, or politicians, instead of the general public? It's bad enough having your government ignoring you without also having activists target you ostensibly for the same causes you believe in.
It's going to be ugly.
If you haven't read the book, there's a nice review at https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2021/07/15/mins...
If it were possible to address this problem through the democratic process, it would have been done long ago, when it might have been possible to avoid disaster. Now the best we can hope for is damage mitigation, but even that requires sacrifices no government would dare even suggest. Democracy doesn't work when people don't care.
We might see lots of people getting displaced, more deaths to draughts, heatwaves, more forest fires, decimated ocean wildlife etc... but the end of humanity? No, that's not gonna happen from climate change itself. At least not within the next several hundred years
Oh, absolutely. But climate change is going to be a minor issue for them. The social issues like wealth inequality, the continuous descent into a Low Trust Society and similar are most likely going to be way more pressing to them
Let's say the sun is about to go supernova in... Let's say 30 years. On that theoretical planet we'll imagine a person that's actually enslaved and getting beaten whenever it's master feels like it.
Would you call the coming apocalypse via supernova the biggest issue from the perspective of the slave?
It's a gigantic issue, but on a daily basis... It's negatives are going to be outweighed by various other problems, like how he can survive for another day.
And I expect our societies to get significantly worse within the next 70yrs, which is why I expect the people living in 2100 to consider climate change to be less pressing then the fact they can't provide for themselves, can't get a home/can't afford rent, can't get a job, can't fight against injustice as very little equality will be left by then, etc.
do you honestly think people with problems like that will particularly care about the dying oceans and people getting displaced by rising sea levels, stronger heat waves etc?
And to loop back to my original comment: It's gonna take a very long time for climate change to get to a point for it to wipe out humanity entirely. Way longer then any our predictions have meaning, and other things such as rising tensions and potential wars are more likely to be the cause for such.
My other thought is that while climate change is global, the effects are varied and local. I've lived in South Texas my whole life, and so I viscerally feel the heat and see the occasional story of someone dying of heat stroke. And I'd rank that as an even more pressing concern for an enslaved person.
Anyway, probably better to try not to think about any of it.
Unfortunately the world is full of people like yourself only capable of seeing those with whom they disagree as amoral monsters, thus no solution can or will be reached.
Time has grown short, and conventional democratic means seem to deliver change at such a glacial pace it seems likely to outlast the glaciers themselves, so it makes sense that people who feel a sense of urgency will look toward direct action.