The fossil fuel industry has massively profited from selling a dangerous product and now innocent people and governments across the globe are paying the price for their recklessness
We are all so screwed
We’re going to need to compel them to stop extraction. That means both getting rid of peoples’ need for fossil fuels and using legal tools to phase out their operations.
Why legal tools? That doesn’t seem to be working at all. Perhaps we need to start thinking about “illegal” means, such as property destruction.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
One could easily argue that property destruction of nonliving machines is not violence. Violence is the harm or destruction of living organisms.
Therefore, it is machines that are violent, as they are physically destroying and killing the ecosystems for profit. And destroying them is an act of self defense.
There are even studies being done to show just how much CO2 is prevented from polluting the atmosphere from acts of eco-sabatoge. Examples: offset.labr.io
“Therefore, it is machines that are violent”
That’s incorrect as machines have no agency. Of course, violent people can use machines to do violent acts.
If they have no agency, wouldn’t that mean that breaking them is nonviolent?
Legal tools means setting the rules of society to end the extraction and importation of fossil fuels. I don’t think we’ve had the power to actually do that yet in any large country
In if itself, property destruction won’t have much of an effect & may reduce public support.
The aim is to inform people about the science of #ClimateChange (environmental science in general), the effects, & how governments, some less than others, are planning on causing (“investing” & aiding & abetting) more ecological degradation.
Basically, we need to get peoples attention off of the mainstream media circus. So, recommend #mastodon & try to inform people.
Stephen Markley’s The Deluge has some interesting dialog amongst the protagonists debating ways to go about this (set in the 2030’s when things get really dire, but ~nothing has changed).
Whithout hope there is no hope.
“It became clear that they’re motivated by profits,” said Roberts, adding that the drive is unsurprising, since CEOs of public companies can be removed if they do not maximize profit growth.
We really need governments to force triple bottom line accounting onto corporations for the very reason stated in the above quote. While CEOs are only accountable to the shareholders of the company (single bottom line accounting) then they will only ever work for profit.
With triple bottom line accounting, CEOs would not only be accountable to the shareholders (economic accouting), but to stakeholders (social accounting) and the environment (ecological accounting).
To use fossil fuel companies as an example, a stakeholder to that company would be any person who has to breathe in the pollution that said fossil fuel company released into the atmosphere. The way in which companies would be accountable to the environment is that they could no longer ignore the externalities of their product (e.g. pollution from fossil fuel use) and the cost of those externalities would need to be included in the upfront cost of the product. Accounting for these things would then allow us to see the true upfront cost of fossil fuels, which should aid in actually getting companies to act on these issues, as it will less profitable to sell such a damaging product. It will also further demonstrate that the upfront cost of renewable is far lower than that of fossil fuels.
It still isn’t a perfect solution, and we will still be living under capitalism and the idea of infinite growth, but it would at least be a step in the direction of corporate accountability.
But don’t you use anything but a paper straw or you’re a burden on society!
We’re paying the price for our own stupidity and inaction.
Assigning blame may not cut it this time.
