18 ms·

This organization clearly wants to have it both ways. They are hiding behind the guise of advocating for "democracy" and claiming to be repressed by the state,

This organization clearly wants to have it both ways. They are hiding behind the guise of advocating for "democracy" and claiming to be repressed by the state, but they are actually advocating for a very, very unpopular and undemocratic position and resorting to undemocratic methods to achieve it. Championing people like Ghandi or Mandela is a false equivalency as they actually fought to increase suffrage and representation. Just Stop Oil is advocating for non-democratic means to their specific policy positions. Maybe they are right in the long run, but they are not being intellectually honest about their justification.

gqcwwjtg 2y ago
What undemocratic policy? Or do you just mean unpopular?
- legitster 2y ago
  Such as they even have a policy position, Just Stop Oil is advocating that governments ban all oil and gas contracts without a referendum or popular vote or even any elected officials. Ostensibly the organization is about political mobilization. But they haven't actually endorsed a candidate or secured a referendum or achieved anything vaguely democratic. Which I am not saying they have to do. But claiming they are on democracy's side seems a bit premature.
  - ruined 2y ago
    they're clearly organized and acting to influence public opinion and provide policy suggestions to elected representatives. public advocacy and communication to elected representatives are part of the democratic process. they have already achieved their first policy goal: the UK no longer issues new oil and gas drilling permits. https://juststopoil.org/2024/07/10/paint-the-town-orange-just-stop-oil-wins-first-demand/ https://juststopoil.org/2024/07/10/paint-the-town-orange-jus... they have set another policy goal, and i expect they won't change a winning formula.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      > acting to influence public opinion They are influencing me the other way. Every time I see one of their stunts I turn down my AC 5 degrees and run my car in my driveway for an hour. Doing my part to carbon offset their shenanigans.
      - ruined 2y ago
        what do your children think of that?
        kcplate 2y ago
        They are smart enough to recognize obvious sarcasm…and as such they wouldn’t take it literally but instead would get my underlying message that defacing priceless art might be counterproductive to motivating people support your cause, but instead might have an opposite effect.
        ruined 2y ago
        so you actually approve of their goals? are you happy with their recent achieved policy goal, blocking new drilling permits? if yes, perhaps your frustration is misplaced. notably, no art was actually defaced, so if that's your point of contention, it's all good. can you identify or share some more effective tactics? it seems to me that espousing an opposing position is likely less effective than almost any explicitly supportive tactic, so please be careful with that.
        kcplate 2y ago
        I don’t approve of any goals by any organization that choose tactics that involve vandalism and damage to anything. Additionally tactics that result in anyone not directly affiliated with the targets of the org being intentionally inconvenienced through traffic stoppage or other public disruption techniques. Further I don’t believe that an energy policy that doesn’t at least partially rely on petroleum resources for decades to come is an ignorant position to take and by attempting to force a direction that is doomed to fail through these awful tactics will do more harm than good. So no…in no way to I approve of their goals and I hope their tactics create a backlash that has a domino effect of causing their cause to fail. https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/22/protesters-who-glued-themselves-to-van-gogh-frame-found-guilty-of-criminal-damage https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/22/proteste...
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Solving climate change might be incompatible with democracy, due to the desire in the aggregate for business as usual and unwillingness to pay for true costs of emissions from activities. Not a lot of folks with the fortitude to vote against the free ride of not paying for carbon emissions (transport, air travel, agriculture, shipping, etc), based on the evidence.
- vegetablepotpie 2y ago
  I don’t think we’re going to solve climate change, we’re just not moving in that direction, like you said there’s unwillingness. Going anti-climate is not going to foster democracy though, the people who are working to end democracy are also advocating for ignoring climate change. My opinion is that we need more democracy. The people who are most impacted by climate change, the poor and the youth, have the least influence on the issue. If they had a bigger voice, we’d be making different decisions.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    > My opinion is that we need more democracy. The people who are most impacted by climate change, the poor and the youth, have the least influence on the issue. If they had a bigger voice, we’d be making different decisions. But that isn't democracy then, right? Equal votes is the problem, when younger and future stakeholders should have a greater vote and say vs those who will not be around much longer or the wealthy (who generate outsized emissions [1] and a component of their wealth are fossil fuels based [2]). Unaccounted carbon emissions from consumption are our time's bread and circus, racking up the credit card and dumping the liability on future humans. Imagine telling anyone over 60-70 or anyone near the top of the wealth spectrum they shouldn't get a vote in climate related matters. So instead, you have to just wait for them to age out, while you make whatever progress you can day by day. Or a version of a representative democracy where the longer you'll be here, the greater the vote you get. "No taxation without representation." if you will. The future having to pay for the past's lack of will to reduce carbon emissions is taxation, and the cost is going to be enormous [3] [4] [5]. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-... [2] https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/23/only-the-super-wealthy-stand-to-lose-money-from-shutting-down-fossil-fuels-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/23/only-the-super-wea... [3] https://apnews.com/5949adfa46b84ee9aa28369f9c050e18 https://apnews.com/5949adfa46b84ee9aa28369f9c050e18 [4] https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-damage-economy-income-costly-3e21addee3fe328f38b771645e237ff9 https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-damage-economy-inc... [5] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICF-CR-Cost-of-Climate-Change-Study.pdf https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2024...
klyrs 2y ago
Oh, pish posh. Oil policy has never been set by democratic methods. It's been decided through backroom deals and corruption at the highest levels around the world. Unlike most conspiracy theories, this is extremely well-documented and public opinion has been significantly swayed by fraudulent misinformation, spin campaigns, and cynical policy written with the express intent to entrench the oil industry. Tricking voters through lies and corruption is not democracy.
- legitster 2y ago
  I mean, if you want conspiracy theories, Exxon and Arco actually launched the solar panel industry and invested tons of money into them. It wasn't until OPEC (government controlled oil suppliers) undercut the oil market in the 70s that they divested them. (Arco's solar business ended up getting sold off to Siemens). I think it's a bit misguided to believe that oil companies are solely using corruption to drive their influence, but then that they would also care about what in particular they are selling. If their profits came only from backroom deals, you'd think they would choose a cheaper and easier product to trick consumers into buying!
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Their key demand was the policy of the recent democratically elected government and has now been enacted: "No new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea"

gqcwwjtg 2y ago

What undemocratic policy? Or do you just mean unpopular?

legitster 2y ago
Such as they even have a policy position, Just Stop Oil is advocating that governments ban all oil and gas contracts without a referendum or popular vote or even any elected officials. Ostensibly the organization is about political mobilization. But they haven't actually endorsed a candidate or secured a referendum or achieved anything vaguely democratic. Which I am not saying they have to do. But claiming they are on democracy's side seems a bit premature.
- ruined 2y ago
  they're clearly organized and acting to influence public opinion and provide policy suggestions to elected representatives. public advocacy and communication to elected representatives are part of the democratic process. they have already achieved their first policy goal: the UK no longer issues new oil and gas drilling permits. https://juststopoil.org/2024/07/10/paint-the-town-orange-just-stop-oil-wins-first-demand/ https://juststopoil.org/2024/07/10/paint-the-town-orange-jus... they have set another policy goal, and i expect they won't change a winning formula.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    > acting to influence public opinion They are influencing me the other way. Every time I see one of their stunts I turn down my AC 5 degrees and run my car in my driveway for an hour. Doing my part to carbon offset their shenanigans.
    - ruined 2y ago
      what do your children think of that?
      - kcplate 2y ago
        They are smart enough to recognize obvious sarcasm…and as such they wouldn’t take it literally but instead would get my underlying message that defacing priceless art might be counterproductive to motivating people support your cause, but instead might have an opposite effect.
        ruined 2y ago
        so you actually approve of their goals? are you happy with their recent achieved policy goal, blocking new drilling permits? if yes, perhaps your frustration is misplaced. notably, no art was actually defaced, so if that's your point of contention, it's all good. can you identify or share some more effective tactics? it seems to me that espousing an opposing position is likely less effective than almost any explicitly supportive tactic, so please be careful with that.
        kcplate 2y ago
        I don’t approve of any goals by any organization that choose tactics that involve vandalism and damage to anything. Additionally tactics that result in anyone not directly affiliated with the targets of the org being intentionally inconvenienced through traffic stoppage or other public disruption techniques. Further I don’t believe that an energy policy that doesn’t at least partially rely on petroleum resources for decades to come is an ignorant position to take and by attempting to force a direction that is doomed to fail through these awful tactics will do more harm than good. So no…in no way to I approve of their goals and I hope their tactics create a backlash that has a domino effect of causing their cause to fail. https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/22/protesters-who-glued-themselves-to-van-gogh-frame-found-guilty-of-criminal-damage https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/22/proteste...

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Solving climate change might be incompatible with democracy, due to the desire in the aggregate for business as usual and unwillingness to pay for true costs of emissions from activities. Not a lot of folks with the fortitude to vote against the free ride of not paying for carbon emissions (transport, air travel, agriculture, shipping, etc), based on the evidence.

vegetablepotpie 2y ago
I don’t think we’re going to solve climate change, we’re just not moving in that direction, like you said there’s unwillingness. Going anti-climate is not going to foster democracy though, the people who are working to end democracy are also advocating for ignoring climate change. My opinion is that we need more democracy. The people who are most impacted by climate change, the poor and the youth, have the least influence on the issue. If they had a bigger voice, we’d be making different decisions.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  > My opinion is that we need more democracy. The people who are most impacted by climate change, the poor and the youth, have the least influence on the issue. If they had a bigger voice, we’d be making different decisions. But that isn't democracy then, right? Equal votes is the problem, when younger and future stakeholders should have a greater vote and say vs those who will not be around much longer or the wealthy (who generate outsized emissions [1] and a component of their wealth are fossil fuels based [2]). Unaccounted carbon emissions from consumption are our time's bread and circus, racking up the credit card and dumping the liability on future humans. Imagine telling anyone over 60-70 or anyone near the top of the wealth spectrum they shouldn't get a vote in climate related matters. So instead, you have to just wait for them to age out, while you make whatever progress you can day by day. Or a version of a representative democracy where the longer you'll be here, the greater the vote you get. "No taxation without representation." if you will. The future having to pay for the past's lack of will to reduce carbon emissions is taxation, and the cost is going to be enormous [3] [4] [5]. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-... [2] https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/23/only-the-super-wealthy-stand-to-lose-money-from-shutting-down-fossil-fuels-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/23/only-the-super-wea... [3] https://apnews.com/5949adfa46b84ee9aa28369f9c050e18 https://apnews.com/5949adfa46b84ee9aa28369f9c050e18 [4] https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-damage-economy-income-costly-3e21addee3fe328f38b771645e237ff9 https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-damage-economy-inc... [5] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ICF-CR-Cost-of-Climate-Change-Study.pdf https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2024...

klyrs 2y ago

Oh, pish posh. Oil policy has never been set by democratic methods. It's been decided through backroom deals and corruption at the highest levels around the world. Unlike most conspiracy theories, this is extremely well-documented and public opinion has been significantly swayed by fraudulent misinformation, spin campaigns, and cynical policy written with the express intent to entrench the oil industry. Tricking voters through lies and corruption is not democracy.

legitster 2y ago
I mean, if you want conspiracy theories, Exxon and Arco actually launched the solar panel industry and invested tons of money into them. It wasn't until OPEC (government controlled oil suppliers) undercut the oil market in the 70s that they divested them. (Arco's solar business ended up getting sold off to Siemens). I think it's a bit misguided to believe that oil companies are solely using corruption to drive their influence, but then that they would also care about what in particular they are selling. If their profits came only from backroom deals, you'd think they would choose a cheaper and easier product to trick consumers into buying!

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Their key demand was the policy of the recent democratically elected government and has now been enacted: "No new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea"