If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Copanhagen Fails
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
While the arms of the host state were deployed earnestly to arrest and restrain an horrendous number of people involved in just peacefully marching down the street - and before anyone says, I am here pointing out the ratio and content of arrested people compared with any action that could be interpreted as even approaching violent...
World powers have collectively failed. Everyone, every elected government has failed to tackle a clear threat to all humanity (some more than others) effectively.
I am very sad - for two main reasons.
1) Because a deal could have been brokered to at least address the issue, and to put forward an ideal as one that would set some form of level playing field for economic actors to restrict their large scale harmful activities.
2) Because the pre-emptive repression seen in Copenhagen, of people who had travelled hundreds of miles, at their own expense, to demonstrate to leaders a message of need for this issue to be tackled - were subjected to ridiculous levels of oppressive policing.
This, I believe, will be a watershed moment. At this point, any kind of lobbying through the global political system does not work. We've had nearly a decade of living with this, and the 'persuasion' model of political action - consensus building to try and move governments hasn't worked.
Direct action - including the destruction of property and institutional industrial or other articles of environmental destruction by people most imminently affected by climate change, is now (I believe) morally justified.
What would you do to save your home?
Loss of life should not be necessary or acceptable - but I think the between the policing and political intertia; the only constant immutable fact is that action is required.
I, for one, am with those who take it.
Note: by the way, that photo comes from The Times, not The Guardian, not IndyMedia
World powers have collectively failed. Everyone, every elected government has failed to tackle a clear threat to all humanity (some more than others) effectively.
I am very sad - for two main reasons.
1) Because a deal could have been brokered to at least address the issue, and to put forward an ideal as one that would set some form of level playing field for economic actors to restrict their large scale harmful activities.
2) Because the pre-emptive repression seen in Copenhagen, of people who had travelled hundreds of miles, at their own expense, to demonstrate to leaders a message of need for this issue to be tackled - were subjected to ridiculous levels of oppressive policing.
This, I believe, will be a watershed moment. At this point, any kind of lobbying through the global political system does not work. We've had nearly a decade of living with this, and the 'persuasion' model of political action - consensus building to try and move governments hasn't worked.
Direct action - including the destruction of property and institutional industrial or other articles of environmental destruction by people most imminently affected by climate change, is now (I believe) morally justified.
What would you do to save your home?
Loss of life should not be necessary or acceptable - but I think the between the policing and political intertia; the only constant immutable fact is that action is required.
I, for one, am with those who take it.
Note: by the way, that photo comes from The Times, not The Guardian, not IndyMedia
0
Comments
I'd start with the fucking cunts (for that is their correct description) who are still, for completely selfish reasons and self-interest, claiming there is no such thing as man-made climate change. We could start with the proprietors of media who are still pushing such message. Richard Desdmond, for instance:
I'm fucking sick to death of selfish bastards and flat earth twats denying the undeniable because they're too fucking selfish, arrogant and irresponsible to change their ways even a little.
Fair enough, but if the protests ever go down this route then they should be prepared for said workers of the targeted industries to defend what they percieve as "their homes".
Apart from the odd scuffles I'm suprised that it didnt' already get more violent considering that the Danes were using the good old fashioned kettleing method. Since we all know what that does to angry people and coppers with egos larger than their todgers!
Did anyone else find it funny that Hugo Chavez didn't miss the chance to "denounce the yankee imperium"?
When, or if, you get over your apparent emotional anxiety at not getting your own way, what kind of coercion and/or threats of violence enacted by your sovereign proxy bullies would satisfy that said anxiety, I wonder ?
So they're basically going for a "think of the children" line.
This is the kind of attitude the environmetal movement is up against.
Quite - and this is why this failure is so disastrous. 'The protests' won't and shouldn't go down this road; what I'm talking about are Island nations and vulnerable populations in areas affected by coastal flooding, habitat loss, desert expansion etc. They have a right to defend themselves against catastrophic impositions by richer areas.
It really doesn't have to be like this, but at this point I don't see any other way for the people most vulnerable to this to defend themselves.
The story of the Danish policing was not the kettling per se; it was the open use of violence and restraint against non-resisting, non-criminal people walking down the street.
The number of arrests, and the actions of the people prior to their arrest, was utterly shocking.
We will realise too late what we have done, the rich will survive and the poor will be fucked over - just as they always have been.
Problem is that there is still a majority who either don't believe the hype or don't care enough. All the while its a minority who care passionately then it's just a pressure group who can be ignored.
Welcome to the real world. It ain't pretty because not everyone agrees with you and the people who don't have bigger guns.
The 'real' world is based on lies then - so how real is it?
You may be right - but the possibility of hope (however impossible) will always be more compelling than apathy to those facing oblivion.
The real world is based on the will of the majority. Wether or not that it's based on a lie is irrelevant. Until you can convince the majority, you've got no chance. They'll see the people taking direct action as hypocrites, criminals or terrorists.
Based on lies? Is the truth what you say it is, or is that just current best evidence... in the 70s we were heading for an Ice Age according to the scientists, now we're melting. Now I'm not going to disagree with what their thinking is, because I don't have the knowledge or data but I'm also not going to swallow it whole and assume that there isn't yet more to learn...
The world has never operated in "truth" because even facts are open to interpretation depending on perspective. Hell if truth was a factor, why have religion?
If only it was that simple.
What you are offering isn't the here and now, it's still decades away. To get there is going to cost people money and mean that they have to change behaviour. Until you find out what motivates them to do that, to take short term pain for long term gain, then you will get nowhere - regardless of what direct action you take.
Direct action will only lead to you being targeted by the media, to be demonised. Rather than help the cause, you will end up being hated and the message you try to get across won't be heard. Instead the majority will clamour for even harsher stance against you.
Learn from the unions rather than repeating the miner's mistakes.
I didn't say 'me' and I explicitly stated that this isn't the right thing for protests at this stage - read the post before and I've clearly stated who I'm talking about, and the circumstances under which I believe such action would be morally permissible. I don't think there's much chance of success - I'm just stating where (despairingly) I think we are headed.
In fact the Unions are a good example, due to the level of state agitation and Police repression levelled against them. Unfortunately in this case it isn't just working class communities that'll be effected - although, as always, the poorest are feeling it first and hardest.
Wrong - actually, demonstrably wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm
For evidence of effects relating to Climate Change as drivers of the conflict in Darfur, see here a UN Report;
http://www.unep.org/sudan
And for those who cling to hopes of uncovering a liberal conspiracy, see concerns by those well known lefty rabble rousers, the CIA.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html
It would be really helpful if people would start taking the trouble to actually look at the evidence before making grandiose judgments on people who actually have looked at this and are concerned for this reason.
For people already living with the effects of this I'm afraid it is (see above).
Of course scientific knowledge will be amended over time, but this is the same 'argument' as against evolution - fact of the matter is that the vast bulk of peer reviewed scientific evidence is supporting the case man-driven climate change as more of it emerges, not less (as is the case with evolution in biology).
Apart from the fact that changes in scientific consensus (also known as paradigm shifts) are no basis on their own for skepticism - because only counter evidence will ever bring about such a change - for an evidence based reason why this shift occurred, see the final sentence of the first item at the link below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
I am in total agreement with the first two points up to the hyphen. Persuasion is the ONLY realistic way of combating climate change; but it needs engagement. It's about risk perception - people aren't very good at perceiving things that are abstracted from their immediate sphere of experience - numerous experiments in psychology have demonstrated this.
But what we also need is a willingness to engage and crucially, to deal with various vested interests (particularly in the US) who are throwing out lies (here understood as making statements that run contrary to known stable bodies of scientific knowledge in full knowledge or willful ignorance of them).
I have answered your points directly, with evidence provided that is freely accessible for you to validate my arguments. Such evidence presents a clear case as to why this is in everyone's immediate and imminent interest.
If you have evidence that undermines the overall case, please put it.
If, after that, there are people who still just throw their arms up and denounce serious, concerned people without having anything to say apart from the fact they don't like it, or the people making the case, then sod them, to be frank.
If you aren't going to change their minds anyway then there's no point in trying - and you're left with the politics of despair and desperation that large populations will face in the coming years - which means violence.
Again, as I've repeatedly stated, this is not a manual to direct action for western pressure groups - this is a deeply resigned suggestion of the reality facing the poorest people who will lose their homes - they WILL have to fight, and I think they're morally justified - even if I don't think there is much chance of success for them.
I'm afraid I'm with Budda in this regard...
Problem is that none of that is on the doorstpe of the people who need to change. When it hits the US or China or Europe then we might see some action by the majority. Until then they will listen to the people who will deny that climate change is man made.
I'm very clearly not saying anything which would suggest otherwise.
I'm saying that apathy and might will out. It isn't the masses that you have to convince, it's those with the power to change policy. Demonstrations are not going to do that.
So am I, in terms of humanity dying out. But that's evolution anyway, it's inevitable. To think that man can reverse that shows a level of arrogance which got us to this climate issue in the first place
BTW: I don't think I got it out in time but I added something to my previous answer which demonstrates more that I am in agreement with your latest point.
Agreed - but with the very logic of that argument, threatened populations may make risk calculations based on precisely the train of reasoning you outline.
But do you think it will make any difference? you seem to be implying it won't - if you do think that it cannot be in anyway be termed just.
Especially, as was already pointed out, those they are attacking also have a right to self defence and Micronesia vs Australia isn't going to end well for Micronesia
It hasn't 'ended we'll for lots of populations in those types of situations. It in no way implies that resistance was wrong or unnecessary.
That seems to be arguing violence for the sake of violence.
In military terms this is generally seen as heroic. It should be viewed in the same way when others do it.
Don't see how - violence for the sake of violence would naturally involve no other imperative for the violence - which in this case, would mean something like; "Well, there's no hope - lets go break stuff for something to do".
A situation in which there is no other option other than the use of violence in the face of annihilation is clearly not violence for it's own sake; it is a desparation move to secure the only hope of survival, however slim, given all other options have not been tried.
@MOK:
Most recommended post on recent Monbiot article in The Guardian (with 174 recommendations) reads as follows:
Whether you agree with it or not, I don't think I've seen this particular position as clearly stated as it is here.
No, in military terms its viewed as a waste of life. In romance terms its viewed as heroic. People who lead last stands, if they survive, tend to end their military careers in charge of stationary procurement.
Which seems to be what you were arguing - or rather 'there's no hope let's go break stuff out of a sense of nilhilism"
I would also argue that violence would be the worst mistake these countries can make, because it will lead to destruction (why should we save our enemies) whilst engagement and trade may not only lead to ways to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, but also to the Western countries taking steps to help those states friendly to them.
It wasn't because I clearly stated the difference between a complete lack of hope and a slim unlikely chance.
We are going in circles - I agree - it is absolutely the worst thing for those worst affected to do, with very little chance of success. All I am saying, is that if and when they are faced with no other choice in the face of total annihilation (who knows when that will be) then there is a moral case for using the last slim hope left open to you.
China have just opened their two hundred and fortieth.
China has masses of wind turbines ...more than any other nation.
China has and is placing more solar panels than anywhere else on earth.
They are massive on hydroelectrics.
They are building a staggering number of nuclear power stations ...the U.K is doing what ...done what?
Some of you hope democracy is the answer but ...we don't really have a democracy we have a mild fascism so looking to your governments in the west is going to be a bit dissapointing and ...a waste of precious time.
Clean green fascism, for the foreseeable future.
Keep a tight hold of your wallets and purses,boys and girls. There is a plundering-a-comin.
Sooner than you think.
The regulation you wish for is the fascism/corporatism to which I refer.
It is potentially very profitable for the corporations concerned.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article6945991.ece