You approach the whole issue as if it were just up to consumers to stop oil by changing their habits. It isn’t. Switching to an EV isn’t a solution when you’re still paying taxes that go into subsidizing fossil fuels. (Switching to an EV for getting around in a city isn’t a solution anyways, use public transit or get a bicycle). Consumers won’t stop consuming oil until the full cost (including all externalities) of it is shown in the price tag. Action is needed at the political level, and that won’t happen unless enough noise is made regarding the issue. That’s what JSO is doing.
That’s what JSO is doing.thinks they are doing, despite all evidence to the contrary.
FTFY.
I’ll note that nobody in this thread has yet made a single comment promoting a specific political action against oil. Your last comment comes the closest, but even that doesn’t even qualify as a “concept of a plan”.
JSO isn’t inspiring people to talk about oil. They are inspiring people to talk about the limits of free speech, and the preservation of the right to travel. They’ve inspired legislators to act, just not in any way that would actually affect the oil industry. JSO has certainly accomplished something with their antics, just not anything that they’ve set out to do.
Again, direct action against the oil industry. Exploit it’s soft targets, raise the cost of oil, make alternatives relatively cheaper, and watch the problem disappear.
You do realize that you replied to a comment just now that raised the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, and the effect those have on the price and thus consumption of oil? Just ending those subsidies would already have a dramatic effect.
It’s true that the discussion is currently centered on freedom of speech, most notably because of the most recent developments, but the issue that is being protested is constantly present in the background. I’m betting that after the criminalization of protests stops being news, that issue gets back into the limelight.
Direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure would be less in the public due to a less central location. Sitting on a street works because it’s a nuisance to many, thus generating a lot of interest among the press and that way the message gets amplified. Gaining publicity via industrial sabotage would be difficult unless they did somehting very drastic, which would only turn them from a mere “nuicanse” into actual villains in the press. Especially so if some such drastic measure leads to the unintended death or injury of a worker at a refinery etc. This would also turn the fossil fuel companies from crooks into victims and I’m betting that they’d also try to frame it as sabotage hurting the blue collar workers they employ. All this while affecting the actual price of oil in a miniscule way at most and alienating the majority of their members who don’t accept these acts. Nonviolence is held in high regard.
You approach the whole issue as if it were just up to consumers to stop oil by changing their habits. It isn’t. Switching to an EV isn’t a solution when you’re still paying taxes that go into subsidizing fossil fuels. (Switching to an EV for getting around in a city isn’t a solution anyways, use public transit or get a bicycle). Consumers won’t stop consuming oil until the full cost (including all externalities) of it is shown in the price tag. Action is needed at the political level, and that won’t happen unless enough noise is made regarding the issue. That’s what JSO is doing.
FTFY.
I’ll note that nobody in this thread has yet made a single comment promoting a specific political action against oil. Your last comment comes the closest, but even that doesn’t even qualify as a “concept of a plan”.
JSO isn’t inspiring people to talk about oil. They are inspiring people to talk about the limits of free speech, and the preservation of the right to travel. They’ve inspired legislators to act, just not in any way that would actually affect the oil industry. JSO has certainly accomplished something with their antics, just not anything that they’ve set out to do.
Again, direct action against the oil industry. Exploit it’s soft targets, raise the cost of oil, make alternatives relatively cheaper, and watch the problem disappear.
You do realize that you replied to a comment just now that raised the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, and the effect those have on the price and thus consumption of oil? Just ending those subsidies would already have a dramatic effect.
It’s true that the discussion is currently centered on freedom of speech, most notably because of the most recent developments, but the issue that is being protested is constantly present in the background. I’m betting that after the criminalization of protests stops being news, that issue gets back into the limelight.
Direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure would be less in the public due to a less central location. Sitting on a street works because it’s a nuisance to many, thus generating a lot of interest among the press and that way the message gets amplified. Gaining publicity via industrial sabotage would be difficult unless they did somehting very drastic, which would only turn them from a mere “nuicanse” into actual villains in the press. Especially so if some such drastic measure leads to the unintended death or injury of a worker at a refinery etc. This would also turn the fossil fuel companies from crooks into victims and I’m betting that they’d also try to frame it as sabotage hurting the blue collar workers they employ. All this while affecting the actual price of oil in a miniscule way at most and alienating the majority of their members who don’t accept these acts. Nonviolence is held in high regard.