Tougher laws said to be inspiring clandestine attacks on the ‘property and machinery’ of the fossil fuel economy
The machine must be prevented from working at all. Good work.
Luigi had countless fans metaphorically sucking his dick before it came out that he allegedly did it. I wonder if a similar thing could happen with an oil refinery or something.
When you risk as much when protesting. Why not ? This is less risky too. A protest police know when and how to arrest people.
They are making protests illegal or almost impossible in some places
“Direct action gets the goods.”
I wonder how difficult it is to sabotage one of those gigantic coal digging machines.
Just puncture a hydraulic line, right?
“Those who made peaceful reform impossible have made violent revolution inevitable.”
- Ronald DickMonald
Countries are making the act of protest itself criminal. If the risk of penalty is in the same ballpark I can see how some folks will elect for direct action over pleading for public attention that never seems to come.
The goal of both is to start reducing or simply stop large scale actions that are doing damage to the environment. If peaceful protesting is being prevented or simply is just being ignored, then the next step is directly stopping things. If it’s vandalism or misdirected damage, that’s not really accomplishing the goal and can be used against activists and their message.
The caveat is that most changes either through successful protests or more direct measures will harm others at some point, but I fail to see a way around that when we live in a society where everyone is dependent in many ways on the society continuing its destructive path. The longer we wait to change, the worse it will be for more people, and at some point it won’t be protesters that cause the change, but the environment or some other factors like demand exceeding supply that cause huge suffering.
Vandalism is a crime. Causing economic harm to a business that is causing mass extinction is sabatogue, not a crime.
there’s an old saying: “you may as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb”.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Vandalize anything that doesn’t belong to an individual or small business. I hit abandoned buildings and street signs (without covering the lettering) most but everything is fair game at this point. Especially ads. Stickers, paint, wheat paste or whatever. To be silent is to be complicit. I want us all to be able to tell the next generation that we fought and stirred shit up.
Why wreck an abandoned building or house? That greatly decreases the chance that the building can be rehabilitated for use again and likely will result in its demolition and replacement. Those buildings could have been restored for use by the community but it’s made a lot harder if everything is damaged and covered in graffiti.
Countless beautiful historical buildings have been lost forever because vandals destroyed them beyond repair before they could be saved. Even worse when it’s someone’s house left abandoned after they pass away (usually old people), and people come and destroy what might be the last few things to remember that person by. Vandalism of abandoned buildings just saddens me.
why climate activists are turning to sabotage instead of protest
Because violence and sabotage brings attention
Not just attention, but increases risk so companies avoid such activities if they know the reward (dividend paid to shareholders) doesn’t justify the risk (equipment being damaged, assets being burned)
Don’t forget the cost of insurance. That’s the big one. If it stops being possible to insure fossil fuel infrastructure, then investments shift to renewables that can be insured. It’s pretty simple economic math.
Edit: that also works in all levels of the economy. Pipeline constitution vehicle get torched every time there’s a pipeline built? Uninsurable therefore reduce or stop investment. Cas in cities always get flat tires and vandalized? People won’t buy cars they can’t insure.
Also insurance companies that provide insurance for such companies are themselves valid targets for direct actions to cause economic loss.
I’ll be even more frank: because it’s the only thing that works.
No it doesn’t. You don’t see protests in North Korea don’t you?
Just because it’s the only thing that works doesn’t mean it works every time.
Also, WTF do “protests” have to do with anything? Protests aren’t violence.
I’ll point out even then violence is working - it’s just that the violence comes from the government instead.
The fucking Guardian, of all papers, is partially paywalled now. Either you give up your privacy, or you hand over money.
Any chance anyone has a workaround so I can read this?
Hm weird I’m not getting a paywall. Just the same plea for subscribing that you can dismiss.
This is what I got. Pay or give up your privacy.
I understand they use adverts, but that doesn’t mean they need to know everything about me.
As DuckDuckGo put it, they display adverts by displaying relevant ads based on searches. You searched for a car? They display car adverts. You searched for a book? They display adverts for a new novel.
They don’t need a track of and psychological analysis of every person’s habits.
Wow. I wonder if that’s only being rolled out in the UK at the moment? Definitely don’t get it here in Australia.
Maybe. They initially did it just in the app, so I removed it. But now it’s via browser as well.
Yeah I can’t imagine I would have hit accept myself but can’t think of any other reason I’m not seeing that. Definitely not getting any argument from me about tracking though - I don’t know why anyone is okay with it.
Check out this archived link of the article
Thank you!
