Pointless, but better than blocking roadways.
Ah yes protests against the rich have never been useful before
Removed by mod
You should go live in a super hot country without AC. Then talk.
Why?
Could you give them a moment? They have to get Bezo’s dick out of their mouth.
Nice, seems like we’re finally getting to the point where we stop blaming the common people for climate change.
deleted by creator
You fell for the propaganda.
The 1% do more damage to the planet than consumer habits could ever hope up mitigate.
If you feel better making what you see as more sustainable life choices I fully support it and more power to you. But the reality is that it doesn’t matter whether or not we eat meat, sort your recycling, or bring our canvas bags to the grocery store.
deleted by creator
It’s understandable that you are overestimating your own impact.
deleted by creator
If you change the mind of one billionaire and you’ll have reached the same result as a million of ordinary people. But he’s got you convinced your mission is to punch down.
deleted by creator
You mean the half of humanity without clean water, reliable electricity, and certainly no Internet emits less CO2 than the top 10% (630M!) wealthiest people in the entire world? There are not 630M Billionaires. There are not even 630M Millionaires. An income of $80-100k puts you at 10% worldwide.
Sure, go right ahead. Tell the family with an income of $80k that they need to cut out their use of private jets and mega yachts. That’ll fix climate change right up.
Half the world could switch to a plant-based diet and it would barely make a dent
Our part is teeny tiny compared to corporations
deleted by creator
Sure, sure. Whatever makes you sleep at night and keeps your overlords happy. Seriously, stop putting down your fellow men and start punching upwards. They are the problem, not people who eat meat.
deleted by creator
You sound really young
deleted by creator
It won’t. Meat production has almost no impact. Switch to plant based diet will have bigger impact.
deleted by creator
But who is buying the goods and services these corporations produce? Mysterious figures in the night, or humans?
Greenwashing is a result of a change in consumer desire, not 100% what was wanted but a change non the less. If the people buying goods actually think before they buy and don’t just look at the lowest priced item then change will happen.
Many times people have no choice but to buy those goods due to years of monopolistic practices
actually think before they buy and don’t just look at the lowest priced item then change will happen.
When the choice is between saving the planet and eating and being able to afford rent, you can’t possibly blame someone for choosing the cheaper option.
[Edit] also want to add that while I’m still eating meat, I fully support vegetarianism.
I see this argument a lot about choosing between saving the planet and eating and affording rent. Of course that person is barely surviving they aren’t making choices for their food. The same can not be said for the middle class and up.
To instantly dismiss any argument that you as a person don’t have any responsibility in this, no matter how small, is ludicrous. We should all be doing all we can. Not blaming corporations but then still buying their products, eating their fast food, etc. Blame a corporation and then do something about it, like avoiding nestle products even if it means going without, especially for non essential items.
The demographic that can afford to make those changes, the middle class as you stated, have been a shrinking for decades due to wealth consolidation. They don’t make up the majority of people.
I’m not absolving any one person, I’m saying their impact is so minimal that combined with every other individual they wouldn’t come close to corporate impact so it’s stupid to single them out.
Not to mention, many people in that demographic are time-poor, even if they ostensibly have the money. It’s not like middle class people still have a stay at home parent to do all this emotional labor.
I’ve been flexitarian for decades, before it was a term. But it takes a lot more thought and time to eat healthy without animal products.
deleted by creator
Of course that person is barely surviving they aren’t making choices for their food. The same can not be said for the middle class and up.
There is no “middle class.” There is only the working class, and the entire thing falls into that “barely surviving” category.
Blame a corporation and then do something about it, like avoiding nestle products even if it means going without, especially for non essential items.
Not only do boycotts not work, advocating for them is almost a bad thing because it only distracts people from advocating for the remedy that does work: enforcing antitrust law.
And that brings me to my main point, which is that both “blame corporations” and “blame consumers” are overly simplistic and wrong. The real problem is the systems that create the circumstances that both the corporations and the consumers are operating in. We should really be asking ourselves questions like this:
-
Why is cheap food so often unsustainable, despite the fact that “sustainable” basically means “least costly” in the long run, by definition? The answer is that there’s a whole pile of subsidies and externalities that mean the full cost of the unsustainable food is being borne by somebody other than either the consumers or proverbial “big ag.”
-
Why do even people who are “barely surviving” so often end up driving to buy fast food? The answer isn’t just that they “can’t cook” or “don’t have time” or whatever; there are deeper reasons for it. They don’t know how to cook because the public school system seems to have mostly stopped offering home ec class. They don’t have time because the zoning code forces their home to be far away from both their job and their grocery store, which not only robs them of the time spent making car trips between them the money spent owning a car in the first place, but also artificially incentivizes businesses with drive-throughs.
Of course, now you might think I’m simplistically trying to blame the government, but nope. Why’d the zoning code get written the way it was? Well, that’s for a whole bunch of reasons (most of them racist, BTW), but among them was the influence of corporate entities like Standard Oil and GM.
So now, taking all that shit I just wrote into consideration, what’s the bottom line? The bottom line is that the systems have to be changed, and that takes action from individuals and corporations and government – but mostly the latter, not because it’s the government’s “fault” but because government has the power to change laws. But even then, it’s not heavy-handed stuff like prohibiting eating meat or prohibiting driving; it’s stuff like ending subsidies, internalizing externalities (that’s what a carbon tax is for, BTW), and ending the failed Suburban Experiment by abolishing things like low-density zoning restrictions so that people can pop into the store for groceries on their walk home from work instead of having to make an onerous car trip to go “grocery shopping” or resorting to fast food.
The “cheapest” or easiest option has to become the most sustainable option, such that people freely choose it without being coerced. That’s the only way any real change will ever happen.
This took me a while to digest, but thanks for the thorough answer.
I agree that silly subsidies should be abolished and climate friendly subsidies should be enacted worldwide. However looking from the American lens you are talking in the change seems almost impossible. Democracy worldwide has been corrupted America being the largest example of this with “lobbyists”. How are these uneducated, time poor, malnutritioned people meant to make any change? Maybe I just have my doom and gloom face on today.
In Australia we can barely stop our government from cutting down ancient forests to make woodchips. Let alone the 3 new coal mines they opened, and this is the climate concious party.
Looking at all that I feel making personal changes is the only way I can personally stay motivated. At least I am doing what I can in the face of this seemingly impossible task.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
-
Food production is 35% of global greenhouse gases. Meat accounts for 60% of the emissions from food production. So yeah, if we cut global meat consumption in half it would absolutely make a dent.
Blaming the corporations is just a convenient way of putting the responsibility on somebody else. You can’t eat beef and then blame the farmer for the emissions caused by cattle production. You can’t drive a big truck and then blame the oil companies for the emissions. You can’t fly around the world and then blame the airlines. Corporations are selling stuff to people. Their emissions look huge because they’re the aggregate emissions of millions of people.
deleted by creator
Meat does NOT account for 60% of food production.
deleted by creator
They said emissions.
Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study
As for the rest of what they said:
The entire system of food production, such as the use of farming machinery, spraying of fertilizer and transportation of products, causes 17.3bn metric tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, according to the research. This enormous release of gases that fuel the climate crisis is more than double the entire emissions of the US and represents 35% of all global emissions, researchers said.
In case you’re curious about plants, they’re actually only 29%:
The use of cows, pigs and other animals for food, as well as livestock feed, is responsible for 57% of all food production emissions, the research found, with 29% coming from the cultivation of plant-based foods. The rest comes from other uses of land, such as for cotton or rubber. Beef alone accounts for a quarter of emissions produced by raising and growing food.
What this fails to account for is that a whole lot of land that produces beef can’t produce edible vegetables. It’s not so easy as flipping a switch.
I’m not blaming the farmer, I’m blaming the megacorps that have control over the food supply. I’m blaming the lobbyists and corrupt politicians who push deregulation of industry.
I’m blaming the 1% whose hoarding has left so many people struggling, forcing them to work against their own best interest.
I said it in another comment, but you can’t blame someone for choosing to pay rent instead of buying eco-friendly products.
Ok, I’ll give you a choice!
- Eat this food that’s made in a way that causes a lot of environmental problems
- Eat this food that’s made by the same company, except it claims it’s vegan, hides the fact it’s the same company by using 10 middle-men, but has great marketing
- Eat this actually environmentally friendly food. Wait, scratch that, you’re too poor to actually eat this regularly
- Starve to death
What great choices you have!
deleted by creator
what your suggesting takes time and equipment (and some experience with seasoning). the time alone can make it cost-prohibitive.
deleted by creator
many people still cannot afford it, no matter how your arrange the facts.
deleted by creator
The polluting corporations all sell consumer goods.
and we NEED to demand that they are made using green energy. The price incentives offered by the US government now are so fucking insane that the only thing keeping these companies from making a change is whatever fossil companies can offer them.
We can all adopt a plant based diet which will absolutely slow change as well as cost less than a diet that involves meat.
Found the vegan.
Some people need to eat meat: Like my room mate who has mass cell activation.
Also many indigenous peoples have dishes that involve meat. They are not apart of this problem.
Frankly there are a lot of reason to eat meat. If I go out and shoot my own deer and butcher it and cook it this does not effect the climate the same way as buying beef of the shelf.
And while beef is particularly resource and land intensive so are many vegetables you see at grocery stores.
Do you eat avocados? Because most avocados grown in mexico are done under control by violent cartels.
Many people probably should eat less meat. But acting like EVRYONE can do this is wrong on many fronts.
If you want to be a vegetarian please do. But lets stop acting like its a real solution to climate change or even a option for many people. It isnt.
deleted by creator
…Im just trying to make the only difference I can make. [emphasis added]
Bullshit. Do you drive a car? You can definitely change that!
deleted by creator
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, 70 miles?! That’s egregious even for a car commute! Even without doing the math, I’m pretty sure that your environmental savings from not eating meat is a rounding error compared to that kind of clown car habit.
If you can’t find a home closer to work, you need to find a new job closer to home. Something’s got to give, if not for the planet then at least for your own sake!
deleted by creator
there is something you can do
there is something you can do, but being vegan doesn’t help.
I gotta be honest, this comes across more like excuses to not make changes or even admit your part. I’m not a vegetarian myself, but I’m under no delusions that my meal preferences aren’t bad for the environment and have ethical concerns. I eat meat anyway because honestly, I just like the taste and struggle to give that up. But I fully support those who can give it up and want to see lab grown meat be a viable replacement.
Like your roommate, nobody is saying literally everyone has to stop eating meat full stop. If you have a medical need, obviously keep eating meat. Similarly, reducing how much meat you eat is still an improvement. You don’t have to go 100% vegetarian.
Similarly, if indigenous folks can sustainably eat meat, cool. But most people simply aren’t doing that. And are you aware of why meat is so bad for the environment? I mean this 100% seriously: cow farts. Raising livestock ethically only addresses the moral problems with animal husbandry. This thread is about environmental problems. Land intensiveness doesn’t actually matter that much. The amount of land used isn’t the problem.
The avocados thing isn’t related to environment. Again, I gotta be honest here, this feels like an attempt at a “gotcha”. I get it. I struggled with the idea that my own consumption (which again, I still do) is bad for the environment. Plus I could never kill an animal myself. I can only eat meat because I emotionally separate myself from it. It’s a hard reality to face and I’m still not really comfortable with it. But we can’t act like “oh, you eat a bad thing, so I’m okay to do different bad things” is a good reasoning.
Don’t take things literally when someone says “we should all do X”. That’s not a personal attack on you if you don’t. That’s just how we talk. We say “everyone should watch the new Barbie movie because it’s really great” but I don’t actually mean literally every single human needs to watch it.
cow farts
Changing what we feed cows from like corn by-products to barley and hops by-products reduces this problem greatly. But of course the scale isn’t big enough.
That’s a myth, plant based diet won’t change shit.
Both can be at fault and yes billionaires are worse but that’s not excuse for others to do nothing whatsoever
Yeah! As long as it’s not our fault!
The buck stops anywhere but here!
seems like we’re finally getting to the point where we stop blaming the common people for climate change.
I mean the “common people” are to blame. The 1% doesn’t live in a vacuum.
Do billionaires carry a significantly larger portion of that blame? Yes. But we’re all on this gaseous rock together. Them being at fault doesn’t mean you can’t do your part. They couldn’t do what they do if the people weren’t buying the shit they’re selling.
Also, this seems like a much, MUCH better PR move than throwing paint at masterpieces in fucking museums.
I don’t know who thought that was something that would have moved the public opinion towards their cause.They were throwing paint into corporate offices and CEO’s cars at the same time. The media chose to put the art vandalism on blast. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out the art vandalism was the idea of a corporate mole.
Well it did seem to do a good job bringing attention to their cause. And, the worst damage incurred over the dozens of demonstrations was some minor frame damage. Imo it was kind of a brilliant scheme to get worldwide attention for the price of some tomato soup
deleted by creator
I don’t even know what you’re talking about so apparently it didn’t do that good of a job
It was these people. Go down to protests - art galleries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil
There’s an enormous gap between private jets & yachts, and golf. Most cities have municipal golf courses that are affordable and they even rent out clubs. Golf is a relaxing sport that preserves green spaces that would otherwise be parking lots. I’ve seen a lot of hate against golf on this site already though, so I guess it’s fashionable to hate it now.
It wouldn’t necessarily be a parking lot though would it? That’s just convenient for your argument. The truth is it would be extra easy and cheap to turn golf courses into public parks, with local trees and flowers instead of water guzzling grass. That would improve weather events, wildlife and human lives’ quality in the area.
There’s plenty to be outraged about other than golf. Cities aren’t running out of space because of a golf course.
Maybe not space, but water.
From 2003-2005, the average water use for golf course irrigation in the U.S. was estimated to be 2,312,701 acrefeet per year. That equates to approximately 2.08 billion gallons of water per day for golf course irrigation in the U.S.
Source: https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Water%20Resource%20Center/how-much-water-does-golf-use.pdf
“The yachts are just a small issue, focuse on the bigger issues first!” Said the yacht owner.
“There are so little private jets, you should focuse on bigger issues first!” Said the jet owner.
There’s an enormous gap between private jets & yachts, and golf. Most cities have municipal golf courses that are affordable and they even rent out clubs. Golf is a relaxing sport that preserves green spaces that would otherwise be parking lots. I’ve seen a lot of hate against golf on this site already though, so I guess it’s fashionable to hate it now.
Said the golf player.
Golf in the desert is a ridiculous luxury, even if it’s city-owned. They tell us not to flush our toilets, but dump gallons per hour into those short little greens.
You make a compelling point. I think my hatred of golf is perhaps reactionary.
“Green spaces” A golf course is basically a giant lawn. That space would be better as a park with actual trees and shit for everyone else that doesn’t give a shit about golf.
Eat the rich!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
BARCELONA, Spain (AP) — Climate activists have spraypainted a superyacht, blocked private jets from taking off and plugged holes in golf courses this summer as part of an intensifying campaign against the emissions-spewing lifestyles of the ultrawealthy.
Climate activism has intensified in the past few years as the planet warms to dangerous levels, igniting more extreme heat, floods, storms and wildfires around the world.
Tactics have been getting more radical, with some protesters gluing themselves to roads, disrupting high-profile sporting events like golf and tennis and even splashing famous pieces of artwork with paint or soup.
They’re now turning their attention to the wealthy, after long targeting some of the world’s most profitable companies – oil and gas conglomerates, banks and insurance firms that continue to invest in fossil fuels.
“We do not point the finger at the people but at their lifestyle, the injustice it represents,” said Karen Killeen, an Extinction Rebellion activist who was involved in protests in Ibiza, Spain, a favorite summer spot for the wealthy.
He published estimates of top billionaires’ annual emissions in 2021 and found that a superyacht — with permanent crew, helicopter pad, submarines and pools — emits about 7,020 tons of carbon dioxide a year, over 1,500 times higher than a typical family car.
The original article contains 873 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Absolutely, targeting activism towards the lifestyles of the rich is a crucial step in addressing the issue of higher CO2 emissions and climate change. It’s not about vilifying individuals, but rather recognizing that certain lifestyles contribute significantly to environmental harm.
Focusing solely on the lower and middle class isn’t the solution, as they are the ones who often bear the brunt of climate change impacts and economic adjustments. What might be considered “luxury” for them is often just basic necessities, and their livelihoods are directly affected by climate-related changes.
On the other hand, the elite and super elites can afford to make substantial changes to their lifestyles without sacrificing their basic needs. Cutting back on private flights, yachts, and excessive consumption won’t significantly impact their quality of life. Their choices to reduce their environmental footprint can send a powerful message and create a domino effect, encouraging positive change on a larger scale.
This doesn’t mean demonizing anyone; it’s about promoting awareness and responsibility. We need systemic changes, and these should start from the top down. By targeting the source of excessive consumption and promoting sustainable choices among the rich, we can create a more equitable and sustainable future for everyone.
I’m ok with demonizing wealth hoarders as individuals. More than ok, actually.
We should be much, much more than just name calling.
Considering they have armed private security forces, there’s not much more we can do but namecall the bastards.
Kinda like trickle down economics, but this might actually work…
I remember being in LA during the Rodney King Riots in 1992. White people (especially privileged leftists) were all clutching their pearls, wondering why black folks were attacking their innocent Korean merchant neighbors and dragging random white people out of their cars and beating them, instead of going to rich people’s neighborhoods and attacking them, or attacking the systems of oppression. Clearly these white folks did not understand how oppression works.
When you’re the victim of random violence, and have reached your breaking point, and don’t know what else to do, you respond with random violence, against whatever and whomever is nearby.
Black folks in Compton had no way to get to the racist white power structure. It was insulated from their rage.
Can XR act against Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk? The board of Exxon? No way, they’re not accessible. So they attack whatever they can reach. The world is burning and they’re pissed off. Their targets may or may not make sense strategically. They aren’t trying to influence people or win friends. They’re just infuriated. Know the difference, try to understand with empathy.
Sorry, but in my book, nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies random violence. Your justification of it sickens me and I’m surprised that you got so upvoted. I’ve been on the breaking point from things that were happening inside my own home as a kid, but I never took it on my little brother, or other kids. Instead, I was taking it against the actual aggressor (my father), even if it resulted in more beatings and hairline broken jaws, and put the knife, or the gun on my head. So, yes, I’ve been through some shit myself. But I protected my brother and my mother as much as I could. Doing random violence, as you described it, against people who might have their own cross to bear is not justified. EVER.
And yes. They CAN act against Bezos, Musk, and the board of Exxon. They can easily find where these people are, paparazzis certainly can. Every second day we have pictures of Bezos with his darling gf. Get organized so the locals can take it against him when he visits somewhere. But you don’t act against your fellow citizen who is also a victim of oppression and climate change, or destroy classic works of art. What kind of BS is that??
deleted by creator
Based
Good. More of this please.
Golf? I need to do some research. I’d be lining up more useless garbage like cruise ships, coal energy, gas powered mowers, and all of the ‘recyclable’ garbage that isn’t. Also styrofoam. Fuck styrofoam.
The gripe with golf usually lies within the incredibly high amounts of water needed to keep the courses green.
That makes sense. Places like Arizona make my jaw drop.
A lot of the courses in Arizona aren’t using potable water; they’re using treated waste water.
The locals know golf isn’t the problem in Arizona. It’s ‘use it or lose it’ water rights for agriculture, and selling land/water to foreign powers (Saudi alfalfa)
Then there shouldn’t be any opposition to courses in places like the PNW. Right?
Golf can use a terrible amount of water, plus keeping it mowed, and cutting forests for it. Places like Canada or the UK might be fine if it’s not a drought year. But there’s golf courses as far as Mexico. There’s places in Mexico that is so dry outside of the summer months that golf courses would use a disgusting amount of water to keep the greens… green… there was a golf course in Mexico I went to that only bothered with the putting area and a bit around that. Everything else was dirt. It wasn’t that pleasant of an experience because you do kick up dust when teeing off and whatnot. However, no way to lose your ball I suppose. Still, the water they needed just for the putting area must have been disgusting.
we need to change golf so it respects the land the course is built on, and doesn’t try to make everything look like scotland. keep the green as-is but make the fairway something that doesn’t use water, fits the local landscape (maybe have different solutions for different environments) and is just as playable as fairway grass. leave the out of bounds areas untouched. I think golf could serve to gain from forming itself to the terrain it’s played on, rather than the other way around
The vast majority of courses are this way. The PGA level courses and private clubs are the main problems. For example in Florida many courses are part of treating waste water and act as a flood control for the surrounding condos.
Basically what disc golf is
I though it would be a neat twist to have sand dune golf courses with much smaller playing areas since you won’t hit the ball as far, and you can irrigate small patches of grass that you don’t mow and it gets 6-8" tall as a grass trap instead of a water/sand trap.
Scotland doesn’t and shouldn’t look anything like a golf course, hell the entire image of Scotland thats sold to the outside worlds is basically entierly artifically sculpted and maintained landscapes that continue to choke out our native species.
we need to change golf so it respects the land
But then you lose the feeling of entitlement.
And let’s face it, that, plus knowing you are better then everyone else is the whole reason to play!
Most courses did this decades ago because it is cheaper than not doing it in the long run. Complete water reclamation and use of exclusively native flora is the rule these days, not the exception. There are outliers sure, but this is a case of people attacking what they don’t understand rather than looking at their own behavior. You know, classic outrage as a virtue mindset.
nice. I figure that with all the grass that has to be mowed to specifications there had to be a better solution
Removed by mod
You’ve never heard of targeted ads?
Buy our product! 💥
plugged holes in golf courses
I mean… that’s kind of pointless, many courses change hole locations daily anyway.
What the Letzte Generation did on Sylt was way more sensible: Replace hole flags with signs saying “natural reserve” and then plant native trees and flowers everywhere.
