There really is no way to respond to this but with more fervor. The climate isn't going to get less worse bcz they are arresting people. It's up to us to take a stance and force politicians to take the climate crisis serious. The people are in charge, not the other way around.
this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
210 points (99.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5212 readers
566 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 40 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Self-defense applies here, it's not only valid if someone is actively stabbing you. These people have made clear their intent to let the world collapse in pursuit of power and profit and we need to defend ourselves from them.
This creates an immense chilling effect on all climate protests in Germany.
Unfortunately, the chilling effect needs to be applied to the climate, not the protests.
Germany really is cooked. You guys got the nazi party 2 electric boogaloo so close to being in power that it's ridiculous, your green party shuts down nuclear only to start shoving excessive amounts of coal into atmosphere, you guys took such wrong lessons from the holocaust that now you are just defending another genocide because a Jewish ethnostate is doing it and now this.
The green party was not involved in shutting down nuclear energy. That was mainly the CDUs doing. It's really sad that the green party get's blamed for essentially everything although the last time they were in a ruling coalition was from 1998 to 2005 and everything that is bad now was done by the ruling party which was mostly the CDU and at some point the SPD. And the AFD is thankfully no where near of beeing in power.
They way coalition governments here work is that before forming a coalition they agree on a general idea of what to do and what they are absolutely not on-board with and if the coalition government does something that is absolutely against your party you can just exit the coalition basically dissolving the coalition government. Are you saying that in Germany coalition members don't have the ability to stop an action that should go against everything your party should stand for?
Also isn't the AfD the second most popular party currently?
To be honest, that is bot surprising to me. The group broke into airports caused massive damage to Public property and more.
The methods of the last generation are nor helpful to the goals for our climate and cause more damage in the public eye
I used to think that. However, we've had lots of peaceful protests and whatnot.
That did not seem to do anything and time ran out awhile ago.
Peaceful protests are promoted by those in power as the ultimate form of expression because it's completely inconsequential to them and easily ignored.
I am with you on that point. And I didn't mention stuff like road blocks, because I see them related to the issue and they may yield some results.
But a large part of the population oposses the last generation and in extension what they are trying to do.
Not that I have a good solution.
I am nearly 40 now, and fighting in this fight since I am 16. I know how much was done and that nothing happened on a political layer.
But giving politicians such a large attack surface by committing serious crimes (and braking onto the airfield of an airport is a serious crime) is not very smart
The idea of last generation is to bring up the climate crisis on a regular bases. They are actually extremely good at it. Seriously they got more articles written about them, then Fridays for Future got at their peak.
I honestly believe them turning on hitting the rich, rather then more average Germans is a smart move though. The general sympathy towards people flying private jets is rather limited.
Oh, there I am with you! 100%
It's a petty that it is rather hard to burn those private machines down ...
I'm a bit past 40 and experience shows me that nothing has worked so far. I don't have a solution either.
If there is one though, I am pretty sure it's not peaceful.
I hope you'll enjoy actual climate terrorists, because that's what you get when you make protesting impossible.
I am just stating facts. There is no personal emotion involved. Fact is, this move was not surprising. And I am expecting to see actual climate theorists soon. Yes. Because we reached a dead end.
But if we can't even state facts here without triggering many of us, we have an issue.
Anyhow, that said, there are rules for protesting. And, once again, braking into an airport violates multiple laws, with punishment up to 10 fucking years in prison.
Was it that dangerous for passengers as some of the media says? I don't think so.
Did it change somebody's state of mind? No. Did it shed a bad light on the movement? Fucking yes.
Terrorism works because of fear. This does not spark fear. This results in anger of the wider population.
My opinion: If we want to make sure the next generations have a livable planet we must change the mindset of the general population. And we can not do this this way.
Apply that rationalist view on politics to any other significant historical progress against exploitation and you will understand how "abide to the rules of protest" is not as rational as you think. Some examples 8hours working day Voting rights Voting rights for women End of racial laws Your right to organize, demonstrate at all
Rulebreaking of social movements fighting against the immense irrationalities of oppression (like "lets burn the planet cause the mystical market monster demands it") is what gave you your rights...
Ah yes, the famous airport blockades od those events. Oh, wait ....
Yeah absolutely comparable!!!!
No! Those activits crossed a line where they were willing to risk life's. And this is the point where I refuse to keep my personal feelings out of this discussion.
If you block an airport, you are willing to risk other people's life. And your mindset shows that we are very close to terrorism.
And, most of all, this pisses me of because nearly every idiot involved in this has a China made phone in his pocket that would not exist without air traffic.
You want environmental terrorism? Fine! But be consequentl. Don't buy electronics, don't buy or use stuff that needs rare earth's, oil, or other polluting stuff.
Running over an air field to protest against climate change while recording ourself with your iPhone! Nice!
But! Still I don't have the opinion that the last generation itself is a criminal organization. Still, some members do everything they can to prove the police and critics correct
8 hour day protestors got into firefights with the police on dozens of occasions. They killed police, foremen, Pinkerton stooges, and more. The civil rights law was won on the back of hundreds of riots all across the US. The history they teach in schools is explicitly designed to hide the true history of class struggle.
So here's the thing, like you said, we already have laws to prevent the actions of these "protestors". So they could easily address their actions by enforcing those laws. But instead they're making protesting itself, or at least the creation of protest groups, an illegal activity. This isn't a response to those events. This is them reaching into their grab bag of wishes and using the event as an excuse to snatch more liberties, and extend their power, as they've always wished to do.
No they don't. Currently, they are investigating and we don't know all facts. If tue only facts are the one we know, and a court still decides in the favor of the prosecution, than we have a serious issue. But we are not at this point (yet)
The law is meant to be used against serious organized crime groups like the Mafia. It requires fairly serious crimes being planned and commited by the group to be used, which carry at least two years of prison for them. The problem with it, is that is that 'forming a criminal organisation' means 5 years of prision for any member and 3 years for a supporter.
This could mean that the German government locks up basically the entire German climate movement.
[removed by mod]
You must be laughably sheltered if blocking traffic as a form of protest is something you consider to be a "serious crime". And yes, climate terrorists is kinda the next consequential step if you make protesting illegal.
It is in the fucking StGB. Neither you nor me define what a serious crime is, the law does. Do I agree? No. But it is still the law.
Every single protest blocks traffic my dude. And no, not everything in the StGB is a "serious crime". Learn some nuance.
I am not talking about a road. Interrupting air traffic is a crime with up to 10 years of prison. There is a difference between people in cars and people's in flying cans that at some point run out of fuel. At least this is the reasoning behind this. Not saying that was the case for this incident. Just why this law exists.
Planes have plenty of excess fuel, enough that they often dump huge portions of it mid flight. This is a very overblown point, especially when they often circle for quite a long time over the airports anyway. Either way, the point of it obviously is that they shouldn't be flying in the first place.
Says the one writing on a device some text, and sending it to a server. And both pieces of hardware are send around the world multiple times. Their raw resources, assembled parts and the whole systems.
But: we need alternatives to fossils fuel for planes. And, of course, short range flights or flying to Mallorcavjust to drink,puke and piss, should be forbidden.
We can't remove planes without removing a huge part of the stuff that we are dependent on every single day.
To find compromises, we have to start at the extremes. But there is no seek for compromise. And after all, we are to late for compromises.
And btw, if you read my comments, I also don't assume that anybody was in danger. But imagine someone disturbs air traffic vor 4-8 hours? I just explained why there is a law against such things.
If you think me writing a few comments on the Fediverse is even comparable to the emissions of even a single plane flight, then you're having some serious struggles in understanding the scope of how much planes pollute. Hell, my entire footprint is probably about 1/20th of that of your average person in the West. I don't even have warm water, or a fridge, my phone is years old and my hardware old midrange at best. I literally slept on the freaking floor for years. Welcome to the poverty line. But please, educate me more about how much me arguing with you is going to destroy the planet.
And yes, we can remove a good majority of the planes in the sky very easily, because most of it is just for people's comfort, laziness and entitlement.
I don't compare your footprint to anything. Also I am not arguing that our debate here is a risk to the planet.
I am just saying that without airplanes, many things would be not possible. And that includes solar and Wind energy btw.
I am well aware how large the co2 footprint of an airplane is. But if I have the choice between banning all airplanes and green energy, my choice is clear.
And here is the core of the issue, and this is btw a very generell issue:
We are such dependent on things like airplanes, trucks and cars, thar we can not force a complete ban without risking other important stuff.
I work in IT. I am fighting constantly to reduce power consumption, for self sufficient data centers and advocate against large scale AI, because the power consumption is massiv and the raw resources for GPU damage the environment from gathering through production.
And one of the most paradox things I encountered is a customer that does climate change research and tries to find more ways to combat it. And they asked for an offer with over 200 GPU's.
And based on this experience, my rough calculations for an average lemmy instance gives me about 2 metric tons co2/year. But is this bad? We are using this to discuss topics like these, organize protest, and if course for fun.
I know the following is a stupid argument, but stick with me for a second.
Based on your criteria we could shut down 90% of all instances. That would save us around 40 tons co2 per year.
So, if we isolate this it looks good, right?
But: a flight from Frankfurt to Heathrow wit a 747 alone produces around 70 tons of co2.
So, it is all a question of perspective. And I am completely with you >70% of all flights should be just forbidden. Nobody, I repeat, nobody needs to fly from Germany to Italy. Use the fucking train.
But how about USA? There is no train in this direction. So, while I am all for reducing flights as much as we can, we still have to keep some passenger planes.
And for fright, we may be dependent for stuff that must be delivered quickly and is sensible to environmental conditions. Like parts for solar panels.
You're clearly arguing in bad faith. No one wants to ban actually necessary planes, or trucks, because your argument is the same bad faith one that people make when it comes to getting rid of cars. Just because you're saying you allegedly fight for the cause does not mean you actually do, especially when you keep making excuses and make up arguments that haven't been made in order to push this nonsense agenda, to frame people in some ridiculous light.
Dude. Read the thread please "the planes should never be flying in the first place " was an argument I initially responded to. And please read my comments on this post. I am tired of repeating my self.
This is a legal term and civil disobedience has never been punished like this by German authorities. It was mainly a fine and maybe a few days in prison and not years.
We are talking about:
- Disruption of public services (5 years in prison)
- dangerous interference with air traffic (up to 10 years in prison)
Only for the airport actions. The law is targeted at every organization where the primary goal is to commit crimes. We can argue about that part, but that does not mean that this was an expected step by the prosecution. (The government is not involved in criminal prosecution btw ...)
Just to be clear, I am not defending the prosecutors here. Or the last generation.
Oh, won't somebody think of the property! (the damage which was caused being miniscule in comparison to what's to come with climate change)
Also, you're talking a lot in this thread about what is "legal", so just to remind you that the holocaust was legal, as was slavery, as were many other atrocities.
Basing your moral compass on what the ruling class has told you you are and aren't allowed to do is such an uncritical, counterproductive, and honestly pathetic way to see the world, but to apply your own, now faulty, "morals" on to others makes you complicit, and in direct service of said ruling class. Well done.
Yes I do talk about what is lega, because for some fucking reason, i have to explain why I was not surprised. I also talk about the fact that this does not mean that I agree with law ans prosecution.
I layed out where I draw the line: hypocrisy. If you are willing to risk life's , be consequent in your actions.
Also, I tried to show how the general public, again not my views, sees the last generation because of what they do.
The assumption seems to be: if we just so such stunts, something will change. But we reached a point where the protest actions alienate politicians and the general public. And without support for the idea itself we are fucked. Or more, the generations after us are fucked