Memes

Maybe, but one seems to get all the attention and little results.

I wouldn't say we should get rid of all plastics. Some of it is required for medical purposes and food safety.

I would love for governments to grow some balls and start fighting against climate change. But in the case that that doesn't happen (and it probably won't because money). I would rather take price increase and inconvenience in exchange for a planet that's still livable in 100 years.

That's true, we need fossil fuels for so many things besides transportation. At the same time, we are simply running out of fossil fuels. Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.

So what I am wondering is, even if one thinks man made climate change is a hoax or something similar, shouldn't the first and foremost thing everyone agrees on be to still spare those scarce resources? For things we really ("really") need to make from oil?

The first thing that comes to mind (maybe since I work in the lab) is medical equipment. You don't really want to have to wash and reuse things like catheters, do you? I am not sure if bioplastics (i.e., still plastics, but made from plants) would be an alternative here once we run out but I sincerely hope so.

Prices will go up, in any case, and it will be a painful transistion. But now we are at a somewhat luxurious point where we can still make this transistion somewhat controlled and "smoothly". If we continue to treat oil as a never ending resource and then do a surprised pikachu face once there is nothing left this will be much much worse, won't they?

If you think prices will be high without the use of fossil fuels, oooh boy just wait for the coming climate collapse that will obliterate all modern agriculture, create billions of climate refugees, decimate human civilization as we know it, and end all global supply chains.

Plant based plastics are a thing.

Really, the only way we are going to ween ourselves off fossil fuels successfully is if they are more expensive than the alternatives. I hear shit like that all the time (big example is meat alternatives). Simply removing the subsidies that fossil fuels do enjoy would go a long way toward making them less attractive.

Ah yes, "enlightened" centrism, where causing relatively insignificant damage to stop the destruction of the planet is just as bad as destroying the planet for profit.. 🤦‍♀️

This shitty take reeks of being

more devoted to "order" than to justice; and preferring a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice

What did you think all of the talk about revolution involved? Radical change isn't normally achieved through peaceful measures

When an oil refinery blows up and gasoline prices are suddenly 8x what they are now are you going to be saying "OMG why did they do this without any kind of warning"?

Consider the possibility that blocking traffic, throwing paint on paintings and yachts, the orange dust, etc. might be a warning. If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think about what your plan will be when you can no longer afford to put gasoline in your car. Put emotion aside and think about how you would logically solve that problem. Because you might have to soon enough.

Why not support both?

Until gasoline became unavailable (while still being needed by billions of people) because of terrorism instead of a more reasonable approach.

So we're acknowledging that it's mostly a coordination problem.

i guess explosive take fits better

The excessive pollution is aggression. More people will die from climate change than from lack of oil, regardless of what you think.

Without doing a moral calculation, what I can say is that shooting people in the head is less effective in dealing with climate change then blowing up oil pipelines.

Blowing up oil pipelines will make it more expensive for oil companies to do business. This will decrease the amount of oil production which will directly effect how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere.

How effective will it be? Will it stop climate change? Those questions are unknowable at this point in time. But it is pretty clear that we're getting to a point where lots of people are going to start dying due to climate change.

the likelihood of u blowing off op's head is as high as the likelihood of anyone here blowing up an oil pipeline

I mean if removing people from the equation is on the table then targeting billionaires with a carbon footprint of small nations would be the logical place to start.

That aside, this meme is calling for collective violent action against infrastructure. Your example is an individual violent action against a person.

Sir, this is !memes@lemmy.ml

There is an appropriate place for coordinated political violence and it's absolutely never, officer ;)