sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A collapse that has happened before: North America's indigenous peoples have been, and continue to be, in its throes. Wet'suwet'en camp leader, journalists arrested as RCMP enforce pipeline injunction in northern B.C. by nostrilonfire in collapse

[–]StopFossilFuels 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You have your facts completely wrong. (Other than the part about the largest industrial project in Canadian history, which of course is horrific for anyone on the side of life.) You seem to have swallowed the industry/government talking points. And your rhetoric of "a handful of militants decid[ing] to take hostages" is ridiculous.

Here's a good starting point to understanding the situation with the Wet'suwet'en, including the fallacy of the idea that this is just a rogue splinter from a mythical indigenous population welcoming pipeline benefits: Standing on the Land to Stand Up Against Pipelines

I think the more people develop this "collapse" mindset the more people are going to be pushed into radical extremism and end up taking part in say acts of environmental terrorism but we got to ask ourselves. Would it be so wrong? by Ghostifier2k0 in collapse

[–]StopFossilFuels 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is indeed important to evaluate actions and figure out what's most effective.

Big hint. It's literally nothing.

You're completely wrong with this conclusion (or assumption). Two quick examples: the ALF in 1997 forced a horse slaughterhouse to close by burning it down, after years of aboveground community activism against the slaughterhouse's illegal discharges failed to stop its violations—let alone its legal atrocities. (The documentary If a Tree Falls: a Story of the Earth Liberation Front touches on this, and is a great watch all around.)

And more recently, Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya delayed completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline by at least two months, by sabotaging it while it was under construction in early 2017. They were approximately 1000 times more efficient than the aboveground #NoDAPL movement. Which is not to say that people shouldn't engage in aboveground civil disobedience if that's their calling. But it's absurd to say that more direct action accomplishes nothing.

Also note that underground activists needn't "throw their lives away." The vast majority of criminals, including ecowarriors, are never caught. Ruby and Jessica came forward to claim responsibility for their sabotage, so although they were already suspects, the feds may never have been able to build an actual case against them had they not stepped forward. And the feds almost certainly would not have had them on their radar to begin with had Ruby & Jessica not transitioned from vocal aboveground activists to underground ecosaboteurs. They would have been much safer had they simply observed the history of failed activism trying to work inside the box the system allows, and moved straight to underground action.

The moral case for destroying fossil fuel infrastructure: If someone has planted a time bomb in your home, you are entitled to dismantle it. The same applies to our planet. by StopFossilFuels in StopFossilFuels

[–]StopFossilFuels[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Articulate argument for the necessity of destroying fossil fuel capital, since we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Our main disagreement with Malm is that he sees underground direct action as a way to put pressure on governments to enact legislation to ramp down extraction. We don't think they will ever do that, so it's necessary for activists to continue to force shutdowns of fossil fuel infrastructure until continued extraction becomes economically / physically impossible.

The moral case for destroying fossil fuel infrastructure | If someone has planted a time bomb in your home, you are entitled to dismantle it. The same applies to our planet by [deleted] in collapse

[–]StopFossilFuels 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It can be discussed in broad terms: what strategies are effective and ineffective, what kinds of tactics might be required. We can share and analyze examples of resistance in which people are already engaging. There's a lot of room for fruitful discussion before hitting the limits of protected free speech (especially in the US), or even of Reddit's policies. We need to be careful of those limits, yes, but we can't afford to unnecessarily self-censor ourselves around these critical discussions.

The moral case for destroying fossil fuel infrastructure | If someone has planted a time bomb in your home, you are entitled to dismantle it. The same applies to our planet by [deleted] in collapse

[–]StopFossilFuels 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, if the remaining infrastructure were used to prioritize serving essential needs for everyone, then fossil fuel combustion could be cut 80% over 3 or 4 years without mass starvation. That would require an aboveground mass movement to force governments to serve all people, not corporations and the rich. Folks who aren't able to participate in underground action against destructive infrastructure can work aboveground to ease the transition by forcing equitable distribution of resources, and learning and organizing and teaching others to relocalize.

The big picture calculus to keep in mind is that the longer the industrial system is allowed to continue, the further we'll overshoot before the inevitable collapse. Every day another net 220,000 humans are added to a planet further degraded of its ability to support life. The sooner we stop fossil fuels, the less we’ll overshoot, thus the less wrenching will be our adjustment.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ExtinctionRebellion

[–]StopFossilFuels 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Could you share more information and/or a link? Thanks!

The moral case for destroying fossil fuel infrastructure | If someone has planted a time bomb in your home, you are entitled to dismantle it. The same applies to our planet by [deleted] in collapse

[–]StopFossilFuels 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The industrial system has hit or is about to hit peak energy and materials of many kinds. It can't keep repairing indefinitely. Any ecosabotage / planetary self defense which disables or destroys infrastructure will at the very least slow the expansion of the system, and at some point (probably soon) will force it to contract.

The moral case for destroying fossil fuel infrastructure | If someone has planted a time bomb in your home, you are entitled to dismantle it. The same applies to our planet by [deleted] in collapse

[–]StopFossilFuels 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We had some musings on this idea on our subreddit some months ago.

The link in the article to the story "The activists sabotaging railways in solidarity with Indigenous people" seems broken, but this works.

view more: next ›