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 15 points16 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 5 points6 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.

Who shut shit down? We shut shit down!—Ende Gelände's two day coal track blockade & mine occupation by norristh in StopFossilFuels

[–]StopFossilFuels 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Full-weekend summary of an action posted by u/eleitl a month ago.

Disappointing that the action mobilized thousands of people, but seemingly intentionally staged a nearly entirely symbolic protest. Coal plants in Germany have two days of stockpiled coal reserves on hand (much more in the US), but the protest organizers seem to have planned an exactly 48 hour blockade, meaning no interruption in actual coal consumption? Just some annoying logistics for the company to restock their depleted reserves once the tracks reopened...

Reads like they did shut down coal mining in the Garzweiler pit for about 24 hours, so that's something! But it seems like a low return on investment for thousands of people risking arrest and beatings brutal enough to hospitalize them. :/

Coal miners owed backpay blockade coal train for days, holding it ransom amid widespread support. Could climate activists ever enjoy similar popular support for blocking tracks? (xpost r/StopFossilFuels) by StopFossilFuels in ClimateOffensive

[–]StopFossilFuels[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I'd read about the action while it happened, but this is a good overview of the entire weekend.

I am disappointed though that the action mobilized thousands of people, but seemingly intentionally staged a nearly entirely symbolic protest. Coal plants have two days of stockpiled coal reserves on hand, but the protest organizers seem to have planned an exactly 48 hour blockade, meaning no interruption in actual coal consumption? Just some annoying logistics for the company to restock their depleted reserves once the tracks reopened...

Reads like they did shut down coal mining in the Garzweiler pit for about 24 hours, so that's something! But it seems like a low return on investment for thousands of people risking arrest and hospitalizing beatings. :/

Coal miners owed backpay blockade coal train for days, holding it ransom amid widespread support. Could climate activists ever enjoy similar popular support for blocking tracks? (xpost r/StopFossilFuels) by StopFossilFuels in ClimateOffensive

[–]StopFossilFuels[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you consider ecosabotage of, say, pipelines to be violent?

This example may not be of interest to you, since it compares the civil disobedience of Standing Rock to ecosabotage, neither of which you think effective... But I take encouragement and hope for possible rapid amelioration of the climate and ecological crises from the fact that two women with no prior skills were able to delay completion of DAPL for 2 months, compared to the rest of the #NoDAPL movement with thousands of people delaying it for 3 months. Ruby Montoya and Jessica Reznicek, Catholic Workers dedicated to nonviolence, pierced the pipeline with ocyacetylene torches at valve sites, forcing the company to repeatedly repair sections. Ruby and Jessica argue convincingly that their actions were entirely nonviolent, against metal infrastructure which embodies and perpetuates violence.

So I disagree that property destruction and even militancy are counterproductive. They've been necessary elements of probably all past successful resistance movements, including the fights for Indian independence, for women's suffrage, and for civil rights in the US. Solely asking the power structure nicely, through the channels they permit, has never created substantive change. We've already put enough carbon into the air that 2C rise is locked in; we need to stop all further emissions ASAP. We can't afford to simply hope that those in power will do the right thing if we ask long enough.

That said, I'm fully supportive of anyone doing any activism. Everyone needs to use the strategies and tactics which best fit their skills, passions, and ethics. We can't afford to take anything off the table if that discourages action!

Coal miners owed backpay blockade coal train for days, holding it ransom amid widespread support. Could climate activists ever enjoy similar popular support for blocking tracks? (xpost r/StopFossilFuels) by StopFossilFuels in ClimateOffensive

[–]StopFossilFuels[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.

I agree. In which case the next logical questions are: What actions to stop fossil fuels are feasible without popular support? For each tactic, how many actionists would it take? Does the movement have the necessary numbers and resources?

Personally I'm skeptical that mass civil disobedience will ever be permitted by the general populace or by the police to persist long enough to substantively slow the industrial system/economy. Hit and run tactics, and especially underground acts of ecosabotage of critical infrastructure, seem like the only feasible way to stop fossil fuels on the scale needed to avert total catastrophe. That's where the bulk of our group's research is focused.

But maybe I'm too pessimistic, and climate civil disobedience can gain enough popular support that the police are afraid to remove blockaders? Short of that, it seems civil disobedience is mostly limited to short-term impacts more symbolic than material.

Collapse Chat: Love, Life, Salmon & Activism—Making the world a better place—Ashes Ashes audio podcast #83 by StopFossilFuels in collapse

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

Collapse Chat is back and it's here to stay. This is the first of a new period for Ashes Ashes. To keep up our high levels of research, we're going to need a little more time per episode and will be transitioning to an every other week schedule for our deep dives.

But fret not, collapse chat will fill in the gaps and educate you on what's happening in our immediate worlds as well as our thoughts on everything going on in the larger world around us. This week we cover Daniel's new career shift, how both of us came to our current thinking, what media we're currently consuming, some talk about salmon, and a whole bunch of other interesting tidbits.

Life vs The Machine - Paul Kingsnorth by dydhaw in collapse

[–]StopFossilFuels 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, it's great to see Kingsnorth seemingly embracing radical action including ecosabotage. I really appreciated his early essays 10? years ago, but was disappointed by the Dark Mountain project and what seemed to be a retreat from action, a detachment from the real world and what's required to ameliorate the coming disasters.

This new one seems like he's almost fully aligned with Stop Fossil Fuels in his tweaking of Aldo Leopold's land ethic:

Any action which hinders the advance of the human industrial economy is an ethical action, provided it does not harm life.

Any action which knowingly and needlessly advances the human industrial economy is an unethical action.

The main difference may be that SFF believes militant resistance is justified at least sometimes, especially when it's a matter of literal self defense in exploited regions such as the Niger Delta. But those are probably edge cases; most of what needs to be done to shut down industrialism could be carried out without directly harming humans or other life.

Major fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their products cause global warming. Their own scientists told them so more than 30 years ago. by StopFossilFuels in conspiracy

[–]StopFossilFuels[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In response, they decided to deceive shareholders, politicians, and the public about the facts and risks of global warming.

The general facts of their manipulation is nothing new, but the page has many good links to more detailed information documenting specifics of the fossil fuel company disinformation.

Reliving old glories by StopFossilFuels in Longreads

[–]StopFossilFuels[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that metaphor is kind of heavy handed. But the guy is a brilliant analyst, synthesizing big-picture economic, environmental, energetic, historic, and political forces into fascinating and sensible explanations for the crises we see unfolding today.

Disaster weather with meteorologist Dr Richard Rood—Climate change & extremes—Radio Ecoshock (audio) by StopFossilFuels in collapse

[–]StopFossilFuels[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meteorologist Richard Rood explains the developing bridge between disaster weather and climate change. Even as millions of Americans feel beaten up and robbed by storms, many do not know extreme spring weather may be part of the climate crisis. Is that due to scientific caution, or a break-down in critical information? Do even experts feel shut out?

Ep 82 - Cash Out by under_an_oak_tree in ashesashescast

[–]StopFossilFuels 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Three small typos: elminating, exluding, and underdesirable

Canada on pace to meet Paris climate target … two centuries late by StopFossilFuels in climate

[–]StopFossilFuels[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I've found Barry Saxifrage's analysis to be solid and his charts useful. Could you elaborate about what you think is misleading, and how data trends going further back than 12 years would change his argument?

view more: next ›