It seems to me that the unfortunate reality is that hitting people with facts has either already succeeded (that's most of us reading this thread I would guess), or it will cause eyes to glaze over, and the cognitive dissonance to kick in to high gear; so we do need to do something different to persuade the rest to do something useful.
But, simply "making friends and telling stories" (to trivialise the article) is useless, there are very many resources on 'nonnormative non-violent' action and at least one study that confirm that it is statistically effective (dense scientific paper). Here's some resources:
This website provides two databases of climate change litigation: (1) a U.S. Climate Change Litigation database and (2) a Global Climate Change Litigation database, which includes all cases except those in the U.S.
The U.S. Climate Change Litigation database is a joint project of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and Arnold & Porter. Michael B. Gerrard, then a partner at Arnold & Porter and now Faculty Director of the Sabin Center, and J. Cullen Howe, an environmental law specialist at Arnold & Porter, first created the U.S. Climate Litigation Chart in 2007. In 2017, it was relaunched as an interactive and searchable database. The U.S. chart is updated on a monthly basis, and currently includes 1621 cases* with links to 10550 case documents.
The Global Climate Change Litigation database was created in 2011 and is updated regularly. It currently includes 750 cases, with links to 1557 case documents. At present, the Global database features cases from over 55 countries. The database also includes climate litigation cases brought before international or regional courts or tribunals.
Interesting, but there's no mention in the article of the $/ton CO2 they will pay that I could see.
Presumably it will have to be close to the market (say $100 $/ton today?).
If they go lower there will be no uptake, if they go much higher they will burn through the $3.5B and only achieve a short blip in the market for no real long term benefit.
But I imagine $3.5B used carefully might have some interesting effects.
Edit: I'm not sure $3.5B is the relevant number (but the only one quoted in the article).
It convinces me we can’t rely on governments and corporations to do what is necessary to save our planet, so it is up to the common people to do what is necessary. But such actions would come at great risk and sacrifice to ones personal comfort, and the closest I even see to people taking these steps is throwing food at paintings, or people gluing themselves to the floor. I’ll admit, it’s more than what most people would do, but we should really be past the clown shit by now.
I really believe this is the kind of action every one of us can work on.
do the research to find out who the bad fossil actors in your $ spend are
find an alternative (or stop the spend)
Forcing the $$ to dry up is the only action bad actors understand (other than effective legislation & enforcement, which I do not believe is ever likely in most jurisdictions).
Banks and ICE cars are obviously big sources of $$s going to fossil actors, followed I would guess by grid electricity in most jurisdictions. All of which (in theory at least) are under our very own control.
Well said!
It seems to me that the unfortunate reality is that hitting people with facts has either already succeeded (that's most of us reading this thread I would guess), or it will cause eyes to glaze over, and the cognitive dissonance to kick in to high gear; so we do need to do something different to persuade the rest to do something useful.
But, simply "making friends and telling stories" (to trivialise the article) is useless, there are very many resources on 'nonnormative non-violent' action and at least one study that confirm that it is statistically effective (dense scientific paper). Here's some resources:
There's a great searchable database (two actually - US and "rest-of-the-world") of litigation here.
From the About page:
Edit: For example, here's a quick list of all 37 climate change cases involving Exxon.
aka hot, wet & stormy.
Interesting, but there's no mention in the article of the $/ton CO2 they will pay that I could see.
Presumably it will have to be close to the market (say $100 $/ton today?).
If they go lower there will be no uptake, if they go much higher they will burn through the $3.5B and only achieve a short blip in the market for no real long term benefit.
But I imagine $3.5B used carefully might have some interesting effects.
Edit: I'm not sure $3.5B is the relevant number (but the only one quoted in the article).
Why the down votes on this? I had a quick look at the github repo and it looks pretty neat to me. I must be missing something...
Anyone care to enlighten me?
Here's the job listing.
aka greenwashing
Good link, thanks.
'Non-violent non-normative action' is particularly effective apparently.
I think that label would mostly apply to Just Stop Oil, XR etc.
Link added to quote
Sorry, my bad. You are correct.
Edit: I still believe the principle is valid, even if the UPS one fizzled.
I suspect there's also a branch off in the activism ~> radical doomer pipeline that leads to radical (direct) activism.
I agree 100%. I still believe (hope) that money is the best weapon we have, for now.
Thanks to Trading Places (1983) for the meme - fun movie from another era.
Exactly.
This describes well the 2030s presidential hopeful 'The Pastor' in Stephen Markley's The Deluge.
I really believe this is the kind of action every one of us can work on.
do the research to find out who the bad fossil actors in your $ spend are
find an alternative (or stop the spend)
Forcing the $$ to dry up is the only action bad actors understand (other than effective legislation & enforcement, which I do not believe is ever likely in most jurisdictions).
Banks and ICE cars are obviously big sources of $$s going to fossil actors, followed I would guess by grid electricity in most jurisdictions. All of which (in theory at least) are under our very own control.
Fair enough, good point.