We need to talk about radical climate protests 

I participate in constructive nature preservance, not in EXPECTING someone to do something.

I’ve only participated in some marches. Never anything as disruptive as what you show in the video. That being said, I do believe that we need both disruptive and non disruptive style protests so I still support groups who do more disruptive stuff than what I have the courage to do.

I have not participated in any climate marches, even though I am the daughter of someone who designed data gathering computer programs for a British climate change research unit 40 years ago, even though I have spent my life working outdoors in horticulture and conservation. I will not support the strategies these activists exhibit because they are completely 'wrong.' I firmly believe in the concept of: INFLUENCE BY EXAMPLE. So, I pick up litter on local beaches, roads and along riverways; I plant trees as often as possible (several thousand so far); I recycle; I reuse; I do not partake in unnecessary consumerism; I do not fly to holiday destinations: I have supported a number of environmentally-concerned charities; I do not practice habits that are detrimental to the environment (such as smoking, drinking); my family regularly uses public transport (our car is used as rarely as possible, but due to council cutbacks and our rural location, we still need a car); I do not buy pets detrimental to native species. With regard to the litter picking and tree planting, some people who know what I do have started to do likewise. There is now a regular local riverside clean-up campaign for my neighbourhood. The sort of behaviour seen in this video not only appeals to certain eco-warriors, but also attracts those who simply want to be rebellious for rebellion's sake. Some kids just revel in destruction, and actual eco-warriors could better spend their time actively participating in many local schemes that help to better the world (instead of travelling across the country to be a nuisance). How do you know that kids throwing paint at beautiful works of art aren't just a pair of brats who want their 15 minutes of fame? What did the artists whose works were selected for attack do to the planet? Most artists were desperately poor, having little impact on the world. Their subjects were often taken from the same Nature that these mindless hooligans say they are so desperate to protect. When you sit in front of traffic shouting at drivers, you don't make people think about leaving their cars at home in the future. You just annoy them on that day. Those cars are sitting there using more petrol while they wait unnecessarily. They may take a much longer, alternative route to get to their destination - again, using more petrol. Lives and livelihoods are put on the line. If you want to make an impact - get in the news doing the right thing. Buy a load of young trees in the Autumn and go mass planting along road verges, where you can be seen - putting up banners to say why you're doing it. Be organised, be seen, contact local press - but spend your time doing it right. Organise clean up operations locally. It really doesn't matter if you clean litter from the countryside or the city. You do better that your local authority because you can spend time separating recyclables, which street cleaners haven't time to do. Create business-like presentations. Ask schools/colleges/workplaces if you can visit and talk to the children/adults about the dangers caused by littering for example. (Of course, nothing too graphic for those too young). Could also make presentations about deforestation followed by the correct way to plant a tree. With the agreement of a head teacher, you could bring in a few young trees, teach the children to plant them in the grounds, and show them how to care for them afterwards. Don't get into extreme issues like veganism. That subject is guaranteed to upset the majority of parents and that's when they start pulling kids out of 'environmentally-based' lessons. Influence 'correctly.'

I've planted a few dozen trees in my tropical country and ride my bike everywhere. I try to eat mostly local food too.

@@debbiehenri345 There are dozens of organizations doing what you are talking about already. Many members of the campaign I was in do everything you listed. There have been education campaigns on the damages of our logging practices for over 100 years. We don't have an education problem. We have an apathy problem.

No art was destroyed.

in india also, we did civil disobedience movement against britishers . it was our non-violent protest to get freedom from britshers.

Exactly!! Nothing on peaceful protests and increased access to climate change info but breaking news for a can of soup shown in a negative light as infamous and horrendous. The reporting mainstream media are the real culprits overshadowing the message. The glass will recover, our planet will not.

Everyone is reporting on what these criminal activists are doing. This is exactly what they want.

*I* ❤ *PETA*

Just like people easily ignore several thousand reactor-years of safe and reliable nuclear reactor operation, and instead gravely focus on 2 incidents in particular. Look, I'm not downplaying the significance of each nuclear accident, but my point is that the risks associated with them are much upsized by the general public, as if every reactor was a ticking time bomb.

These protest are MILD, compared to protests of the past ...and there is no such thing, as protests of activism, that isn't disruptive. There is no issue, where those in power have done nothing, where people have been able to get them to do something, without protests like this. Not once, not ever.

Don't get me wrong, i do believe we need activism and protests to push change forward, but i don't think throwing soup at a painting is in any way helpful or meaningful.

the problem is that its hard to say how much real impact they are having, because the protests are not a lone voice. there are thousands of people working on educating and actively lobbing in favor of those changes. women would never get the chance to vote if there wasn't so many intellectuals talking about the subject and feminist politicians pushing the idea. of course that doesn't mean the protests didn't help, it showed through the media that the people was in favor of that change. but is protests against oil companies helping ? or are they only making it harder for the people that are making a real impact ? I mean, there is a reason that some people think those activists are funded by oil companies to distract people and get the public opinion against the climate change narrative.

I can kinda understand the basis behind their actions, controversy brings the light to their camp and more people talk about general talking points behind their movement. The problem is that they don't do a good job advertising why they do what they do and most people just view what they do as 'crazy radicals wanting attention' or just as 'crazy enviromentalists'. Especially when westerners do it since most western goverments always talk about how they will go green and do better for the enviroment, etc. They should just put more light on the bad things they still do for the enviroment or if they didn't take proper steps in going green.

@@InfernoVor i feel like a lot of it is performative activism and a need to be “seen” as well as a hero complex. With how adamant these people are abt showing their face on camera and saying their full name it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of them do it for those reasons. Regardless of how dumb the van Gogh painting thing is, or the 8-ball tournament, I think you should never ever block traffic as there have been many records of Just Stop Oil blocking ambulances, firetrucks and people needing to go to the hospital. It also puts a lot of blame on the civilians for emission gasses whereas this is something the government has done FOR YEARS to dodge responsibility on properly governing the big bad companies. That does not mean all forms of radical activism are bad, though. I wouldn’t mind it if they actually did something cool like break into a Shell office or something like that (like the ARF did with breaking into labs and freeing animals used for testing cosmetics).

@@louisabe8822 Heya the reason just stop oil like to use there full name and to show faces is to seem more personable and accountable. I guess this helps with letting people know anyone can join the climate fight and anyone can stand up to what is happening (with whatever group). And in terms of blocking roads they have a blue light policy for firetrucks and ambulances, compared to wildfires or floods happening world wide that will block much more than just a main road for an hour. Also just stop oil actually went to oil terminals multiple times in April to target the flow of oil yet we got no press or support, same for when we occupied parliament for a week with thousands. Unfortunately you just have to follow what works to get successful change. The government will not stop until citizens join a mass movement that's causing disruption (obviously also with policy work adjacent) but we've gad 50 years of climate negotiations and it hasn't worked, these people are desperate and it should scare you how far they're willing to go to sound the alarm

Yeah that'd be a good addition to this since I feel that it's a pretty big deal.

💯

"we've run out of options" *said the person who didn't try any other options*

Exactly. There must be dialogue if we are to succeed. If the presented future is not embraced, maybe the model is flawed..so let's come up with a different one, such that majority can identify with.

Solar Punk is still nascent, but it is kind of cool.

if you cant identify the problem you won't recognize the solutions, we have to have honest conversations. I can take about biking all day long but at the end of the day I have to explain that cars are killing people everyday

@@Lildizzle420 cars are not killing anyone unless they hit them. Such exagerrations are exactly the reason for why general public won't listen to activists of any kind.

Sustainability is exactly the excuse we need to make a better world. Imagine no traffic because our cities are dense, walkable, with robust public transit. Imagine your food being rich in flavour and nutrients because it's grown responsible and in reciprocity with the land. Imagine a world where the well being of all life is our guiding principle, not profits. Illness drastically reduced because our water, food, and homes don't poison us or the land. I know all of this sounds like an idealist fantasy, but it's well within our technological and organizational capabilities to achieve exactly what I'm talking about.

Demanding politics to implement solutions is a way everyone can help.

​@@lennartherun4447 ...and this kind of activism, is the only possible way to do that.

proper education with good sources of study, everyone has a phone in their pocket. if you just made a "protest" where you attract people to talk to you, pose them questions, ask them question, and then link them to a simple and comprehensive source of education about the subjects, explaining a bit of the science, debunking the most common myths, and proposing solutions, then you could have a real impact. maybe not a strong impact, but if just a few people get informed, they will inform others, and then it will spread. maybe them those people will vote better, or their children will become politicians with a good grasp on environmental subjects. I already do some of those, I try to educate people as much as I can, and I never back down against misinformation. sadly its hard to give good sources of study and reading material to people because most I have is in English, and the people that I need to educate don't usually speak English, what makes my job a LOT harder.

​@@danilooliveira6580 Your proposal, doesn't achieve anything. Informing people, about climate issues, is neither necessary nor sufficient, to get them to change their behaviour. This is very well established, in scientific studies. Also, what is that supposed to achieve? Even if every single individual, changes their behaviour, to be as climate friendly as they can manage, the difference from all of their efforts combines, would be miniscule. A percent or so, *_at most._* Pretty much negligible. It is the companies and politicians, that have to change ...and they don't need to be informed. It has been well established, that the companies have known about the problems, with great accuracy, far longer than most ...and whilst there are some few uninformed politicians, the political resistance and reluctance, has nothing to do with ignorance. Give me a single example, of when anyone has *_EVER_* been able to get the powerful to change something that they refuse to do, without these exact (and more forceful or extreme) methods.

@@ZarlanTheGreen it’s bc y’all don’t have a voting majority. Own that.

Oh its coming, when people feel the heat the pitchfork and guillotine and inevitable.

@@ToneyCrimson So, I guess you're living in the late seventeenth hundreds in France? okay 😅

The challenge I think is also in selling that it can be stopped. I see as a great fail, that there is no public climate model available, that could be presented to public, plug in different numbers and show the result. Many universities, thinktanks..present 'definitive findings', but can't agree with each other on the background, which public perceives as inconclusiveness.

but we also need to take into consideration other factors, like al the millions of scientists and communicators around the world actively fighting to stop climate change. who are making a bigger impact ?

As someone from the UK I don't believe that the XR protests changed any legislation that wasn't already going to be in place, especially since the Net Zero talks have been happening since 2018. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure these tactics work great on the mainland, especially France/Germany, but so far for us it's just given the right wing groups another thing to argue about.

I see your point. But I would like to add that the voters, so the general public is also an important part of our society, that sadly isnt aware about the importance of the climate. And there are thounsands good examples out there but people are not really willing to change their modern, conforting lifes. What do you think activists should do to gain the right attention of the public?

@@lennartherun4447 There are too many approaches for chances, and I'm aware that whatever I give answers, there would always be opposition. Hence for me, I just do my part and be an example. If someone wants to listen, go for it. If not, just do your part. I have little to say for activism for being the type that does things quietly, and once I give a suggestion, it would be equivalent to falling into a "side". Once you step into radicalism of one side, you would find it very hard to turn back. This goes all the way to the very depths of human nature, and I'm not going to ramble even further. Only a simple word: "See the full picture".

@@juice_lime5114 Thanks for your answer. I think your approach, and other approaches are equally important! I also try to be a good example for my friends and family. But to solve this massive problem, a broad change of society in just a few decades, we need to pull on many different strings. And I see your point about the dangers of extremism. But I would like to add the points, that civil disobedience was a central point of societal change in the past and that we really dont have much time to act on this climate crisis.

It seems counter intuitive, but sustained radical action actually serves to increase involvement indirectly. Human psychology isn't logical, and radical action does something called "pushing the Overton Window." The American right uses the Overton Window to great affect to increase acceptance of Neo-Libertarian policy(and more). But the Overton Window works with pretty much anything like gay couples holding hands in public(during a time when simply being gay was punishable). Anyway, I'd suggest looking it up cause an article will explain it better than I can.

@@justred5075 That makes sense. But there are also forces that push against radical innovation like companies of the old system, or the general dislike of changes by people. When you look in the past - sure, you see that most radical innovations have won in the end - but only after a long time fight between pro and contra forces. In the face of the climate crisis we have very limited time, so we need to speed of this process, for example by mobilizing pro support.

Exactly!!👏👏👍

"Every word of what you just said was wrong" (L. Skywalker)

The public isn't the target of these campaings. Governments and corporations typically are. The science of climate change is sound. And the solution is the full restructuring of our society. Anything less just slightly increases the time until collapse. Who do you know that wants to give up their current way of life(It wouldn't be worse living standard, just very different)?

You could have said the exact same thing, about the activists who fought for women's suffrage, black suffrage, about Martin Luther King and his movement... About every single civil rights movement, ever. None of which, would ever have gotten anywhere, without these kinds of methods.

@@ZarlanTheGreen I completely agree with your point, they had their fair share of critics, but arguably they were fighting for a societal change that could be enacted immediately, and it affected a select group of people who could be represented properly. This fight is for every single person in existence, to radically change all of society in a way we can't imagine. You have to represent that accordingly and if the majority of your representation do not agree, then you shouldn't be doing what you do. The suffragettes and civil rights had a unified vision, there were outliers who were more radical, but largely that all agreed on the movement. The main issue is these groups act on their own accord, like a fringe group, but they represent the main voice. That's my critique, apologies if I'm not fully making sense.

There is a powerful message the public acknowledges when activists put their body at the front of the protest. It's not martyrdom but it evokes a critical response to how repressive governments and police forces are acting on behalf of industries. Coming from the perspective of eco-anxiety (or environmental grief), wouldn't you want to do everything possible in your hands to prevent your own future from becoming a fight for survival in heatwaves, drought, food scarcity, limited infrastructure, neo-feudal governments, violent paramilitary groups and what not?

When you look at the most radical left wing groups such as anarcho-communists you can realize that most of us feel like the state of the world is more important than our lives. That's why many of these militants end up in prison or exile. While I understand what you mean, i feel like being ready to give your life, not up, but to a cause you strongly believe in is the most honorable thing one can do.

It is also why desoute what people think, one of the largest parts of anarchism is becoming the ideal. You try to improve yourself personally as much as you can. Rid yourselves of prejudices, educate yourself, talk with others and most importantly, question and change your opinions as you learn.

@@zbyszekradzimi4066 If anarchists educated themselves then they would be Marxists.

...and how are they supposed to drive the CEOs crazy? The only way to get change, is to force governments, to force the companies. The only way to force the government, is to get a massive movement, pressuring them. Every single time, that people have gotten those in power, to act where they've refused to act, it has been through these (and more radical) methods. There is no other possible way.

Some of them do land in jail. They don't target CEOs becauSe they are difficult to target. Also they want political change. I just don't believe this would help either. They just would hide better.

@@Adrischa if you want political change you need VOTES. Not blackmail.

if boycotts worked there would be laws against it... (only half joking)

That's actually a good idea. That would be worth bringing in local cameras and press for: organising a 'pledge' day in town centres, outside supermarkets, outside garages, outside travel agents, outside businesses (e.g. banks) affiliated with climate change. Ask people if they would sign their names to a pledge saying they will stop flying in a plane, stop drinking cola, eating chocolate, give up smoking for the planet (tobacco produces terrible toxins that are as damaging to the environment as they are to humans. Plenty of climate activists smoke I've noticed). Don't limit it to age though. You should be encouraging people of 'all' ages to participate. What's so special about the under-20 age group when plenty of older people might just need a little extra nudge in the right direction? I stopped drinking cola at 14. I flew by plane once when I was 22. It was not my idea to go, but was a gift from someone. I have never flown since, pledging my refusal to fly ever again. I'm a chocoholic though. I have vastly reduced the amount I eat over the years - but I promise that if I see someone with a 'pledge' in my local town centre asking for people to give up chocolate entirely - I'll sign it. I won't make that pledge now - because I want you or someone like you to get the idea going.

@@debbiehenri345 Send the idea to Greta. Target a particular brand. I am one of the old foggies that doesn't have to worry about climate change.

I think this is an important part of the solution. But changing our whole society and economy requires change on many levels. One very important level is public discourse, so influence of activists on voters and of voters on politics.

@@lennartherun4447 We have had planned obsolescence going on in consumer products for 7 decades. The climate scientists don't talk about CO2 resulting from unnecessary manufacturing and economists do not talk about the depreciation of underengineered durable consumer trash. Consumers having to replace the trash increases GDP. Society is going to change no matter what. The nitwits running the miseducational system will have to explain why accounting/finance has not been mandatory in the schools since Sputnik.

well but is there a difference between protesting for your rights or for change when the climate crisis threatens the rights and lives of future generations? i honestly dont think so. fridays for future brought millions and millions to the streets but nothing severely changed. it is therefor logical that the climate movement concluded in going radical to make change happen.

The oil companies have more money than all of us commoners, combined.

@@ZarlanTheGreen once oil prices went negative. Maybe it can slowly go down again. maybe

What money? The people are broke 😂

Give me an hour and I can find you perfect arguments to change many aspects of your way of life. Will you, your family, town, government, ect, take those arguments to heart and restructure your jobs, towns and houses, diets, ect.

So you are opposed to ALL civil rights movements? ...and you're not ashamed to admit it? ...

@@ZarlanTheGreen I'm Indian if that adds to your narrative.

@@Leon_George Narrative? I'm just stating facts.

What if the people poisoning the planet don't listen to respectful and dignified arguments?

climate change is not a religion. you can me uninformed or a denier, but not a believer.

@@CjqNslXUcM Dont take it literally, there are days where i think its just a natural phase the earth is going through...then i think about all the pollution we do to the planet then i think...nah it is us

Hi, they are not using violence to protest. Also the tomato soup was thrown on a painting protected by a perspex shield. I'm vegan, ride my bicycle as my main form of transportation, try to live with a small environment footprint. Over 100 million people don't likewise globally. However, billions continue flying around the world, eating big beef stakes off gas bbq's etc. We simply are running out of time. Hence I personally support their action to help drive change. Regards Glenn

@@GlennMarshallnz the art heists are just irrelevant, but blocking thetraffic, causing real harm to stuck people and hundreds of vehicles to burn oil uselessly in a jam is pure idiocy.

Acts of violence? Name me one single example of an act of violence, among the acts of these activists. Also, name any other action, that can possibly be effective ...and any example, of where people have gotten those in power, to act on something they've refused to act on, that doesn't involve these methods.

That wouldn't achieve anything. Also, they didn't throw anything at any painting. They threw stuff at plexiglass, covering paintings.

Than that will sway the majority of people against the cause definitely and governments, formed by the majority, will drop all efforts to distance themselves from that. We are not meant to sway goverments. We must sway the general public.

You can do all these things but you will not face the problem root cause until you will not close the oil and gas taps, from the first to the last. You will probably start with yours, then you will realize that only the government can force to shut the last. You can sit in the middle and spend years persuading your relatives and friends and neighbours and colleagues, someone else think the other way: the time is over, go straight to the point.

@@lorenzoventura7701 and than the problem will be solved? Come on, ma, it won't. There are 8 billion people on this earth and we consume... Anyway there is no chance of closing oil production in a 100 years. You have whole nations depending on that. Whole islands running on oil energy...what you say is not feasible. Let' s not waste energy on lost causes and better come up with something viable.

The reason why is we already have the solutions, but nobody is acting on them.

The fact that you think that they don't have solutions, shows that you are an obvious liar.

The problem in the climate crisis are not the solutions (which are available) but that nobody wants to implement the solutions. I mean people are already complaining that electric cars are sounding bad and that wind power stations look bad, how are we going to implement more disruptive changes if the public doesnt understand that we have no other option that major and fast change.

Gated communities... multiple addresses... private islands etc etc

Porsche?

Answer: Because it wouldn't achieve anything. It wouldn't cause them any notable harm or pressure. At all.

I think the main message of these protests is not that people are to blame and should change their lifestyles, but that the general public, so the voters dont really care about the climate crisis. And that is a big problem that needs to change if we want to change anything in this society.

@@lennartherun4447 No. It's the people in power, who don't care. The only way to get them to care, is to force them to care ...by getting the public to be forceful enough, to make them.

Same here. People love to complain that blocking traffic is inconvenient, but I’d much rather one day of inconvenience instead of multiple generations of an inhabitable planet.

But how do they takl about it? With curiousity or just affirming each other in the stance of "see how crazy climate acticists are?"

I'm guessing your preferred kind of activism is the one where you shut the * up and change your consumption habits a bit?

Pressure creates counterpressure.

"Pressure creates counter pressure" yes we know thanks mister obvious. police are gonna surveil and arrest and beat people because that's what happens when the ruling class feels threatened. Please don't blame innocent people when the state abuses its powers :) thank you

The can spend their time and sources coming up with solutions, not demands.

@@thespalek1 They did - The solution is national and international policy change. They are implementing civil disobedience because that is what historically has worked to change the status quo and change policy. The video said that they are doing a kind of weak muted attempt at civil disobedience - women's suffrage, and black civil rights went to much more extreme measures. Again, the solution is national and international policy change. They made that clear.

@@thespalek1 they demand for a more proactive and urgent top-down policy. If western governments are as enthusiastic as they were when they provided help for the Ukrainian several months ago, there should be no protests like in the video. The solutions are there to tackle the issue but authorities are reluctant to fix market failures, which is threatening millions of humans globally. Liberal 'free market' is the biggest obstacle for climate actions, and people only expected a rational response from their governments, which is run with their tax payments, by definition.

@@JaySmith91 no,it isn't you can't force this on billions of people. Noone created a sustainable vision powered by desirable things. Musk didn't sell thousands of teslas becuase they were eco friendly. But because they were super fast and desirable. If we created similar substitutes for every issue, people would adopt it naturally. Force it, and you'llget backlash.

@@trantrung6956 you can't force this on people. Ukraine is just for a while and demands very little. If it drags on, the support will fade. With climate it's the same. Count in the doubt of whether we can even change anything and the motivation is really low. Only way is to vreate a desirable alternative products, which people will really want.

Which actions do you think would be more helpful?

@@JaySmith91 peaceful protests ig

@@surn5238 They hurted none, it was peaceful to me

@@surn5238Aside from splashing a painting, everything was peaceful. Believe it or not, but disrupting your day is peaceful too.

yes, they are heloing, here in Germany at least a lot of people nozt tehr majority though) like Letzte Generation or at least sympathize with their intentions. They also get sufficient donations to employ people.

A demonstration/protest, that doesn't disrupt anyone, is useless. You getting slightly inconvenienced, is hardly harmful. Having a worsening climate, is EXTREMELY harmful ...and THERE IS NO OTHER METHOD, to get governments and companies to stop worsening the climate.

...which reminds me, of how I find it extremely despicable, that people always blame workers, for worker strikes. Never the employers, who forced the workers to do the strike, by having terrible conditions and/or pay.

@@ZarlanTheGreen Capital rules all. Without systemic change to socialism with ecological principles, we are doomed. And the state, which represents the interests of capital(ists), will use every tactic in the world to suppress these movements. So the radicals are actually the minority in power, not the majority that stands to gain from systemic change.

@@ZarlanTheGreen nobody forces workers to work for terrible salary. If you don't like it you have a choice. Find another employer who pays more, or learn to do something different, which pays more. It's always a two side agreement.

@@pratik9056 I disagree that we have to go to full-on socialism. (some degree of it, certainly, but...) Granted, certain things have to be nationalized (infrastructure, healthcare, pharma, education...), but for the rest, strict laws and regulation, as well as very much higher taxes on the wealthy (companies not getting lower rates, than people ...and capital gains, having a notably higher rate than labour gains) would suffice. Also properly implemented UBI, with included housing guarantee, demanding that all politicians and journalists only live on their UBI and minimum guaranteed housing, making the political system (and union leadership) far more representative... Oh, and also, when companies do something illegal, rather than the company having to pay fines, charge the responsible people in the companies ...and confiscate all illegally gained profits. (even if some of the instances of profit of that thing, might not be subject to the illegality, confiscate it ALL)

@@thespalek1 Their other choices are starving to death or becoming criminals.

Oh? And how do you propose, that we get those in power, to stop dragging their feet (or even change things, to be *_worse_* for the climate), without this kind of activism. Can you show any time in human history, where those in power have been made to do what they've refused to, without this kind of activism?

@@ZarlanTheGreen Shh, don't hurt their feelings!!

@@ZarlanTheGreen are you saying throwing soup on a famous painting or super gluing your hands on a busy highway is the best we can do? All you end up doing is pissing people off and turning them away from taking the cause seriously.

@@ZarlanTheGreen i would love to see these activists point out just how much garbage companies like Coke pump out and lay blame on the consumer, or how they lobby the government to make recycling as confusing and ambiguous as possible to the average person. Sadly, the police would likely actuly respond and stop people from doing that.

@@Jyzra History, sociology, and psychology, says otherwise. You stubbornly insist on stating an opinion, that is the exact opposite, of what any and all experts, on the subject, say.

No art was trashed.

Technology is a big part of the solution but it wont solve the problem on its own. Look at electric cars: If everyone would own an electric car that would also create a lot of emmisions in the production. So people have to use more public transport and share cars. People are not willing to do that because people dont like to change. So we also need to change our society, for example by public discourse like this one.

If everyone have an electric car it will bring a lot of emisions, so the answer is to construct electric cars in a climate neutrality way, all industrial process have to be done in a climate neutrality way, the thing is to educate education round the world for the best minds round the world not only in USA and Europe there is the need of the cooperation of all citizen of the world, totally free eductation for all the citizens round the world, an explosion of creativity involving millons of creators, that is the way, starting with math.

@@marianoalippi5226 the answer is to have less people and thereby less everything.

@@marianoalippi5226 Ok yes, but only because we have the technology that doesnt automatically leads to change because we also have to use the technology. And often new brilliant technologies are not used, because companies, politicians and the general public just really like the old technologies. Look at renewable electricity: the technology is there and cheaper than fossil fuel electricity, but still new fossil fuel power plants are being build and renenewable energy is not build fast enough. That is why we need to talk about such problems, so that politicans do something about that.

Hi@@thespalek1, we have actually looked into overpopulation and the climate in the following video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kUL-q7ptDW4.html - let us know your thoughts in the comment section 🌍

There's also a need for common action, but climate debts should definitely be allocated more according to their origin. We made this video that might interest you: "How the rich wreck the climate (and how to stop them)" 👉 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PvPlCr_fPSA.html 🙌

That is why I have quit painting

Radical action is only desired by a part of people. Much more people can be brought on board by sustained moderate actions presenting desirable, sustainable solutions. That would change voting polls and that would change government policies. But radical groups only yell and demand quick solution from eveyone else.

The government doesn't care about the wellbeing of the people, it cares about the wellbeing of its corporations and capital, its business empire.

@@5th_decile that is marxist nonsense.

@@5th_decile America yes Europe, they have strong unions and a government that isn't split into two because the people are at ends with each other creating a stalemate.

...and how, exactly, do you propose, that they're supposed to get companies and governments, to stop polluting, use renewables, effectivize etc? They obviously don't want to, refuse to, and drag their feet. Power never concedes without a demand. There is not a single example, ever, in human history, where those in power have been convinced to do what they've refused to do, without this kind of activism. Ever.

Is it really that high? They are still many people that dont believe in climate change, believe that it is not so much of a problem, or that we cant to anything about it. And the main problem is: people dont understand that this is a crisis situation. Climate change is not what people think about every day. But this is a basis so that we can achieve societal change.

Also, technology is a big part of the solution but it wont solve the problem on its own. Look at electric cars: If everyone would own an electric car that would also create a lot of emmisions in the production. So people have to use more public transport and share cars. People are not willing to do that because people dont like to change. So we also need to change our society, for example by public discourse like this one.

@@lennartherun4447 The reasons for why electric cars haven't become the norm, isn't because people don't like change. Granted, that is a factor, but it's pretty much the smallest one. There are far more important factors, like how electric cars are far more expensive (especially compared to *used* petrol cars. Greater government incentives for EVs and disincentives for fossil cars, would greatly help), the utter lack of charging infrastructure (even though a simple law, demanding that all fuel stations, also provide charging, would instantly solve that problem), and other such issues. Also, governments could have banned non-plug-in hybrids, pretty much from the start, as well as instituting a ban on new fossil engine cars, from... 2020? Maybe earlier? (doing it now, I'd suggest 2025, or even 2024) ...and subsidising, or even having state-run, efforts towards converting existing fossil engine cars, into electric. Preferably having it be free, for the costumers ...and following it up, with a deadline for when fossil fuel cars will be illegal, on public roads.

@@ZarlanTheGreen You aren't paying attention to what is happening around you. 1) Renewable energy has become inexpensive compared to fossil fuel generation. Wind and solar are now cheaper than purchasing fuel for paid off coal and natural gas plants. Coal plants are being closed around the globe. Gas peakers are being replaced with battery storage. Economic, the market, is driving the transition. 2) EVs should reach manufacturing cost parity with ICEVs before 2025. And then they will almost certainly get cheaper. When you add in the much lower operating cost and much longer useful life of EVs the market will quickly flip. Less expensive and better will push out more expensive can not as good. Companies are already moving to battery powered trucks. It saves them money. "Power never concedes without a demand." Economics, thankfully, is creating that demand. And most countries have bought into the need to move to renewables and EVs. Activism was needed to make people aware of the global warming problem. Hard work was needed to develop solutions. Now, IMHO, it is time to move energy from protesting to educating and advocating.

It would make sense, if pouring soup on anything changes anything..or whether it actually hurts the cause as more and more people go 'hey, I don't want to be like those crazy kids'...portraing environmental protection as something stupid. It's really serious topic and if weare to be taken seriously. Crying and throwing food is what childern do

@@thespalek1nah children acts better than them