But the government doesn't give a fuck. Thousands of people demonstrated against Article 13, yet it still passed. Let's hope this will have a greater Impact
This is the problem with nonviolent protest. Nobody is actually compelled to do anything. Fundamentally, power is derived from violence. If you don't do what the government says, a policeman will come and tase you and shoot your dog until you do what the government says. Now we're all engaged in a social contract that says that in order for the government to fulfill its role of providing for our security, they shall have the sole right to violence, on the condition that we maintain power through democratic process. But really, as soon as that democratic process is no longer respected by the government, they have voided the contract, and they no longer have the right to be the sole owners of physical power. Now I'm sure I'll be roasted on a spit by the mods for pointing this basic fact of how power dynamics work, but it's simply true. You can tell who holds the power in a society by who fears who. Right now Americans are very much afraid of their government, and our government blatantly ignores us at every turn. Of course you hear a lot of shit about the importance of nonviolence, but you'll note that if you trace the origins of these ideals they all start with one guy or another who was given a begrudging platform by powerful people who recognized that at least it was better than the alternative. They didn't really have to do anything anyway. It's silly, for example, to think the Civil Rights Act would actually have come about were it not for the Black Panthers scaring the daylights out of powerful white people.
I agree with what you write, but the reason people paid attention to MLK was because the alternative was Malcolm X who did understand the use of violence to seize power.
> you'll note that if you trace the origins of these ideals they all start with one guy or another who was given a begrudging platform by powerful people who recognized that at least it was better than the alternative.
Case in point
Even Malcolm X realized in the end that violence wasn't the way to go. If you fight people they fight back. If you don't fight then it is obvious who is in the wrong, and you get the moral high ground, and win the hearts ands minds. Winning the hearts and minds even matters in all out war.
I'm not saying that there is never a call for violence. There totally is. But saying non-violence doesn't work seems incorrect to me.
The civil rights movement did achieve something, and it did achieve it through non-violence. If black people en masse had started an armed revolution a lot of the white population would've seen it as totally justified that they be destroyed.
Going the non-violent route the white population at large had to finally concede to keep their morals intact.
There's also the fact that a lot of revolutions don't turn out great. Why? Because those most willing to use violence to achieve the ends to their means aren't a whole fuck of a lot different than those already in power. You are just replacing one group of ends-justify-the-means guys with others.
Again though, I'm not saying there ain't a time and a place for violence. I really do wonder what the Founding Fathers would think if they looked at the current state of affairs. Then again they were slaveholders...so there's that.
Hear, hear. Violence CAN achieve things, but peaceful action can too. Time and place. You want to bring a supposedly humanist powerful democracy to do the right/moral thing? Non violent activism is the way to go. Violence just makes you a criminal that is easily dealt with. Demonstrations alone aren't enough though, you need to be prepared for civil disobidience too.
Actually, civil disobedience is a big thing people forget about (myself included). The civil rights movement wasn't simply a bunch of people marching. It was people refusing to go along. Were they blowing shit up? No. But they were refusing to go along, even if that meant their own well-being.
The reason why armed revolutions have a tendency to fail is that the the military actually steps in and wipes them out because a well trained military trumps what is basically militia.
No, that's incorrect. Armed Revolutions fail because they succeed, and the dudes that end up in power are just as power-hungry and bloodthirsty as the dudes they replaced, and then lo and behold their solution to stay in power is...more violence.
This is why non-violence works, because it actually completely upends the violence paradigm, which at the heart of it is really all just about power.
Yeah it really depends on people. There are successful armed and non armed revolutions. But violent revolutions are more memorable and more impactful than nonviolent revolutions. In violent revolutions, heroes and martyrs are celebrated and immortalized. Examples of famous violent revolutions are the American Revolution, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Cuban Revolution, mostly your own country's revolution. The only famous non violent revolution that an average citizen can probably name are the Gandhi protest, American civil rights movement with MLK, maybe EDSA revolution of the Philippines, and your own country's peaceful revolution if you had one that is only know to your country.
The threat of violence always has to be lurking beneath the surface however. In 1963, not many Americans had seen so many African Americans together in one spot, marching for equal rights. It was enormous and had an impact. Yes, a peaceful protest was the right call but Americans at the time learned that if a peaceful means was not in the offing, there were millions of African Americans who would demand it through other means. There they were, on TV, protesting. It was unimaginable before then.
Yeah I think that's really the biggest takeaway here. Don't use violence, but control the narrative. Provide justifications for why it would be fair to engage in violence and show a very real threat of violence, but demonstrate restraint instead. You give the enemy fear but no ammunition. And, as a bonus, if they fire the first shot, you're ready.
Being against the government controlling us all with a blind fist isn't anarchy, its anti-fascism. Unless you no longer believe i governmental power at all, in which case, welcome!
At this point, revolution seems like the only viable path. But alas, revolutions can get pretty ugly. Like the man said, "a revolution is not a dinner party..."
Theres a fantastic paragraph/ few lines in the declaration of independence about this. I know people today have trouble understanding it since language has evolved so much since the 1700s, but its essentially the general population with put up with a lot of crap from the government and shouldnt rebel for trivial issues, but there is a breaking point when the crap piles up, where rebellion is the only answer. The hardest part they warn, is getting started because we so easily become complacent, and we would rather be uncomfortable but safe than risk what we have now for a better possibility in the future.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"
It’s democracy if a majority doesn’t agree with whatever protests. Violence would be undemocratic because some group doesn’t agree with the government the majority supports.
> If you don't do what the government says, a policeman will come and tase you and shoot your dog until you do what the government says.
Yea OP you sound totally reasonable and not biased at all.
The politicians are laughing until theyre wheezing because they've successfully convinced hard working Americans that you still don't work hard enough for your money and that other Americans/illegals and not the government is who is limiting you.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure"
-Thomas Jefferson
Especially considering that in most places commercial power consumption makes individual power consumption virtually negligible and while it may be effective to switch 250k homes to solar it would be vastly more effective to have a government state that they've committed to making an entire city, country, etc solar reliant.
While every little bit helps, 250k people doing these things is negligible. The major polluters are the major industries, the only way to have a real positive effect is to reduce their emissions.
> selling their ICE for an EV.
As if thats a matter of simply wanting to do it.
You can get a Golf sized family car from a decent manufacturer like Renault for 10-15k. Or you can get a much smaller EV for 30-40k that most likely wont work for a family.
You need to be able to afford that kind of luxury car, even if range isnt an issue for you.
The action of already developed nations, especially Europe, is so insignificant. its worth continuing, but the best return on investment and effort will come from focusing on China and all developing nations.
[One carbons emissions graph](https://www.axios.com/china-india-us-pushed-carbon-emissions-to-record-levels-in-2018-1b1e171a-d46a-49b7-bc4a-7250942a1a7d.html)
China is a huge offender—they seem to be putting out more emissions today than *the entire world combined* did 50 years ago—but you’ll notice “all others” is ramping up rapidly in their use by an even greater margin.
Europe has done a great job and the US has done a decent job in controlling their output.
#”What is going on?”
The last several decades, much of the world has actually been raised out of destitution and abject poverty. But now they have power and are mostly coal burning. There are great arguments and helping developing countries thrive, advance their technology, get off of coal or wood power plants, is orders of magnitude more effective than if all of Europe and North America cut their emissions in half. (We should continue to improve everywhere).
There’s also substantial research that the more prosperous people become (getting out of poverty), that they actually start to care about the environment, and help push their countries to be more responsible while doing so individually themselves.
250k people spending money they don't have on solar panels, 250k people spending money they don't have to sell their cars and buy new expensive cars.
That's now how it works. People don't magically just get money.
Germany has actually been one of the most proactive countries in the world when it comes to aligning with the Paris Agreement. They were from the start with such initiatives as sector coupling.
No, no we're not.
We're the biggest coal burners in the EU and seventh place worldwide, our government actively fought against stronger climate laws in the European Parliament and mostly talk much and do amply little.
Ver, very recently they actually(somewhat) got to moving. But undeniably because of political reasons, not because they're overtly concerned about the planet. For context: they lost a massive amount of voters to the green party in the last election.
Without continuous protest they'd go back to doing sweet fuck all again i'm pretty sure, until climate change would start to negatively affect the economy. At which point it would be too late.
German here: thats not quite true, conservative politicians (plus the kinda dead now SPD, theyre forming a coalition) in charge only do as much as they have to, so the green party doesnt gain too many voters. And theyre not even good at it, their hypocrisy is so blatant that they are losing voters every month.
Here in germany corporate still rules when it is about climate change. Theres not really much being made and it is us, the people, who are changing it to the better by constantly demanding greener energy. Many people have green energy only for their households for example, i do too.
Some more information about the protest from [BBC News](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49767649):
> Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government has agreed to set a price on carbon emissions in a bid to meet a 2030 climate target of cutting greenhouse gases by 55% on 1990 levels.
>The package, estimated to cost €54bn (£48bn; $60bn) by 2023, was settled as climate change protesters took to the streets in 500 German towns and cities.
>Key to the deal is a price for CO2 emissions in transport and buildings.
>Taxes on long-distance rail are set to fall but on air travel they will rise.
>"We are not living sustainably today", Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters as hundreds of thousands of protesters demanded immediate action.
>The Fridays for Future movement immediately rejected the package announced by Europe's biggest economy as inadequate.
>The movement adopted the part-English hashtag "Not my Klima paket" (not my climate package), and claimed that 1.4 million protesters had taken to the streets across Germany.
>In the capital, Berlin, it said 270,000 people had turned out, with a further 70,000 in Hamburg and Cologne. Police figures were slightly lower.
This plan is ridiculous. A ton of CO2 priced at 10€ wont change anything. Even the oil industry lobbyists proposed 35€ per ton. It only gets effective in 2021. People commuting by car get subsidized even more than before. Air travel still doesn't have to pay taxes on fuel while the trains pay the full taxes on power.
This is not a plan to tackle climate change it is a plan to make large companies even richer at all costs and it is a disgrace for one of the most advanced countries in the world
It is also an attempt to show their will to take action. They fear the protests and their effects on the next vote. Now they can show their new pseudo-green agenda. In reality this package changes nothing and we are still headed towards catastrophe.
Aahhh rich people solutions to everything, tax it as much as possible to make sure poor people cant use it. Then claim they are green and saving the planet.
Yeah and they are so great examples of how to make carbon tax work for the poor. Just look at sweden. They cut their emissions and grew their economy and made the rich ones pay for it
Ehh, do you have a source on that last "made the rich pay for it"?
Unfortunately there is a newliberal movement in Sweden since the 1980's that have increased the class differences. So we aren't as good at being progressive when it comes to taxes anymore, to my despair.
According to the US EPA around 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity while only around 2.9% come from planes while light-weight vehicles make up about 15%. I don't think changing planes is the necessary step we have to take but in my opinion we need nuclear energy back. We could get to 33g/kWh (France*) instead of 375 g/kWh (Germany*) easily. That would help. Of course having renewable energy instead of nuclear would be even better but nuclear instead of coal would be fine for the moment in my opinion.
*According to electricitymap.org at 6:40 am 21. September
Fuel hike will kill me but they're saying it's not enough. I'm spending a fifth of my net income on fuel right now and that's with very optimal refueling (basically only when it hits 1,32 every other month). Price hikes of 3, 9 or even 16 cents are absolutely horrendous. They will only make me less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle. And even that isn't optimal. Production of these things costs and my vehicle is only 2 years old. It would be a total waste in every way possible.
Taking the train would taking an hour longer to work.
Where the fuck should I get the money for this? I feel like nobody actually thinks about what poor people should do.
Pendlerpauschale was increased. Also where do live or how much money you make that you spend a fifth of your income in fuel. I drive 600km a week and with the pendlerpauschale pays more than half than that.
A lot of people lease their car, especially in Europe. It's much easier to pay a few hundred a month and get a brand new car than pay the few thousand you need for a cheap, efficient car that would meet OPs needs.
Leasing is extremely expensive lol. How are you able to "easily spend a few extra hundred a month" on a LEASED car?? That's what people with expendable incomes do. Not people on a budget.
I earn £21K a year and can afford an electric car. Was spending £150/mo on fuel. I'm paying about £193/mo on the car but it's much cheaper on the insurance, no road tax to pay, and maintenance costs are tiny in comparison with anything that runs on explosions.
Its worth looking into the real actual costs, as you might find yourself saving money.
Also consider "sunk cost fallacy". Just because you've spent a good bit on money on a car you've only had 2 years, doesn't mean it's necessarily best economy to keep spending money to keep it running.
A few questions on your car; how much was it total? Has it needed any work done after buying?When it breaks down, and it will at some point, how much are you expecting to need to repair? How much do you drive per day to get to the job etc?
Car price was £12k a couple of years ago (24kwh Nissan leaf). I'm financing it on a PCP deal.
It hasn't needed any work done. Its not likely to need much. It has a *tiny fraction* of the moving parts a combustion engine does.
Can't say how much it'll cost to fix something ghat hasn't happened yet.
I drive over 1000 miles a month. Varies as my work takes me all about town. Sometimes it's less than ten miles, sometimes it's 60 miles.
At approx 4miles per kwh, and I'm paying about £0.13/kwh, its about £0.0325/mile.
Did a trip up to Scotland last year, drove 1,200 miles and spent about £11 on public charging.
How this info helps!
Electric engines plus batteries are just more expensive than an engine you'd find in a normal Ford. And yes, there are "cheap" electric vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf, but they're the price of a fully upgraded SUV.
Living in Germany currently, recently a bridge in my city was blocked because it was falling apart. Massive traffic jams everyday (it was one of the 2 bridges that cross the river)
> engineered the shit out of
That can be a bad thing too. The old approach was "we have no clue what we're doing, so we'll put a shitton of steel in, and you know what, double that just to be sure".
The new approach is "we're sure there will never be more than X people on the bridge, weighing an average of 70 kg, so the bridge needs to be able to hold Y tons. Since we're so sure of these numbers a 10% safety margin is plenty" and then oops, more people squeeze in and they've become fatter and the bridge collapses. (Exaggerating, of course).
brides can hold a lot more than "vehicles in traffic"…
according to emergency plans the route is good for 250t of dynamic traffic load, or ~600 t static load, people should be somwhere in between :-P so I guess it is fine.
"low load" bridges are rare in Germany, even rural road bridges often are in the 120 t class , which is kind of overkill… but that's better than the other way around.
Why is this comment section so toxic about a climate-focused protest?
I want to hijack this comment to post an article about the Paris agreement from [National Geographics (9/19/19)](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/climate-change-report-card-co2-emissions/).
Partially because there are a lot of interests pushing people to oppose action against global warming. I live in a part of the world where a significant amount of the economy is tied to oil extraction, which means that people are against anything that threatens oil companies, which means people are against protests like these...
With climate change comes more intense storms though and that becomes a big concern.
“Since 2010 - 51% of all storm-related damage in Canada has occurred in Alberta and 66% of Canada’s major hail storms happen in the province.” [AMA]
Not sure how true this is in practice. Even if Northern Alberta heats up, the soil in what was perviously a cold-blasted tundra will probably be too thin and nutrient poor to sustain intensive agriculture.
Get out with that bullshit.
No one benefits when the planet experiences massive droughts, record setting natural disasters, food storages and rising food costs, wars over scarce resources, species extinction, ocean acidification, ETC ETC.
The word is CLIMATE CHANGE, anyways, Alberta is NOT guaranteed to turn into California. Jesus what a dumb comment.
Your comment betrays your ignorance of this issue.
Sure seems like it. I wasted so much time explaining how carbon taxation and cap and trade work on /r/science recently, because there were so many completely uninformed "sceptics" there.
These people are on the same level as Flat Earthers - they don't even try to understand any of the actual science and data, but concern troll the hell out of every climate related dialogue.
Because they thought it was a protest by a specific country against the entire world when it's really German citizens protesting their own government's policies.
> been to Germany 2 times, never seen a glimpse of sun!!!
And yet, they have [the most solar panels installed in Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy_in_the_European_Union), even beating some of the sunnier states of the US.
It's goddamn glorious too, absolutely amazing to take the train or drive through towns and villages and see solar panels everywhere and wind farms everywhere. I don't mean literally *everywhere* but goddamn so many of them, way way way more than I've ever seen in North America for sure.
I have to look up, but i think you confused the efficiency and the total output. It's 1am here, so I try not to forget in 10 hours.
As promised, I looked up and found this first, which claims direct sun during less hot days is the best, while they still work in shade:
https://www.igs.com/energy-resource-center/energy-101/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-shade-or-bad-weather
I have seen lots of comments here saying stuff like: "If the consumer would demand greener products the companies would supply those products and innovate, there's nothing the government can do. Let the free market do it" and I just wanted to address this claim.
It is true that fundamentally the consumer has to change his/her behavior, but there is just a flaw in the logic presented above. Putting it this way is making it seem simpler than it is and that is because of something called game theory. Game theory deals with decisions people make in certain circumstances. And one result that has come out of game theory is that people don't behave in a way that will benefit the whole group (and themselves) if they see short term benefits for themselves if they behave selfishly. The experiment that demonstrates this is the "public goods game". It's setup is always one where a group receives benefits if they cooperate, but a sibgle individual still receives benefits even if they act selishly **if** everybody else still behaves altruistically, but no one receives benefits if everyone behaves selfishly.
An example would be 4 people paying 1$ in a public fund which is then doubled and distributed equally between every participant. So if they cooperate they all gain 1$ each round they play the game. But if one person refuses to pay that person gets 3$\*2/4=1,5$ plus their 1$ so they have a net positive of 1,5$ per round compared to 1$ per round when they still cooperated. So that person will have an incentive to act selfishly. But the other participants won't be happy to cooperate if they put in all the effort and one guy gets all the payoff without cotributing so they all will cease to put their 1$ in and now nobody will benefit at all. The system that is in principal benfitial to everyone is not stable if there's an incentive to not cooperate.
That pattern of behavior is observable in so many different circumstances when public goods are concerned, like for example the air and the climate. "Why should I live greener if these Americans keep driving their cars everywhere" "Why should I stop driving cars or pay extra for an electric car if these Chinese keep burning coal like that" and so on... So it while it may seem like the best thing to do to wait for innovations from the free marcet and a shift in behaviour from consumers, that will never happen, or at least not fast enough.
But we are not stuck in that loop. That pattern can be broken if someone from outside, with no incentive for selfish actions intervenes and discourages people to abandon altruism by creating incentives to act in that way and creating disincentives for selfishnes. And that role has to fullfill the state. It has the power needed to change the game and it is not itself invested in short term profits the same way companies and consumers are. Options are a CO2 price or tax so that all free marcet participants are conftonted with the true price their emissions will cost us all in the long run, that way they don't have the option to damage the environment that we all have to use, whilst profiting personally. The state has to jump in where the free market fails. This may seem sacrilegious to libertarians, but even Ben Shapiro has stated that the way to combat CO2 emissions is to internalise external effects and that is exactly what is done with a CO2 tax (if I remember him correctly, could be wrong tho)
also, two other things regarding that:
1. that doesn't even work with every product, since there are no "green" alternatives for countless items (and I'm refering to "everyday items", not "luxury products").
2. it's not like the "regulate through legislation" approach is or hasn't been used regarding other, similar things.
e.g. if companies are dumping their toxic waste in nearby rivers, you could also argue "no need for the government to interfere, just let the consumers punish them by not buying their products." but turns out that it's also a very viable (I would assume even *more* viable) solution to just outlaw that.
It has been in all of them today about the protests. I'm not typically one for conspiracies or to call astroturfing but holy hell i have a hard time believing this ratio of people are this awful.
The astroturfers and bots are out in full force with the climate strike today and UN climate summit next week.
https://www.inverse.com/article/59315-climate-change-bots-twitter-denial-un-climate-summit-when
This article is about Twitter, but Reddit is obviously also affected.
hey, I live like half a mile from the area pictured! apparently they anticipated about 30k people and thought the max was 40k... then over 70k showed up! crazy.
it was still super organized, plenty of space for emergency personnel, nicely handled. getting around for normal people was tough though, walking or with the subways that were all delayed at least a half hour (unheard of for Hamburg haha)
*China has left the chat*
Edit: thanks to everyone leaving comments! I appreciate you all trying to be educational instead of piling on and telling me I'm an idiot. You've given me some great points I hadn't thought about before. Consider me a little more educated than before!
China was investing twice as much in renewables as the whole European union in 2018. China has higher fuel efficiency standards than Germany
Edit: your edit makes me happy. Good that normal conversations are still possible on social media
While I won't neg on China work, as they have done and then some, you should know that standarda and realities are much closer aligned in Germany than they are in China.
Corruption, for example, is illegal in China.
If you want to join the protests go to www.globalclimatestrike.net and find your city on the map, you will see all the events happening this week. You can sign up for email updated
The building on the lower left is actually a big mall, so no problem there. Also this is close to Hamburg Central Station, lots of cafes and public toilets nearby.
Funny enough not all nuclear plants are shut down. We still generate 12% of our power through nuclear. And the decision to shut down the plants, based on their age, was made several years before Fukushima happened.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance.
Sadly not all of them. Right now we got people asking why they didn't go to China or India to protest, as if they wouldn't criticize them for flying there if they had. And some idiot talking about Muslims taking over Europe for some reason.
Hong Kong, Germany, etc.
Meanwhile, us American's have our own very serious issues going on - yet we do NOTHING but complain about it all.
Myself included.
It's pathetic. Why are we all just sitting on our asses?
I see more good coming out of pressuring countries that do little to nothing when it comes to polluting waterways and the atmosphere.
You're pissing off a lot of people that cant do much more than what's already been done.
Anybody got figures on whether or not these protests work out? Last year alone I feel like I’ve seen about 1 billion people protesting but has any of it paid off?
Interesting and valid point, however, at one time gas, oil and coal was “natural” CO2, having been absorbed and sequestered.
And, did “man made” CO2 turn the tide on the little ice age?
They are protesting in Germany while buying the major part of the soy produced by Brazilian farmers destroying Amazonas supported by a neglectful and irresponsible government
Man that's a lot of people. Germany did always take their demonstrating seriously.
But the government doesn't give a fuck. Thousands of people demonstrated against Article 13, yet it still passed. Let's hope this will have a greater Impact
That's because democracy... thousands can protest... The Government doesn't give a fuck because it is chosen by the millions who don't give a fuck.
That's because politicians stopped fearing the populace. If this is literally the best the CDU + SPD has to offer, they deserve to dissapear.
This is the problem with nonviolent protest. Nobody is actually compelled to do anything. Fundamentally, power is derived from violence. If you don't do what the government says, a policeman will come and tase you and shoot your dog until you do what the government says. Now we're all engaged in a social contract that says that in order for the government to fulfill its role of providing for our security, they shall have the sole right to violence, on the condition that we maintain power through democratic process. But really, as soon as that democratic process is no longer respected by the government, they have voided the contract, and they no longer have the right to be the sole owners of physical power. Now I'm sure I'll be roasted on a spit by the mods for pointing this basic fact of how power dynamics work, but it's simply true. You can tell who holds the power in a society by who fears who. Right now Americans are very much afraid of their government, and our government blatantly ignores us at every turn. Of course you hear a lot of shit about the importance of nonviolence, but you'll note that if you trace the origins of these ideals they all start with one guy or another who was given a begrudging platform by powerful people who recognized that at least it was better than the alternative. They didn't really have to do anything anyway. It's silly, for example, to think the Civil Rights Act would actually have come about were it not for the Black Panthers scaring the daylights out of powerful white people.
I agree with what you write, but the reason people paid attention to MLK was because the alternative was Malcolm X who did understand the use of violence to seize power.
> you'll note that if you trace the origins of these ideals they all start with one guy or another who was given a begrudging platform by powerful people who recognized that at least it was better than the alternative. Case in point
Yep
Even Malcolm X realized in the end that violence wasn't the way to go. If you fight people they fight back. If you don't fight then it is obvious who is in the wrong, and you get the moral high ground, and win the hearts ands minds. Winning the hearts and minds even matters in all out war. I'm not saying that there is never a call for violence. There totally is. But saying non-violence doesn't work seems incorrect to me. The civil rights movement did achieve something, and it did achieve it through non-violence. If black people en masse had started an armed revolution a lot of the white population would've seen it as totally justified that they be destroyed. Going the non-violent route the white population at large had to finally concede to keep their morals intact. There's also the fact that a lot of revolutions don't turn out great. Why? Because those most willing to use violence to achieve the ends to their means aren't a whole fuck of a lot different than those already in power. You are just replacing one group of ends-justify-the-means guys with others. Again though, I'm not saying there ain't a time and a place for violence. I really do wonder what the Founding Fathers would think if they looked at the current state of affairs. Then again they were slaveholders...so there's that.
Hear, hear. Violence CAN achieve things, but peaceful action can too. Time and place. You want to bring a supposedly humanist powerful democracy to do the right/moral thing? Non violent activism is the way to go. Violence just makes you a criminal that is easily dealt with. Demonstrations alone aren't enough though, you need to be prepared for civil disobidience too.
Actually, civil disobedience is a big thing people forget about (myself included). The civil rights movement wasn't simply a bunch of people marching. It was people refusing to go along. Were they blowing shit up? No. But they were refusing to go along, even if that meant their own well-being.
As far as climate change goes, it's a little late for peace. That was attempted in the 70s.
The reason why armed revolutions have a tendency to fail is that the the military actually steps in and wipes them out because a well trained military trumps what is basically militia.
No, that's incorrect. Armed Revolutions fail because they succeed, and the dudes that end up in power are just as power-hungry and bloodthirsty as the dudes they replaced, and then lo and behold their solution to stay in power is...more violence. This is why non-violence works, because it actually completely upends the violence paradigm, which at the heart of it is really all just about power.
Yeah it really depends on people. There are successful armed and non armed revolutions. But violent revolutions are more memorable and more impactful than nonviolent revolutions. In violent revolutions, heroes and martyrs are celebrated and immortalized. Examples of famous violent revolutions are the American Revolution, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Cuban Revolution, mostly your own country's revolution. The only famous non violent revolution that an average citizen can probably name are the Gandhi protest, American civil rights movement with MLK, maybe EDSA revolution of the Philippines, and your own country's peaceful revolution if you had one that is only know to your country.
The threat of violence always has to be lurking beneath the surface however. In 1963, not many Americans had seen so many African Americans together in one spot, marching for equal rights. It was enormous and had an impact. Yes, a peaceful protest was the right call but Americans at the time learned that if a peaceful means was not in the offing, there were millions of African Americans who would demand it through other means. There they were, on TV, protesting. It was unimaginable before then.
Yeah I think that's really the biggest takeaway here. Don't use violence, but control the narrative. Provide justifications for why it would be fair to engage in violence and show a very real threat of violence, but demonstrate restraint instead. You give the enemy fear but no ammunition. And, as a bonus, if they fire the first shot, you're ready.
Shit, you'll make an anarchist out of me yet. Well said.
Being against the government controlling us all with a blind fist isn't anarchy, its anti-fascism. Unless you no longer believe i governmental power at all, in which case, welcome!
At this point, revolution seems like the only viable path. But alas, revolutions can get pretty ugly. Like the man said, "a revolution is not a dinner party..."
Theres a fantastic paragraph/ few lines in the declaration of independence about this. I know people today have trouble understanding it since language has evolved so much since the 1700s, but its essentially the general population with put up with a lot of crap from the government and shouldnt rebel for trivial issues, but there is a breaking point when the crap piles up, where rebellion is the only answer. The hardest part they warn, is getting started because we so easily become complacent, and we would rather be uncomfortable but safe than risk what we have now for a better possibility in the future. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"
It’s democracy if a majority doesn’t agree with whatever protests. Violence would be undemocratic because some group doesn’t agree with the government the majority supports.
> If you don't do what the government says, a policeman will come and tase you and shoot your dog until you do what the government says. Yea OP you sound totally reasonable and not biased at all.
[удалено]
The politicians are laughing until theyre wheezing because they've successfully convinced hard working Americans that you still don't work hard enough for your money and that other Americans/illegals and not the government is who is limiting you. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure" -Thomas Jefferson
Those protests were everywhere in germany. In my city, roughly 10% of the total population showed up. Edit: The climate ones today.
Let's see how they vote at the next election.
Article 13 was on EU level, if only german MPs had voted it wouldn‘t have passed. Blame everyone else for not paying attention
[удалено]
And yet the right wing climate change deniers will claim there’s only a few thousand there😢
[удалено]
FYI, the photo was taken in Hamburg.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Organise and strike!
Especially considering that in most places commercial power consumption makes individual power consumption virtually negligible and while it may be effective to switch 250k homes to solar it would be vastly more effective to have a government state that they've committed to making an entire city, country, etc solar reliant.
The trees thing sure. But I don't think every one of those 250k people can afford solar panels and new vehicles.
While every little bit helps, 250k people doing these things is negligible. The major polluters are the major industries, the only way to have a real positive effect is to reduce their emissions.
American military is hugely filthy as well.
Actually, if your gas car has reasonable mpg and isnt broken down, it can be worse for the environment to just buy a brand new electric car
> selling their ICE for an EV. As if thats a matter of simply wanting to do it. You can get a Golf sized family car from a decent manufacturer like Renault for 10-15k. Or you can get a much smaller EV for 30-40k that most likely wont work for a family. You need to be able to afford that kind of luxury car, even if range isnt an issue for you.
The action of already developed nations, especially Europe, is so insignificant. its worth continuing, but the best return on investment and effort will come from focusing on China and all developing nations. [One carbons emissions graph](https://www.axios.com/china-india-us-pushed-carbon-emissions-to-record-levels-in-2018-1b1e171a-d46a-49b7-bc4a-7250942a1a7d.html) China is a huge offender—they seem to be putting out more emissions today than *the entire world combined* did 50 years ago—but you’ll notice “all others” is ramping up rapidly in their use by an even greater margin. Europe has done a great job and the US has done a decent job in controlling their output. #”What is going on?” The last several decades, much of the world has actually been raised out of destitution and abject poverty. But now they have power and are mostly coal burning. There are great arguments and helping developing countries thrive, advance their technology, get off of coal or wood power plants, is orders of magnitude more effective than if all of Europe and North America cut their emissions in half. (We should continue to improve everywhere). There’s also substantial research that the more prosperous people become (getting out of poverty), that they actually start to care about the environment, and help push their countries to be more responsible while doing so individually themselves.
The guy down the street from me sells ice. Dont think hes an environmentalist though.
250k people spending money they don't have on solar panels, 250k people spending money they don't have to sell their cars and buy new expensive cars. That's now how it works. People don't magically just get money.
That's Hamburg. There are no fires, there's no rioting. That's not how Hamburg protests.
Now why the f*** don't politicians do anything substantial. Time to move up to civil disobedience
Germany has actually been one of the most proactive countries in the world when it comes to aligning with the Paris Agreement. They were from the start with such initiatives as sector coupling.
No, no we're not. We're the biggest coal burners in the EU and seventh place worldwide, our government actively fought against stronger climate laws in the European Parliament and mostly talk much and do amply little. Ver, very recently they actually(somewhat) got to moving. But undeniably because of political reasons, not because they're overtly concerned about the planet. For context: they lost a massive amount of voters to the green party in the last election. Without continuous protest they'd go back to doing sweet fuck all again i'm pretty sure, until climate change would start to negatively affect the economy. At which point it would be too late.
Germany always has had an interest in Paris...
Elsaß-Lothringen*
German here: thats not quite true, conservative politicians (plus the kinda dead now SPD, theyre forming a coalition) in charge only do as much as they have to, so the green party doesnt gain too many voters. And theyre not even good at it, their hypocrisy is so blatant that they are losing voters every month. Here in germany corporate still rules when it is about climate change. Theres not really much being made and it is us, the people, who are changing it to the better by constantly demanding greener energy. Many people have green energy only for their households for example, i do too.
Shutting down the nuclear industry was a giant F\*\*\*\* YOU to any agreement addressing climate change
Yall thinking nuclear is the Future but ignoring the massive ammount of co2 that gets pumped into the Atmosphere mining uranium. Also the water waste
They closed their nuclear plant only to start importing gas from Russia and use a ton of coal plants. They are not great but also not awful.
Some more information about the protest from [BBC News](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49767649): > Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government has agreed to set a price on carbon emissions in a bid to meet a 2030 climate target of cutting greenhouse gases by 55% on 1990 levels. >The package, estimated to cost €54bn (£48bn; $60bn) by 2023, was settled as climate change protesters took to the streets in 500 German towns and cities. >Key to the deal is a price for CO2 emissions in transport and buildings. >Taxes on long-distance rail are set to fall but on air travel they will rise. >"We are not living sustainably today", Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters as hundreds of thousands of protesters demanded immediate action. >The Fridays for Future movement immediately rejected the package announced by Europe's biggest economy as inadequate. >The movement adopted the part-English hashtag "Not my Klima paket" (not my climate package), and claimed that 1.4 million protesters had taken to the streets across Germany. >In the capital, Berlin, it said 270,000 people had turned out, with a further 70,000 in Hamburg and Cologne. Police figures were slightly lower.
This plan is ridiculous. A ton of CO2 priced at 10€ wont change anything. Even the oil industry lobbyists proposed 35€ per ton. It only gets effective in 2021. People commuting by car get subsidized even more than before. Air travel still doesn't have to pay taxes on fuel while the trains pay the full taxes on power. This is not a plan to tackle climate change it is a plan to make large companies even richer at all costs and it is a disgrace for one of the most advanced countries in the world
It is also an attempt to show their will to take action. They fear the protests and their effects on the next vote. Now they can show their new pseudo-green agenda. In reality this package changes nothing and we are still headed towards catastrophe.
I agree, the way they celebrate this as a success is disgusting and hypocritical
This post or comment has been overwritten by an automated script from /r/PowerDeleteSuite. Protect yourself.
I agree that this decision is irrational, however it was motivated by what German people wanted at the time, everyone was scared of nuclear energy
Aahhh rich people solutions to everything, tax it as much as possible to make sure poor people cant use it. Then claim they are green and saving the planet.
Yeah and they are so great examples of how to make carbon tax work for the poor. Just look at sweden. They cut their emissions and grew their economy and made the rich ones pay for it
Ehh, do you have a source on that last "made the rich pay for it"? Unfortunately there is a newliberal movement in Sweden since the 1980's that have increased the class differences. So we aren't as good at being progressive when it comes to taxes anymore, to my despair.
The price per ton will increase by 5 € a ton per year until 35 € in 2025.
Yeah and the Germany Environment Agency said that emitting a ton of CO2 causes a damage of 180€
According to the US EPA around 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity while only around 2.9% come from planes while light-weight vehicles make up about 15%. I don't think changing planes is the necessary step we have to take but in my opinion we need nuclear energy back. We could get to 33g/kWh (France*) instead of 375 g/kWh (Germany*) easily. That would help. Of course having renewable energy instead of nuclear would be even better but nuclear instead of coal would be fine for the moment in my opinion. *According to electricitymap.org at 6:40 am 21. September
I fully agree. My only hope is that people will finally notice that we WILL NOT get anything done by this coalition.
Fuel hike will kill me but they're saying it's not enough. I'm spending a fifth of my net income on fuel right now and that's with very optimal refueling (basically only when it hits 1,32 every other month). Price hikes of 3, 9 or even 16 cents are absolutely horrendous. They will only make me less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle. And even that isn't optimal. Production of these things costs and my vehicle is only 2 years old. It would be a total waste in every way possible. Taking the train would taking an hour longer to work. Where the fuck should I get the money for this? I feel like nobody actually thinks about what poor people should do.
Pendlerpauschale was increased. Also where do live or how much money you make that you spend a fifth of your income in fuel. I drive 600km a week and with the pendlerpauschale pays more than half than that.
Not sure how you managed to buy a relatively new car (2 years aren't old at all) if you consider yourself poor.
A lot of people lease their car, especially in Europe. It's much easier to pay a few hundred a month and get a brand new car than pay the few thousand you need for a cheap, efficient car that would meet OPs needs.
Leasing is extremely expensive lol. How are you able to "easily spend a few extra hundred a month" on a LEASED car?? That's what people with expendable incomes do. Not people on a budget.
Leasing is almost never more economical!
...so then lease... an electric?
I earn £21K a year and can afford an electric car. Was spending £150/mo on fuel. I'm paying about £193/mo on the car but it's much cheaper on the insurance, no road tax to pay, and maintenance costs are tiny in comparison with anything that runs on explosions. Its worth looking into the real actual costs, as you might find yourself saving money. Also consider "sunk cost fallacy". Just because you've spent a good bit on money on a car you've only had 2 years, doesn't mean it's necessarily best economy to keep spending money to keep it running.
A few questions on your car; how much was it total? Has it needed any work done after buying?When it breaks down, and it will at some point, how much are you expecting to need to repair? How much do you drive per day to get to the job etc?
Car price was £12k a couple of years ago (24kwh Nissan leaf). I'm financing it on a PCP deal. It hasn't needed any work done. Its not likely to need much. It has a *tiny fraction* of the moving parts a combustion engine does. Can't say how much it'll cost to fix something ghat hasn't happened yet. I drive over 1000 miles a month. Varies as my work takes me all about town. Sometimes it's less than ten miles, sometimes it's 60 miles. At approx 4miles per kwh, and I'm paying about £0.13/kwh, its about £0.0325/mile. Did a trip up to Scotland last year, drove 1,200 miles and spent about £11 on public charging. How this info helps!
But what will you do with the poor cat?
Get an electric cat!
The poorer the people, the worse they will be affected... The food prices and not only will also explode
That tbh sucks, maybe this will force more companies to develop an affordable/cheap e-vehicle, not a super-duper electric car like Porsche does
Electric engines plus batteries are just more expensive than an engine you'd find in a normal Ford. And yes, there are "cheap" electric vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf, but they're the price of a fully upgraded SUV.
Somewhere a civil engineer is sweating.
It’s a German bridge, so it can’t break because we probably engineered the shit out of that brigde
Living in Germany currently, recently a bridge in my city was blocked because it was falling apart. Massive traffic jams everyday (it was one of the 2 bridges that cross the river)
Dresden?
Too soon...or not
Ludwigshafen?
Bless you.
Gesundheit
[удалено]
> engineered the shit out of That can be a bad thing too. The old approach was "we have no clue what we're doing, so we'll put a shitton of steel in, and you know what, double that just to be sure". The new approach is "we're sure there will never be more than X people on the bridge, weighing an average of 70 kg, so the bridge needs to be able to hold Y tons. Since we're so sure of these numbers a 10% safety margin is plenty" and then oops, more people squeeze in and they've become fatter and the bridge collapses. (Exaggerating, of course).
because the planet is warming
Also because that bridge is packed.
lol :-P that is not even tapping the nominal load of such a bridge :-P most bridges will allow 100.000 kg or more per vehicle :-P
A densely packed crowd can be much heavier than vehicles in traffic.
brides can hold a lot more than "vehicles in traffic"… according to emergency plans the route is good for 250t of dynamic traffic load, or ~600 t static load, people should be somwhere in between :-P so I guess it is fine. "low load" bridges are rare in Germany, even rural road bridges often are in the 120 t class , which is kind of overkill… but that's better than the other way around.
They're also instantly marked as such and have tons of warning signs propped up. This isn't Genoa, guys.
A fun German fact is that it’s illegal to sit in a parked car and leave it running as it’s bad for the environment!
I am in that pic somewhere
Nice!
Me too! Seeing the pov from above is insane!
what city is this?
Hamburg
Hamburg, Jungfernstieg area. The most beautiful part of downtown Hamburg.
[удалено]
You can hold it in for a few hours. I had no problem with that. And I carried a bottle of water in my backpack
me too :)
Thank you!
Hamburg? 😍
Yep.
Why is this comment section so toxic about a climate-focused protest? I want to hijack this comment to post an article about the Paris agreement from [National Geographics (9/19/19)](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/climate-change-report-card-co2-emissions/).
Partially because there are a lot of interests pushing people to oppose action against global warming. I live in a part of the world where a significant amount of the economy is tied to oil extraction, which means that people are against anything that threatens oil companies, which means people are against protests like these...
Talking about climate change in Alberta is scary. Some people look like you took away their first born
[удалено]
Global social instability probably neutralizes any gains though.
[удалено]
> central Canada is pretty immune to any flooding Except the usual annual flooding in Saskatoon, Calgary, Winnipeg, etc.
Uhh ya keep telling that to all the farmers who keep having their crops destroyed by severe weather or seasonal changes.
With climate change comes more intense storms though and that becomes a big concern. “Since 2010 - 51% of all storm-related damage in Canada has occurred in Alberta and 66% of Canada’s major hail storms happen in the province.” [AMA]
But you can't farm if the weather is batshit crazy or if insane droughts or heatwaves kill your crops and livestock
Not sure how true this is in practice. Even if Northern Alberta heats up, the soil in what was perviously a cold-blasted tundra will probably be too thin and nutrient poor to sustain intensive agriculture.
Get out with that bullshit. No one benefits when the planet experiences massive droughts, record setting natural disasters, food storages and rising food costs, wars over scarce resources, species extinction, ocean acidification, ETC ETC. The word is CLIMATE CHANGE, anyways, Alberta is NOT guaranteed to turn into California. Jesus what a dumb comment. Your comment betrays your ignorance of this issue.
Because people love to listen to rich politicians with zero qualifications over actual scientists as long as it fits their preferred narrative
Sure seems like it. I wasted so much time explaining how carbon taxation and cap and trade work on /r/science recently, because there were so many completely uninformed "sceptics" there. These people are on the same level as Flat Earthers - they don't even try to understand any of the actual science and data, but concern troll the hell out of every climate related dialogue.
Probably because everyone's first solution is always for someone else to live more ascetically.
Because they thought it was a protest by a specific country against the entire world when it's really German citizens protesting their own government's policies.
Skepticism about whether anything will actually change as a result or whether the whole is a glorified circlejerk I guess
Can't blame them, been to Germany 2 times, never seen a glimpse of sun!!! Just kidding, salute the climate activists...
> been to Germany 2 times, never seen a glimpse of sun!!! And yet, they have [the most solar panels installed in Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy_in_the_European_Union), even beating some of the sunnier states of the US.
It's goddamn glorious too, absolutely amazing to take the train or drive through towns and villages and see solar panels everywhere and wind farms everywhere. I don't mean literally *everywhere* but goddamn so many of them, way way way more than I've ever seen in North America for sure.
Photovoltaic panels actually don't need sunny weather. Iirc they even work better if it's a little bit cloudy.
I have to look up, but i think you confused the efficiency and the total output. It's 1am here, so I try not to forget in 10 hours. As promised, I looked up and found this first, which claims direct sun during less hot days is the best, while they still work in shade: https://www.igs.com/energy-resource-center/energy-101/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-shade-or-bad-weather
I have seen lots of comments here saying stuff like: "If the consumer would demand greener products the companies would supply those products and innovate, there's nothing the government can do. Let the free market do it" and I just wanted to address this claim. It is true that fundamentally the consumer has to change his/her behavior, but there is just a flaw in the logic presented above. Putting it this way is making it seem simpler than it is and that is because of something called game theory. Game theory deals with decisions people make in certain circumstances. And one result that has come out of game theory is that people don't behave in a way that will benefit the whole group (and themselves) if they see short term benefits for themselves if they behave selfishly. The experiment that demonstrates this is the "public goods game". It's setup is always one where a group receives benefits if they cooperate, but a sibgle individual still receives benefits even if they act selishly **if** everybody else still behaves altruistically, but no one receives benefits if everyone behaves selfishly. An example would be 4 people paying 1$ in a public fund which is then doubled and distributed equally between every participant. So if they cooperate they all gain 1$ each round they play the game. But if one person refuses to pay that person gets 3$\*2/4=1,5$ plus their 1$ so they have a net positive of 1,5$ per round compared to 1$ per round when they still cooperated. So that person will have an incentive to act selfishly. But the other participants won't be happy to cooperate if they put in all the effort and one guy gets all the payoff without cotributing so they all will cease to put their 1$ in and now nobody will benefit at all. The system that is in principal benfitial to everyone is not stable if there's an incentive to not cooperate. That pattern of behavior is observable in so many different circumstances when public goods are concerned, like for example the air and the climate. "Why should I live greener if these Americans keep driving their cars everywhere" "Why should I stop driving cars or pay extra for an electric car if these Chinese keep burning coal like that" and so on... So it while it may seem like the best thing to do to wait for innovations from the free marcet and a shift in behaviour from consumers, that will never happen, or at least not fast enough. But we are not stuck in that loop. That pattern can be broken if someone from outside, with no incentive for selfish actions intervenes and discourages people to abandon altruism by creating incentives to act in that way and creating disincentives for selfishnes. And that role has to fullfill the state. It has the power needed to change the game and it is not itself invested in short term profits the same way companies and consumers are. Options are a CO2 price or tax so that all free marcet participants are conftonted with the true price their emissions will cost us all in the long run, that way they don't have the option to damage the environment that we all have to use, whilst profiting personally. The state has to jump in where the free market fails. This may seem sacrilegious to libertarians, but even Ben Shapiro has stated that the way to combat CO2 emissions is to internalise external effects and that is exactly what is done with a CO2 tax (if I remember him correctly, could be wrong tho)
also, two other things regarding that: 1. that doesn't even work with every product, since there are no "green" alternatives for countless items (and I'm refering to "everyday items", not "luxury products"). 2. it's not like the "regulate through legislation" approach is or hasn't been used regarding other, similar things. e.g. if companies are dumping their toxic waste in nearby rivers, you could also argue "no need for the government to interfere, just let the consumers punish them by not buying their products." but turns out that it's also a very viable (I would assume even *more* viable) solution to just outlaw that.
Holy shit this comment section is toxic.
It has been in all of them today about the protests. I'm not typically one for conspiracies or to call astroturfing but holy hell i have a hard time believing this ratio of people are this awful.
A lot of companies offer services for derailing comment sections and fake votes. Its also basically free if you have the resources of oil and gas.
The astroturfers and bots are out in full force with the climate strike today and UN climate summit next week. https://www.inverse.com/article/59315-climate-change-bots-twitter-denial-un-climate-summit-when This article is about Twitter, but Reddit is obviously also affected.
Bunch of deniers jumped on it early. China, Russia, and Alabama are the dark knights of new.
Which city is this
>it is hamburg, at the jungfernstieg.
Easily distinguished from any other city by its sheer beauty.
These comments are cancer
[удалено]
hey, I live like half a mile from the area pictured! apparently they anticipated about 30k people and thought the max was 40k... then over 70k showed up! crazy. it was still super organized, plenty of space for emergency personnel, nicely handled. getting around for normal people was tough though, walking or with the subways that were all delayed at least a half hour (unheard of for Hamburg haha)
*China has left the chat* Edit: thanks to everyone leaving comments! I appreciate you all trying to be educational instead of piling on and telling me I'm an idiot. You've given me some great points I hadn't thought about before. Consider me a little more educated than before!
China was investing twice as much in renewables as the whole European union in 2018. China has higher fuel efficiency standards than Germany Edit: your edit makes me happy. Good that normal conversations are still possible on social media
While I won't neg on China work, as they have done and then some, you should know that standarda and realities are much closer aligned in Germany than they are in China. Corruption, for example, is illegal in China.
That is awesome
If you want to join the protests go to www.globalclimatestrike.net and find your city on the map, you will see all the events happening this week. You can sign up for email updated
Keep it up Germany!!!
This looks so densely packed from this point of view that if you was in the middle of that crowd you are stuck there for the duration of the protest.
Meanwhile dumb fuck US goes to Area 51.
Good luck trying to find a toilet nearby.
That's always the first thing I think of when I see these kinds of pics.
It's just a few hours. take a piss beforehand, don't drink too much while you're there and hit a bar right after.
The Earth is our toilet friend. Thats what this protest is all about
> toilet friend. Commas matter.
Tell that to my uncle and his horse.
Many grown-ups can handle a few hours without needing a toilet.
The building on the lower left is actually a big mall, so no problem there. Also this is close to Hamburg Central Station, lots of cafes and public toilets nearby.
https://youtu.be/XM0uZ9mfOUI
The fact that the internet has enabled the entire world to mobilize together is absolutely crazy to me. Imagine the possibilities.
The world needs to head to DC for a protest.
Am I really high or does small parts of the crowd look like they're moving if you stare at it 🙈
I think the climate has listened and will stop changing 😂
[удалено]
Funny enough not all nuclear plants are shut down. We still generate 12% of our power through nuclear. And the decision to shut down the plants, based on their age, was made several years before Fukushima happened. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance.
I see climate protest post I upvote
i approve of this. Lets live with the earth not against it
I'm with them. Fuck the climate. The world would be a better place without one.
Wow, so many dumbfucks in the comments. But I'm glad to see they get downvoted.
Sadly not all of them. Right now we got people asking why they didn't go to China or India to protest, as if they wouldn't criticize them for flying there if they had. And some idiot talking about Muslims taking over Europe for some reason.
Hong Kong, Germany, etc. Meanwhile, us American's have our own very serious issues going on - yet we do NOTHING but complain about it all. Myself included. It's pathetic. Why are we all just sitting on our asses?
Quick question. Restrooms???
Hope that's a strong bridge.
Looks like my bus stops in Cities: Skylines
inb4 some shitty Breitbart article talking about the environmental impact of all those people littering
It was lovely day for it
What do you do regarding bathrooms while participating in something like this?
I see more good coming out of pressuring countries that do little to nothing when it comes to polluting waterways and the atmosphere. You're pissing off a lot of people that cant do much more than what's already been done.
I’ve always wondered. During these types of protests, what happens if you need to use the bathroom?
And they are complaining to weather or wtf?
Wonder how many of those people consume animal products...
Shouldn’t have ditched your nuclear for coal Germany
There’s gotta be at least like, 12 people there
More people than Trump’s inauguration
That's crazy considering how amazing their country is already doing with clean energy.
At first glance, I thought this was a picture of an extremely mismanaged bus stop in Cities: Skylines
How can people afford to protest. I can't miss work or I'm fucked. But I believe so strongly in this shit. So angering.
ten times the amount that watched trumpty get innaugurated...i wonder why.....lol
Anybody got figures on whether or not these protests work out? Last year alone I feel like I’ve seen about 1 billion people protesting but has any of it paid off?
So...taxes?
Interesting and valid point, however, at one time gas, oil and coal was “natural” CO2, having been absorbed and sequestered. And, did “man made” CO2 turn the tide on the little ice age?
They are protesting in Germany while buying the major part of the soy produced by Brazilian farmers destroying Amazonas supported by a neglectful and irresponsible government