The only thing people are talking about is what assholes they are. If they didn’t have a description in their name no one would even know what they wanted.
Hey if this is working for you, watch what happens when we piss in the produce aisle! People will really get the message then! Probably. We should call ourselves “Pissing in the Produce Aisle to Stop Oil” though, just so it’s clear.
When you attack Stonehenge I'm not listening to what your ideology is. Because all I see is you being a jackass. Attacking works of arts or in this case Stonehenge to me looks like a child in a restaurant yelling and screaming that they want a cookie. I'm not going to give in to the demands of the child just because they're loud. You'll notice I don't talk about the ideologies, I talk about their actions, so it didn't work.
No, Just Stop Oil is not an "activist" group. They're in cahoots with the enemy. They're defamation, and their intent is to give the radical right something to point to.
Just Stop Just Stop Oil.
EDIT: There are waaaaaaay too many assumptions happening in this thread.
I once read a pretty good write up somewhere on Reddit with proof that they were getting reasonably large financial support from the daughter of an oil baron, and it's unclear if she supports the left or right.
On the other hand, a friend of a friend was arrested at a just stop oil rally in Manchester, UK a few months back, and I know him well enough to absolutely believe he thought he was doing what was best for the world, although I'm unsure if he'd deface anything.
There's no proof but what else could be these people's problem? They have to know what they're doing to the image of people who do care about the environment. It's not like they're helping. I don't get it.
it doesn‘t seem logical to you that some people are freaking out because everybody is talking about climate change while it is clearly happening and it is becoming obvious that too little is being done too late?
Man I agree with you. I just feel sick when I see harm being done to such an ancient piece of history. What reason is there for it? Go after something actually related to the problem at least.
I think very little can be done to cause public outrage, which is what they want to do. This did it. Also I see no lasting damage being done to Stone Henge. And that‘s true for all their actions, as far as I know.
fair point. I think it is heart breaking that they seem to be losing this battle. No matter what kind of protest they choose, I keep hearing: Well, that‘s not the kind of protest I would support. So yeah, maybe they are at a dead end. But maybe not because they chose the wrong kind of protest, but because the public don‘t want change. Look at the European elections. It seems the other side‘s propaganda works a lot better, yeah.
All I'm really trying to say is their methods make the environmental movements look bad. I hate that. I want things to get better. I don't think they're doing anything to help that. Go after something relevant.
Sure but you can hardly compare this to any of MLK's protests. As far as I'm aware, he never harmed pieces of ancient history. He got to the root of the problem and did things like sit-ins in white only restaurants. It's two different kinds of pissing people off.
Except this doesn't make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it's vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It's just unhinged.
Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit.
So what? Nobody cares what you think, least of all the Just Stop Oil people. They don't have to win people to their cause; they just have to keep making themselves a nuisance until everybody's so pissed off that The Powers That Be are forced to capitulate just to make it stop.
Not to mention, it takes extremists like them to make the more moderate environmentalists look reasonable. It's the same way that the government was eventually forced to concede to the demands of people like MLK: because it became clear that the demands of people like Malcolm X, not the status quo, were the alternative.
Just the style of writing in this article gives away a lot:
The self-professed aims of these organisations and their millionaire backers are to bypass politics and implement radical measures upon the world’s population without democratic consultation.
the referenced piece here is written by a Breitbart editor by the way.
Anyway, so Just Stop Oil are going to bypass the world‘s democratic order? Yeah? By demanding them to follow through with their climate pledges?
Oh man.
Also, it is no news, that the Getty heir is contributing to various funds, so what. I am a landlord and support Extinction Rebellion, does that make their actions inauthentic?
The reality is that the UK is using pretty straight forward laws to prevent this kind of protest, they don‘t need some kind of internationalist cabal to do that for them.
"Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers" is what I'm hearing.
Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We're long past the point of polite protests, and they didn't work.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you're standing up to.
I've read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.
Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn't to say they shouldn't do it though.
My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It's usually reactionary claims of "you're making people mad, so it's counterproductive", while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.
Protests will always incite rage. The question is "is it justified?". In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.
They give an example of what they consider radical and you respond with "so they should risk everything for you." That's like responding with "so you hate waffles" to a tweet saying "pancakes taste good"
I don‘t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad.
I didn‘t position myself about that. He did, and I think he‘s a hypocrite for doing so.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you're standing up to.
Radical
a: very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
They said burning down an oil plant is radical. Are you thinking of the slang definition of radical? The only call to action is the ruffling of feathers.
Okay but could they please target things that are actually causing the problem and not thousands of years old stone monuments that can't possibly have any bearing on anything.
Otherwise they're just being vandals. And then bean vandals is counterproductive to their own stated course.
"Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers" is what I'm hearing.
I don't think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group's political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement......I'm not sure if that's a productive use of political capital.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to question a group's motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
the protests will only become more radical.
I'd hardly say paying some teens to "vandalize" a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them..... That would be radical.
This is so hilariously wrong. There's a lot of stuff I won't admit to since this is a public account and a public identity. Kairos. What I don't support, however, is vandalism of historical monuments. Especially when the monument in question is so incredibly irrelevant to the crisis at hand.
It's corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.
My wording was trash. It's not so much the "damage" done but that it doesn't feel like a productive protest and that it'll piss of more people than anything.
If that were true, wouldn't their shenanigans be more destructive? Soup over a glass protected painting and colored corn starch on a monument are not really rage inducing.
I'm not sure visibility is really what we need at this point. Is there anyone left on Earth that doesn't know about it? I think what we need instead is political mobilization and coalition-building to increase our political clout and ultimately win elections and create legislation.
Maybe it’s that this is a better a metaphor for the destruction of the common cultural heritage of the environment? Not many people can relate to or are inconvenienced by a very expensive private boat sinking.
The amount of people justifying calling it global warming is still is kinda shocking to be honest. The ignorance is probably why people are still bringing kt to light.
Theres people in the comments saying it causes warming and that’s why they call it that…..
The amount of people justifying calling it global warming is still is kinda shocking to be honest.
I was told for decades by activists and global leaders it was global warming. For example, An Inconvenient Truth says global warming dozens of times. Are you now telling me those people were wrong?
The term warming is used to detract from the truth, this is shocking how few people understand this simple concept used to create propaganda. And the public perpetuates it.
It’s been climate change for decades as well, you’re just eating into the politics like most people here.
You are right. Sort of, climate crisis would be more appropriate. The word 'warming' is not concerning enough, if at all, and doesn't convey the actual gravity of the current situation very well.
I'm not so sure. That was probably true before the past decade of record breaking heat waves, intensifying storms, etc.
Now it's a variety of other problems, from not giving a fuck and hoping god raptures them before then, to having other priorities like the economy and thinking technical solutions will fix it, to not believing it's human-caused, etc. It's political hurdles now, convincing people of the importance of helpful measures, as opposed to simply trying to remind them of the problem.
The assumption that people think problems need to be solved is just that, an assumption. Conservatives believe in tradition, where problems do not get fixed. Fixing problems = bad, because fixes are changes from tradition.
Most people are somewhere on a scale between conservative and progressive though. But you certainly don't want to just assume most people want things fixed, it's unfortunately just not true. It's just projecting progressive personality traits onto people that have less of them for whatever reason.
So no, not apparently. It's much, much worse than simple ignorance.
I don't have a car.
And took a job that pays less than other offers, cause it's within bicycle distance from my home, which I chose cause it's in a bike-friendly area.
I know the impact is low, but at least I'm not part of the problem. I don't think I could cut down on my CO2 any more while still living in society.
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
They don't vandalize the property of private citizens.
Their critics say they should (spray paint private jets instead of rocks).
This is more like "what if someone vandalized the scenic rock formation I can see from my bedroom window".
And if they spray painted a message about fightng the climate catastrophy on it, I'd love it.
I don't think that there is any purpose to "bringing visibility" to global warming in 2024. Effectively everyone is already aware of global warming and has been for some time.
The issue isn't awareness, but disagreement over the weight to put on policies to mitigate it. And I don't expect that doing stuff like this is going to change people's positions on that weight.
It’s not global warming though, it’s climate change because it causes extremes at both ends. It’s extremely important to stop perpetuating the wrong term.
Maybe the one that needs to grow up is the ones not educating themselves on what the correct terms are and how it’s not just “warming”…? Yeah…
Global warming is still a correct term because the globe is warming.
Some areas aren't getting warmer. But the globe is. Hence global warming, not everywhere without exception warming.
We only moved on to saying climate change because some morons were pushing the same bullshit view that you are - iF gLoBaL wARmiNg iS ReAL hOw CoMe XYZ pLacE wAs CoLdEr tHiS yEaR???4
iF gLoBaL wARmiNg iS ReAL hOw CoMe XYZ pLacE wAs CoLdEr tHiS yEaR???4
Funnily enough, that’s exactly why we no longer use warming, since people need to continually explain that no, it’s just warming since when that’s the word that’s used, it’s used to intentionally detract from the other side.
We seem to agree that it causes extremes at both ends, it just seems like it’s a bunch of dinosaurs in this thread that can’t comprehend they were taught the incorrect term.
When someone says global warming it’s a litmus test, you bring up the extremes at both ends and they give you a blank stare.
Since they literally think it’s only warming since it’s a stupid fucking term….. it’s kinda like how politics used marijuana as a term instead of the correct cannabis term. It’s fucking propaganda lmfao. Keep perpetuating this shit though.
Yes, that's what I said. We generally say climate change now because people have idiotic takes like yours and (puzzlingly) don't appear to understand that global warming means warming of the globe.
We had to change the language used because people like you can't parse basic English or apply the smallest amount of thought to the phrase.
Global warming isn't an incorrect term in the slightest. It describes the warming of the globe, which is exactly what's happening.
What "wrong term"? Global warming? Because The Guardian prefers to call it "global heating"? Or am I missing something, because that complaint would be amazingly petty.
Anyway it's not about bringing visibility to global warming to make people aware that it's going on. It's about making a statement. That statement, as I understand it, is "Climate change! Wake the fuck up and do something about it, people!" I don't know if anything will sufficiently get that message through, but it's understandable that they want to try, and painting Stonehenge orange (reportedly in a non-toxic water-soluble paint that will wash away in the rain) seems like a somewhat effective way to get the attention of the news media.
Yes, the phenomenom under discussion is climate change. Specifically, it's that change which is a result of the anthropogenic net radiative forcing that increasingly puts more energy into the global climate system, making it less predictable, more dangerous in various ways, and generally warmer, a.k.a. "global warming."
It's not a religion. Correct spelling of the magic incantations does not matter. Calling it global warming, like Al Gore did, in casual conversation is fine.
Incorrect, it also make colder temperatures colder, it’s not “generally”, one way or the other.
See, the wrong shit IS STILL being perpetuated, and the wrong term only exacerbates it. Case in point, your ignorant comment that explains it wrong lmfao.
Calling it global warming just shows your ignorance to the issue and your explanation proves it, it’s causes extremes at both ends, not “generally warming” like your ignorant ass is claiming lmfao.
Edit, I see people still love to eat and perpetuate propaganda eh? Correct people incorrectly and call it “warming” lmfao. All shows is your ignorance and how asinine you are, and it’s why it works, the public does the work for them… fucking yeesh.
The earth is getting warmer, which brings chaos to a complex system. The result is extreme weather, sometimes cold and wet. But it is getting warmer on a global scale. In fact, it was never as hot in human history as as it is right now in 2024.
The term global warming is used a political dog whistle, it was used by politicians to further a political agenda. See marijuana, crack, hippies, etc. and now the general public is doing their work by perpetuating the wrong term, to make things seem not as bad.
Marijuana is actually cannabis, and anyone who incorrectly uses the term can be easily seen for their bias or their lack of education on the subject.
It’s okay to be incorrect, the term was outdated decades ago, but continue to use it wrong and do their political work for free. This shit really went deep with these generations didn’t it…? Yeesh.
Doesn't matter. It's a protected site and there's protected species living on the stones. So they should be prosecuted on two counts at least. It's illegal. If I'd have shot a protester for being a cunt I'd be prosecuted.
A monument built thousands and thousands of years ago has no correlation to current day pollution/climate change. I think you missed the context. They should be targeting polluters or protectors of polluters, not an innocent heritage site.
It's relevant to climate change in that it was recently used by Just Stop Oil activists to draw attention to their cause. I guess one could also say that the sudden violent transformation of ancient stones that have stood largely unchanged for thousands of years is symbolically appropriate.
I know "there is no bad press" but more people will think "fuck those guys" than "maybe environment does need saving" upon reading these news.
Also just because they were responsible about their dick move doesn't mean everybody will be. Or something happens that causes long term damage by accident.
I care for environment greatly but I'd slap these people as long as I could lift my hands and then some.
Environmental protesters sprayed paint on Stonehenge on Wednesday, with footage showing an orange powder covering some of the stones.
Two protesters dressed in white were seen running towards two of the megaliths and spraying paint, as another person attempted to stop them, in footage released by Just Stop Oil, an environmental activist group focused on the issue of human-caused climate change.
The prehistoric structure dates back to somewhere between 3100 BC and 1600 BC, according to archaeologists.
Just Stop Oil has drawn criticism for targeting public treasures in the past, including the vandalism of Van Gogh's Sunflowers with tomato soup in a publicity stunt at London's National Gallery in 2022.
Less than a year later, two protesters from the group disrupted play during the Wimbledon Tennis Championships, running onto the court throwing confetti from a picture-puzzle box featuring an image of Wimbledon's famed Center Court.
On the eve of that tournament, celebrities including Richard Curtis and Emma Thompson had called on Wimbledon to end its partnership with Barclays Bank over the institution's multibillion-dollar support for fossil fuel projects.
The original article contains 161 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
