Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?
- Thread starter Banderill
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
theclaud
Reading around the chip
LOL. He's right tho. Context is everything.
albion
Guru
mudsticks
Squire
If by playing the man not the ball you're referring to the fact that I seemed to be addressing Krauters directly then yes I could have used 'one' instead of 'you'.
But I find that often comes across as a tad pretentious - non?
But feel free to substitute as such if it makes you happier.
The other bit about smashing windows has already been covered.
Banks have been knowingly funding, and profiting from deliberate corporate eco-cide for decades.
And getting away with it.
The fact that a jury of 'ordinary' people can see the legitimacy of the womens actions gives me some hope.
Many solutions to CC have existed for a long time, they've just been stifled by those who prefer to profiteer from continued use of fossil fuels.
And many of the workable solutions that are only coming on stream just now could have existed much earlier with decent but relatively modest amounts of investment in r&d .
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
I agree. The (perhaps pointless) point I was trying to make was that a different jury might acquit @Unkraut for burning down abortion clinics.
I'll applaud juries for acquitting folk who tear down statues celebrating slavers and acquitting the women discussed here.
At the same time I feel slightly uneasy about the precedent.
mudsticks
Squire
So not much about men nor balls, after all then 🙄
They 'might' acquit, it remains to be seen - he is at liberty to test that theory.
What do you reckon to his chances.?
The women had enough conviction of their own to risk a different sort of conviction.
They knew they risked a spell inside, but went ahead anyhow.
The 'precedent' has been longstanding.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
Wouldn't do a lot for the climate crisis. Assuming he's going to cling to his reactionary religious views, maybe he could start by looking at where his pension is invested. Also are there opportunities to lobby local councils for divestment from fossil fuel in Germany @Unkraut?
mudsticks
Squire
Sure, I wasn't suggesting for one moment that burning anything down would help with climate change.
Just stating facts about his (present) liberty, and his options.
And yes putting your money where your mouth is has indeed been a long-standing option in terms of pensions and investments.
Hence the existence of ethical investment portfolios, and of course opting to buy renewably generated energy etc etc.
Aiui local / regional gov in Germany is far more powerful than our own currently hamstrung local authorities.
Although some of our councils have declared a climate emergency, in as far as that's worth very much.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
mudsticks
Squire
Yes, they do.
matticus
Guru
Yes yes yes!!!
(but purleeze, 15.5 WHAT is plenty? UNITS dear boy, UNITS!!! (as many a frustrated physics/maths teacher has bellowed)
I'm guessing it's a speed ...
There is no trial by jury, so you are charged with an offence and found guilty or innocent by the judge or judges. The motive is irrelevant, though perhaps might be taken into account for sentencing. If you break the law you are guilty, end of.
Incidentally, my two Last Generation friends who bunked off to Bali for a holiday rather than attend court have been found guilty, one was fined and the other sent down. The newsfeed I read didn't say more than that, but I am sure the idea of the sentence was to send a message to others who think they can flout the law.
Those who choose not to will certainly be the last generation of their particular family!
If later in this century things turn out bad then dealing with this is going to be doubly difficult if you have an ageing population being carried by a smaller number of working young. Dealing with a declining and ageing population is a serious issue in its own right and doesn't seem to get much coverage. It is also more inevitable, as it takes as long time to reverse or at least stabalise the population.
That is the point. I was not angling for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of abortion but rather arguing for consistency. Supposing I burn down a clinic but end up blessed with a jury excusively of 12 good conservative Catholics and true, would those supporting the glass smashers be fine if such jury acquitted me on the basis they agreed with my motives?
The point is that if you acquit the women for the actions though illegal, if it ever becomes necessary to enact legislation to curb say particular use of fossil fuels, if these laws are ignored and business as usual carried on you have no grounds for complaint - they can simply say 'you didn't obey the law so why should we'. The precedent has been set.
It may be that as an act of conscience some think their actions represent a moral good even if illegal, but in that case they should still be willing to pay the penalty for breaking the law despite regarding their cause as morally justified.
mudsticks
Squire
The defendants were willing to pay a penalty if they were found guilty.
There was no certainty of their acquittal .
You keep talking about climate change as if it's not already here
Whereas the effects are already being seen, just maybe not directly in your cosy priveleged world.
Trying to persuade young women to have kids so that their offspring can face an uncertain future spent trying to clear up and or survive the messes knowingly made by the previous generations -
That's entitled complacency writ large right there..
How unsurprising.
