And if those walk out or sit ins were successful, would people not also die? Imagine a vast coordinated effort. Thousands of climate protesters break into various oil processing and refining plants and do everything they can to disrupt operations without killing anyone directly. They throw emergency stop switches. The close valves and epoxy them shut. They drain critical pipe segments and then cut them open with torches. And they chain themselves to equipment. Or maybe they just force everyone out of the facility at gunpoint and set the whole place on fire. Through their efforts, they substantially reduce US oil production for a period of time. That’s what a disruptive protest of the kind you’re suggesting looks like. Direct action against the most offending industries, done in a way that takes no human life.
And yet, people would still die. What good is an unblocked road if you don’t have fuel? People would lose their jobs because they couldn’t afford the fuel. People in critical condition would die, unable to get to the hospital.
The point is that any event that actually seriously disrupts the operation of any major company or industry is going to inevitably hurt regular uninvolved people as well. We live in a system and all that.
And the point of blocking roads is not to “draw attention.” The point of direct actions like that is to cause economic disruption. The key thing to keep in mind is that the truly wealthy are highly diversified in their investments. Those with the real power to change things aren’t moved by a single factory somewhere being inconvenienced. Change in societies like ours really only happen when the reform movement, whether peaceful or violent, grows to such an extent that it risks taking a serious chunk out of nationwide GDP. All the people at the top really care about is money. And there really isn’t any way to hurt them financially without throwing a wrench into the gears of the entire economy.
That is ultimately what it took for the Civil Rights movement to secure its victories. Black people then were around 12-15% of the population. That number of people is never going to be able to secure their rights on their own through the ballot box. But even 1% of the population working together through direct and indirect action can be enough to grind an entire national economy to a screeching halt. Historically, that is what it has taken for any group to ever secure rights from their oppressors. Asking nicely never works. It always comes down to, “compromise with us, or we will (metaphorically or literally) burn this whole place down.”
Change and reform are disruptive by nature. There is no such thing as a successful reform movement that only hurts a few narrowly defined perpetrators.
There is a tangible difference between cutting off utility infrastructure and the fallout from shutting down oil refineries. Sabotaging a substation or power plant, blocking vital thorofares, shutting down water plants, etc will cause direct deaths and fall more in line with an attack on the population than a protest. That is what certain countries are doing to their neighbors and we rightly condemn that even in war.
Causing a drop in available fuel through refinery or pipeline embargo or sabotage would at worst cause rationing and prioritization to emergency services. This will of course cause damage to those that rely on transportation, but allows the ability to plan for/around that infrastructure disruption does not.
Blocking roads is the least impactful infrastructure disruption obviously, but disruption of fire, police, and other emergency services is still a more direct impact than what would amount to the 70s oil embargo.
When we get into acceptable losses, it can sound like the “left’s” equivalent to gun rights. I am not saying these are the same, or of the same magnitudes, just that the argument is made for how many gun deaths are acceptable to retain fundamental liberties. Both are probably important discussions to have, but there will be people who is answered to both will be zero or who don’t even want to engage with such a topic.
Firstly, your hyoptheical protest is no such thing and a strawman, that is an act of war, expected of despots and revolutionaries, not groups of rational individuals demanding change. It also highlights my point, you stated that reform movements begin to gain steam when a critical mass of the population backs them, how can a group expect to gain such a following when their protests cost proportionaly more to the people you need to support your cause than it does to the people actually making the decisions?
How do you expect to find supporters if you cost average people a measurable portion of their living. I did some napkin math, assume a days worth of hourly work at 15$, before income tax, thats ~120$, versus an oil C-suite who according to my search take home ~24m a year (does not include the other parts of their pay and benifits) meaning you have to cost them ~100k of their personal take-home income to proportionaly effect them the same way. This is not worth noticing for the suit (notice how all those Return-to-office articles only mention normal workers and not executives) and personally damaging loss of income for the average person who statistically has little savings.
This was my point about being better protestors, damaging or disrupting public infrastructure (roads, rails, things essential to emergency services) should be reconsidered as venues for the protest because its disruption alienates the people who you would like to support your cause, is ignored by the people with the power to affect the change being demanded and makes the protestors themselves look like fools.
Apologies for the late reply, people got to sleep ya know.
And if those walk out or sit ins were successful, would people not also die? Imagine a vast coordinated effort. Thousands of climate protesters break into various oil processing and refining plants and do everything they can to disrupt operations without killing anyone directly. They throw emergency stop switches. The close valves and epoxy them shut. They drain critical pipe segments and then cut them open with torches. And they chain themselves to equipment. Or maybe they just force everyone out of the facility at gunpoint and set the whole place on fire. Through their efforts, they substantially reduce US oil production for a period of time. That’s what a disruptive protest of the kind you’re suggesting looks like. Direct action against the most offending industries, done in a way that takes no human life.
And yet, people would still die. What good is an unblocked road if you don’t have fuel? People would lose their jobs because they couldn’t afford the fuel. People in critical condition would die, unable to get to the hospital.
The point is that any event that actually seriously disrupts the operation of any major company or industry is going to inevitably hurt regular uninvolved people as well. We live in a system and all that.
And the point of blocking roads is not to “draw attention.” The point of direct actions like that is to cause economic disruption. The key thing to keep in mind is that the truly wealthy are highly diversified in their investments. Those with the real power to change things aren’t moved by a single factory somewhere being inconvenienced. Change in societies like ours really only happen when the reform movement, whether peaceful or violent, grows to such an extent that it risks taking a serious chunk out of nationwide GDP. All the people at the top really care about is money. And there really isn’t any way to hurt them financially without throwing a wrench into the gears of the entire economy.
That is ultimately what it took for the Civil Rights movement to secure its victories. Black people then were around 12-15% of the population. That number of people is never going to be able to secure their rights on their own through the ballot box. But even 1% of the population working together through direct and indirect action can be enough to grind an entire national economy to a screeching halt. Historically, that is what it has taken for any group to ever secure rights from their oppressors. Asking nicely never works. It always comes down to, “compromise with us, or we will (metaphorically or literally) burn this whole place down.”
Change and reform are disruptive by nature. There is no such thing as a successful reform movement that only hurts a few narrowly defined perpetrators.
There is a tangible difference between cutting off utility infrastructure and the fallout from shutting down oil refineries. Sabotaging a substation or power plant, blocking vital thorofares, shutting down water plants, etc will cause direct deaths and fall more in line with an attack on the population than a protest. That is what certain countries are doing to their neighbors and we rightly condemn that even in war.
Causing a drop in available fuel through refinery or pipeline embargo or sabotage would at worst cause rationing and prioritization to emergency services. This will of course cause damage to those that rely on transportation, but allows the ability to plan for/around that infrastructure disruption does not.
Blocking roads is the least impactful infrastructure disruption obviously, but disruption of fire, police, and other emergency services is still a more direct impact than what would amount to the 70s oil embargo.
When we get into acceptable losses, it can sound like the “left’s” equivalent to gun rights. I am not saying these are the same, or of the same magnitudes, just that the argument is made for how many gun deaths are acceptable to retain fundamental liberties. Both are probably important discussions to have, but there will be people who is answered to both will be zero or who don’t even want to engage with such a topic.
Firstly, your hyoptheical protest is no such thing and a strawman, that is an act of war, expected of despots and revolutionaries, not groups of rational individuals demanding change. It also highlights my point, you stated that reform movements begin to gain steam when a critical mass of the population backs them, how can a group expect to gain such a following when their protests cost proportionaly more to the people you need to support your cause than it does to the people actually making the decisions?
How do you expect to find supporters if you cost average people a measurable portion of their living. I did some napkin math, assume a days worth of hourly work at 15$, before income tax, thats ~120$, versus an oil C-suite who according to my search take home ~24m a year (does not include the other parts of their pay and benifits) meaning you have to cost them ~100k of their personal take-home income to proportionaly effect them the same way. This is not worth noticing for the suit (notice how all those Return-to-office articles only mention normal workers and not executives) and personally damaging loss of income for the average person who statistically has little savings.
This was my point about being better protestors, damaging or disrupting public infrastructure (roads, rails, things essential to emergency services) should be reconsidered as venues for the protest because its disruption alienates the people who you would like to support your cause, is ignored by the people with the power to affect the change being demanded and makes the protestors themselves look like fools.
Apologies for the late reply, people got to sleep ya know.