That democracy doesn’t work that way? Okay, if convincing people to vote for your cause doesn’t work in a democracy, how does it work?
After decades of protesting “the right way” how many seats do the greens have? How many votes? How many people care enough about the environment that they would actually change who they vote for based off their climate policy?
Do you think the people getting red in the face over a 5 minute delay in their car would have changed their vote if we had just aked them nicely?
For me the biggest problem with the Greens is that they don’t talk about a realistic lifestyle that achieves their climate aims. As far as I can tell they just want us to sit around in forests banging rocks together and going “ug”. It’s all no to this, no to that, and no positive suggestions about anything.
Edit: oh and another thing it’s because of those wankers that fuel taxes and taxes on taxes are so fucking high.
Just because you don’t feel one strategy has been effective doesn’t mean the opposite will be. That’s five year old logic. I would also argue that peaceful protest has been incredibly successful. In one generation we’ve gone from “climate change doesn’t exist” to an EV being close to the most popular vehicle sold in the world. You might feel it’s not fast enough, but you certainly can’t argue it’s ineffective. I can tell you what’s not working: pissing on supporters and potential supporters. As per the data, it’s making people care less.
I ask again: if you don’t believe convincing people to vote for your cause is the best way forward in a democracy, what is?
We have missed literally every climate goal we’ve set, even the most mild ones imaginable, every single one.
We have had undeniable proof of human made climate change for over half a century now and arr still only making token changes. You electric car example perfectly illustrates this. Electric cars are just greenwashing, to make people feel like we’re doing better, but in reality our oil consumption has only ever gone up, and our carbon emissions too. So unless you set the bar for progress so incredibly low that "not increasing as fast as we could be if you were explicitly trying to make things worse, then no, they were not “incredibly successful”
And it’s not the opposite of an ignorance protest per se. Its just a different option, because you can either keep trying the same shit that hasn’t worked for half a century expecting different results like an insane person, or you can try new angles. And historically protests that people cannot ignore are more successful, and people only give a shit about things that affect them personally right at the moment. So making a problem that effects them in the moment is the best way to get through to them. And there is evidence it’s working. Climate protests now get far more coverage and the issue is talked about a lot more.
