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.
