Which do we, as a society, find more abhorrent?
We can anticipate a lot more aggression. People are watching horrendous acts of murder condoned by governments around the world right now. The hostility is growing. People are firmly slotted into their divisive camps. Chanting, passive resistance, challenging comments are all going to incite hostility. It will escalate. I agree with Climate Defiance, and Adam McKay and Peter Kalmus. I agree that we have run out of time to use social impact, entertainment, and traditional educational means to inform the public. And I fully support Climate Defiance. I support them financially. There’s a 20 year old girl who has been in and out of prison because of her actions with Climate Defiance. I check in with her by text every now and then. She suffers anxiety, but she is committed. She should be in school. This should not be on her shoulders. It’s a terrible burden her generation has.
Trevor's right! They have tried everything else -- including pressuring insurers like Allianz to STOP insuring this climate wrecking project.
Funny how the kinds of people who preach "civility" and that there's "a time and place" for discussions about the climate crisis don't appear to be so civil when they are being even slightly inconvenienced. It's almost as if they don't want to ever have a conversation about it and merely want to suppress dissent...
To those who find these kinds of disruptions upsetting, I suggest you imagine yourself as a young person who understands the threat represented by climate change. If worldwide, governmental actions to address climate change continue at their current tepid pace, anyone under twenty will be destined to have a terrifying future!
Glad to know about Petro Pete! He’s on my radar now.
Pete's email is pretty well hidden, but I did leave a message on his fb page. I hope anyone reading your substack will find some way of asking Pete to be accountable for what happens at his conferences.
Eek, that 7 million bbl/day is just shy of all of our domestic gasoline consumption.
In general I like to focus on demand destruction instead of supply, but this is absurd from some many perspectives. It both increases demand for domestic production, and should lead to increasing domestic gas prices. Then because USA production costs more than most of the world, it requires that we keep low severance and other fees on our oil industry. And, since our most-drilled fields are getting depleted, it means spreading O&G out more and more into pristine areas. (Good if you own mineral "rights" there, not so hot if you didn't even realize your subsurface rights weren't yours.)
So there are some reasons Pete could slow roll or deny these applications. Beyond the "carbon bomb."
As far as the media coverage, kinda weird list for sure. I think the lamestream media is kinda burnt out on the stop fossil fuels line. Can we maybe get a protest at DOE HQ to shame them into getting HEERA (home efficiency rebates) regs out the door? Recent info sez mid-2024 or later.
<i>if the law requires you to destroy the climate, and you’re a person with political power, then you must work harder to change that law.
So instead of quietly leaving the stage after Secretary Buttigieg’s comments, they remained, chanting among other things: “Stop Petro Pete!”</i>
There's a disconnect for me here. The DOT should do more yes. but Pete is not a cheerleader for petroleum. Pretending so seems disingenuous.
The imbalance in public discourse is worrying. It just tells me that the late-stage capitalist, right wing, fossil fuel-funded lobby has captured the mainstream media in the US, as it has in the UK, where I live. Joe Public has been lied to, deceived, told half the story (if that) of how bad climate change is and how much worse it will get if we don't act decisively. So when brave climate protesters like these young people take to the stage, it's easy for ignorant people to justify their anger.