Airports disrupted across Europe as civil resistance groups join Oil Kills – the International Uprising to end fossil fuels - PRESS RELEASE - Oil Kills
Airports disrupted across Europe as civil resistance groups join Oil Kills – the International Uprising to end fossil fuels - PRESS RELEASE - Oil Kills
For immediate release Airports disrupted across Europe as civil resistance groups join Oil Kills – the International Uprising to end […]
” Ordinary people are taking matters into their own hands today to do what our criminal governments have failed to do. We are putting our bodies on the wheels of the machine of the global fossil economy and saying oil kills; we refuse to die for fossil fuels and we refuse to stand by while hundreds of millions of innocent people are murdered. We are in resistance against our murderous governments and the criminal elites who are threatening the survival of humanity.
“The climate crisis will not end until every single country has phased out fossil fuels, but those who bear the greatest responsibility and have the greatest capacity must do the most. As citizens of wealthy countries based in the global north, we demand that our governments stop extracting and burning oil, gas and coal by 2030 and that they support and finance other countries to make a fast, fair and just transition. They must sign a Fossil Fuel Treaty to end the war on humanity before we lose everything. “
I don't think pissing of stressed travelers is the way to do this.
Ports would get alot more govt attention and leave the public alone
There is no way to do this without inconveniencing someone.
There isn't. But why attack the voting public instead of the unvoting industry?
Airlines produce considerable carbon per individual mile but are also one of the industries improving efficiency and fuel usage (because it's so expensive). Meanwhile ocean liners and cruise ships burn the cheapest, most polluting fuel outside of national borders.
I would say protesting at a port would be less likely to garner international attention, and probably would be easier to shutdown quickly and relatively quietly.
Shutting down an airport is much more public, therefore probably safer in the long run. Also more likely to be reported on because it affects the public in a more direct way. Yes, it inconveniences some people, but it gets the message out.
Either way, I doubt it will do much to change anything soon enough.
I hate how accurate the last part is - im being a bit pedantic as something is always better than not doing something perfect.
Depending on how you did it ports/chokepoints would be much harder to stop as you can't just send in the cops - boats are much harder to board and stop safely. Some rope, floats, a few fast boats and the right placement would hold a ship up for hours, especially done outside a major city or in a shipping lane.
Flying is one of the most emitting activities in the world. For many Europeans it will be 20% of their carbon footprint for a single vacation.
Large transportation ships abs cruise ships are enormous polluters and would be low hanging fruit here
Most emitting per mile.
If you want to get people on board with your cause you don't do it by pissing them all off.
Blockadeing ports attacks the organization responsible, doesn't inconvenience the public and creates industrial pressure for change.
Im not telling them not to do it - only think wider and to be strategic with it. They may delay or divert a few flights, at the expense of the wider public having a considerably lower view of their actions.
I don't think blocking essential international trade is the way to do this.
Airports are responsible for more frivolous consumption and spread way more public awareness
- you if they had blocked the ports
Look, I can do conservative handwringing too!
Fuck them. If they didn’t want to be stressed maybe they should’ve chosen a different mode of transport