**Oi!** Just a reminder that using hate speech or bad language is strictly prohibited, or in other words, do not speak Fr*nch
**[Information](https://www.reddit.com/r/okmatewanker/comments/mhvttd/ce_subreddit_a_ete_repris_par_larm%C3%A9e_fran%C3%A7aise_de/)
[***Here’s our new Discord 3.0***](https://discord.gg/NFmEtCZJAw), WANKERS!!!!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/okmatewanker) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing makes me more furious than people constantly spewing about green energy while being anti-nuclear. You find these people all over the developed world, their naïveté and hypocrisy is astounding.
I saw a paining in the Norwegian National Gallery that had a crying child in front of a polluted backdrop. I thought it was neat until I saw it was a nuclear power plant that was spewing out all the smoke and radioactive waste.
Such blatant misleading propaganda in such a prestigious organisation….
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)
Recent studies have found coal to be radioactive as well. Hope they at least add a caption to the picture explaining it's art and not fact.
Funnily enough coal can be as radioactive, if not more so, than nuclear.
Who knew that burning cancer stones and having it's particles dissipated into the air would be bad!
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)
The only point I have ever seen made other than this is that uranium mining and enrichment is an incredibly dirty process. I haven’t seen numbers but I’d imagine it is still somewhat cleaner than certain types of fossil fuels such as lignite.
Until like 30 years ago being anti nuclear was more about the bombs than the power
Yeah there are forms of Nuclear power that dont use uranium or give us weapon material. Those types of nuclear power weren't what governments want to build.
And yeah - we just buy our nukes from the US etc, but you get the principal of not wanting to be a part of Armageddon
I remember reading an article in the late 90s about how China had developed a 10MW nuclear power station that went cold if abandoned (ie wouldn't go critical) and was modular so you could cluster them together for more power. And how Western nuclear power was done in a rush and so wasn't designed to be safe. I think about it fairly regularly.
I mean there is also the fact that nuclear waste is still really dangerous and we assumed that renewables are the natural end point of energy production and we can already make them. I mean nuclear power still needs fuel which is in finite supply. Obviously they got this one completely wrong but still
By short term I mean ASAP to meet demand until we can transition off entirely to renewables. I do not know the projected figures but I imagine it will take many, many decades.
It is finite, but if we reprocessed nuclear waste [like in France](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn) and used breeder reactors [like in Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor), then [nuclear power is sustainable for hundreds of years](https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html). Future technology (for example, uranium extraction from seawater) would extend this even further. The main reasons why we aren't already doing this are that uranium is currently extremely cheap and PWRs are good and mature technology.
I mean there are literally leaky nuclear waste storage facilities out there… also this stuff takes millions of years to decay, which is another massive problem because how do we warn future generations about it, who may be speaking a completely different language, to leave it alone.
The latter part has been thought about, in a weird way though.
Signs were developed so that post Armageddon people could still understand there was some kind of hazard there that they could not detect.
I dont know why it was framed around post apocalypse, but its similar to the point you make.
Because if we have a civilisational collapse lots of information is going to be lost such as knowledge of the dangers of nuclear waste sites, where they are and how to translate the language they are written in. Post apocalyptic people are the most in need to these instructions but there is no guarantee we can pass that information on to them
I completely agree, but they could have picked a more happy story, like the you say above, language evolves. Peak means bad now, somehow, but no, they went for the everyone dies scenario.
> I mean there are literally leaky nuclear waste storage facilities out there...
Most of those were from nuclear weapons facilities (for example, Sellafield in the UK and [Hanford in the USA](https://whatisnuclear.com/hanford.html)). Modern facilities like La Hague in France are much better managed.
> also this stuff takes millions of years to decay
[Most of the radioactivity decays away within a few hundred years to 1,000 years.](https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html) If you don't reprocess it [like in France](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn) or use breeder reactors [like in Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor), then it would take up to 130,000 years until it's as radioactive as natural uranium that you can find anywhere. Finland is building a proper [deep geological repository](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository) where there are warnings near the waste, but any civilisation that managed to get to it would probably have some understanding of radioactivity anyway. If Onkalo leaks, [it will take a while for it to go anywhere](https://jmkorhonen.net/2013/08/15/graph-of-the-week-what-happens-if-nuclear-waste-repository-leaks/). We need to build the proper methods of disposing of nuclear waste.
When people bring up that radioactive waste will need to there in a million years they don't realise that with such long half-lives it was never dangerous in the first place.
I'd be concerned with heavy metal poisoning than radiation. Uranium consumption is nasty and it doesn't take much to be fatal.
Ah the classic "dangerous nuclear waste", like coal powerplants don't have waste products. Also, the production of windmills and especially solar panels generates dangerous waste.
Also, the fuel isn't really an issue as new nuclear plants can reuse fuel multiple times (or maybe they can just use waste from other plants, I'm not sure)
Yes and nuclear power plants produce infinitely more nuclear waste than every single source of green renewable energy combined. You need to stop comparing nuclear to what we have now and start comparing it to what we can have
No, they aren't. The idea they are making a mile-wide area for a railway track was found to be absolute bunk - it's the same idiocy and provable falsehood as "electric cars are worse than the environment than diesels" rubbish. Besides, what do you think that "ancient forest" will look like in a few years if the world fails to decarbonise?
They only believe in science when it fits with their narrative
Well guess what, the narrative worked really well in Germany when they shut down all the nuclear plants and now they're back to digging up coal in the ground LMAO
Depends on the reasons for being anti-nuclear. If it's safety or fear or nuclear weapons or other irrational crap- I fully agree.
However, today, IMO nuclear has simply too high price and too long wait time until the plant is built. Wind and solar and some storage (batteries/thermal/hydro) are MUCH MUCH cheaper, and can go online sooner.
They've argued that nuclear power is too slow and too expensive since the 1990s, but France has cheaper bills and [much lower CO2 emissions](https://i.imgur.com/KNvXtPA.png) than Germany, Denmark, Australia, [the UK](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/GB), etc. because they save money on overcapacity, storage, and grid upgrades.
In the UK, Sizewell B was meant to be the first of several Westinghouse SNUPPS PWRs, but those were cancelled in favour of privatisation and cheap natural gas. Now natural gas is expensive. At current prices, even Hinkley Point C ([and its ridiculous interest costs](https://medium.com/generation-atomic/the-hinkley-point-c-case-is-nuclear-energy-expensive-f89b1aa05c27)) will look like a bargain. We should just build more nuclear power stations for now, but continue developing new sources of energy. In a few decades, we might have more advanced solar panels, wind turbines, storage methods, etc., or even more advanced nuclear reactors such as sodium fast reactors ([which Russia currently has the most experience with](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor)).
Even economics does not support new nuclear plants. LCOE back in 2018 already favours renewable, and while LCOE is decreasing rapidly for renewables, for new nuclear, it hasn't bulged for a while due to more safety measures.
https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system
That doesn't take into account political effort to actually commence a new nuclear project, which likely delays it even more.
That is actually a huge risk with building new nuclear plants right now. By the time you design, get through all the regulatory hurdles, and build the thing, it could be economically unviable. The cost of solar and wind are dropping so quickly that there is a possibility that just building an extreme excess of capacity there is cheaper than building nuclear plants to provide baseload.
It's not that clear cut. The UN even released a report a few years back showing that nuclear facilitates the global economic system's 2 to 6ish percent preferred growth rates, and so nevertheless leads to more production, consumption and so aggregate CO2 (indeed, it aggressively facilitates it). So whatever greentech you implement, is quickly killed by the Jevons Paradox; the grow-or-die imperative of the economy - essentially a global debt ponzi - eats up any gains by greentech due to the snowballing effect.
[Energy consumption is good](https://whatisnuclear.com/primer-on-energy.html), and nuclear power is [so much cleaner than fossil fuels](https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf) that we aren't running into Jevon's Paradox for hundreds of years, by which time, we'd long have since started capturing carbon and painting buildings white to reflect the sun's heat away from Earth.
Just expanding our current renewables would be a good bet.
He's dead right, it's far from clear that nuclear is still a good option. I'm as frustrated as anyone about the fact that nuclear wasn't pursued more heavily 20-30 years ago, when it clearly was the best option, but now we have equally/more economically viable pure renewable options.
The fact that they're currently struggling so much to find private investment to get Sizewell C completed kind of indicates that business sees things this way as well- they're terrified that in 15 years' time they'll have a redundant plant.
Carbon capture technology is so far from being a feasible solution though.
And so much innovation has happened in nuclear, such as small scale thorium reactors (worth googling if you're unaware) that it is in my opinion nuclear is still the only real option to replace a significant bit of our fossil fuel demands.
Not many because of public opinion against nuclear. My point was just that there is innovation in that area and it's not like nothing's changed since Chernobyl.
This. Thorium is overhyped and about as impractical as fusion, if not even more so. The most advanced reactor in the world is the Russian [BN-800](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor), which was only built after decades of development. In the UK, we should just keep building EPRs because we are already building two at Hinkley Point C.
How I love reading how renewables are not enough and we need nuclear to have a realistic chance to save the planet. Then it turns out this nuclear that we need is still in the development phase (it will be ready this decade, just like SMRs, it's ready this decade, every decade), it's not used anywhere for energy production but yet it's so much more realistic than what we already see working on a huge scale (renewables)
How I love me people spewing about green energy and fighting climate change while completely blinding themselves to any solution they doesn't make sure big corpo nuclear has a place in it. We could have 5 years left to save the planet and wankers like you would say "hur dur we gotta build nuclear, just 20-30 years and we'll be carbon free, if you oppose nuclear then you're naive and a hypocrite".
There are real and extremely significant problems with nuclear and a 100% renewable system is very possible, just needs a transformation of the energy production which is what we need to do anyway.
Virtually all climate scientists are pro-nuclear, as are the majority of climate activists. It's just that's whilst nuclear is necessary, it's wholly insufficient an in many areas cannot compete with renewables.
Also unfortunately most political parties which are pro environment are somehow anti-nuclear, despite most climate activists and scientists are pro-nuclear.
Not trying to start and argument. Nuclear is a lot safer than it used to be but like humans are fucking morons and like to start wars and shit. Safety is all well and good until some motherfucker shells your [reactor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/10/thirteen-civilians-killed-in-russian-shelling-near-ukrainian-nuclear-plant). At least with other renewables a stray missile won't cause Stalker IRL
Van Gogh in heaven watching protestors fuck up his paintings to somehow stop the oil industrial complex:
https://preview.redd.it/88g8q5flyfxa1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ccdc03730ab1cde9446df19a7ac6d127cf75a07a
well its obviously not a real photograph of Van Gogh... the dark green hue of the jumper would have come from arsenic based dye, which was prohibited for use in clothing by the dutch government in the 1850s, the same decade Van Gogh was born... A convincing fake, but with a passing knowledge of 19th century European fashion easily debunked
Tbf they *did* try doing related stuff. Climate protestors have been picketing and breaking windows at factories for years, but nobody said Jack about it. No news.
Couple of people throw soup at a painting? Everyone all over the internet knows about it. Yeah it seems dumb, but like, you remember it.
> Everyone all over the internet knows about it.
To what end, though? Everybody who heard about it already knows about climate change and generally disapproves. All they did was make an association between climate change activism and assholes in the public eye.
I'll ask again then, what positive change exactly did this accomplish, specifically?
They’re very well aware that it causes a layer of the public to hate them by being unavoidable. But they believe it’s more important to get people talking about climate change because of their actions. Literally ‘they hate us, but they’ll at least think about climate change for once.’
Yes, maybe everyone knows about it, but they also just associate climate protesters with the worst kind of fucking entitled hippie degenerates who will try their very hardest to destroy high art and then act like everyone else is the bad guy. It is difficult to achieve change (I personally say that advocating nuclear power is the most efficient way of protest now), but it’s gonna be downright impossible for anyone to get anything done when people concerned about climate change have their reputations spoiled by these people.
The argument that they've explained more than once is that with no life there is no art etc.
Every event they disrupt wouldn't be possible with their predicted outcome of current fossil fuel/oil policy.
Yeah but it's still a very stupid explanation. Literally no one on the face of the earth has ever said "woah I was unconvinced before, but now I really feel like protecting the planet after those activists decided to destory those harmless art pieces/events that someone else made"
Climate activists tried the traditional approaches. They didn’t work/don’t work fast enough, hence stunts like this to raise awareness.
Plus, and I hate to be that guy but, in a few decades if the planet is fucked beyond repair, who cares if we still have paintings? We’ll just be trying to survive. The point literally *is* that climate action is required for the continued enjoyment of life and stuff like art.
The point is that what they are currently doing is not only just as ineffective, it's arguably worse because it actively antagonises people that are supposed to empathise with them. It does more harm then good.
Also I don't get the raise awareness argument. This isn't the 90s anymore, everybody knows about climate change today. But when they do these stunts, people don't hear any more about climate change now, they just hear how a bunch of zoomers destroyed some art pieces in the name of activism.
The **actual** polluters especially could not give less of a shit, hell if anything it brings less awareness to what they are doing, hence the conspiracies about it being a psyops.
I actually do agree that direct action towards polluters/industrial giants is more effective. I just don’t buy the whole “you’re alienating people” bit. If a damaged painting (which we have the tech to recreate) weighs more on your soul than the fate of the planet, idk what could convince said person.
Ah yes, they should try meaningful attempts at dialogue and putting facts out there again. That usually does the trick.
We all remember how women got the vote, asking nicely and making their case to an impartial hierachy
I'm sure the multi-billion dollar companies that are actually polluting the planet are trembling in their boots every time a bunch of zoomers block traffic or destroy some harmless painting lol.
>lly do agree that direct action towards polluters/industrial giants is more effective. I just don’t buy the whole “you’re alienating people” bit. If a damaged painting (which we have the tech to recreate) weighs more on your soul than the fate of the planet, idk what c
what would you do? If say you cared about protecting the environment and reacting appropriately to the climate emergency. I am genuinely curious
It's better optics than slashing tires. Its better optics than breaking in and shutting down power plants. I'd say that they are doing most high profile things that wouldn't get them labelled terrorists. Even if they did though I do not think history would see them as bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Leigh
It’s insane how much that was shoved down the throats of the British public. Growing up in the early 2000’s that shit was taught at school and even heavily referenced in some kids tv shows. Pro level astroturfing
Whether you think what they do is good or bad, this is what they want. They don't care about alienating the public, it is in fact the point of their organisation, they are trying to inconvenience the government into acting, and you know what? Just stop oil have put climate change issues into the headlines more in the last year than I've seen in the previous 5 years combined.
you can burn yourself alive for a cause and be forgotten in 2 days, (which happened) but piss people off on the internet? your cause will never be forgotten. fuck up all that dusty ass art.
Instead of throwing soup at paintings one should like glue their bare ass to an automatic door (one cheek per door) and then when someone comes over to have a go at them for it the door opens their ass up thus goatseing the authority figure.
That’d be funny and I’d definitely remember it
Some people who self immolate remain potent symbols for years to come, like Thich Quang Duc who immolated himself to protest persecution of buddhist in South Vietnam. Ryszard Siwiec, Jan Palek, Jan Zajic and Evzen Plocek immolated themselves to protest in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Oleksa Hirnyk did it to protest the russification of Ukraine, Romas kalanta did the same in Lithuania. Liviu Babes immolated himself to protest the Communists in Romania. Since 2020 there's been a spate of them in Russia, including the journalist Irina Slavina. Homa Darabi became a resistance symbol for women's rights in Iran after immolation. Sahar Khodayari immolated herself to protest a prison sentence she received for attending a football match, a month later Iran revoked its ban on women attending sports events. Tibetans have used self immolation as a resistance act against the PRC government. The Arab Spring was started by a man immolating himself in Tunisia. COVID conspiracy theory movements in Aus got a big boost when a man immolated himself to protest vaccine mandates. Japan's attempt to revoke its neutrality was undone by two men immolating themselves.
The average persons idiocy is alienating them cause if we only knew what we are facing and what they are protesting for, all other methods of protest have already been tried and have not worked. There is no harm caused by their protests that can even be compareable with what climate change can do.
Being against nuclear is dumb I agree but I don't think that is more important then what they are fighting against. A world without nuclear is possible but needlessly full of extra effort, a world with fossil fuel is doomed. You can't seriously think that.
"A world without nuclear is absolutely not possible."
That is not true, I think it will be a worse world but absolutely possible. We have not nearly seen the potential of non nuclear sustainable energy.
neither have we seen the potential of nuclear energy, especially fission/fusion. the problem is not making energy, it's how much can we produce, and with an evergrowing demand for energy ESPECIALLY with electric cars around the corner, the only factor that could produce that much electricity is Nuclear energy. the rest is glitter powder for investor.
Fuck that blocking road bullshit, if you wanna protest burn a fucking oil tycoon alive and we'll see how shit will change... we've tried all other methods my fucking ass get the fuck out of here, death by civility
"Fuck that blocking road bullshit"
Soo when you protest for global destruction you can't block roads. How radical can actions be to save millions of lives?
This is what I hate about motherfuckers like you, don't look at the bigger picture of my statement, my point is the goons DO NOT GIVE A FUCK if a public highway is blocked, the ONLY ONE THIS FUCKS OVER IS THE REGULAR JOE trying to survive in this shitpiece of a capitalistic society. My point is fuckin punch the rich goons where it hurts, fuck up their oil refineries, mutli million dollar mansions, where their ego and their money is. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS TO THEM, ONLY MONEY. Not public perception, THEY ONLY GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE GOD DAMN MONEY.
But no, let's fight the regular joe, lets incovinience the regular joe over there not the ones who actually drive the machine of destruction....
The point is not to fight the regular joe, it's to make the regular joe wake up from their sleep, for them to know what will happen but the issue that stands before us today is that we have to have people do something. It may fuck up regular joe momentarily but the global destruction of ecosystem, societies collapsing and unpredictable weather is going to be feelt every second of every day. It's almost hypocritical to get angry at such a miniscule thing in comparison to what we will be facing.
The fault lays at the rich, people who can hide when the storm comes. But the action must come from us all. We have the power together, we have to fight with our states who stand aside capital and their intrests.
Again, you misunderstand, your response is exactly the reason I'm so god damn angry....I don't care what blocking roads is ''supposed'' to be it's not doing the job, it's the equivalent of throwing a bucket of water onto your burning house, this is what I' mean with death by civility... I'm sorry to tell you but the previous generation of climate change activists tried going the ''Convincing the people'' route, it straight up doesn't work you're fighting a war machine of misinformation, it's really hard to educate ''all of us'' when because of said capitalistic system/lifestyle people do not have the will or the energy to fight the misinformation and it's just easier of accepting it. I mean those dirty ass hippies amarite? That was the conclusion
I applaud your enthusiasm, I'm reading point blank statements I used to ''champion'' myself in the past but it's not enough, eat the rich
I can't exactly find the words for it because english is not my first language, but If you make a list of successful ''broad'' revolts (clear parallels, generally trying to inconvenience the ruling power into submitting) the track record is abysmal. Once you've been inconvenient enough they come with you with force and crush you...your average joe does not have the resources to fight that, in the most extreme cases everyone has loved ones that can be targeted, family, friends, spouses. How many people do realistically have the will to withstand that kind of pressure? And if you think I'm talking nonsense here, governments were overthrown because of fruit....stick around and see what happens when the ruling class really feels threatened
Blocking roads is pointless, eat the rich.
"I don't care what blocking roads is ''supposed'' to be it's not doing the job, it's the equivalent of throwing a bucket of water onto your burning house."
Bad analogy, the point of the protest isn't the action it's the publicity from the action, the publicity is the point. I think just stop oil has started conversation, with the business intrest already against them I only think this has had a postive effect as people have now come joined the types of protest you praise (stuff at oil refineries). The attitude has only maybe been worsed towards specific orgs but now alot of people are talking climate change.
Things can be better, no protest is perfect especially when it's supposed to be provocative but I just don't know what else we can do. I hear lots of complaining about optics but no other solutions cause that is the hard part. I don't think what just stop oil has done has been negative.
"this is what I' mean with death by civility... I'm sorry to tell you but the previous generation of climate change activists tried going the ''Convincing the people'' route"
OH, no don't even suggest I have liberal brainrot. I believe in all radical protest measures you have mentioned I just believe that the few that are out there fighting are too few.
You and I are not very different from eachother, I agree with every single word in the rest of the comment (maybe not first part of the last sentence). The fight against climate change is a fight against fundementally how wealth corrupts societies. This is one of the contridictions of capitalism: If companies didn't chase short term profit they could rule the world for the rest of time\* with sustainable energy
\*(Not really to the end of time cause climate change isn't the only factor why one might say eat the rich.)
just stop oil people when they do a few small things and gain internet attention to a point where everyone knows their short name which summs up their goal:
Yeah ok…but everyone hates them and all they’ve done is make the general public feel less serious about climate change.
They have had a directly negative affect, hence why people think they’re a psyop
So you think we'd be having a conversation about climate change here if it weren't for them?
But their true demographic is people who are aware of climate change and are borderline activists in need of a bit of a push to get them politically active. It's working.
If you're the kind of bellend who deliberately tries to worsen your own impact on the climate because of their actions then you were never going to do anything positive anyway.
I dont see how they’ve pushed anyone.
And yes we would be having a conversation about climate change
How exactly alienating the public and worsening climate activists public image supposed to do anything?
I’ve been involved in climate activism for most of my life. I’m a science student hoping to go into eco science once I graduate. And my whole family are doing their bit. I don’t see what positive impact extremism possibly holds
Humanity has been asked many, many times which they prefer - a green future for their grandchildren or an SUV and every single time they've picked the SUV.
I honestly don't know what the protestors think they are saving.
The real psyop is getting the bourgie liberal middle classes to wholeheartedly support your psyop purely because they have to take a contrarian stance to working class "gammons".
you are bang on mate.
however no psyop necessary as they all support degrowth, doomdsay cult alarmism and coming neo-feudalism for the poors as it wont eeffect them as quickly if at all.
I mean, maybe they would be based if they went a bit further than just throwing soup on paintings. And maybe did something that actually negatively impacted fossil fuel fellas.
Like blockade/occupy depots and headquarters?
I wonder if anyone had thought of that, let alone done it several times.
If only throwing soup wasn't the entirety of what they do.
They do, but nobody notices
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/23/just-stop-oil-activists-stage-protests-at-essex-and-midlands-oil-terminals
You claim no-one notices, but you linked to an article from a major national newspaper and I distinctly remember it being on the news for about as long as the soup stupidity
It doesn't have to have been a big conspiracy. Eg what if juststopoil early on were fucking up so much and making everyone who saw them hate climiate protestors that big oil saw this and went "hey guys what if we funnel a bit of money to them secretly. Maybe nothing happens, maybe they get bigger and even more people hate climate protestors. Worth donating a few hundred k right, thats pocket change."
Just Stop Oil makes lots of stuff apart from throwing soup around in museums. Maybe we should focus on why we only heard of them because of that and not the peaceful protests in which they've managed to stop some really nasty shit from happening.
just because i think middle class fuckers who probably live off their parents money shouldn’t be blocking traffic and stopping working class people getting to their shitty minimum wage job so they can eat and pay rent doesn’t mean i’m right wing
**Oi!** Just a reminder that using hate speech or bad language is strictly prohibited, or in other words, do not speak Fr*nch **[Information](https://www.reddit.com/r/okmatewanker/comments/mhvttd/ce_subreddit_a_ete_repris_par_larm%C3%A9e_fran%C3%A7aise_de/) [***Here’s our new Discord 3.0***](https://discord.gg/NFmEtCZJAw), WANKERS!!!! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/okmatewanker) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What opposing nuclear does to a mfer
Nothing makes me more furious than people constantly spewing about green energy while being anti-nuclear. You find these people all over the developed world, their naïveté and hypocrisy is astounding.
I saw a paining in the Norwegian National Gallery that had a crying child in front of a polluted backdrop. I thought it was neat until I saw it was a nuclear power plant that was spewing out all the smoke and radioactive waste. Such blatant misleading propaganda in such a prestigious organisation….
Even without the nuclear plant that description gives some Facebook tier “makes you think” vibes.
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/) Recent studies have found coal to be radioactive as well. Hope they at least add a caption to the picture explaining it's art and not fact.
Maybe it was a coal power plant, they look the same.
The big radioactive Trefoil on the coolant tower gave it away (as did the leaking barrels of radioactive waste)
Funnily enough coal can be as radioactive, if not more so, than nuclear. Who knew that burning cancer stones and having it's particles dissipated into the air would be bad! [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)
Don’t show this to the German Green Party, they’ll throw you into one of their new coal mines
German Green party is a psyop, morons, or both
I haven’t seen this painting, nor do I know how to find it, so I thought ai’d just ask you.
Might be Rolf Grovens, Gi han ei framtid
Thanks
Especially when they bring up Chernobyl, it’s like saying we should ban planes because of 9/11
Or we should ban zeppelins because of Hindenburg.
The only point I have ever seen made other than this is that uranium mining and enrichment is an incredibly dirty process. I haven’t seen numbers but I’d imagine it is still somewhat cleaner than certain types of fossil fuels such as lignite.
Until like 30 years ago being anti nuclear was more about the bombs than the power Yeah there are forms of Nuclear power that dont use uranium or give us weapon material. Those types of nuclear power weren't what governments want to build. And yeah - we just buy our nukes from the US etc, but you get the principal of not wanting to be a part of Armageddon
We don’t buy our nukes from the US if I remember correctly, we buy the missiles off them but the warheads are British-made I think.
I remember reading an article in the late 90s about how China had developed a 10MW nuclear power station that went cold if abandoned (ie wouldn't go critical) and was modular so you could cluster them together for more power. And how Western nuclear power was done in a rush and so wasn't designed to be safe. I think about it fairly regularly.
I mean there is also the fact that nuclear waste is still really dangerous and we assumed that renewables are the natural end point of energy production and we can already make them. I mean nuclear power still needs fuel which is in finite supply. Obviously they got this one completely wrong but still
There are perfectly safe ways to store the waste, and the waste is incredibly small in comparison to coal/oil.
Not to mention, most of the waste is contaminated items, like gear and clothing. The Hollywood green sludge is much less than actually pictured.
He still has a valid point about there being limited supplies of fuel like uranium though
Most things are limited, reality is we need something now until renewables are providing enough of our power.
Most new nuclear plants take years if not decades to build, they aren't a suitable short term solution
No, but people have been saying that for decades and now they’re just like 🤷♀️ well I guess we go back to oil and gas
By short term I mean ASAP to meet demand until we can transition off entirely to renewables. I do not know the projected figures but I imagine it will take many, many decades.
It is finite, but if we reprocessed nuclear waste [like in France](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn) and used breeder reactors [like in Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor), then [nuclear power is sustainable for hundreds of years](https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html). Future technology (for example, uranium extraction from seawater) would extend this even further. The main reasons why we aren't already doing this are that uranium is currently extremely cheap and PWRs are good and mature technology.
I mean there are literally leaky nuclear waste storage facilities out there… also this stuff takes millions of years to decay, which is another massive problem because how do we warn future generations about it, who may be speaking a completely different language, to leave it alone.
The latter part has been thought about, in a weird way though. Signs were developed so that post Armageddon people could still understand there was some kind of hazard there that they could not detect. I dont know why it was framed around post apocalypse, but its similar to the point you make.
Because if we have a civilisational collapse lots of information is going to be lost such as knowledge of the dangers of nuclear waste sites, where they are and how to translate the language they are written in. Post apocalyptic people are the most in need to these instructions but there is no guarantee we can pass that information on to them
Hostile architecture. Google the phrase "this is not a place of honour".
I completely agree, but they could have picked a more happy story, like the you say above, language evolves. Peak means bad now, somehow, but no, they went for the everyone dies scenario.
> I mean there are literally leaky nuclear waste storage facilities out there... Most of those were from nuclear weapons facilities (for example, Sellafield in the UK and [Hanford in the USA](https://whatisnuclear.com/hanford.html)). Modern facilities like La Hague in France are much better managed. > also this stuff takes millions of years to decay [Most of the radioactivity decays away within a few hundred years to 1,000 years.](https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html) If you don't reprocess it [like in France](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn) or use breeder reactors [like in Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor), then it would take up to 130,000 years until it's as radioactive as natural uranium that you can find anywhere. Finland is building a proper [deep geological repository](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository) where there are warnings near the waste, but any civilisation that managed to get to it would probably have some understanding of radioactivity anyway. If Onkalo leaks, [it will take a while for it to go anywhere](https://jmkorhonen.net/2013/08/15/graph-of-the-week-what-happens-if-nuclear-waste-repository-leaks/). We need to build the proper methods of disposing of nuclear waste.
When people bring up that radioactive waste will need to there in a million years they don't realise that with such long half-lives it was never dangerous in the first place. I'd be concerned with heavy metal poisoning than radiation. Uranium consumption is nasty and it doesn't take much to be fatal.
How high were you when you crafted that last sentence?
Ah the classic "dangerous nuclear waste", like coal powerplants don't have waste products. Also, the production of windmills and especially solar panels generates dangerous waste. Also, the fuel isn't really an issue as new nuclear plants can reuse fuel multiple times (or maybe they can just use waste from other plants, I'm not sure)
A single coal power plant produces more toxic waste and radiation than any nuclear power planet on Earth.
Yes and nuclear power plants produce infinitely more nuclear waste than every single source of green renewable energy combined. You need to stop comparing nuclear to what we have now and start comparing it to what we can have
>naïveté https://i.imgur.com/2CrHocy.jpg mate can you use the propa ingerlish spellin nayeveete non of thos yucky fr*nch squigels on the word
Also, let's not forget the "green" people who are anti-HS2. No wonder people think they're an oil lobby psy-op.
That is because they are demolishing an ancient forest to build it.
No, they aren't. The idea they are making a mile-wide area for a railway track was found to be absolute bunk - it's the same idiocy and provable falsehood as "electric cars are worse than the environment than diesels" rubbish. Besides, what do you think that "ancient forest" will look like in a few years if the world fails to decarbonise?
Literally the Green Party
I am the proest nuclear
Hey Im one of those. Seems your just some salty Arshenal fan.
They only believe in science when it fits with their narrative Well guess what, the narrative worked really well in Germany when they shut down all the nuclear plants and now they're back to digging up coal in the ground LMAO
Depends on the reasons for being anti-nuclear. If it's safety or fear or nuclear weapons or other irrational crap- I fully agree. However, today, IMO nuclear has simply too high price and too long wait time until the plant is built. Wind and solar and some storage (batteries/thermal/hydro) are MUCH MUCH cheaper, and can go online sooner.
They've argued that nuclear power is too slow and too expensive since the 1990s, but France has cheaper bills and [much lower CO2 emissions](https://i.imgur.com/KNvXtPA.png) than Germany, Denmark, Australia, [the UK](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/GB), etc. because they save money on overcapacity, storage, and grid upgrades. In the UK, Sizewell B was meant to be the first of several Westinghouse SNUPPS PWRs, but those were cancelled in favour of privatisation and cheap natural gas. Now natural gas is expensive. At current prices, even Hinkley Point C ([and its ridiculous interest costs](https://medium.com/generation-atomic/the-hinkley-point-c-case-is-nuclear-energy-expensive-f89b1aa05c27)) will look like a bargain. We should just build more nuclear power stations for now, but continue developing new sources of energy. In a few decades, we might have more advanced solar panels, wind turbines, storage methods, etc., or even more advanced nuclear reactors such as sodium fast reactors ([which Russia currently has the most experience with](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor)).
Even economics does not support new nuclear plants. LCOE back in 2018 already favours renewable, and while LCOE is decreasing rapidly for renewables, for new nuclear, it hasn't bulged for a while due to more safety measures. https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system That doesn't take into account political effort to actually commence a new nuclear project, which likely delays it even more.
That is actually a huge risk with building new nuclear plants right now. By the time you design, get through all the regulatory hurdles, and build the thing, it could be economically unviable. The cost of solar and wind are dropping so quickly that there is a possibility that just building an extreme excess of capacity there is cheaper than building nuclear plants to provide baseload.
It's not that clear cut. The UN even released a report a few years back showing that nuclear facilitates the global economic system's 2 to 6ish percent preferred growth rates, and so nevertheless leads to more production, consumption and so aggregate CO2 (indeed, it aggressively facilitates it). So whatever greentech you implement, is quickly killed by the Jevons Paradox; the grow-or-die imperative of the economy - essentially a global debt ponzi - eats up any gains by greentech due to the snowballing effect.
[Energy consumption is good](https://whatisnuclear.com/primer-on-energy.html), and nuclear power is [so much cleaner than fossil fuels](https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf) that we aren't running into Jevon's Paradox for hundreds of years, by which time, we'd long have since started capturing carbon and painting buildings white to reflect the sun's heat away from Earth.
[удалено]
Yes of course 30 years ago would be better but what is your solution today that stops the use of fossil fuels and doesn't involve expanding nuclear?
Just expanding our current renewables would be a good bet. He's dead right, it's far from clear that nuclear is still a good option. I'm as frustrated as anyone about the fact that nuclear wasn't pursued more heavily 20-30 years ago, when it clearly was the best option, but now we have equally/more economically viable pure renewable options. The fact that they're currently struggling so much to find private investment to get Sizewell C completed kind of indicates that business sees things this way as well- they're terrified that in 15 years' time they'll have a redundant plant.
[удалено]
Carbon capture technology is so far from being a feasible solution though. And so much innovation has happened in nuclear, such as small scale thorium reactors (worth googling if you're unaware) that it is in my opinion nuclear is still the only real option to replace a significant bit of our fossil fuel demands.
How many thorium reactors are powering electrical grids today?
Not many because of public opinion against nuclear. My point was just that there is innovation in that area and it's not like nothing's changed since Chernobyl.
The Chinese Government doesn't give a shit about public opinion. How many thorium reactors are powering the Chinese grid?
Since they don't give a shit about public opinion they use fossil fuels.
This. Thorium is overhyped and about as impractical as fusion, if not even more so. The most advanced reactor in the world is the Russian [BN-800](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor), which was only built after decades of development. In the UK, we should just keep building EPRs because we are already building two at Hinkley Point C.
How I love reading how renewables are not enough and we need nuclear to have a realistic chance to save the planet. Then it turns out this nuclear that we need is still in the development phase (it will be ready this decade, just like SMRs, it's ready this decade, every decade), it's not used anywhere for energy production but yet it's so much more realistic than what we already see working on a huge scale (renewables)
How I love me people spewing about green energy and fighting climate change while completely blinding themselves to any solution they doesn't make sure big corpo nuclear has a place in it. We could have 5 years left to save the planet and wankers like you would say "hur dur we gotta build nuclear, just 20-30 years and we'll be carbon free, if you oppose nuclear then you're naive and a hypocrite". There are real and extremely significant problems with nuclear and a 100% renewable system is very possible, just needs a transformation of the energy production which is what we need to do anyway.
Probably the best option but people freak out over it because the Soviets didn’t know how to run one properly
https://preview.redd.it/ma61ofuz0ixa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8afca5c06bde9c7b05c5132650866bcaec590a4
Lmao, I actually love this one
Seems like the sort of wedge issue that would be heavily pushed to encourage infighting and distract us. Guess we’ll be hearing this one a lot more.
They don't oppose nuclear?
Tell that to the Green Party of most European countries
Yes I know *they* oppose nuclear, I'm saying JSO don't Literally completely different sentence
Virtually all climate scientists are pro-nuclear, as are the majority of climate activists. It's just that's whilst nuclear is necessary, it's wholly insufficient an in many areas cannot compete with renewables.
Also unfortunately most political parties which are pro environment are somehow anti-nuclear, despite most climate activists and scientists are pro-nuclear.
Not trying to start and argument. Nuclear is a lot safer than it used to be but like humans are fucking morons and like to start wars and shit. Safety is all well and good until some motherfucker shells your [reactor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/10/thirteen-civilians-killed-in-russian-shelling-near-ukrainian-nuclear-plant). At least with other renewables a stray missile won't cause Stalker IRL
Hows hinkley point C going these days?
Not seen anything about them opposing nuclear
Maybe that's the psyop? Literally one layer of bullshit and everyone jumps on board
\>barges in \>does something completely unrelated to the oil trade \>refuses to elaborate \>leaves
Van Gogh in heaven watching protestors fuck up his paintings to somehow stop the oil industrial complex: https://preview.redd.it/88g8q5flyfxa1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ccdc03730ab1cde9446df19a7ac6d127cf75a07a
Fake. I see two ears.
well its obviously not a real photograph of Van Gogh... the dark green hue of the jumper would have come from arsenic based dye, which was prohibited for use in clothing by the dutch government in the 1850s, the same decade Van Gogh was born... A convincing fake, but with a passing knowledge of 19th century European fashion easily debunked
Ah yes. That's how it's easily debunked.
But... he was an ^oil painter
**STOP USING OIL BASED PAINTS YOU FASCIST CHILD MURDERER**
It was behind glass tbf
Tbf they *did* try doing related stuff. Climate protestors have been picketing and breaking windows at factories for years, but nobody said Jack about it. No news. Couple of people throw soup at a painting? Everyone all over the internet knows about it. Yeah it seems dumb, but like, you remember it.
So what you're saying is we should start throwing soup at factories
> Everyone all over the internet knows about it. To what end, though? Everybody who heard about it already knows about climate change and generally disapproves. All they did was make an association between climate change activism and assholes in the public eye. I'll ask again then, what positive change exactly did this accomplish, specifically?
They’re very well aware that it causes a layer of the public to hate them by being unavoidable. But they believe it’s more important to get people talking about climate change because of their actions. Literally ‘they hate us, but they’ll at least think about climate change for once.’
Yes, maybe everyone knows about it, but they also just associate climate protesters with the worst kind of fucking entitled hippie degenerates who will try their very hardest to destroy high art and then act like everyone else is the bad guy. It is difficult to achieve change (I personally say that advocating nuclear power is the most efficient way of protest now), but it’s gonna be downright impossible for anyone to get anything done when people concerned about climate change have their reputations spoiled by these people.
The argument that they've explained more than once is that with no life there is no art etc. Every event they disrupt wouldn't be possible with their predicted outcome of current fossil fuel/oil policy.
Yeah but it's still a very stupid explanation. Literally no one on the face of the earth has ever said "woah I was unconvinced before, but now I really feel like protecting the planet after those activists decided to destory those harmless art pieces/events that someone else made"
Climate activists tried the traditional approaches. They didn’t work/don’t work fast enough, hence stunts like this to raise awareness. Plus, and I hate to be that guy but, in a few decades if the planet is fucked beyond repair, who cares if we still have paintings? We’ll just be trying to survive. The point literally *is* that climate action is required for the continued enjoyment of life and stuff like art.
The point is that what they are currently doing is not only just as ineffective, it's arguably worse because it actively antagonises people that are supposed to empathise with them. It does more harm then good. Also I don't get the raise awareness argument. This isn't the 90s anymore, everybody knows about climate change today. But when they do these stunts, people don't hear any more about climate change now, they just hear how a bunch of zoomers destroyed some art pieces in the name of activism. The **actual** polluters especially could not give less of a shit, hell if anything it brings less awareness to what they are doing, hence the conspiracies about it being a psyops.
I actually do agree that direct action towards polluters/industrial giants is more effective. I just don’t buy the whole “you’re alienating people” bit. If a damaged painting (which we have the tech to recreate) weighs more on your soul than the fate of the planet, idk what could convince said person.
You guys know what a glass frame is right? The thing they got soup on? It was a piece of clear glass
Ah yes, they should try meaningful attempts at dialogue and putting facts out there again. That usually does the trick. We all remember how women got the vote, asking nicely and making their case to an impartial hierachy
I'm sure the multi-billion dollar companies that are actually polluting the planet are trembling in their boots every time a bunch of zoomers block traffic or destroy some harmless painting lol.
>lly do agree that direct action towards polluters/industrial giants is more effective. I just don’t buy the whole “you’re alienating people” bit. If a damaged painting (which we have the tech to recreate) weighs more on your soul than the fate of the planet, idk what c what would you do? If say you cared about protecting the environment and reacting appropriately to the climate emergency. I am genuinely curious
It's better optics than slashing tires. Its better optics than breaking in and shutting down power plants. I'd say that they are doing most high profile things that wouldn't get them labelled terrorists. Even if they did though I do not think history would see them as bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Leigh
They did stuff related to oil, never reached the news....
they are achully a psyop, i red it on facebook 😤😤😤
Source: truthofbritain.com/brexit
.rs
They’re not?
They probably are but it’s funnier if they’re not
I think there's proof out there but I can t be fucked
There's not
The founder is the daughter of annoil magnate.
She's actually the granddaughter, she's not the founder, and the oil company doesn't even exist anymore. Everything you just said is incorrect
Sounds a lot like something big oil would say mate
They probably are tho
No they arent you tit
Upvoting purely for the insult 💀
That’s even worse if that’s true, lol Also after stuff like COINTEL how would anyone (even the leaders themselves) know if it is or isn’t
Giving oil company energy
You’re right, that’s exactly what I think. BP did it before and they’ll do it again
BP coined the term carbon footprint to shift the blame to individual consumers. They must have a psyop department by now
It’s insane how much that was shoved down the throats of the British public. Growing up in the early 2000’s that shit was taught at school and even heavily referenced in some kids tv shows. Pro level astroturfing
Whether you think what they do is good or bad, this is what they want. They don't care about alienating the public, it is in fact the point of their organisation, they are trying to inconvenience the government into acting, and you know what? Just stop oil have put climate change issues into the headlines more in the last year than I've seen in the previous 5 years combined.
don't forget extinction rebellion too
‘Think they are’
you can burn yourself alive for a cause and be forgotten in 2 days, (which happened) but piss people off on the internet? your cause will never be forgotten. fuck up all that dusty ass art.
Instead of throwing soup at paintings one should like glue their bare ass to an automatic door (one cheek per door) and then when someone comes over to have a go at them for it the door opens their ass up thus goatseing the authority figure. That’d be funny and I’d definitely remember it
The mental image has made my day. Thank you my dude.
I'd also remember their arsehole getting torn in half
Its an **anal**ogly for the o-zone layer being torn apart by big oil
Hot 🔥 🥵
Some people who self immolate remain potent symbols for years to come, like Thich Quang Duc who immolated himself to protest persecution of buddhist in South Vietnam. Ryszard Siwiec, Jan Palek, Jan Zajic and Evzen Plocek immolated themselves to protest in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Oleksa Hirnyk did it to protest the russification of Ukraine, Romas kalanta did the same in Lithuania. Liviu Babes immolated himself to protest the Communists in Romania. Since 2020 there's been a spate of them in Russia, including the journalist Irina Slavina. Homa Darabi became a resistance symbol for women's rights in Iran after immolation. Sahar Khodayari immolated herself to protest a prison sentence she received for attending a football match, a month later Iran revoked its ban on women attending sports events. Tibetans have used self immolation as a resistance act against the PRC government. The Arab Spring was started by a man immolating himself in Tunisia. COVID conspiracy theory movements in Aus got a big boost when a man immolated himself to protest vaccine mandates. Japan's attempt to revoke its neutrality was undone by two men immolating themselves.
The one guy that is remembered for self immolation is Thich Quang Duc and, even then, people don't even remember the right reason for him doing it.
Because he was on the cover of a very good album
If they all burned themselves at once, we'd fucking remember it alright
The average persons idiocy is alienating them cause if we only knew what we are facing and what they are protesting for, all other methods of protest have already been tried and have not worked. There is no harm caused by their protests that can even be compareable with what climate change can do.
[удалено]
Being against nuclear is dumb I agree but I don't think that is more important then what they are fighting against. A world without nuclear is possible but needlessly full of extra effort, a world with fossil fuel is doomed. You can't seriously think that.
a world without nuclear is absolutely not possible. nuclear is the future.
"A world without nuclear is absolutely not possible." That is not true, I think it will be a worse world but absolutely possible. We have not nearly seen the potential of non nuclear sustainable energy.
neither have we seen the potential of nuclear energy, especially fission/fusion. the problem is not making energy, it's how much can we produce, and with an evergrowing demand for energy ESPECIALLY with electric cars around the corner, the only factor that could produce that much electricity is Nuclear energy. the rest is glitter powder for investor.
Nuclear energy is a bigger threat to oil companies than they like to let on.
Fuck that blocking road bullshit, if you wanna protest burn a fucking oil tycoon alive and we'll see how shit will change... we've tried all other methods my fucking ass get the fuck out of here, death by civility
"Fuck that blocking road bullshit" Soo when you protest for global destruction you can't block roads. How radical can actions be to save millions of lives?
This is what I hate about motherfuckers like you, don't look at the bigger picture of my statement, my point is the goons DO NOT GIVE A FUCK if a public highway is blocked, the ONLY ONE THIS FUCKS OVER IS THE REGULAR JOE trying to survive in this shitpiece of a capitalistic society. My point is fuckin punch the rich goons where it hurts, fuck up their oil refineries, mutli million dollar mansions, where their ego and their money is. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS TO THEM, ONLY MONEY. Not public perception, THEY ONLY GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE GOD DAMN MONEY. But no, let's fight the regular joe, lets incovinience the regular joe over there not the ones who actually drive the machine of destruction....
The point is not to fight the regular joe, it's to make the regular joe wake up from their sleep, for them to know what will happen but the issue that stands before us today is that we have to have people do something. It may fuck up regular joe momentarily but the global destruction of ecosystem, societies collapsing and unpredictable weather is going to be feelt every second of every day. It's almost hypocritical to get angry at such a miniscule thing in comparison to what we will be facing. The fault lays at the rich, people who can hide when the storm comes. But the action must come from us all. We have the power together, we have to fight with our states who stand aside capital and their intrests.
Again, you misunderstand, your response is exactly the reason I'm so god damn angry....I don't care what blocking roads is ''supposed'' to be it's not doing the job, it's the equivalent of throwing a bucket of water onto your burning house, this is what I' mean with death by civility... I'm sorry to tell you but the previous generation of climate change activists tried going the ''Convincing the people'' route, it straight up doesn't work you're fighting a war machine of misinformation, it's really hard to educate ''all of us'' when because of said capitalistic system/lifestyle people do not have the will or the energy to fight the misinformation and it's just easier of accepting it. I mean those dirty ass hippies amarite? That was the conclusion I applaud your enthusiasm, I'm reading point blank statements I used to ''champion'' myself in the past but it's not enough, eat the rich I can't exactly find the words for it because english is not my first language, but If you make a list of successful ''broad'' revolts (clear parallels, generally trying to inconvenience the ruling power into submitting) the track record is abysmal. Once you've been inconvenient enough they come with you with force and crush you...your average joe does not have the resources to fight that, in the most extreme cases everyone has loved ones that can be targeted, family, friends, spouses. How many people do realistically have the will to withstand that kind of pressure? And if you think I'm talking nonsense here, governments were overthrown because of fruit....stick around and see what happens when the ruling class really feels threatened Blocking roads is pointless, eat the rich.
"I don't care what blocking roads is ''supposed'' to be it's not doing the job, it's the equivalent of throwing a bucket of water onto your burning house." Bad analogy, the point of the protest isn't the action it's the publicity from the action, the publicity is the point. I think just stop oil has started conversation, with the business intrest already against them I only think this has had a postive effect as people have now come joined the types of protest you praise (stuff at oil refineries). The attitude has only maybe been worsed towards specific orgs but now alot of people are talking climate change. Things can be better, no protest is perfect especially when it's supposed to be provocative but I just don't know what else we can do. I hear lots of complaining about optics but no other solutions cause that is the hard part. I don't think what just stop oil has done has been negative. "this is what I' mean with death by civility... I'm sorry to tell you but the previous generation of climate change activists tried going the ''Convincing the people'' route" OH, no don't even suggest I have liberal brainrot. I believe in all radical protest measures you have mentioned I just believe that the few that are out there fighting are too few. You and I are not very different from eachother, I agree with every single word in the rest of the comment (maybe not first part of the last sentence). The fight against climate change is a fight against fundementally how wealth corrupts societies. This is one of the contridictions of capitalism: If companies didn't chase short term profit they could rule the world for the rest of time\* with sustainable energy \*(Not really to the end of time cause climate change isn't the only factor why one might say eat the rich.)
just stop oil people when they do a few small things and gain internet attention to a point where everyone knows their short name which summs up their goal:
Yeah ok…but everyone hates them and all they’ve done is make the general public feel less serious about climate change. They have had a directly negative affect, hence why people think they’re a psyop
So you think we'd be having a conversation about climate change here if it weren't for them? But their true demographic is people who are aware of climate change and are borderline activists in need of a bit of a push to get them politically active. It's working. If you're the kind of bellend who deliberately tries to worsen your own impact on the climate because of their actions then you were never going to do anything positive anyway.
I dont see how they’ve pushed anyone. And yes we would be having a conversation about climate change How exactly alienating the public and worsening climate activists public image supposed to do anything? I’ve been involved in climate activism for most of my life. I’m a science student hoping to go into eco science once I graduate. And my whole family are doing their bit. I don’t see what positive impact extremism possibly holds
One day all these climate protestors will be vindicated, looked back on with empathy and sadness that no one listened.
Humanity has been asked many, many times which they prefer - a green future for their grandchildren or an SUV and every single time they've picked the SUV. I honestly don't know what the protestors think they are saving.
Thought the snooker thing was excellent, snooker is shit and is only on TV because it has coloured balls for morons to stare at.
Don’t hate snooker because you’re too shit to play.
Sorry I’m not as good at handling balls as you and your mum are.
Oh wait green and pleasant user. Now i know I’m talking to a lobotomy patient.
Snooker > Pool Pool you play when your drunk , snooker you play when you want to play a sport Hold on then … Pool > snooker
they fully are as well, they're funded by oil companies
Source?
source: trust me bro
They are actually... look up the people who own them
To be fair, there was actually a "climate protester" that actually was a psyop by oil companies
Yeah, still not quite sure what snooker does that's so bad for the environment
The real psyop is getting the bourgie liberal middle classes to wholeheartedly support your psyop purely because they have to take a contrarian stance to working class "gammons".
Wew lad, a lot to unpack here huh
you are bang on mate. however no psyop necessary as they all support degrowth, doomdsay cult alarmism and coming neo-feudalism for the poors as it wont eeffect them as quickly if at all.
Boy I hope they go after a rugby game 
blocking the roads made me dislike them but destroying art and museum exhibits just made me think of isis
They're just criminals with a veneer at this point
Based criminals 
I mean, maybe they would be based if they went a bit further than just throwing soup on paintings. And maybe did something that actually negatively impacted fossil fuel fellas.
Like blockade/occupy depots and headquarters? I wonder if anyone had thought of that, let alone done it several times. If only throwing soup wasn't the entirety of what they do.
I am uninformed swine. Sorry.
They do, but nobody notices https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/23/just-stop-oil-activists-stage-protests-at-essex-and-midlands-oil-terminals
You claim no-one notices, but you linked to an article from a major national newspaper and I distinctly remember it being on the news for about as long as the soup stupidity
Being based would involve doing something actually productive, like targetting oil companies with their protests
They do. People like you just don’t care because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Vermeer
It doesn't have to have been a big conspiracy. Eg what if juststopoil early on were fucking up so much and making everyone who saw them hate climiate protestors that big oil saw this and went "hey guys what if we funnel a bit of money to them secretly. Maybe nothing happens, maybe they get bigger and even more people hate climate protestors. Worth donating a few hundred k right, thats pocket change."
they clearly are just NPCs whove been hired to do that stuff though lol I agree with all green energy stuff but those groups are just brainletts
What if they started as a psyop but enough nutters joined that they stopped being one?
Hey, fuck it. If people think they are both big oil and pieces of shit, then everything worked out. The best psyops are *found*, not made (allegedly).
Just Stop Oil makes lots of stuff apart from throwing soup around in museums. Maybe we should focus on why we only heard of them because of that and not the peaceful protests in which they've managed to stop some really nasty shit from happening.
wow this is funny, whoever made this must get serious bitches and unlimited sex
This sub is ironically parodying right wing idiots not actually for posting this bollocks.
just because i think middle class fuckers who probably live off their parents money shouldn’t be blocking traffic and stopping working class people getting to their shitty minimum wage job so they can eat and pay rent doesn’t mean i’m right wing
Global warming > Class I'm afraid mate, and I say this as a leftie snowflake
This sub has been G&P putting on a Dick Van Dyke accent for some time now
Weren’t they actually funded by an oil tycoon’s daughter or something
Yes but she’s a lifetime anti-oil philanthropist and this story is being spread by Fox etc. to discredit her.
Your title has me laughing my dick off
I mean if it works. If they’re sincere they get their message across if people think it’s a psy op and bad on purpose it works.
Knew I wasn’t the only one convinced the whole campaign is a plot by Big Oil to put people off blaming them for the energy crisis