I mean, in this theoretical situation it would. Ignoring the fact that it’s metaphorical, it’s sort of like saying we shouldn’t build windmills or nuclear power plants because the construction produces co2
I mean… maybe burning everything down would mitigate climate change. But the collapse of global supply chains would lead to billions losing access to sufficient food, clean drinking water, internet, electricity/modern heating, medicine, etc. We would see mass migrations, war, famine, disease, and ecological devastation, all on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. Ie, all the things we are trying to stop climate change in order to avoid.
Like, let’s say you murder the CEO of Exxon Mobile and light all their facilities on fire. The company vanishes, and everyone is scared to try to fill their niche (this wouldn’t happen, btw, they would just beef up security). Now whatever nation you are in has no oil. Immediately, the entire economy based on ICE vehicles grinds to a halt. Food shortages start within days. So do shortages of critcial medicines. Rural people are forced to decide between scratching a living off the land or abandoning their homes. All production of new plastics stops. Everyone who used to drive a car now spends hours more commuting each day. Everyone involved in oil and gas loses their jobs and start rioting in the streets. Blackouts and brownouts become common as coal and NG plants go offline. People start burning whatever is nearby in order to stay warm. Stressed out moms start murdering each other at the grocery store over rolls of paper towels. Etc.
This is a fun thought exercise but also a total strawman argument. There are many more reasonable ways to get rid of an oil company than to burn it all down overnight. Lots of countries have demonstrated examples of phased reductions of subsidies or increases in taxes to achieve a big policy shift in specific industries. A more radical but still not pants-on-head example is to nationalize a company or industry and then slowly and responsibly unwind it until there’s nothing left.
Stop the passive waiting, OP
Burning everything will surely help Climate Change!
It has to get worse before it can get better.
I mean, in this theoretical situation it would. Ignoring the fact that it’s metaphorical, it’s sort of like saying we shouldn’t build windmills or nuclear power plants because the construction produces co2
I mean… maybe burning everything down would mitigate climate change. But the collapse of global supply chains would lead to billions losing access to sufficient food, clean drinking water, internet, electricity/modern heating, medicine, etc. We would see mass migrations, war, famine, disease, and ecological devastation, all on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. Ie, all the things we are trying to stop climate change in order to avoid.
Like, let’s say you murder the CEO of Exxon Mobile and light all their facilities on fire. The company vanishes, and everyone is scared to try to fill their niche (this wouldn’t happen, btw, they would just beef up security). Now whatever nation you are in has no oil. Immediately, the entire economy based on ICE vehicles grinds to a halt. Food shortages start within days. So do shortages of critcial medicines. Rural people are forced to decide between scratching a living off the land or abandoning their homes. All production of new plastics stops. Everyone who used to drive a car now spends hours more commuting each day. Everyone involved in oil and gas loses their jobs and start rioting in the streets. Blackouts and brownouts become common as coal and NG plants go offline. People start burning whatever is nearby in order to stay warm. Stressed out moms start murdering each other at the grocery store over rolls of paper towels. Etc.
This is a fun thought exercise but also a total strawman argument. There are many more reasonable ways to get rid of an oil company than to burn it all down overnight. Lots of countries have demonstrated examples of phased reductions of subsidies or increases in taxes to achieve a big policy shift in specific industries. A more radical but still not pants-on-head example is to nationalize a company or industry and then slowly and responsibly unwind it until there’s nothing left.
I mean, I 100% agree with you that there are other, better options. But those other, better options aren’t represented with a molotov.
I dunno. I’m not a big molotov guy, but in general I think protests can lead directly to social and governmental changes.
I mean… in a sense it would, no? (Not that I would want that tho)
Oooh using gasoline to fight climate change. Literally fighting fire with fire. I like it.
There are so many people like you wanting the violence, but waiting for someone else to shoulder the risk. Performative rebellion.
That’s a lot of assuming you’re doing there.
Are you out there burning it to the ground?
If they were, it would be extremely foolish to answer your question honestly.
Even if they did say yes, you wouldn’t believe them anyway, so what’s the point in asking?
I guess the point is the same as you commenting then.