Climate Activists Who Threw Soup at van Gogh Painting Are Changing Tactics | Just Stop Oil said it was ending protests in museums after achieving its initial demand. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 5 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago

In a statement, the campaign group said: "Just Stop Oil's initial demand to end new oil and gas is now Government policy, making us one of the most successful civil resistance campaigns in recent history. We've kept over 4.4 billion barrels of oil in the ground and the courts have ruled new oil and gas licences unlawful."

The Labour Government has said it will not issue licences for new oil and gas exploration, while a series of recent court cases have halted fossil fuel projects, including oil drilling in Surrey, a coal mine in Cumbria and the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields in the North Sea.

Why is it framed this way in this article and headline? They're stopping because they succeeded.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The NYT takes huge ad payments from the oil industry. Industry reps get regular access to reporters in non-news contexts as a result, and this spills over into the background beliefs and attitudes a lot of them have

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Really? Source on the claim that ads influence individual journalists? That seems odd to me, since the journalists writing articles would have no clue about advertising.

Do you know about your company’s marketing mechanisms? Most people don’t, whether it’s about placing or receiving ads.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It's not a direct impact; it's that the ad buys get the oil folks access in a way that you and I don't have. The journalists end up at things like conference panels with oil folks, and not so much with activists or scientists, and the editors choose who to put on a given story.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Oh, so the journalists are too stupid to think for themselves because they went to a sponsored conference?

Would you be brainwashed by a single conference?

[-] underwire212@lemm.ee 6 points 5 days ago

Why are you arguing in bad faith? That’s obviously not what they meant.

Your opinions and thoughts are shaped by the totality of your experiences. That single conference is just one example. And journalists are not super human- they are human just like me and you; subject to influence and sometimes yielding to “status quo” industry norms.

[-] millie@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago

Lemmy is absolutely overwhelmed with bad faith posters with dubious motivations.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

woosh

Maybe try rereading everything?

[-] underwire212@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago

You’re not attempting to try and understand what the other commenter is trying to communicate, instead making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. That is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

Also, what do you mean by woosh? Were you joking or something? I am not familiar with this term if it’s supposed to mean something.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 5 days ago

It's supposed to be the sound of a joke flying over one's head. Basically means "it was a joke".

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 13 points 5 days ago

Good. Go throw Spaghetti-O's at billionaires instead. Opening the can, optional.

[-] dumblederp@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago

Freeze the can and use a hyneman/savage cannon to fire it through their chest.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 8 points 5 days ago

They met their goal: a ban on new licenses for oil and gas.

Yay!

this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025

44 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6308 readers

442 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net