Opinions expressed in opinion pieces are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff.
Posted on October 20, 2022
On October 14, 2022, two “ environmental activists – this is the almost time-honored formula – he threw the contents of two cans of soup into the sunflowers by Vincent Van Gogh, at the National Gallery in London.
They are members of the movement just stop oil, who claimed the package. Its main objective: to obtain the immediate cessation of any new oil or gas project.
” What’s more important: art or life? was the beginning of an incoherent speech, holding the argumentative mille-leaf, which can be heard, for example, in an article in the World who posted a subtitled video.
The world need :
” This initiative is part of a marathon of actions planned throughout the month of October by the Only stop oilthat claims spectacular methods and favors civil disobedience actions. »
Civil disobedience ? Seriously ? It’s a subject for a philosophy or law test.
On a wire twitter, just stop oil – a title that also questions, especially given the difficulties that many French have nowadays filling their tanks to fulfill their obligations – multiplies the apocalyptic statements. It starts with:
” Creativity and human ingenuity are on display in this gallery, but our heritage is being destroyed by our government’s inaction in the face of the climate crisis and the cost of living. »
In this case, if it weren’t for the protective glass”, our heritage it was almost destroyed by two young men – easy prey for manipulators and ideologues of all persuasions, yesterday, for example, by the cultural revolution in China, today by a revolution in principle ecological and in fact decreasing.
” Why are we protecting these paintings when we are not protecting the millions of lives that will be lost due to climate and social breakdown? »
The collapse? The IPCC – as an institution and insofar as it remains within its core mandate – cannot be blamed for the theories of collapse and collapselogy. One can, of course, have different judgments in the way he presents the results of assessments of the possible, probable, certain evolution of the climate.
It could also be argued that he has fallen to the dark side and is now preaching the apocalypse. This is the case of this presentation of the report “Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” (about 3000 pages!):
” The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human well-being and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief window that is rapidly closing to secure a livable future. »
There is even worse! The IPCC supports and promotes an activism whose intricacies it has not measured. Here, in translation and without further comment, is the ” Frequently Asked Questions 18.3 of the said report.
” Chapter 18 – Climate Resilient Development Pathways
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Frequently Asked Questions 18.3 I How can different actors in society and levels of government be empowered to pursue climate resilient development?
DRC [développement résilient au climat] involves trade-offs between different policy objectives. Governments, as well as political and economic elites, can play a key role in setting the direction of development at the national and subnational levels; but in practice, local people, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society can influence and even resist these paths.
Given these tensions, contestation and debate are inherent in the definition and research of the DRC. A civil society and active citizenship create the conditions for deliberation, protest, dissent and pressure that are fundamental to an inclusive participatory process. This allows a multitude of actors to engage in various domains, including governmental, economic and financial, political, knowledge, science and technology, and community. Decisions and actions can be influenced by unequal interactions between actors, including socio-political relationships of domination, marginalization, contestation, compliance and resistance, with diverse and often unpredictable results.
Thus, recent social movements and climate protests reflect new modes of action in response to social, economic and political inaction. The new climate movement, led primarily by youth, seeks to put science-based policy into practice and, more importantly, rejects a reformist stance on climate action in favor of radical climate action. This action is primarily accomplished through disruptive collective action and nonviolent resistance aimed at promoting awareness, a regenerative culture, and an ethic of compassion. These moves have resulted in notable political successes such as climate emergency declarations at the national and local levels, as well as at universities. Furthermore, their methods proved to be effective in ending the promotion of fossil fuels.
The success and importance of recent climate movements also suggest the need to rethink the role of science in society. On the one hand, new climate movements demanding political action have been motivated by the findings of scientific reports, mainly the IPCC (2018a) and IPBES (2019) reports. On the other hand, these movements have increased public awareness and engagement with climate change to unprecedented levels, beyond what the scientific community can do alone. »