872
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 232 points 1 year ago

Nice, seems like we're finally getting to the point where we stop blaming the common people for climate change.

[-] Pisodeuorrior@kbin.social 91 points 1 year ago

Also, this seems like a much, MUCH better PR move than throwing paint at masterpieces in fucking museums.
I don't know who thought that was something that would have moved the public opinion towards their cause.

[-] acannan@programming.dev 38 points 1 year ago

Well it did seem to do a good job bringing attention to their cause. And, the worst damage incurred over the dozens of demonstrations was some minor frame damage. Imo it was kind of a brilliant scheme to get worldwide attention for the price of some tomato soup

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They were throwing paint into corporate offices and CEO's cars at the same time. The media chose to put the art vandalism on blast. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out the art vandalism was the idea of a corporate mole.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (90 replies)
[-] Mateoto@lemmy.world 105 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, targeting activism towards the lifestyles of the rich is a crucial step in addressing the issue of higher CO2 emissions and climate change. It's not about vilifying individuals, but rather recognizing that certain lifestyles contribute significantly to environmental harm.

Focusing solely on the lower and middle class isn't the solution, as they are the ones who often bear the brunt of climate change impacts and economic adjustments. What might be considered "luxury" for them is often just basic necessities, and their livelihoods are directly affected by climate-related changes.

On the other hand, the elite and super elites can afford to make substantial changes to their lifestyles without sacrificing their basic needs. Cutting back on private flights, yachts, and excessive consumption won't significantly impact their quality of life. Their choices to reduce their environmental footprint can send a powerful message and create a domino effect, encouraging positive change on a larger scale.

This doesn't mean demonizing anyone; it's about promoting awareness and responsibility. We need systemic changes, and these should start from the top down. By targeting the source of excessive consumption and promoting sustainable choices among the rich, we can create a more equitable and sustainable future for everyone.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 73 points 1 year ago

I'm ok with demonizing wealth hoarders as individuals. More than ok, actually.

We should be much, much more than just name calling.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Considering they have armed private security forces, there's not much more we can do but namecall the bastards.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 47 points 1 year ago

Eat the rich!

[-] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Golf? I need to do some research. I'd be lining up more useless garbage like cruise ships, coal energy, gas powered mowers, and all of the 'recyclable' garbage that isn't. Also styrofoam. Fuck styrofoam.

[-] 7Sea_Sailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 year ago

The gripe with golf usually lies within the incredibly high amounts of water needed to keep the courses green.

[-] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

That makes sense. Places like Arizona make my jaw drop.

[-] krische@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

A lot of the courses in Arizona aren't using potable water; they're using treated waste water.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sacha@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

Golf can use a terrible amount of water, plus keeping it mowed, and cutting forests for it. Places like Canada or the UK might be fine if it's not a drought year. But there's golf courses as far as Mexico. There's places in Mexico that is so dry outside of the summer months that golf courses would use a disgusting amount of water to keep the greens... green... there was a golf course in Mexico I went to that only bothered with the putting area and a bit around that. Everything else was dirt. It wasn't that pleasant of an experience because you do kick up dust when teeing off and whatnot. However, no way to lose your ball I suppose. Still, the water they needed just for the putting area must have been disgusting.

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

we need to change golf so it respects the land the course is built on, and doesn't try to make everything look like scotland. keep the green as-is but make the fairway something that doesn't use water, fits the local landscape (maybe have different solutions for different environments) and is just as playable as fairway grass. leave the out of bounds areas untouched. I think golf could serve to gain from forming itself to the terrain it's played on, rather than the other way around

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Scotland doesn't and shouldn't look anything like a golf course, hell the entire image of Scotland thats sold to the outside worlds is basically entierly artifically sculpted and maintained landscapes that continue to choke out our native species.

[-] Tigbitties@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

we need to change golf so it respects the land

But then you lose the feeling of entitlement.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

The vast majority of courses are this way. The PGA level courses and private clubs are the main problems. For example in Florida many courses are part of treating waste water and act as a flood control for the surrounding condos.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 17 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


BARCELONA, Spain (AP) — Climate activists have spraypainted a superyacht, blocked private jets from taking off and plugged holes in golf courses this summer as part of an intensifying campaign against the emissions-spewing lifestyles of the ultrawealthy.

Climate activism has intensified in the past few years as the planet warms to dangerous levels, igniting more extreme heat, floods, storms and wildfires around the world.

Tactics have been getting more radical, with some protesters gluing themselves to roads, disrupting high-profile sporting events like golf and tennis and even splashing famous pieces of artwork with paint or soup.

They’re now turning their attention to the wealthy, after long targeting some of the world’s most profitable companies – oil and gas conglomerates, banks and insurance firms that continue to invest in fossil fuels.

“We do not point the finger at the people but at their lifestyle, the injustice it represents,” said Karen Killeen, an Extinction Rebellion activist who was involved in protests in Ibiza, Spain, a favorite summer spot for the wealthy.

He published estimates of top billionaires’ annual emissions in 2021 and found that a superyacht — with permanent crew, helicopter pad, submarines and pools — emits about 7,020 tons of carbon dioxide a year, over 1,500 times higher than a typical family car.


The original article contains 873 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Amnesius@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
872 points (98.4% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2204 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS