You are reading a single comment by @Stonehedge and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
If, as some people believe, nothing short of net 0 emmisions in the next 10 years is enough to stave off the worst of the coming catastrophe, why on earth would they accept "We might do something about it in the 20-30 years" as a valid or useful response?
Which is not to say that activists are unimpeachable, but it seems unfair to lay the blame entirely at their feet, when the capitalist system is clearly uninterested in changing
branwen
@Stonehedge
I had the privilege of being able to observe the relationship between some United Nations committees relating to the environment, industry representatives and campaign group representatives (including Greenpeace) a few years ago.
I was amazed at how political it was. The environmental activist and charity organisations basically refuse to have any dialogue with the worst polluting companies and just put their fingers in their ears and demand that somehow these companies just cease to exist overnight and stop trading. This is clearly not going to happen and is not constructive in any way.
Even in one instance, where a major oil and gas company pledged to stop selling oil products within a couple of decades, the response was "Fuck off and die! Shut down now!". Surely there was an opportunity there to welcome the commitment but say that it wasn't enough rather than throw a hand grenade back?
I'm not arguing for a moment that any companies are doing enough to reduce their impact on the world but in a scenario where a company is legally betrothed to its shareholders and not the environment, surely there should be a greater focus on discourse and planing together? As it stands, the higher profile environmental organisations refuse to take a hands on approach to helping industry find solutions.
From what I have heard, this division and confrontation without working together has existed for decades.