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, 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
blarghly@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
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.
witten@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
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.
blarghly@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
I mean, I 100% agree with you that there are other, better options. But those other, better options aren’t represented with a molotov.
witten@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
I dunno. I’m not a big molotov guy, but in general I think protests can lead directly to social and government changes.