From Whangārei to Invercargill, thousands are expected to take to the streets in Friday’s climate strike.
But it is not just about the climate crisis: The event is led by a coalition including Toitū Te Tiriti, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, and School Strike 4 Climate.
They have six demands. To keep the ban on oil and gas exploration, end the Fast Track Approvals Bill, toitū te Tiriti o Waitangi, climate education for all, lower the voting age to 16 and to “free Palestine”.
You must log in or register to comment.
They have six demands. To keep the ban on oil and gas exploration, (fair enough) end the Fast Track Approvals Bill, (understandable) toitū te Tiriti o Waitangi, (had to Google that) climate education for all, (there’s no way conspiracy minded persons will freak out about this) lower the voting age to 16 (not really related to the environment) and to “free Palestine”. (also not environmentally related.)
So, environmental, plus a bunch of other issues thrown in as well. I don’t think having such a grab bag of issues really helps their cause.
TBH I was thinking the same. Sure you have lots of people, but it’s easy for the government to say “well, those protests were mostly about climate change so we don’t think it really shows the public wants us to stop with the Fast Track Approvals Bill”. I’m no protest expert, but I would have thought protesting one issue would be easier to get real action on as the government would find it harder to ignore.
Coincidentally I just ran this past my partner because like you and @ilovethebomb@[email protected] it seems to be muddying the water to me.
They pointed out to me that School Strike had invited Free Palestine along because wars devastate the environment, this war in particular because the unusually high volume of ordnance. Also there’s the whole Ecocide issue around the deliberate destruction of environment etc.
The other thing is School Strike seems to have always conceptualised a lot of this stuff as relating to each other, e.g they want to be allowed to vote because they’re frustrated with what the existing electorate votes for vis a vis climate change. But I agree it doesn’t seem that clear, they need much more targeted slogans.
Yeah this was highlighted at the Ōtautahi rally.
The US military alone emits more CO2 than most countries. War and genocide are bad for the climate, as well as for humanity.
Will Appleby from SAFE pointed out that live animal exports are not only cruel, but they contribute to global carbon emissions.
Rolling back oil and gas bans is going to increase emissions, and those sources won’t even be online for another 10 years. The fast-track proposal is about silencing the majority that don’t want more oil and gas exploration.
All of these issues intersect in some way, and all of them need to be addressed.
I thought the messaging was pretty clear to be honest.
I thought the messaging was pretty clear to be honest.
I didn’t really get any messaging, just the brief intro from this article. Your explanation makes sense, but I haven’t seen this explained elsewhere. I see there’s a bit more in the live blog part now, but I’d still be concerned that the government can pretend that these things are different issues and use it as an excuse to ignore it because of people like me that haven’t understood without an explanation.
I agree, some sort of manifesto clarifying how they’re connected would help too prevent the current government dismissing them.
That’s good to know.
I’m stuck in bed at the moment with extreme vertigo so I can only look at still images from the protest - I’m obviously not getting the “whole picture”.
The youth voting age thing makes sense, or at least it makes sense that a youth organisation would support that.
With the US military thing, like any military, they do a lot more than just dropping bombs on brown people, they do a lot of logistics and humanitarian work, including humanitarian aid being delivered to Gaza by both air and sea, search and rescue, and even a lot of scientific research.
Yes and Jimmy Saville raised money for charity. :p
Seriously though, I got the impression they were protesting the war on Gaza and the use of environmentally destructive ordinance, not the actual existence of the US Military.
My point was most of their carbon emissions are probably from doing the more useful stuff.
The fact the US military probably pollute in other ways isn’t really that relevant to the direct effects of Israel’s war in Gaza though.
Here’s a quick example of the kind of things people are looking at (this estimate doesn’t look at things like forever chemicals and rebuild costs so it’s quite a low estimate):
The vast majority (over 99%) of the 281,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2 equivalent) estimated to have been generated in the first 60 days following the 7 October Hamas attack can be attributed to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis by researchers in the UK and US.
According to the study, which is based on only a handful of carbon-intensive activities and is therefore probably a significant underestimate, the climate cost of the first 60 days of Israel’s military response was equivalent to burning at least 150,000 tonnes of coal.
The analysis, which is yet to be peer reviewed, includes CO2 from aircraft missions, tanks and fuel from other vehicles, as well as emissions generated by making and exploding the bombs, artillery and rockets. It does not include other planet-warming gases such as methane.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/09/emissions-gaza-israel-hamas-war-climate-change
One issue wouldn’t make any difference. You really think this government is going to look at a protest of young people and liberals and Maori and change their course? This is mostly a message to the rest of the country that even though they are in the minority in this country there are lots of people who care about climate and environmental protection and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The message is not for the government or the majority of the people in this country who elected the government. We know they don’t want any of those things and they aren’t going to change their minds because a protest happened.
Because the fundamental thing about climate activism is you can’t just separate the environment from everyone and everything that happens within it. This includes political structures, which is why the voting age thing is in there.
I don’t understand how this isn’t more self evident to people when the most common point that comes up about personal solutions to reduce your emissions like EVs and solar panels etc is that many people can’t afford them. This speaks to more than just ‘environmental stuff’ being part of addressing climate change.
I get that everything is connected, but it’s much easier to bring attention to a cause when you’re only campaigning for one thing at a time.
Yeah maybe but in honesty, all this hand wringing about the messaging and the “right way” to protest is just a derailing tactic that comes up no matter what people do.
Protesting too many things at once? Not focused enough
Protesting one big thing? Too vague, not practical enough
Doing a peaceful march, signalled ahead of time in coordination with the authorities? Useless, what does it achieve
Carrying out civil disobedience? How dare you interrupt people’s daily lives, this only hurts your cause
Etc etc etc. I feel like if people actually care about the underlying cause they have to move past just doing their best political pundit impression about the optics and they how think it plays with the public, as if they’re somehow above it all
You’re talking absolute nonsense. One of the most effective protests I’ve seen was the original school strike, they had enough people to take over an entire street through sheer force of numbers, and completely filled parliament grounds.
Numbers speak more than anything, a thousand people protesting peacefully will carry more weigh than ten nutters shutting down SH1.
It doesn’t matter how you protest, it matters how many protest.
You’re talking absolute nonsense
You’ve missed the point I was making, but quick with the insults as always.
I understood your point, it just wasn’t a very good one.
That’s ok, I’ve seen what you think is a good point
It wouldn’t matter if they only had one. The public doesn’t give a shit. They elected a right wing government precisely because they wanted to stop action on climate change and environmental protection.
